The Korean peninsula has been at the center of Cold War politics ever since its 1945 territorial division, and remains so even after the demise of the Soviet empire. After half a century of intense conflict and tensions -- including a major war -- the leaders of North and South Korea held their first summit in summer 2000, creating hope and enthusiasm for peace and unification on the peninsula. However, the current stalemate in inter-Korean relations and the recent tension over North Korea's nuclear program clearly indicate that a peaceful conflict resolution, let alone unification, will not come easily. The current situation also attests to the urgent need for a new forum that can address various issues related to inter-Korean and North Korea-U.S./Japan relations at the nonofficial, nonpolitical level.

We believe that early 2003 will be a critical moment in inter-Korean and North Korea-U.S./Japan relations. The new South Korean government will take office in late February 2003 and the newly created special economic zone in Shin-ui-ju is expected to be at work in a few months. Also, the recent visit of Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi to North Korea could lead to a new relationship between the two countries, and the Bush administration will be entering the second half of its term in early 2003.

All these developments, along with the recent revelation of North Korea's nuclear program, make the proposed policy conference timely and essential for (re) formulating new North Korean policies by South Korea, Japan, and the United States. The proposed conference will discuss policy issues toward North Korea among scholars and policymakers from the United States, Japan, China, and Russia, as well as South Korea. We seek to produce a policy proposal to be presented to the new South Korean government, as well as to the governments in Tokyo and Washington, D.C.

Following the success of the first conference held in January 2002, the Asia/Pacific Research Center and the US Army War College plan to hold a second conference in January 2003. Its theme is "The Prospects for Peace in South Asia." The participants will address several topics: the role of religion in the politics of the region (primarily in Kashmir, but also in Indian and Pakistani politics), the political role of the Pakistani army, and the new challenges that nuclear weapons and the global war on terrorism have introduced. Possible lessons for the United States in trying to prevent war in South Asia as well as furthering its aims in the war on terrorism will be discussed. The conference speakers will provide an understanding of Kashmir, the role of religion in South Asian politics, local culture and attitudes, US military perspectives on South Asia and the situations and politics in India and Pakistan.

When Shorenstein APARC's 2002 South Asia conference was being planned at Shorenstein APARC, the events of September 11, 2001 had not taken place. To Americans, September 11 is mostly associated with the war against terrorism. However, the impact of 9-11 on longstanding political relations between India and Pakistan is less understood. Without such an understanding, it is difficult to explain why India and Pakistan have twice almost gone to war in the past months due to acts of terrorism linked to September 11.

Kashmir is the main locus of the two countries' dispute. There is much history on why disagreements over Kashmir have created political problems: they began with the handing over of Kashmir to India in 1947 and have continued with rigged elections, poor governance, military occupation, and indigenous and Pakistani-supported militancy, up to the present day.

The risk of nuclear war between India and Pakistan arising from the Kashmir dispute remains high. Local elections in both Pakistan and Kashmir over the next few months might prevent war till then, while affecting the dynamics of the future. The United States is keenly concerned with the possibility of war and has been actively engaged in diplomacy, with more senior American officials visiting South Asia in 2002 than at any time in the past.

Indian and Pakistani politics have also taken new turns. In India, the ruling NDA is dominated by the BJP, a party with past links to militant Hinduism. India is constitutionally secular and Muslims have played an important political role, though more as a vote-bank (comprising 14 percent of the population) and less, particularly in recent times, as influential decision-makers. This influence may be set to decline further. Economic uncertainties and the polarization of religious communities in some areas (after sectarian riots) have led the BJP to believe that a return to its aggressive roots might be politically successful. This leads to a need for understanding of how India's future will be affected by its great religions, Hinduism and Islam.

In Pakistan, recent political developments have concentrated power almost entirely in the hands of President Musharraf, a situation that may persist after its upcoming elections. This lack of institutionalization of political processes and power poses new risks to the security environment in the subcontinent.

This presentation analyzes the factors influencing South Asian entrepreneurial expansion in the UK and the validity of conventional wisdom, which attributes South Asian business success to cultural factors. It suggests that entrepreneurial growth depends on human capital factors like education and prior experience, the investment of personal savings at start-up and breaking away from a management strategy bound by immigrant culture. At the same time, strengthening links with one's country of origin has a positive impact on growth. The findings have implications for aspiring entrepreneurs and for policy makers and agencies that aim to encourage the growth of South Asian and more generally, immigrant ethnic minority entrepreneurship. Dr. Basu has a background in economics, international finance and management. She holds a doctorate in economics from the University of Cambridge. Dr. Basu's research interests include migration and ethnic entrepreneurship, small firm growth, decision-making and economic adjustment of enterprises. Her current research interests focus on immigrant entrepreneurship and the role of the family in immigrant business development. She has published papers in several leading international refereed journals.

