Stanford University

Empowering the World: Entrepreneurship and the Future of Foreign Policy

-

Please note: the start time for this event has been moved from 3:00 to 3:15pm.

Join FSI Director Michael McFaul in conversation with Richard Stengel, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. They will address the role of entrepreneurship in creating stable, prosperous societies around the world.

Richard Stengel Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Special Guest United States Department of State
Moderator
Panel Discussions

Jokowi’s Washington Visit Could Boost Bilateral Ties — or Highlight Problems

Authors
Scot Marciel
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

This essay originally appeared in The Diplomat.

With major crises in Gaza and Ukraine, the Biden administration might be tempted to overlook the importance of Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s mid-November visit to Washington. That would be a mistake. Indonesia is an important country that is heading into crucial presidential elections in early 2024, and the results of Jokowi’s visit could go a long way to shaping the next Indonesian government’s attitudes toward its relations with the United States.

Although U.S.-Indonesian security cooperation is good and trade has grown, by all accounts Jokowi and his team are heading to Washington feeling less than satisfied on several fronts. First, Indonesians remain upset by President Joe Biden’s decision to skip the recent Indonesia-hosted East Asia Summit, which they took as a serious snub. Biden invited Jokowi in part to make up for that absence, but the White House might have underestimated the extent to which Indonesians remain upset over the initial affront. The protocol-conscious government no doubt will also contrast their modest White House schedule with the lavish welcome recently received by Australian Prime Minster Anthony Albanese.

Indonesian authorities also remain unhappy with what they see as Washington’s failure to deliver on the high-profile Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), under which the U.S. committed to lead G-7-plus efforts to mobilize $20 billion to support Indonesia’s accelerated transition from coal to cleaner energy. Indonesian officials have complained publicly for months that the U.S. has pressed them to take difficult steps while offering little in the way of concessional financing to pay for it. The reality is more complicated, but the perception in Jakarta that Washington “sold them a bill of goods” is real. Some Indonesian officials have contrasted that with substantial Chinese funding on priority infrastructure initiatives, highlighting the regional perception of U.S. weakness vis-à-vis China as a reliable economic partner. (The Indonesians have largely ignored the fact that the U.S. is their second-largest export market and has risen rapidly to be their fourth-largest source of foreign direct investment.)

Jokowi also is looking for Biden to move forward on a proposed limited free trade agreement under which Indonesian critical minerals (namely nickel and processed nickel) would meet the criteria for inclusion in the electric vehicle tax credits provided for in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Biden administration reportedly is interested in such a deal, which by promoting diversification of both suppliers for the U.S. and markets for Indonesia would be in the U.S. national interest. It has, however, hesitated to proceed due to concerns about the congressional reaction, environmental and labor issues, and heavy Chinese investment in Indonesian nickel mining.

 

Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, has long supported the Palestinian cause and has vigorously pursued diplomatic efforts to achieve an immediate ceasefire… Indonesian public opinion has put the two governments at odds over the crisis.
Scot Marciel

Finally, one has to assume that the Gaza crisis will be at the top of Jokowi’s agenda (if not Biden’s) when the two presidents meet. Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, has long supported the Palestinian cause and has vigorously pursued diplomatic efforts to achieve an immediate ceasefire. While working hard to keep the issue from blowing up domestically, there is no question but that Indonesian public opinion (and genuinely held beliefs among top officials) has put the two governments at odds over the crisis.

At this late date, there is little prospect of major initiatives coming out of the Biden-Jokowi meeting that would ease Indonesian concerns or generate significant positive momentum. There is, however, still time to make some small investments that could result in Jokowi and his team leaving Washington feeling more positive about the relationship.

First, on Gaza, the meeting will not resolve the two countries’ differences, but it is important that Biden listen to and engage with Jokowi seriously on the issue and that he highlights his efforts to encourage Israel to show restraint and to promote a humanitarian pause. Jokowi’s post-meeting public comments about this discussion likely will have a significant influence on the Indonesian public and media perceptions of the U.S. role, so it is critical that Biden do all he can to ensure those comments are positive.

Second, it is important that Biden understand that Jokowi and many Indonesians are still upset over the president’s decision to skip the recent Jakarta summit. Biden cannot undo that, but he can and should acknowledge it in his discussion with Jokowi and emphasize that he appreciates how important Indonesia is.

