U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced in Seoul “the policy of strategic patience has ended” and “all options were on the table” regarding the United States’ efforts to address the North Korean nuclear threat. Kathleen Stephens, the William J. Perry Fellow in Shorenstein APARC’s Korea Program, spoke on PBS NewsHour about Tillerson’s remarks, the viability of tougher sanctions against North Korea, and deployment of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system (THAAD) to South Korea.

Watch and read about the interview here.

The Japan Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), in collaboration with the United States-Japan Foundation and Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, has published a report with findings from the inaugural conference, Womenomics, the Workplace, and Women, held in November 2016.

The two-day conference, which gathered 20 speakers and a substantial audience at Stanford, initiated dialogue about women’s leadership and work-life balance in Japan and the United States and encouraged the formation of a cross-sector network of experts seeking to build pathways to advance opportunity for women in both countries.

“The conference provided a unique opportunity for a diverse group of individuals to come together and explore how to tackle challenges that women continue to face on both sides of the Pacific,” said Mariko Yoshihara Yang, a visiting scholar and Japan Program Fellow at Shorenstein APARC, who organized the conference. “I believe the knowledge, perspectives and networks shared will go far beyond the two days we convened at Stanford, and make a valuable contribution to the movement to achieve gender equality and revitalize the Japanese economy.”

The conference report includes a set of actions that Japanese and American policy researchers and practitioners can pursue to promote women's leadership. A statement with the actions is arranged by organization type and published directly below.

Download the statement and full report.

Ten Actions Japan can take to Promote Women’s Leadership

Authors: Shelley Correll, Diane Flynn, Ari Horie, Atsuko Horie, Takeo Hoshi, Rie Kijima, Chiyo Kobayashi, Sachiko Kuno, Mitsue Kurihara, Kenji Kushida, Yoky Matsuoka, Emily Murase, Nobuko Nagase, Akiko Naka, Mana Nakagawa, Yuko Osaki, Machiko Osawa, Myra Strober, Kenta Takamori, Kazuo Tase, Mariko Yoshihara Yang

Government

The Japanese government should establish concrete measures to achieve targets stipulated in the Fourth Basic Plan for Gender Equality, which was approved by the Japanese Cabinet on December 25, 2015, and went into effect in April 2016. The following reforms will help promote this process and distribute benefits to all workers equally. A special emphasis was placed on ensuring versatility across many sectors.

1. Abolish the income tax deduction and social security premium exemption for dependent spouses and increase family care allowance. The spousal exemptions that allow income tax breaks and social security premiums discourage many married women from seeking full-time employment. The Japanese government has recently proposed to scale back the spousal tax break by raising the annual threshold from ¥1.03 to ¥1.5 million or less starting in 2018. However, this incremental measure will act only as a short-term solution. Japan needs a conclusive solution to best utilize women as the workforce. By completely eliminating the spousal exemption and providing family care allowance, more women will be incentivized to take on full-time and leadership positions in the workplace. Families with young children and aging parents will be compensated with family care allowance.

2. Expand the scope of corporate disclosure on gender equality and establish a “Women’s Empowerment Index.” The public database on gender equality, launched by the Cabinet Office in 2014 and administered by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare since 2016, remains limited in its scope and scale. The government should add more substantial measures in the rubric such as hours of overtime work and “re-entry/on-ramping” rate of women, and mandate the reporting requirement. Based on the expanded database, the government should calculate a Women’s Empowerment Index and issue certifications to people with high ratings. The index would be embedded in the parameters for stakeholder decision-making and provide financial incentives for corporations to sustain a more diverse work environment.

Large Corporations

To increase women’s participation in the workplace, companies need to eliminate gender-based stereotypes in hiring and promotion practices, encourage more women to pursue full-time positions, and support women who seek to re-enter the labor force after temporary leave. Large corporations in Japan can take the following actions to lead these changes:

3. Scrutinize the yardsticks used for recruitment and promotion, and eliminate evaluation criteria that systematically sorts out certain candidates. Companies need to provide training to mid-career managers and top leaders to address unconscious biases in the workplace. It is critical to ensure a level-playing field for women and men.

4. Introduce a legal ceiling and penalties for overtime work and lift compulsory job transfers that disrupt family life. This will help change the prevailing work culture of devotion and self-sacrifice. Companies should consider decentralizing personnel administration so local offices will more closely monitor individual needs and preferences of employees’ and reflect them into their career trajectories. Such reforms will encourage more women to apply for full-time employment and leadership opportunities while reducing premature resignations of women with families.

5. Create a mandate for departments to establish and provide clear job descriptions for each position to ensure consistency across departments. This would allow employees to better articulate their skill sets when seeking new job opportunities within organizations or when they re-enter the labor market after taking breaks in their careers. In the long term, this will help Japan develop a more robust external labor market that promotes mobility between organizations and across sectors, not just within companies.

