"We must remember that predatory authoritarianism is not stamped into the Russian DNA," writes Larry Diamond in this American Interest article. 

As a senior policy advisor on the Middle East at the Pentagon and the White House, Colin Kahl has witnessed struggles in the region first-hand. From working to shape the U.S.-led campaign against the Islamic State and the long-term partnership with Iraq to limiting Iran’s nuclear activities to helping craft the U.S. response to the Arab Spring, Kahl knows better than most how important it is to understand this rapidly changing region.

Now that he has joined the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) as its inaugural Steven C. Házy Senior Fellow, Kahl wants to improve understanding of how developments in the Middle East impact people in the region and security around the globe.

The launch of FSI’s Middle East Initiative provides a first step toward this objective. As the initiative’s first director, Kahl plans to create “connective tissue” for efforts already underway across Stanford.

“There are a number of disparate efforts around campus working on Middle East issues,” said Kahl. “There is a lot of terrific research and engagement going on. My hope is that the Middle East Initiative will serve as a focal point to expose the Stanford community to ongoing work and foster new conversations that are not happening now.”

Many of the Middle East activities already occurring on campus happen at FSI, making it a natural home for the initiative.

“Our scholars are already studying the dynamics of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, prospects for reform and democracy in the Arab world, ways to counter terrorist activities and promoting economic development,” said FSI Director Michael McFaul. “Stanford students want to dive more deeply into the region’s political, social, economic and technological development. We want to give them that opportunity.”

In the 2018-2019 academic year, FSI’s Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy plans to begin filling this need by adding a three-course sequence on the Middle East.

Kahl also plans to bring more Middle East scholars from outside Stanford to share their ideas and research.

“I look forward to helping Stanford students and scholars connect and collaborate in ways that enrich our understanding of this vital region,” said Kahl. “Stanford has much to contribute to some of the most pressing policy challenges we face.”

Answers to why the US-Russia relationship seems to be at a dangerous low these days can be found in a new book by Stanford scholar Michael McFaul.

McFaul’s new book, From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia, illuminates this geopolitical impasse as he reflects on his career as the Obama administration’s ambassador to Russia and his service on the National Security Council.

“From my days as a high school debater in Bozeman, Montana, in 1979 to my years as ambassador to Russia ending in 2014, I had argued that closer relations with Moscow served American national interests,” wrote McFaul, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

As a student at Stanford, McFaul, AB/AM ’86, took Russian language classes and traveled to what Ronald Reagan dubbed “the evil empire” in the summer of 1983 to attend a summer language program at Leningrad State University.

“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, I again packed my bags and moved to Russia to help support market and democratic reforms there, believing that those changes would help bring our two countries closer together,” wrote McFaul, a political scientist.

In 2009, he went to work for President Obama at the National Security Council, and in 2012 he became the US ambassador to Russia, where he noted that he felt “animated by the belief that a more cooperative relationship served American national interests.”

McFaul was positive about a healthier US-Russia relationship as he began his duties in Moscow. In fact, he helped craft the US policy known as “reset,” which advocated a new and unprecedented collaboration between the longtime adversaries.

But that did not last for very long, said McFaul.

‘Reset’ and Confrontation

When McFaul began his ambassadorship, the Russian government took measures to discredit and undermine him. The tactics included dispatching protesters to his place of residence; slandering him on state media; and closely surveilling McFaul, his staff, and even family.

A particularly tense time for McFaul was during the Arab Spring in 2011, which saw the fall of several Middle Eastern autocrats and the Obama administration’s embrace of a seemingly democratic swell throughout the region. Russia’s then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin found the US support for democracy in the Arab world— especially McFaul’s enthusiasm— as a threat to his own political system in Russia, according to McFaul. Putin possessed an entirely different view of “regime change” and US efforts to foster democracy.