Even such moves will only go so far without some movement on JETP and the critical minerals trade question. On the former, there isn’t time to achieve major progress before the meeting, but President Biden should instruct his team to redouble their efforts to mobilize funding and get the initiative moving. This goes beyond Indonesian concerns and gets to the heart of regional wariness about Washington being able to put meat on the bones of its various economic initiatives.

On critical minerals, Biden should agree to send trade officials to Jakarta to discuss the outlines of a possible agreement, though he will have to be careful not to overcommit absent confidence he will be able to deliver. Indonesia, for its part, needs to stop rotating ambassadors through Washington so quickly and install an envoy who can effectively make the case for a limited trade deal to Congress and others.

Some serious, last-minute work needs to be done to ensure that next week’s meeting between the leaders of the world’s second and third-largest democracies does more than highlight the differences and problems in the relationship.

Read More

Indonesian naval plane
Commentary

ASEAN Shouldn't Give Up on Idea of South China Sea Naval Drill

Indonesia can revive proposal with other interested members.
ASEAN Shouldn't Give Up on Idea of South China Sea Naval Drill
Myanmar nationals hold a sign that reads "Save Myanmar" in front of the United Nations on March 04, 2021 in Bangkok, Thailand.
News

International Support for a Nation in Crisis: Scot Marciel Examines Myanmar’s Struggles Toward a Democratic Future

As Myanmar continues to grapple with the aftermath of the 2021 military coup, APARC’s Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow Scot Marciel explores the fundamental challenges that Myanmar must address and the role the international community can play in supporting the Myanmar people's aspirations for a more hopeful nation.
International Support for a Nation in Crisis: Scot Marciel Examines Myanmar’s Struggles Toward a Democratic Future
U.S. Diplomats and Stanford Scholars
News

U.S. Diplomats and Stanford Scholars Discuss Trade Arrangements in Southeast Asia, Future of ASEAN

At a meeting of U.S. ambassadors with a panel of experts from Stanford, both parties stressed the importance of consistent U.S. engagement with the region and considered the capacity of ASEAN to act on critical issues facing its member states.
U.S. Diplomats and Stanford Scholars Discuss Trade Arrangements in Southeast Asia, Future of ASEAN
Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle

President Joko Widodo and his team arrive in Washington at an uncertain time in U.S.-Indonesia relations.

Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue

-

The Trans-Pacific Sustainability Dialogue convenes social science researchers and scientists from Stanford University and across the Asia-Pacific region, alongside student leaders, policymakers, and practitioners, to accelerate progress on achieving the United Nations-adopted 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The conference aims to generate new research and policy partnerships to expedite the implementation of the Agenda's underlying framework of 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

The two-day event is held in Seoul, South Korea, on October 27 and 28, 2022 Korea Standard Time, and is free and open to the public.

Registration is now open for in-person attendees. The conference is also offered online. Watch the live webcast from this page below (session available in English and Korean) and follow the conversation on Twitter: @StanfordSAPARC #AsiaSDGs2022.

The Dialogue's main hosts and organizers are Stanford's Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and the Ban Ki-moon Foundation For a Better Future. The co-hosts are the Korea Environment Institute (KEI) and Ewha Womans University. The co-organizers include the Natural Capital Project (NatCap) of Stanford University, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute (KEITI), Korea Environment Corporation (K-eco), and Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-water).

Day 1 Livestream (English)

Day 1 Livestream (Korean)

Day 2 Livestream: Expert Panel (English)

Day 2 Livestream: Expert Panel (Korean)

Day 2 Livestream: Student Panel (English)

NOTE: The times below are all in Korean Standard Time.

