FSI's research on the origins, character and consequences of government institutions spans continents and academic disciplines. The institute’s senior fellows and their colleagues across Stanford examine the principles of public administration and implementation. Their work focuses on how maternal health care is delivered in rural China, how public action can create wealth and eliminate poverty, and why U.S. immigration reform keeps stalling.
FSI’s work includes comparative studies of how institutions help resolve policy and societal issues. Scholars aim to clearly define and make sense of the rule of law, examining how it is invoked and applied around the world.
FSI researchers also investigate government services – trying to understand and measure how they work, whom they serve and how good they are. They assess energy services aimed at helping the poorest people around the world and explore public opinion on torture policies. The Children in Crisis project addresses how child health interventions interact with political reform. Specific research on governance, organizations and security capitalizes on FSI's longstanding interests and looks at how governance and organizational issues affect a nation’s ability to address security and international cooperation.
Donald K. Emmerson discusses possible reasons for Indonesia’s resistance to disaster relief aid
On Monday, an undersea earthquake shook Indonesia's remote Mentawai Islands and triggered a 10-foot tsunami: It has killed at least 272 people, and left 412 missing. The first cargo plane with humanitarian supplies arrived today. Hundreds of miles away in eastern Java, the volcanic Mount Merapi erupted Tuesday and killed at least 30 people.
That's two disasters in less than 24 hours.
Indonesia is no stranger to catastrophe. It is located along the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is one of the most seismically and volcanically volatile areas in the world. Its last sizeable earthquake and tsunami duo struck in December of 2004, killing more than 225,000 people in 14 countries.
But despite the death and destruction of the last 48 hours, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said today that he doesn't yet see a need for foreign aid or rescue assistance.
So far, only the Philippines and the United States have offered to help Indonesia. But Natalegawa's behavior seems counter-intuitive. In the face of disaster, why would any country preemptively say no to aid?
A look into Indonesia's history reveals latent political sensitivities that may have influenced Natalegawa's decision. Indonesia's first president, Sukarno, was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, an organization of countries who are not aligned with or against any major world power.
Indonesia prides itself on its "independent and active" foreign policy, which was first developed by then Vice President Mohammad Hatta on September 2, 1948 in Central Java. "Do we, Indonesians, in the struggle for the freedom of our people and our country, only have to choose between Russia and America?" he asked. "Is not there any other stand that we can take in the pursuit of our ideals?"
The "other stand" became known as "mendayung antara dua karang" or "rowing between two reefs."
Indonesia doesn't want to appear incompetent, or weak, to outside governments, and may also be wary to accept aid for fear of undermining its national legitimacy.
In 2004, Indonesia's acceptance of aid had an arguably negative effect on its citizens. "Though the post-tsunami reconstruction efforts in Aceh were generally successful, the amount of aid did engender some resentment in Jakarta over whether the national government had lost control of the reconstruction, and also potentially altered the economy in Aceh," explains Josh Kurlantzick a fellow for southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. "So people remember that."
Donald Emmerson, the director of the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, cites several reasons for Natalegawa's response. First, he says, if the Indonesian government solicited foreign aid, it would be inundated with offers. Coordinating offers of assistance right now would be a severe burden on the government.
Then there's the question of scale: so far, the destruction seems manageable in comparison to the 2004 disaster. Still, it's unclear whether Indonesia will be able to adequately respond on its own. "Indonesia is a large country, and its infrastructure is overstretched," Emmerson says. "Its capacity to respond effectively to domestic disasters is not as good as it might be."
Engagement with North Korea and Opportunities for Progress on Human Rights
Dr. Robert R. King became the Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues in November 2009 following confirmation by the United States Senate.
Prior to his appointment, Ambassador King worked on Capitol Hill for 25 years – 24 of those years as Chief of Staff to Congressman Tom Lantos (D-California). Ambassador King was heavily involved in the planning and conduct of Lantos’ human rights agenda, including the establishment and supervision of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, (which recently became the Tom Lantos Congressional Human Rights Commission). Dr. King traveled with Congressman Lantos to North Korea and played a key role in the passage of the 2004 North Korean Human Rights Act. He was concurrently Staff Director of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the U. S. House of Representatives (2007-2008), Democratic Staff Director of the Committee (2001-2007) and held various professional staff positions on the Committee since 1993.
Prior to his service on Capitol Hill, Ambassador King served on the National Security Council Staff as a White House Fellow during the Carter Administration. He was Assistant Director of Research and Analysis at Radio Free Europe in Munich, Germany. Ambassador King holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and has authored five books and some 40 articles on international relations.
