FSI scholars produce research aimed at creating a safer world and examing the consequences of security policies on institutions and society. They look at longstanding issues including nuclear nonproliferation and the conflicts between countries like North and South Korea. But their research also examines new and emerging areas that transcend traditional borders – the drug war in Mexico and expanding terrorism networks. FSI researchers look at the changing methods of warfare with a focus on biosecurity and nuclear risk. They tackle cybersecurity with an eye toward privacy concerns and explore the implications of new actors like hackers.
Along with the changing face of conflict, terrorism and crime, FSI researchers study food security. They tackle the global problems of hunger, poverty and environmental degradation by generating knowledge and policy-relevant solutions.
Crimea: Russia's Unique Experiment on Integration of Annexed Territory | A Conversation with Mustafa Dzhemilev
This event is now full. Please send an email to sj1874@stanford.edu if you would like to be added to the wait list.
Crimea has become a precedent in the newest world history. After annexation, Russia turned the peninsula into a testing ground for new tactics of information warfare, suppression of dissent, and the formation of militaristic sentiment. The former resort has been transformed into a powerful military base whose missiles can reach targets in the Baltic States, Poland, the Czech Republic, and other nearby countries.
Russia has closed access to international organizations in Crimea. For the past five years, about 2.5 million people have remained without any legal protection from the actions of the occupying power. Forced disappearances, politically-motivated arrests, religious persecution, censorship, and the destruction of independent media have all become an everyday reality.
Image
During the Soviet Union, Mustafa Dzhemilev defended the right of the Crimean Tatar People to return from the places of deportation to their homeland, Crimea. He spent more than 15 years in Soviet camps and prisons and survived a 306-day hunger strike, which ended only after Andrei Sakharov's request. Mustafa Dzhemilev has been awarded dozens of international awards for his human rights activities. After the annexation of the peninsula, Russia banned Mustafa's return to his native Crimea.
This event is co-sponsored by The Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, The European Security Initiative at The Europe Center, and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, Stanford University. It is free and open to the public.
Mustafa Dzhemilev
speaker
Leader of the Crimean Tatar People
Ford Dorsey Master's Program in International Policy Webinar
-
Online Event
Interested in learning more about the Ford Dorsey Master's Program in International Policy at Stanford University? Then please join us for an informational webinar on May 23, 2018 at 9:30am PST. We will be going over program specifics and answering any questions.
RSVP on Eventbrite - https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ford-dorsey-masters-program-in-internation…
Contact Email:
American Foreign Policy in Transition: From Cold War Consensus to Controversy and Confusion
Paragraphs
In a new article for Contemporary American Review, Shorenstein APARC Distinguished Fellow Thomas Fingar examines how, twenty-five years after the demise of the Soviet Union, Americans are still struggling to understand and adjust to the costs and consequences of success. Since 1991, diplomats, military professionals, and others showed an inclination towards the same approach to international affairs that brought success in the Cold War. The result was a foreign policy both stable and predictable. Under the Trump administration, however, this no longer appears to be the case.
For much of the world, and for many in the U.S., recents changes are unsettling. Some hope that U.S. foreign policy will soon return to the status quo; others believe the present to simply be indicative of an inescapabe decline in U.S. leadership. Professor Fingar argues that American foreign policy will once again become stable and predictable, but that it will not "simply revert to the policies of a now byone era."
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
The Imprudence of Unilateral US Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
In his article for the The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Abbas Milani writes that "the much-rumored and long-expected announcement by President Trump that he will order the United States to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal—officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA—is arguably the worst policy option for addressing problems in what was the least-bad possible deal when it was signed." Read the full article here.
Hero Image
All News button
1
CVID approach to North Korea's nuclear program faces significant challenges
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
The recent developments in North Korea's summit diplomacy and the feasibility of CVID (complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement) of the nuclear program have received unprecedented responses, both optimistic and pessimistic, from the international community.
Please stay tuned to this page for APARC researchers' commentary and analysis on the CVID of the North Korean nuclear program through articles published in various news media.