DAY 1: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2022

Hosted by the Korea Environment Institute

Grand Ballroom​, The Plaza Seoul
119 Sogong-Ro, Jung-gu, Seoul

9:00 – 9:30 AM
Opening Session
Welcome remarks:
Ban Ki-moon, the 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations and Chairman of the Ban Ki-moon Foundation For a Better Future
Gi-Wook Shin, Director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and Korea Program, Professor of Sociology, William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, and Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Congratulatory remarks:
Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia and Chief Executive Officer and President of the Asia Society (pre-recorded video message)
Han Duck-soo, Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea

Plenary 1
9:45 – 10:45 AM
World Leaders Session

Keynotes:
Ban Ki-moon, the 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations and Chairman of the Ban Ki-moon Foundation For a Better Future
Iván Duque, former President of the Republic of Colombia (live video link)
Gombojav Zandanshatar, Chairman of the State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia

Moderator:
Gi-Wook Shin, Director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and Korea Program, Professor of Sociology, William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, and Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Plenary 2
11:00 AM – 12:15 PM
Climate Change Session

Organized by the Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Scientific Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea

Keynote: 
Henry Gonzalez, Deputy Executive Director of Green Climate Fund

Panelists: 
Nabeel Munir, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Republic of Korea and Chair of the G77 at the United Nations
Hyoeun Jenny Kim, Ambassador and Deputy Minister for Climate Change, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea
Oyun Sanjaasuren, Director of External Affairs of Green Climate Fund

Moderator:
Tae Yong Jung, Professor of Sustainable Development at the Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University

12:15 – 1:30 PM

Lunch 
Hosted by the Korea Environment Institute

Welcome remarks:
Chang Hoon Lee, President of the Korea Environment Institute

Congratulatory remarks:
Kim Sang-Hyup, Co-Chairperson of the 2050 Carbon Neutrality and Green Growth Commission
Eun Mee Kim, President of Ewha Womans University, Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, and Director of the Ewha Global Health Institute for Girls and Women, Ewha Womans University

Plenary 3
1:30 – 2:45 PM
Multilateralism for a Resilient and Inclusive Recovery Towards the Achievement of the SDGs

Organized by the Development Cooperation Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea

Keynote: 
Hidehiko Yuzaki, Governor of Hiroshima Prefectural Government, Japan

Panelists:
Kaveh Zahedi, Deputy Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP) (live video link)
Kim Sook, Executive Director of the Ban Ki-moon Foundation For a Better Future and former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations
Won Doyeon, Director-General of the Development Cooperation Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea 

Moderator:
Eun Mee Kim, President of Ewha Womans University, Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, and Director of the Ewha Global Health Institute for Girls and Women, Ewha Womans University

Plenary 4
3:00 – 4:15 PM
KEI Green Korea: SDGs in North Korea

Organized by the Korea Environment Institute

Keynote: 
Sung Jin Kang, Professor of the Department of Economics and the Graduate School of Energy and Environment, Korea University

Panelists:
Habil Bernhard Seliger, Representative of Hanns Seidel Stiftung - Seoul Office, Republic of Korea (pre-recorded video message)
Ganbold Baasanjav, Head of Subregional Office for East and North-East Asia, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN ESCAP)
Haiwon Lee, Emeritus Professor of Hanyang University and President of Asian Research Network for Global Partnership

Moderator:
Chang Hoon Lee, President of the Korea Environment Institute

Plenary 5
4:30 – 5:30 PM
Valuing Nature to Achieve the SDGs

Organized by the Natural Capital Project of Stanford University

Keynote:
Gretchen Daily, Bing Professor of Environmental Science in the Department of Biology, Faculty Director of the Natural Capital Project, Director of the Center for Conservation Biology, and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

Panelists:
Juan Pablo Bonilla, Manager of the Climate Change and Sustainable Development Sector, Inter-American Development Bank
Choong Ki Kim, Senior Research Fellow, Korea Environment Institute

Moderator:
Nicole Ardoin, Emmett Faculty Scholar and Associate Professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Sykes Family Director of the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

DAY 2: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2022

Hosted by Ewha Womans University 
52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul

Expert panels are held in Room B412
Student panels (see below) are held in Room B143
ECC, Ewha Womans University

9:00 – 9:15 AM
Opening Session for Expert Panels

Welcome remarks:
Eun Mee Kim, President of Ewha Womans University, Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, and Director of the Ewha Global Health Institute for Girls and Women, Ewha Womans University
Gretchen Daily, Bing Professor of Environmental Science in the Department of Biology, Faculty Director of the Natural Capital Project, Director of the Center for Conservation Biology, and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

Expert Panel 1
9:15 – 10:30 AM
Livable, Sustainable Cities

Organized by the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center of Stanford University