6. Create clear evaluation criteria for women with specialized careers and raise their visibility within and outside the organization. Visibility of an employee’s technical skills is known to influence her or his prospect for advancement. When women propose ideas based on their specialization, they should employ “amplification” techniques, where they repeat each other’s ideas to increase their credibility during meetings and brainstorming sessions. Corporate leaders should also make a point of acknowledging their expertise and vouch for their competence. Large corporations should facilitate their promotion to manager and board member positions.

Start-ups

Although women are still underrepresented in entrepreneurial leadership positions, the gender gap is less severe in the startup sector than in large corporations. Thus, promotion of entrepreneurship in general will increase the chances for women’s empowerment and leadership.

7. Create platforms to catalyze startups led by women and raise the visibility of successful female entrepreneurs. There should be a platform where novice and experienced entrepreneurs can interact. Routine exchange among successful female founders and aspiring entrepreneurs will help build a community that catalyzes women-led startups as they try to turn ideas into full-time businesses. Similarly, there should be a platform where female leaders in small startups and large corporations meet regularly to provide mutual mentorship. Corporate executives could learn the latest business trends while female entrepreneurs expand their professional networks.

8. Expand policies to encourage a culture of entrepreneurship with specific incentives for female entrepreneurs. The government should consider increasing the public funding for startups led by women and provide robust legal support for female entrepreneurs. Increased assistance to incubators and accelerators, specializing in supporting female founders, would also contribute to women’s empowerment.

Educational Institutions

Educational institutions play a key role in creating knowledge to ensure gender equality, promoting awareness and nurturing a bias-free mindset among young people. Furthermore, women’s advancement in education generally yields greater participation in the economy and society. Recent advancements have created a reversal among the OECD countries. More than half of all students graduating from secondary and higher education are female; however, Japan is still behind. The following two initiatives will help close the gap:

9. Strengthen gender equality promotion office at educational institutions. This includes hiring a dedicated diversity officer, who will help universities conduct gender analyses of leadership posts and monitor women in academic leadership positions. Furthermore, universities should introduce family friendly policies to support young faculty members. When faculty members take parental leave, universities should provide funding for temporary staff to lay the groundwork for their return. In addition, academic conferences held at universities should provide childcare services for out-of-town participants.

10. Create continuing education centers to offer certificate programs to provide skills and training for women and men looking to re-enter the workforce. The programs could provide specialized knowledge as well as skill development including self-assessment, counseling, resume-building, practice interviewing, and unconscious bias training. This will allow workers access to education and support throughout their onboarding process and transition into the workplace. These centers should also provide career services to match qualified workers with potential employers.

When a state is “shamed” by outsiders for perceived injustices, it often proves counterproductive, resulting in worse behavior and civil rights violations, a Stanford researcher has found.

Rochelle Terman, a political scientist and postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), recently spoke about how countries criticized by outsiders on issues like human rights typically respond -- and it's contrary to conventional wisdom. Terman has published findings, “The Relational Politics of Shame: Evidence from the Universal Periodic Review,” on this topic in the Review of International Organizations. She discussed her research in the interview below:

What does your research show about state "shaming"?

Shaming is a ubiquitous strategy to promote international human rights. A key contention in the literature on international norms is that transnational advocacy networks can pressure states into adopting international norms by shaming them – condemning violations and urging reform. The idea is that shaming undermines a state’s legitimacy, which then incentivizes elites into complying with international norms.

In contrast, my work shows that shaming can be counterproductive, encouraging leaders in the target state to persist or “double down” on violations. That is because shaming is seen as illegitimate foreign intervention that threatens a state’s sovereignty and independence.  When viewed in this light, leaders are rewarded for standing up to such pressure and defending the nation against perceived domination. Meanwhile, leaders who “give in” have their political legitimacy undermined at home. The result is that violations tend to persist or even exacerbate.

When and where does it work better to directly confront a country’s leadership about such injustices?

At least two factors moderate the effects of international shaming. The first is the degree to which the norm being promoted is shared between the “shamer” and the target. For instance, the West may shame Uganda or Nigeria for violating LGBT rights. But if Uganda and Nigeria do not accept the “LGBT rights” norm, and refuse to accept that homophobia constitutes bad behavior, then shaming will fail. In this case, it is more likely that shaming will be viewed as illegitimate meddling by foreign powers, and will be met with indignation and defiance.

Second, shaming is quintessentially a relational process. Insofar as it is successful, shaming persuades actors to voluntary change their behavior in order to maintain valued social relationships. In the absence of such relationship, shaming will fail. This is especially so when pressure emanates from a current or historical geopolitical adversary. In this later scenario, not only will shaming fail to work, it will likely provoke defensive hostility and defiance, having a counterproductive effect.