Philippines Conference Room
Principle, Pragmatism or Prostitution? Speaking Human Rights to Global Finance
Professor David Kinley holds the Chair in Human Rights Law at University of Sydney, and is the Law Faculty's Associate-Dean (International). He is also an Academic Panel member of Doughty Street Chambers in London, the UK's leading human rights practice. He has previously held positions at Cambridge University, The Australian National University, the University of New South Wales, Washington College of Law, American University, and was the founding Director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash University (2000-2005). He was a Senior Fulbright Scholar in 2004, based in Washington DC, and Herbert Smith Visiting Fellow at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge in 2008. He is author and editor of eight books and more than 80 articles, book chapters, reports and papers.
He has worked for 15 years as a consultant and adviser on international and domestic human rights law in Vietnam, Indonesia, South Africa, Thailand, Iraq, Nepal, Laos, China, and Myanmar/Burma, and for such organizations as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Bank, the Ford Foundation, AusAID, and the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, and a number of transnational corporations, and NGOs. He has also previously worked for three years with the Australian Law Reform Commission and two years with the Australian Human Rights Commission.
His latest publications include the critically acclaimed Civilising Globalisation: Human Rights and the Global Economy (CUP, 2009), Corporations and Human Rights (Ashgate 2009), and The World Trade Organisation and Human Rights: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Edward Elgar, 2009) Another edited collection entitled Principled Engagement: Promoting Human Rights in Pariah States will be published by UNU Publications in 2011. He is currently working on another book investigating the interrelations between human rights and global finance.
David was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland and brought up there during the 1960s and 70s. He studied in England in the 1980s at Sheffield Hallam University and the Universities of Sheffield and Cambridge, and after obtaining his doctorate from the latter in 1990 he moved to Australia. He now lives in Sydney with his wife and three children.
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
Teaching Human Rights Workshop #1
"Teaching Human Rights" is a series of events beginning at Stanford during the 2010-11 academic year. The series is organized by the Program on Human Rights of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and supported by the Center for Teaching and Learning.
The series will:
- Complement the growing attention to human rights across academic disciplines and professional schools with a practical, multidisciplinary discussion focused on the classroom.
- Help Stanford-affiliated graduate students and teaching assistants/fellows prepare to teach human rights topics during their graduate career and beyond. For example, the series will address the issue of balancing the tremendous breadth of conceptual and historical material a human rights course could potentially cover with opportunities for active learning and students' reflections on their own values.
- Provide Stanford faculty with pedagogical support for incorporating human rights themes into courses in various disciplines, and encourage a classroom-centered dialogue between the disciplines and schools.
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room
Analyzing Evacuation Versus Shelter-in-Place Strategies After a Terrorist Nuclear Detonation
Professor Wein received his PhD in Operations Research from Stanford in 1988 and has taught core MBA courses in operations management throughout his entire career, both at MIT's Sloan School of Management from 1988 to 2002 and, since 2002, at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, where he is currently Paul E. Holden Professor of Management Science. He has also been a Senior Fellow (by courtesy) at FSI since 2003.
Since 2001, Wein has analyzed a variety of homeland security problems. His homeland security work includes four papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: one on an emergency response to a smallpox attack, a second on an emergency response to an anthrax attack, a third presenting a biometric analysis of the US-VISIT Program, and a fourth analyzing a bioterror attack on the milk supply. He has also published the Washington Post op-ed "Unready for Anthrax" (2003) and the New York Times op-ed "Got Toxic Milk?" (2005) and has written papers on port security, indoor remediation after an anthrax attack, and the detention and removal of illegal aliens. He was also Editor-in-Chief of Operations Research from 2000 to 2005. Wein has won several awards, including the 1993 Erlang Prize for the outstanding applied probabilist under 35 years of age and the 2002 Koopman Prize for the best paper in military operations research.
Lawrence M. Wein
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-5015
Lawrence Wein is the Jeffrey S. Skoll Professor of Management Science at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, and an affiliated faculty member at CISAC. After getting a PhD in Operations Research from Stanford University in 1988, he spent 14 years at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, where he was the DEC Leaders for Manufacturing Professor of Management Science. His research interests include mathematical models in operations management, medicine and biology.