Keynotes:
Park Heong-joon, Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City, Republic of Korea
Khurelbaatar Bulgantuya, Member of the State Great Hural (Parliament) of Mongolia and Chair of Sustainable Development Goals Sub-Committee of Parliament

Panelists:
Anne Guerry, Chief Strategy Officer and Lead Scientist at the Natural Capital Project, Stanford University
Perrine Hamel, Assistant Professor at the Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University

Moderator:
Kiyoteru Tsutsui, Deputy Director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and Director of the Japan Program, Professor of Sociology, Henri H. and Tomoye Takahashi Professor of Japanese Studies, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and Director of the Center for Human Rights and International Justice, Stanford University

Expert Panel 2
11: 00 AM – 12:15 PM
Climate Change, Disaster Risks, and Human Security in Asia

Organized by Ewha Womans University

Panelists:
Juan M. Pulhin, Professor, Scientist, and former Dean of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of the Philippines, Los Baños (live video link)
Rajib Shaw, Professor in the Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University
Brendan M. Howe, Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University
Rafael Schmitt, Lead Scientist at the Natural Capital Project, Stanford University

Moderator:
Jaehyun Jung, Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University

12:15 – 1:30 PM
Lunch 
Hosted by Ewha Womans University

Welcome remarks:
Eun Mee Kim, President of Ewha Womans University, Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, and Director of the Ewha Global Health Institute for Girls and Women, Ewha Womans University

Expert Panel 3
1:30 – 2:45 PM
Valuing Nature in Finance for Systems Transformation

Organized by the Natural Capital Project of Stanford University

Keynote:
Elías Albagli, Director of the Monetary Policy Division of the Central Bank of Chile

Panelists:
Qingfeng Zhang, Chief of Rural Development and Food Security (Agriculture) Thematic Group and Chief of Environment Thematic Group of the Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, Asian Development Bank (live video link)
Tong Wu, Senior Scientist and Associate Director of the China Program at the Natural Capital Project, Stanford University

Moderator:
Chung Suh-Yong, Professor at the Division of International Studies of Korea University and Director of the Center for Climate and Sustainable Development Law and Policy of Seoul International Law Academy

Expert Panel 4
3:15 – 4:30 PM
Valuing Nature to Achieve Sustainable Development

Organized by the Natural Capital Project of Stanford University

Keynote:
Mary Ruckelshaus, Director at the Natural Capital Project, Stanford University

Panelists:
James Salzman, Donald Bren Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law at the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the School of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles
Yong-Deok Cho, General Director at K-water and Secretary General of the Asia Water Council

Moderator:
Alejandra Echeverri, Senior Scientist at the Natural Capital Project, Stanford University

9:00 – 9:15 AM
Opening Session for Student Panels

Welcome remarks:
Brendan M. Howe, Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University
Nicole Ardoin, Emmett Faculty Scholar and Associate Professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Sykes Family Director of the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

Student Panel 1
9:15 – 10:30 AM
Green Financing and Sustainable Investments

Organized by Ewha Womans University

Panelists:
Assia Baric, PhD student, Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University
Siddharth Sachdeva, PhD student, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University
Sevde Arpaci Ayhan, PhD candidate, Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University 
Mae Luky Iriani, Master’s student, Department of International Relations, Universitas Katolik Parahyangan
Wu Qichun, PhD candidate, Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya

Moderator:
Hannah Jun, Assistant Professor at the Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University

Student Panel 2
11:00 AM – 12:15 PM
Gender Mainstreaming and Climate Governance

Organized by Ewha Womans University

Panelists:
Vimala Asty Fitra Tunggal Jaya, PhD student, Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University 
Liza Goldberg, Undergraduate student, Computer Science Department and Earth Systems Program of the Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University
Gahyung Kim, PhD candidate, Global Education Cooperation Program, Seoul National University
Maria Golda Hilario, Master’s student, College of Liberal Arts, De La Salle University 
Putri Ananda, Master’s student, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University

Moderator:
Minah Kang, Professor at the Department of Public Administration, Bioethics Policy Studies, and Department of International Studies, Ewha Womans University

Student Panel 3
1:30 – 2:45 PM
Development Cooperation for Sustainable Governance

