About the speaker: Achin Vanaik, fellow and board member of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam is one of the most important analysts of contemporary Indian politics. The author of The Painful Transition: Bourgeois Democracy in India (1990), The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity and Secularization (1997) and Globalization and South Asia (2004.)

Vanaik has served on the board of directors of GreenPeace (India), and as an assistant editor for The Times of India. He writes regularly for the Economic and Political Weekly, The Times and The Telegraph and has written extensively on the nuclear question in south Asia.

Dr. Vanaik's lecture is co-sponsored with the Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology at Stanford University.

In the view of many policy-makers, as well as the popular media, the alliance between the United States and South Korea is suffering from an unprecedented crisis of confidence. Anti-American views, particularly among the young, are widespread in South Korea. On an official level, there are constant tensions over the role of U.S. troops based in Korea and resistance to demands to open the Korean economy to foreign investment. Most seriously, there is a stark divergence in the approach of both countries toward North Korea.

This portrait of an alliance in crisis is often contrasted to a previous golden age in U.S.-Korean relations. According to this view, the alliance enjoyed a long period of harmony during much of the Cold War, when anti-Americanism was not a problem. The military alliance was secure and Korea's economic development was in harmony with the global policies of the United States. The two countries enjoyed a strategic convergence in their response to the threat of North Korea.

This view of the Cold War past has some elements of truth. But it is largely a myth that obscures a history of constant tension and even severe crisis in the alliance relationship. The clash between Korean nationalism and American strategic policy goals has been present from the beginning of the Cold War. Differences over the response to North Korea have been repeatedly an issue in the relationship. And anti-Americanism has been a feature of Korean life for decades.

Daniel Sneider will explore the myth of this golden age. He will focus on what may have been the most dangerous decade in US-Korean relations, from 1969-79, a period ranging from the Guam Doctrine to the assassination of President Park Chung Hee. It is a time when South Korean doubts about the durability of the alliance prompted the serious pursuit of nuclear weapons and the two countries clashed over North Korea policy, economic goals, human rights and democracy. Finally, he will look at how the myth of a golden age creates a distorted view of the current tensions in the alliance.

Daniel Sneider is a 2005-06 Pantech Fellow at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and the foreign affairs columnist of the San Jose Mercury News. He is currently writing a book on the U.S. management of its alliances with South Korea and Japan. His column on foreign affairs, looking at international issues and national security from a West Coast perspective, is syndicated nationally on the Knight Ridder Tribune wire service, reaching about 400 newspapers in North America. Previously, Sneider served as national/foreign editor of the San Jose Mercury News, responsible for coverage of national and international news until the spring of 2003. He has had a long career as a foreign correspondent. From 1990-94, he was the Moscow Bureau Chief of the Christian Science Monitor, covering the end of Soviet Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. From 1985-90, he was Tokyo Correspondent for the Monitor, covering Japan and Korea. Previously he served in India and at the United Nations.

Gideon Maltz is studying the role of presidential term limits in advancing democracy, strategies for more effectively enforcing term limits, and the question of term limits in the context of parliamentary systems. Maltz has worked as a Junior Fellow in the Democracy & Rule of Law program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and as a Business Analyst at McKinsey & Company. He has also spent time working on comparative constitutionalism as a part-time consultant at the National Endowment for Democracy, on Sudan and Zimbabwe at the International Crisis Group, and on international trade at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson.

Maltz is a pre-doctoral (law) fellow at CDDRL in 2005-2006.

Poverty, inequality, and corruption plague the Philippines six decades after independence. Of the past five presidents, only one took office and left it without military intervention, and he was a general. In his controversial book, A Country of Our Own (2004), David Martinez describes the Philippines as a failed state. The country in his eyes comprises five regions ("nations"): Cordillera, Luzon, The Visayas, Mindanao, and Bangsamoro. He proposes holding legally binding referenda in each of these places to determine whether those who live there wish to remain inside the Philippines or form their own independent country. In a conversation moderated by Stanford's Don Emmerson, Martinez and the Filipinist scholar Lela Noble will examine arguments and evidence relevant to a crucial question: Is the nation-state project still valid for the Philippines?

David C. Martinez was born in the Philippines. At law school in Silliman University he was a medal-winning debater. He became an activist lawyer, was briefly detained when then-President Marcos declared martial law, fled the Philippines, and eventually reached the US, where he now resides. His essays have appeared in the Philippines Free Press among other publications, and he is a prize-winning author of fiction and poetry as well.

Lela Noble has written extensively on the Philippines. Her authored or edited books include Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society, and the Philippine State (1998); Philippine Policy toward Sabah: A Claim to Independence (1977), and her articles have appeared in such journals as Asian Survey and Solidarity. From 1996 to 2002, she was dean of the College of Social Sciences at San Jose State. Her PhD is from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.