Democracy in South Korea has gone through four decades of transition and is finally at a consolidation stage. Democratic constitutionalism is slowly being accepted as a new guiding principle in the public life in the country which is still a predominantly collectivity- or person-oriented society. Democracy as a political ideal and institution came from the West and, is, by virtue of its origins, individualist in that the individual conscience is the ultimate source of decision about what is right and wrong (E.H. Carr). Will constitutionalism, then, eventually replace collectivism-personalism (which puts emphasis on group and person over and against the individual) and establish an individualist democracy in South Korea? Or, since the traditional collectivist-personalist ethic survived democratic encroachment and accommodated itself to the democratic polity, will there be a new form of democracy? If so, how different it will be from Western democracy? The aim of this paper is to explore these issues.

On May 20th, East Timor will celebrate its full independence and become the world's newest democracy when the United Nations turns over the reins of the country to the recently established government. Since passage of the UN-sponsored referendum for independence in 1999, East Timor has been in the process of rebuilding following 25 years of Indonesian military occupation and steadily progressing toward self-government. What will this new era bring? For almost a quarter century, Jos? Ramos Horta has been one of the central figures in East Timor's struggle for independence. Exiled from his country for 24 years, Dr. Ramos Horta was the international spokesman for human rights and the self-determination of his homeland. In 1996 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, with Bishop Carlos Belo, the religious leader of East Timor, "to honor their sustained and self-sacrificing contributions for a small but oppressed people." He returned to East Timor in 1999 to help rebuild a new, liberated homeland following years of devastating turmoil. Today he serves as Minister of Foreign Affairs under the interim United Nations Administration, and continues in his role as the international voice of East Timor.

Dr. Lawrence Saez addresses two critical issues in comparative federalism, namely the issues of economic growth and fiscal policy. Drawing on data from twelve prominent emerging market federations (Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, and Venezuela), Dr. Saez will examine the impact that globalization has had on economic growth at the national level and whether there has been a convergence or divergence at the sub-national level. The impact of globalization on fiscal policy and its "offloading" of fiscal deficits onto the subnational governments will be analyzed.

Lawrence Saez is concurrently assistant research political scientist at the Institute of East Asian Studies and visiting scholar at the Center for South Asia Studies, University of California, Berkeley. He is also the associate editor for South Asia at Asian Survey. His research is focused on comparative political economy and fiscal federalism in developing countries. He is currently working on trying to understand how globalization has affected subnational economic growth and the provision of public goods in emerging markets. He is the author of Federalism without a Center: The Impact of Political Reform and Economic Liberalization on India's Federal System (Sage, 2002). His book manuscript entitled, Repairing Heaven: Banking Reform in India and China, will be published later this year by Palgrave/St. Martin's Press. He holds a BA in political science from the University of California, Berkeley; an MA from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; and a PhD in political science from the University of Chicago.

THE PAPER ACCOMPANYING THIS TALK MAY BE DOWNLOADED AT

http://Shorenstein APARC.stanford.edu/docs/Saez_seminar_paper.pdf

Terrorism is a good example of the new security threats that seriously challenge what is still a largely state-centered security system. Many of today's most serious threats are global in scale. The traditional military force is far from adequate to confront these new challenges. It is crucial that the military effort will be coupled with other measures, such as international police cooperation, financial investigation and cooperation and diplomacy. Therefore a crucial task for the international community is to continue improving the civilian preparedness in crisis management. Here the OSCE can plan an important role. The terror attacks of September 11 accelerated the transformation process of the European security system. It had in particular an influence on NATO's role. Even though NATO invoked its Article 5 mutual protection clause the US chose not to act militarily through the alliance.

The purpose of this workshop is to explore the new post-cold war security agenda and to examine future security challenges facing Europe and the wide international system. It will also assess the relevance and utility of different actors and instruments for tacking these new security challenges, and examine options for the future institutional development of European security.

Developments in foreign policies at both sides of the Atlantic may significantly change US-EU security relations in the years ahead. The EU and NATO face new challenges, such as the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, and emerging potential threats, such as regional conflicts, terrorism, internationally organized crime, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Crisis management is the paradigm that forms the cornerstone of the operational efforts of NATO and the European Union (EU) has already shifted toward this type of activity. Both members of the EU in the framework of the "Petersberg Tasks" and members of NATO or PfP participate in crisis management, peace-keeping, humanitarian action and peace-making/peace-enforcement operations. The tasks of members of NATO and the EU would be blurred in the field of crisis management.

One of the central points of controversy amongst both academics and policy-makers is the nature and significance of security in the post-cold war world. For much of the cold war period the concept of security was largely defined in militarized terms. The main focus for investigation for both academics and statesmen- and women tended to be the military capabilities required by states to deal with the threats perceived to face them. More recently, however, the idea of security has been broadened to include political, economic, societal and environmental aspects as well as military. Above all, it is necessary for the European Union to develop a broader and more comprehensive approach to security. Future security challenges will not primarily concern territorial defense. While states will continue to pay attention to their territorial defense, other security challenges are likely to demand greater attention in the future. Human rights, environmental degradation, political stability and democracy, social issues, cultural and religious identity and migration are issues which are becoming ever more important for security and conflict prevention.

Though the possibility of a regional war remains, as in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, mass invasion and total war have ceased to be a threat to East or West. Instead, most threats to national security in Europe today are not directly military. They may evolve out of economic problems, ethnic hostility, or insecure and inefficient borders, which allow illegal migration and smuggling. Or they may be related to organized crime and corruption, both of which have an international dimension and undermine the healthy development of democracy and the market economy. Moreover, the proliferation of military or dual technology, including weapons of mass destruction - chemical and biological as well as nuclear - and their means of delivery, and the revolution in information technology present special challenges.

NATO and the EU have responded to Europe's evolving post-cold war order by redefining and expanding their roles and objectives. Despite institutional differences, the activities of NATO and the EU complement each other to strengthen the economic, political, and military dimensions of regional security and stability. Founded as a defensive alliance, NATO has revised its strategic concept to respond to the broader spectrum of the new threats now facing greater Europe - those ranging from traditional cases of cross-border aggression to interethnic conflicts and acts of terrorism. Furthermore, NATO is facilitating the integration and eventual membership of Central and Eastern European nations in the transatlantic security community. The EU has likewise emphasized regional integration as being key to a safe and stable Europe, particularly through the deepening of political and economic ties among current members and through extending EU membership to CEE countries.