In 2012, McFaul was appointed the US ambassador to Russia. He looked forward to the new challenge—but it was troubled from the beginning. The Russian government, led by President Putin after a power shift, was deeply influenced by foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, McFaul said. They were both very suspicious of the US, and McFaul believed they saw him as the enemy due to his support of democracy and human rights.

“I left Washington as Mr. Reset. I landed in Moscow as Mr. Revolutionary,” he wrote.

Elections and Controversy

In December 2011 Putin’s party, United Russia, performed poorly in the parliamentary elections. Barely staying in power, it won only 49.3 percent of the vote— a significant drop from the 64.3 percent it had garnered four years earlier. Given its prior popularity, failing to win a majority of the popular vote represented a major setback for the ruling party. Serious allegations of election fraud on behalf of Putin’s party in 2011 soon dominated Russian media.

Russians, many of them young and connected by social media, took to the streets to protest the election. McFaul said that Putin’s first reaction to the demonstrators was anger and a sense of betrayal. “In his mind, he had made these young professionals rich, and now they had turned against him,” wrote McFaul.

Putin’s second reaction was fear. “He and his team were surprised by the size of the protests. Never before had so many Russians demonstrated against his rule. The message from the streets quickly turned radical, starting with outrage against falsification, but morphing into demands for the end of Putin’s regime,” wrote McFaul.

Putin, bedeviled by continuing demonstrations, seemed to believe the US was orchestrating the protests.

As a result, in 2014 McFaul announced he was stepping down and returning to the United States following the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Russia-US relations today

In his book, McFaul paints a sobering picture of the US-Russia relationship.

“To win reelection in 2012 and marginalize his domestic opponents, Putin needed the United States as an enemy again. He rejected deeper cooperation with us,” wrote McFaul. “As a result, our administration pivoted to a more confrontational policy after President Putin had rebuffed our attempts to engage with him.”

The United States, for its part, slowed down discussions about missile defense, enacted the Magnitsky Act to punish Russian officials responsible for the wrongful death of Russian lawyer Sergey Magnitsky, canceled the Moscow summit in 2013 and continued to criticize Putin’s autocratic tendencies, among other measures.

With the issue of Russian meddling in the 2016 US election dominating news narratives in America and continued aggression by Russia, which was recently blamed for the nerve agent attack of a Russian spy in London, prospects for a healthy US-Russia relationship seems bleak, said McFaul.

Despite his journey through dark times in Russia, McFaul still remains optimistic about the “long game” of US-Russia relations.

“I am still convinced that Russia will one day consolidate democracy and that the United States and Russia will be allies. I just do not know when that ‘one day’ will come,” he wrote.

Facebook and Congress Must Create Regulations Together

Featuring Eileen Donahoe, executive director of the Global Digital Policy Incubator and Allison Berke, executive director of the Stanford Cyber Initiative. Both programs are housed at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). Written by Nicole Feldman.

For the past two days, the United States Senate and House of Representatives grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on everything from user privacy to platform bias to Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Though prompted by Cambridge Analytica’s improper use of user data, Zuckerberg’s testimony provided a broader platform to talk about Facebook’s role in today’s increasingly digital world and regulation for the tech industry as a whole. FSI scholars Eileen Donahoe and Allison Berke give us their top take-aways from Zuckerberg’s testimony.

Eileen Donahoe

There were two big “take-aways” from Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress this week.

Digital privacy is a form of security that matters to Facebook users and to citizens in our democracy.

The good news that came out of the hearings is that the American public and our representatives in Congress are waking up to the importance of citizens’ privacy in our democracy, as well as to the consequences of the loss of privacy for freedom and security. The Cambridge Analytica — Facebook saga has succeeded in bringing to public consciousness a significant security threat to our democracy, which until now has been relatively invisible in public debate: how failure to protect user’s digital privacy can have real world consequences for democratic processes, national security, and citizens’ liberty. Earlier un-nuanced assertions expressed by many in the technology community that “privacy is over” and users don’t care about how their data is shared, can no longer function as a dominant operating assumption. The hard reality ahead of us is how challenging it will be to protect citizens’ privacy in a context where digital platforms, tools and services are intertwined with our daily lives. The bottom line is that digital platforms now will be required to have much more nuanced conversations with their users about the tradeoffs of using free services in exchange for monetizing personal data. This will have consequences for Facebook’s business model and all freemium digital services.