Latest Commentaries:
How to Keep the Ball Rolling on North Korean Negotiations (East Asia Forum, May 2, 2019)
Why Walking Away from Kim's Deal May Have Been the Right Move (Axios, February 28, 2019)
Success of Second Trump-Kim Summit Will Lie in the Details (Axios, February 26, 2019)
The Second Trump-Kim Summit Must Settle the Big Questions (The National Interest, February 19, 2019)
Normalising, Not Denuclearising, North Korea (East Asia Forum, October 3, 2018)
Moon-Kim Summit in Pyongyang Was Promising, But No Game Changer (Axios.com, September 19, 2018)
Towards Normality: What's Next with North Korea? (East Asia Forum Quarterly, September 2018)
Stanford scholars discuss U.S.-North Korea Relations in Washington, D.C. (C-SPAN, July 26, 2018)
Back to the Basics: Above and Beyond CVID with North Korea (38 North, July 18, 2018)
The Singapore Summit Empowers South Korean Chaebols (The New Republic, June 26, 2018)
Korean Elections Give Moon Momentum, But Could Shift U.S. Alliance (Axios, June 14, 2018)
Despite Lack of Plan, North Korea Denuclearization Could Still Happen (Axios, June 12, 2018)
Ambassador Kathleen Stephens shares reactions following the Trump-Kim summit, including her thoughts on President Trump's pledge to cancel military exercises on the Korean Peninsula (KQED's Forum, 06/12/18)
With North Korea, Let's Not Forget the Big Picture (The Diplomat, June 8, 2018)
"[T]he mere prospect of the June summit has already enhanced Kim's status on the international stage," observes APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin, Trump needs leadership and allies to salvage the North Korea summit (Axios, May 25, 2018)
Stanford Scholars Discuss Diplomacy’s Future after U.S.-North Korea Summit Is Canceled (May 24, 2018)
Dan Sneider understands Japanese skepticism of North Korea's conversion to disarmament in Japan, China and South Korea Get Together (The Economist, May 10, 2018)
Future of U.S. troops in South Korea uncertian (Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2018)
Related articles:
A new start or a rerun on the Korean Peninsula? (East Asia Forum, May 6, 2018)
Stanford Panel Discusses North-South Summit and What Happens Next (APARC News, April 28, 2018)
North Korea Summit Diplomacy (The Diplomat, March 30, 2018)
Moon's Bet on the Olympics: What Comes Next? (East Asia Forum, February 18, 2018)
Hero Image
Panmunjom Declaration on April 27, 2018
Cheong Wa Dae
All News button
1
Incentivizing Restraint in the South China Sea
-
How does Southeast Asia incentivize a major power like China to exercise restraint, particularly in the ongoing dispute in the South China Sea (SCS)? Prof. Huang will argue that regional consensus, interactive deliberations, and insulated negotiation settings are most likely to induce China to shift its policy in the SCS toward supporting regional initiatives that it previously deflected, resisted, or opposed, and toward reevaluating the efficacy of using force. Conversely, regional disunity and fragmentation would render China more likely to practice power politics. Without joint influence, the states of Southeast Asia are unlikely to alter China’s preference for pursuing its interests in the SCS by coercive means intended to minimize the capabilities of other claimant states and thereby sustain its unilateral approach to maritime security.
A key question for this research is the extent to which confidence-building diplomacy based on voluntary cooperation between China and Southeast Asia can cultivate habits of avoiding conflict without the binding agreements and formal sanctioning mechanisms that have proven so hard to negotiate. Preliminary findings suggest the need for scholars and practitioners to be more creative, precise, and consistent in studying and suggesting how Southeast Asia can project and implement its security norms in ways that incentivize change in the foreign policy paradigm of an imposing external power.
Chin-Hao Huang is an assistant professor of political science at Yale-NUS College in Singapore. His current book-in-progress, Power, Restraint, and China’s Rise, explains why and how China’s foreign policy might reflect restraint even as its material power increases at unprecedented rates. His latest publication is “China-Southeast Asia Relations: Xi Jinping Stresses Cooperation and Power—Enduring Contradiction?” (coauthored, Comparative Connections, May 2018). Earlier writings have appeared as monographs, in edited volumes, and in journals including The China Quarterly, The China Journal, and Contemporary Southeast Asia. Tri-lingual in Mandarin, Thai, and French, Prof. Huang lectures widely and has testified on Chinese foreign policy before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. His PhD and BS are respectively from the University of Southern California and Georgetown UniversityImage
Chin-Hao Huang
2017-2018 Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Contemporary Southeast Asia
Seminars
Stanford Panel Discusses North-South Korea Summit and What Happens Next
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
On April 27, 2018, the Shorenstein APARC Korea Program held a special public panel discussion following the dramatic summit that took place but hours earlier that day between North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the village of Panmunjom. Titled “North Korea Summit Diplomacy: Round 2,” the panel featured Gi-Wook Shin, director of APARC; Kathleen Stephens, the William J. APARC fellow in the Korea Program and former ambassador to South Korea; Philip Yun, executive director and chief operating officer of Ploughshares Fund; and Yong Suk Lee, Korea Program deputy director, who moderated the discussion.
Same Movie, Different Actors?
Panelists admitted to feeling a sense of déjà vu. “We’re watching a replay of an old movie,” observed Professor Shin. “There are new actors, but will it be more than that?” They agreed, however, that the fact the summit happened at all was still a sign of progress. “It’s great that inter-Korean dialog is back after a decade of confrontation,” stated Professor Shin. “But is it really possible to achieve complete denuclearization?” he continued. “How far will the North go, and what will it get in return?”