Combing these insights, we can say that shaming is most likely to work under two conditions: when the target is a strong ally, and the norm is shared.

What are some well-known cases where "shaming" backfired?

The main example I use in my forthcoming paper is on the infamous “anti-homosexuality bill” in Uganda. When Uganda introduced the legislation in 2009 (which in some versions applied capital punishment to offenders) it provoked harsh condemnation among its foreign allies, especially in the West. Western donor countries even suspended aid in attempt to push Yoweri Musaveni’s government to abandon the bill. According to conventional accounts, the onslaught of foreign shaming, coupled with the threat of aid cuts and other material sanctions, should have worked best in the Uganda case.

And yet what we saw was the opposite. The wave of international attention provoked an outraged and defiant reaction among the Ugandan population, turning the bill into a symbol of national sovereignty and self-determination in the face of abusive Western bullying. This reaction energized Ugandan elites to champion the bill in order to reap the political rewards at home. Indeed, the bill was the first to pass unanimously in the Ugandan legislature since the end of military rule in 1999. Museveni – who by all accounts preferred a more moderate solution to the crisis – was backed into a corner.

A Foreign Policy story quoted Ugandan journalist Andrew Mwenda as saying, “the mere fact that Obama threatened Museveni publicly is the very reason he chose to go ahead and sign the bill.” And Museveni did so in a particularly defiant fashion, “with the full witness of the international media to demonstrate Uganda’s independence in the face of Western pressure and provocation.”

Uganda anti-homosexuality law was finally quashed by its constitutional court, which ruled the act invalid because it was not passed with the required quorum. By dismissing the law on procedural grounds, Museveni – widely thought to have control over the court – was able to kill the legislation “without appearing to cave in to foreign pressure.” But by that time, defiance had already transformed Uganda’s normative order, entrenching homophobia into its national identity.

Does this 'doubling down' effect vary in domestic or international contexts?

Probably. States with a significant populist contingent, for instance, are especially hostile to international pressure, especially when it emanates from a historical adversary, like a former colonial power. Ironically, democracies may also be more susceptible to defiance, because elites are more beholden to their constituents, and thus are less able to “give in” to foreign pressure without undermining their own political power. 

The international context matters a great deal as well. States are more likely to resist certain norms if they have allies who feel the same way. For instance, we see significant polarization around LGBT rights at the international level, with most states in Africa and the Muslim world voting against resolutions that push LGBT rights forward. South Africa – originally a pioneer for LGBT rights – has changed its position following criticism from its regional neighbors. 

Does elite reaction drive this response to state "shaming?"

To be quite honest, this is a question I’m still exploring and I don’t have a very clear answer. My hunch at the moment is no. The “defiant” reaction occurs mainly at the level of public audiences, which then incentives elites to violate norms for political gain.  These audiences can be at either the domestic or international level. For instance, if domestic constituents are indignant by foreign shaming, elites are incentivized to “double down,” or at least remain silent, lest they undermine their own political legitimacy.

That said, elites can also strategize and manipulate these expected public reactions for their own political purposes. For instance, if Vladimir Putin knows that the Russian public will grow indignant following Western shaming, he might strategically promote a law that he knows will provoke such a reaction in order to benefit from the ensuing conflict. This is what likely occurred with Russia’s “anti-gay propaganda” law, which (unsurprisingly) provoked harsh condemnation from the West and probably bolstered Putin’s domestic popularity.

Any other important points to highlight?

One important point I’d like to highlight is the long-term effects of defiance. In an effort to resist international pressure, states take action that, in the long term, work to internalize oppositional norms in their national identity. In this way, shaming actually produces deviance, not the other way around.

Follow CISAC at @StanfordCISAC and  www.facebook.com/StanfordCISAC

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Rochelle Terman, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 721-1378, rterman@stanford.edu,

Clifton B. Parker, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-6488, cbparker@stanford.edu

Emerging technologies, stemming from the heart of Silicon Valley and extending to Asia and beyond, have pushed the bounds of how stories are told by journalists and the way in which readers interact with them. The Shorenstein Journalism Award, an annual prize given by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), celebrates 15 years of recognizing distinguished journalists for their innovative and responsible journalism amid social and technological change.

The prize began with “the idea of a media award for a person who has the most significant impact on the relationship with Asia-Pacific nations in the United States,” according to Walter H. Shorenstein, who spoke about his twin interests of Asia and the press in a 2010 oral history project interview and was the benefactor after whom the center is named.

Shorenstein APARC and Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy jointly presented the award for six years. Shorenstein APARC has continued the initiative, and each year, brings the award winner to Stanford to talk with the broader campus community, and since 2011, has alternated between a recipient from the West, who has mainly addressed an American audience, and a recipient from Asia.