Congressional hearings are not an adequate vehicle for educating legislators about how to regulate digital platforms.

The range of complex, multilayered challenges that must be tackled to optimally govern digital platforms in democracy cannot be addressed effectively through a brief set of public hearings. Many Senators and members of Congress displayed a lack of understanding of how Facebook works, which strands of the debate warrant deeper inspection, or which issues must be prioritized to protect the liberty and security of citizens on digital platforms. Representatives jumped around from one subject to the next — from political bias in restricting content on Facebook, to whether Facebook is a monopoly, to whether citizens own their data, to the efficacy of user consent to terms of service — without adequately framing any of these important subjects. In effect, the Senate and Congressional hearings themselves were shown to be poor vehicles for deepening regulators’ knowledge or helping progress toward an optimal approach to regulating Facebook or other digital platforms. Other than moving toward passage of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D), Mark Warner (D), and John McCain(R), which regulates political advertising on digital platforms in the same way as on television and radio, our representatives are not yet well-prepared to regulate digital services. A different mode of engagement between government representatives and technology companies must be developed, if legislators want to help protect citizens in the digital realm, while also allowing users to continue to enjoy the benefits of digital platforms they have come to rely upon in their daily lives.

Allison Berke, executive director of the Stanford Cyber Initiative at FSI. Working across disciplines, the Stanford Cyber Initiative aims to understand how technology affects security, governance, and the future of work.

Mark Zuckerberg prepared for his testimony as though expecting to face hostile opposing counsel. His notes — leaked, ironically, by a press photographer when left open on his table during a bathroom break — show prepared language to address calls for his own resignation, and for compensation for users whose data was improperly shared, though these topics were not raised during questioning. Despite promising to work with legislators on regulations, Zuckerberg stopped short of proposing specific measures. Though he voiced his support of the Honest Ads Act, when asked if he would return to Washington to aid its passage, he offered someone on his team instead and noted that he “doesn’t come to Washington too often.” The implications, both that he doesn’t need to and that he doesn’t want to be involved in forming regulations, revealed a relationship between Facebook and lawmakers with distance, shading from incomprehension to distrust to antagonism, on both sides.

Many of those watching the hearings noted the Senators’ and Representatives’ clunky and repetitive lines of questioning, their difficulty choosing the precise terminology to communicate the technological gist of their inquiries, and the inability of a five-minute oral format to properly convey — and convey strictly enough to reign in a witness looking for a question’s easiest possible interpretation — the nuance in, for example, the points made by Senators Blunt and Wicker about Facebook’s cross-platform tracking between a device hosting a logged-in Facebook app and a device registered to the same user but lacking the Facebook login.

One could imagine a more collegial relationship between Facebook and Washington DC, in which representatives would have discussed their questions with Zuckerberg and his team at greater length, and perhaps behind closed doors, and could use the testimonial hearing format to place prior agreements and understandings on the record. Facebook’s apparent openness to exploring regulation should be taken as an opportunity by policymakers, both to craft regulation that may need to be complex — to cover the myriad ways in which data can be collected and mixed, and to ensure that a savvy company can’t avoid both compliance and detection — and to forge a closer relationship between the tech giant and its community representatives. That may require Zuckerberg visiting Washington a little more often, and it will also require the acquisition of more technological knowledge and expertise by legislators and their staff, which may require them to visit Silicon Valley more, too.

At an event co-sponsored by the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) and the Hoover Institution, "former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou addressed a crowd of 400 University faculty, students and local community members in his Wednesday talk on democracy, cross-strait relations and future challenges facing Taiwan." Read The Stanford Daily's full coverage of President Ma's visit here.