Organized by Ewha Womans University

Panelists:
Elham Bokhari, PhD student, Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University 
Suzanne Xianran Ou, PhD candidate, Department of Biology, Stanford University
So Yeon Park, PhD student, Global Education Cooperation Program, Seoul National University 
Emmanuel O. Balogun, PhD candidate, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University
Darren Mangado, PhD student, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University
 
Moderator:
Jinhwan Oh, Professor of the Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University

Student Panel 4
3:15 – 4:45 PM
Bringing Environmental Solutions to Scale Through a Business and Social Justice Lens

Organized by the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center of Stanford University

Panelists:
Patricia Aguado Gamero, PhD candidate, Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University
Sergio Sánchez López, PhD student, Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University
Felicia Istad, PhD candidate in Public Policy, Department of Public Administration, Korea University 
Sardar Ahmed Shah, PhD student, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University 
Ma. Ella Calaor Oplas, PhD student in Development Studies and Faculty Member, School of Economics, De La Salle University
Shiina Tsuyuki, Undergraduate student, Keio University

Moderator:
Cheryll Alipio, Associate Director for Program and Policy of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University

Closing Session 
5:00 – 5:30 PM
Readying Human Capital for Sustainable Development

Organized by the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center of Stanford University

Closing remarks:
Nicole Ardoin, Emmett Faculty Scholar and Associate Professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Sykes Family Director of the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, and Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University
Gi-Wook Shin, Director of the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and Korea Program, Professor of Sociology, William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea, and Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University
Brendan M. Howe, Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies, Ewha Womans University
Kim Bong-hyun, former Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to Australia, former President of Jeju Peace Institute, and Advisor to Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the 8th Secretary General of the United Nations at the Ban Ki-moon Foundation for a Better Future

Offered online via live webcast and in-person in Seoul, South Korea.

Day 1: October 27, 9 AM - 5:30 PM KST | Grand Ballroom, The Plaza Hotel, Seoul
Day 2: October 28, 9 AM - 5:30 PM KST | Room B412 (Expert Panels), Room B143 (Student Panels), ECC, Ewha Womans University

SCROLL DOWN TO WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST

Conferences

The View from Somewhere: Lessons from the Intelligence Failure in Iran

Paragraphs

Intelligence and National Security
Why do intelligence estimates sometimes fail to prepare policymakers for change? Some explanations suggest the fault lies with insufficient data collection, weak analysis, or unreceptive audiences. But while more data and better analysis would always be welcome, they may not materially reduce uncertainty; and explanations centering on the intelligencepolicymaker relationship offer no systematic critique of the orthodoxy that keeps intelligence and policymakers at arm’s length.

This paper argues that some cases of estimative failure – including the case of the 1979 Iranian revolution – are the result of a flawed orthodoxy of intelligence-policymaker relations, which overlooks the policymaker’s actual and potential impact on the target. In contrast, this paper introduces the concept of “the view from somewhere”, which places the customer’s policy and preferences at the center of the intelligence problem.

In the Iran case, estimates adopting the view from somewhere could have warned Washington of critical decision points while it still had leverage to act, explained how US policy had inadvertently shaped the Shah’s ineffectual response to unrest, and assessed opportunities for effective policy alternatives.

Read More

Journal Articles
July 2022

Nancy Bernkopf Tucker: Scholar and Public Servant

Author(s)
Nancy Bernkopf Tucker: Scholar and Public Servant
Journal Articles
June 2022

Understanding the Challenge of China’s Rise: Fixing Conceptual Confusion about Intentions

Author(s)
Understanding the Challenge of China’s Rise: Fixing Conceptual Confusion about Intentions
Journal Articles
July 2020

South Korea's Democratic Decay

Author(s)
South Korea's Democratic Decay
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Intelligence and National Security
Authors
Journal Publisher External URL

Modern Authoritarianism and Geopolitics: Thoughts on a Policy Framework

-
Modern Authoritarianism and Geopolitics: Thoughts on a Policy Framework

Once upon a time, there was a seductive story about twin revolutions, a political one in France and an industrial one in Britain, that supposedly ushered in our modern world. This narrative never sat well with empirical realities, yet it lives on in textbooks. What might be a more persuasive framework for a global history of the modern era? What are the implications for research and the teaching of history?