American news from Indonesia has been alarming. "Asian Terror: Al Qaeda Seeks Niche in Indonesia, Officials Fear," headlined the New York Times on 23 January 2002. In the same issue, in a column ambitiously subtitled "What the Muslim World Really Feels," Tom Friedman described "an iron curtain of misunderstanding separating America and the Arab-Muslim world"--a world marked, in his view, by "enormous cultural resistance to believing anything good about America."

Indonesia is mainly Malay, not Arab, but it has more Muslims than any other country. How seriously should signs of jihadism there be taken? Ostensibly Islamist or jihadist movements include Darul Islam, HAMMAS, Laskar Jihad, the Islamic Defenders Front, the Islamic Youth Movement, Jemaah Islamiah, and KISDI. In Maluku and Sulawesi, Christians have killed Muslims and vice versa. Americans and their embassy in Jakarta have been threatened. How should such groups, events, and risks be described, explained, and responded to? In what specific ways are faith, politics, and violence intersecting in Indonesia--and with what implications for Indonesians and Americans?

Analysts have long portrayed Indonesian Muslims as exemplary in their openness and tolerance toward non-Muslims and, within the Muslim community, toward religious diversity, creativity, and reform. Were these observers naive? Or have jihadism and Islamism been grossly overdrawn, and for reasons that involve politics, prejudice, and sensationalism far more than actual conditions? In this volatile context, how realistic are current reformist projects to foster a "liberal Islam," a "moderate Islam," a "feminist Islam," or a distinctively accommodative "Indonesian Islam"--as against an avowedly "militant Islam" that would impose an "Islamic state"?

Fidel Ramos' term as President of the Philippines was marked, among other things, by the highest economic growth since the Republic's independence, massive investments in infrastructure, and a peace agreement with the Southern Muslim secessionist movement. In 1998 he was awarded the UNESCO Peace Award for his role in promoting stability in the Southeast Asian region. Following his term of office, Mr. Ramos has continued to exercise a significant influence on Filipino politics. In January 2000 he led a pivotal march demanding the resignation of his successor, Joseph Estrada, which occurred two days later. A graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, he now serves as Special Roving Ambassador for the current president, Gloria Arroyo.

Lunch will be served at this special event. Please RSVP to Neeley Main by 10am on July 5, 2001 to secure your place. In addition to his post at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Professor Liu is Research Director of Hong Kong Centre for Economic Research, the Director of the Hong Kong and Asia-Pacific Economics Reseach Programme, and the Secretary-General of the East Asian Economic Association.

His Excellency Sung Chul Yang, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States, is a well-known political scientist and author with a long and distinguished career in academia and politics. From 1996 to the time of his posting in Washington, Ambassador Yang served as a member of the Korean National Assembly. He also served as president of the Unification and Policy Forum, and chairman of the International Cooperation Committee for the National Congress for New Politics during this period. He worked as vice chair of the Unification and Foreign Affairs Committee, and was a member of the Political Reform Committee. Most recently, Ambassador Yang served as an executive member of the New Millennium Democratic Party's 21st Century National Affairs Advisory Committee. Outside of the National Assembly, Ambassador Yang has been involved in government and politics for many years. He served as the secretary-general of the Association of Korean Political Scientists in North America and as president of the Korean Association of International Studies. He has also been a member of the Advisory Committees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of National Defense, and the National Unification Board. In addition to his involvement in government, Ambassador Yang has had a successful career in academia. He was a professor at Eastern Kentucky University from 1970-75 and at the University of Kentucky from 1975-86. He has been a visiting professor at Northwestern University, Pembroke State University, Indiana University, and Seoul National University. From 1987-94 Ambassador Yang held the position of dean of Academic Affairs at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. Ambassador Yang is the author of several books on Korean issues, including The North and South Korean Political Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Westview, 1994). He is also a much sought after contributor to many political science journals. He has been interviewed often by leading newspapers, magazines and radio stations from around the world. Ambassador Yang received his doctorate in Political Science from the University of Kentucky (1970), earlier receiving an MA from the University of Hawaii (1967), and a BA from Seoul National University (1964). From 1960-62 he served in the Korean Army.