The prize seeks to inspire the next generation of U.S. journalists focused on Asia, as well as Asian journalists, who pave the way for press freedom in their countries.

Award winners have explored a multitude of topics over the years, from human rights in North Korea to the rise of democracy in Indonesia and from the U.S.-Japan alliance to gender equality in India. And this year adds an additional view on China; veteran journalist Ian Johnson will address religion and value systems in a panel discussion on May 1 with Xueguang Zhou, Stanford professor of sociology, and Orville Schell, director of the Asia Society's Center on U.S.-China Relations, moderated by Daniel C. Sneider, Shorenstein APARC associate director for research.

To mark the award’s tenure, Shorenstein APARC asked award alumni to answer the question, “What do you think the future holds for journalism in/about Asia?” Their responses are below.

Image

Barbara Crossette is the U.N. correspondent for The Nation and a columnist for India Abroad. She received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2010.

Image

Journalism in Asia has had a long history of covering revolutions and wars. However, peace has reigned over Asia for near on 40 years. Yet, the peace and stability in Asia looks increasingly precarious. Asia too is not immune to populist nationalism. In this climate, Asia could yet again become the battleground for dislocation, revolution and war. Journalism, on top of reacting to potential crises, will be critical for proactively finding ways to prevent and defuse crises in the region.

Yoichi Funabashi is the chairman of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2015.

Image

Ian Buruma is a writer and the Paul W. Williams Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism at Bard College. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2008.

Image

Seth Mydans is a contributing writer for the New York Times. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2009.

Image

Barbara Demick is the Los Angeles Times’ bureau chief in New York and was formerly bureau chief in Beijing and in Seoul. She is the author of Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea and Logavina Street: Life and death in a Sarajevo Neighborhood. She received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2012.

Image

Aung Zaw is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Irrawaddy. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2013.

Image

Jacob Schlesinger is a senior Washington correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2014.

Image

Orville Schell is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York, and former dean of the School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2003.

Image

John Pomfret was a foreign correspondent with the Washington Post for many years. He is the author of The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom: America and China from 1776 to the Present. He received the Shorenstein Journalism Award in 2007.

Whether it’s WikiLeaks and CIA documents or nuclear thieves, the danger from insiders in high-security organizations is escalating in our Internet age.

But many threats from within go unrecognized or misunderstood, according to Stanford professor Scott Sagan, who co-edited a new book Insider Threats with Matthew Bunn, a professor of practice at Harvard University. Their work analyzes the challenges that high-security organizations face in protecting themselves from employees who might betray them. Sagan, a core faculty member in Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, and Bunn recently participated in an online discussion of the book’s key arguments. They will hold a talk and book signing at 3:30 p.m. on May 16 in the CISAC Central Conference Room.

Sagan and Bunn wrote, “Perhaps the most striking lesson we learned in working with scholars and officials who have dealt with this problem was the sheer scale of the red flags – from explicit statements of support for Osama bin Laden to behavior leading other staff to fear for their lives – that organizations are able to ignore.”

They found that organizations tend to have biases that cause them to downplay insider threats. In particular, organizations with high-security needs face significant risks from trusted employees with access to sensitive information, facilities, and materials. 

The researchers highlight "worst practices" from these past mistakes, suggesting lessons and insights that could improve the security situations at many workplaces. Amy Zegart, co-director of CISAC, has a chapter in Insider Threats that provides a detailed account of the organizational dysfunction that allowed Nidal Hasan to carry out his massacre at Fort Hood.

Other chapters include the following topics and authors:

• An analysis of the similar problems that led Bruce Ivins, who probably carried out the anthrax attacks in 2001, to continue to have access to deadly pathogens (by Jessica Stern, then of Harvard and now at Boston University, and Ron Schouten, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School);
• An analysis of the rapid rise and subsequent fall of “green-on-blue” attacks in Afghanistan – that is, Afghan soldiers and police officers attacking Americans there to help them (by Austin Long of Columbia University); and 
• An assessment of how casinos and pharmaceutical plants, with a profit incentive to protect against insiders, cope with the problem (by Bunn and Kathryn Glynn, then of IBM Global Business Services and now at the National Nuclear Security Administration). 

Another chapter examines the potential terrorist use of nuclear insiders, offering new data that shows that jihadist writings and postings contain only a modest emphasis on possible nuclear plots, and essentially no mention of the possibility of using nuclear insiders. However, the authors warn this is no reason for complacency – insiders have been largely responsible for past nuclear theft incidents.

MEDIA CONTACTS

Scott Sagan, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-2715, ssagan@stanford.edu

Clifton B. Parker, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-6488, cbparker@stanford.edu