Since 2001, he has analyzed a variety of homeland security problems. His homeland security work includes four papers in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, on an emergency response to a smallpox attack, an emergency response to an anthrax attack, a biometric analysis of the US-VISIT Program, and an analysis of a bioterror attack on the milk supply. He has also published the Washington Post op-ed "Unready for Anthrax" (2003) and the New York Times op-ed "Got Toxic Milk?", and has written papers on port security, indoor remediation after an anthrax attack, and the detention and removal of illegal aliens.
For his homeland security research, Wein has received several awards from the International Federation of Operations Research and Management Science (INFORMS), including the Koopman Prize for the best paper in military operations research, the INFORMS Expository Writing Award, the INFORMS President’s Award for contributions to society, the Philip McCord Morse Lectureship, the Frederick W. Lanchester Prize for best research publication, and the George E. Kimball Medal. He was Editor-in-Chief of Operations Research from 2000 to 2005, and was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2009.
REAP directors preside over Impact Evaluation workshop for Chinese officials
REAP directors Scott Rozelle and Linxiu Zhang presided as head trainers in a Shanghai-based Impact Evaluation workshop on October 16 and 17. During an intensive two day workshop Rozelle and Zhang taught and interacted with more than 100 ministers, high-ranking officials and policy analysts from China, South and Southeast Asia and Central Asia.
Sponsored in part by 3ie, an international organization dedicated to improving Impact Evaluation Practices, and the Asian Development Bank, the workshop has been run by SHIPDET and China's Ministry of Finance for the past several years. The Chinese government is committed to promoting development evaluation capacity building in China and across Asia through workshops such as this one. China's Vice-Minister of Finance has stated: "Performance evaluation will definitely become an important concept in China's economic development." REAP's participation in this year's Impact Evaluation workshop is an important step forward in this process.
Broken into two parts, in the first part of the workshop Rozelle lectured on the increasing importance of Impact Evaluation in good governance internationally and Zhang presented a talk on Impact Evaluation in China. The second part of the workshop was organized around a practioner's workshop. Participants developed Impact Evaluation proposals and discussed strategies for integrating Evaluation into their development programs.
Dialogue, diplomacy urged to resolve North Korea issues
The world first became concerned about North Korea's nuclear development program in 1989 through satellite photos of a facility under construction near the town of Yongbyon. Since then, there have been on-again, off-again negotiations with North Korea by the United States, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and other countries in the region to halt and dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
A consistent strategy focused on dialogue and diplomacy is essential to get out of the current quagmire, urged Song Min-soon, a member of the Korean National Assembly and a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, at a Korean Studies Program public seminar on October 18. Although the United States and the ROK must lead efforts, China's active involvement is also crucial. Resolving the nuclear issue is necessary to help ensure the long-term peace and prosperity of not only the Korean Peninsula but also the entire East Asia region.
Song explored reasons why
previous negotiation attempts failed, especially the lack of a shared vision
among the concerned countries for the future of the peninsula and region. He
suggested that this rendered China less willing to play a stronger role in the
negotiations. The imbalance of power among the negotiating countries is another
significant factor. North Korea's only effective bargaining card is its nuclear
weapons program, argued Song, while countries like the United States have the
capability to offer or withhold important aid, such as energy and development assistance.
Song advocated a firm, direct approach, stating that the United States has not adopted
a real strategy for effecting nuclear disarmament. Instead, it has opted for the
"slogan" of "strategic patience." He cautioned against taking a hard line, such
as the current ROK administration is pursuing. Song expressed the hope that the
United States would focus more on developing a well-planned diplomatic strategy
for resolving the nuclear issue and that the ROK would adopt a more
conciliatory approach toward North Korea.
To move forward in the Six-Party Talks-negotiations among the United States,
the ROK, North Korea, China, the Russian Federation, and Japan-and effectively resolve
the North Korea nuclear issue, Song made several recommendations. He pointed to
the long-term benefit of building trust incrementally by fulfilling small,
strategic commitments to North Korea. To balance the asymmetry of negotiating
cards, Song suggested that the other countries proceed with fulfilling their
commitments and allow North Korea more time to fulfill its own obligations.
Bringing China fully on board by building a logical basis for its involvement
is also a crucial element of the negotiations, he offered. Finally, Song
asserted that the United States, the ROK, and China must develop a shared,
solid vision for peaceful coexistence on the peninsula, taking into account different
scenarios and the roles each country should play.
Song expressed confidence that the approach he outlined would not only eventually resolve the nuclear issue but would also open the way for stability and prosperity for everyone in East Asia, including North Korea.