Noting that similar optimism surrounded talks held by the Koreas in 2000—only for it to ultimately amount to little—the panel argued that a key difference between this summit and previous ones was the nature of the actors, particularly the North Korean representation.
“What has changed from past efforts?”, Shin asked the audience. “Kim Jong-un grew up; he was groomed to behave like a king, and we saw him [at the summit] acting like one.” Ambassador Stephens added that “Kim wants to present himself as a different kind of Korean leader, a respected leader of a normal state; the complete opposite style from his predecessors.”
Breaks from the past exist on the South Korean side as well. “This was a process driven by South Korea in a way we’ve never seen before,” said Stephens. “For South Koreans, it’s amazing to see that the leaders were not using interpreters, they were just speaking Korean; it underscores the nationalist issue underpinning this conflict, which the Americans need to be aware of.”
No seats at the Table
The U.S. administration’s reaction to the summit was swift, with President Trump tweeting both that the U.S. people should be proud and, perhaps more interestingly, praising President Xi of China for his support that has made the recent breakthrough possible.
However, Yun expressed concern about “Japan and China feel[ing] left out.” He noted that this might yet again prove to be another instance of a Kim dynasty member setting other actors against each other for North Korea’s benefit, and that regional actors have doubts about the American level of commitment. “I think the Japanese are afraid the United States is going to cut a deal on long range missiles and then go home.”
“What we’re going to see regionally is a competition or a battle for Trump’s word,” he continued. “Who can be the last person to talk and convince him that their perspective is the correct one.”
From left to right, Yong Suk Lee, Korea Program deputy director; Philip Yun, executive director and chief operating officer of Ploughshares Fund; Kathleen Stephens, the William J. APARC fellow in the Korea Program and former ambassador to South Korea; and Gi-Wook Shin, director of APARC.
(From left to right, Yong Suk Lee, Korea Program deputy director; Philip Yun, executive director and chief operating officer of Ploughshares Fund; Kathleen Stephens, the William J. APARC fellow in the Korea Program and former ambassador to South Korea; and Gi-Wook Shin, director of APARC.)
What Comes Next
Any optimism expressed by the panelists was further tempered with calls for patience on further progress. “Denuclearization of the North isn’t only difficult, it will take time,” said director Shin. “I want to be optimistic, but I must also be cautious.”
Additionally, change in the North will likely need to happen at a measured pace. “[I]n a place like the North, you can’t move from zero to 100,” said Yun.
Ambassador Stephens looked to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland as a hopeful precedence. While the sentiment of “we’ve tried this before” very much surrounded that process, it ultimately paved the opportunity for a final breakthrough, noted Stephens.
Time will only tell whether the summit is a true success or simply a repeat of the past. At the panel’s conclusion, Shin swapped out the earlier film analogy for one about sports. Comparing the recent diplomacy to a soccer game, Shin observed that “President Moon did a nice pass to Trump. But can Trump now score the goal?”
http://abc7news.com/politics/whats-next-after-north-south-korean-leaders-meeting/3400659/
ABC 7 News reported on the panel event. Watch their coverage.
Hero Image
All News button
1
Sentiment, Reason, and Law: Policing in the Republic of China on Taiwan
-
The Republic of China on Taiwan spent nearly four decades as a single-party state under dictatorial rule (1949-1987) before transitioning to liberal democracy. This talk is based on an ethnographic study of street-level police practices during the first rotation in executive power following the democratic transition (i.e. the first term of the Chen Shui-bian administration, 2000-2004). Summarizing the argument of a forthcoming book, Dr. Jeffrey T. Martin focuses on an apparent paradox, in which the strength of Taiwan's democracy is correlated to the weakness of its police powers. Martin explains this paradox through a theory of "jurisdictional pluralism" which, in Taiwan, is organized by a cultural distinction between sentiment, reason, and law as distinct foundations for political authority. An overt police interest in sentiment (qing) was institutionalized during the martial law era, when police served as an instrument for the cultivation of properly nationalistic political sentiments. Martin's fieldwork demonstrates how the politics of sentiment which took shape under autocratic rule continued to operate in everyday policing in the early phase of the democratic transformation, even as a more democratic mode of public reason and the ultimate power of legal right were becoming more significant.
Jeffrey T. Martin is an assistant professor in the Departments of Anthropology and East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. He specializes in the anthropological study of modern policing, and has conducted research in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the USA. His research interests focus on historical continuity and change in police culture, especially as this culture reflects specific changes in the legal, bureaucratic, or technical dimensions of police operations. Prior to joining the University of Illinois, Dr. Martin taught in the Sociology Department at the University of Hong Kong, and in the Graduate Institute of Taiwan Studies at Chang Jung Christian University.Image
Jeffrey T. Martin
<i>Assistant Professor, Anthropology and East Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign</i>
Seminars