ABOUT THE SPEAKER

Steve Kotkin
Stephen Kotkin is the John P. Birkelund Professor of History and International Affairs in what used to be called the Woodrow Wilson School and in the History Department of Princeton University, as well as a Senior Fellow (adjunct) at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He directs the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies and co-directs its program in History and the Practice of Diplomacy, which he founded. He also founded Princeton’s Global History Initiative. His scholarship encompasses geopolitics and authoritarian regimes in history and in the present.

Kotkin has published two volumes of a three-volume history of the world as seen from Stalin’s desk: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 (Penguin, November 2014) and Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 (Penguin, October 2017). The final installment, Totalitarian Superpower, 1941-1990s, is underway. He writes reviews and essays for Foreign Affairs, the Times Literary Supplement, and The Wall Street Journal, and served as the business book reviewer for The New York Times Sunday Business Section. He is an occasional consultant for governments and some private companies. PhD UC Berkeley (1988).

 

CDDRL APARC Logos

Online, via Zoom

Stephen Kotkin John P. Birkelund Professor of History and International Affairs
Lectures

What the U.S. Withdrawal From Afghanistan Means for Taiwan

Authors
Oriana Skylar Mastro
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

There are many reasons to fear an impending Chinese attack on Taiwan: Intensified Chinese aerial activity. High-profile Pentagon warnings. Rapid Chinese military modernization. President Xi Jinping’s escalating rhetoric. But despite what recent feverish discussion in foreign policy and military circles is suggesting, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan isn’t one of them.

Some critics of President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan argue the move will embolden Beijing because it telegraphs weakness — an unwillingness to stick it out and win wars that China will factor in when deciding whether to attack Taiwan, which it considers to be part of its territory.

The reality is, though, that the U.S. departure from Afghanistan will more likely give pause to Chinese war planners — not push them to use force against Taiwan.

The Chinese Communist Party’s stated goal is “national rejuvenation”: Regaining China’s standing as a great power. Chinese leaders and thinkers have studied the rise and fall of great powers past. They have long understood that containment by the United States could keep China from becoming a great power itself.

Luckily for Beijing, the Afghan war — along with Iraq and other American misadventures in the Middle East — distracted Washington for two decades. While China was building roads and ports from Beijing to Trieste, Italy, fueling its economy and expanding its geopolitical influence, the United States was pouring money into its war on terrorism. While Beijing was building thousands of acres of military bases in the South China Sea and enhancing its precision-strike capabilities, the U.S. military was fighting an insurgency and dismantling improvised explosive devices.

While Beijing was building thousands of acres of military bases in the South China Sea and enhancing its precision-strike capabilities, the U.S. military was fighting an insurgency and dismantling improvised explosive devices.
Oriana Skylar Mastro

In many ways, it was just dumb luck that Mr. Xi and his predecessors, thanks in part to the war in Afghanistan, could build national power, undermine international norms, co-opt international organizations and extend their territorial control all without the United States thwarting their plans in any meaningful way.

But the end of the war in Afghanistan could bring these good times — which the Communist Party calls the “period of important strategic opportunities” — to an abrupt end. Sure, over the past 10 years American presidents tried to get back into the Asia game even as the war continued. Barack Obama asserted we would pivot to Asia back in 2011. Donald Trump’s national security team made great power competition with China its top priority.

But neither went much beyond paying lip service. The withdrawal shows Mr. Biden is truly refocusing his national security priorities — he even listed the need to “focus on shoring up America’s core strengths to meet the strategic competition with China” as one of the reasons for the drawdown.

Such a refocusing comes not a moment too soon. Chinese expansion and militarization in the South China Sea, deadly skirmishes with India, its crackdown in Hong Kong and repression in Xinjiang all point to an increasingly confident and aggressive China. In particular, Chinese military activity around Taiwan has spiked — 2020 witnessed a record number of incursions into Taiwan’s airspace. The sophistication and scale of military exercises has increased as well. These escalations come alongside recent warnings from Mr. Xi that any foreign forces daring to bully China “will have their heads bashed bloody” and efforts toward “Taiwan independence” will be met with “resolute action.”

The U.S. policy toward Taiwan is “strategic ambiguity” — there is no explicit promise to defend it from Chinese attack. In this tense environment, U.S. policymakers and experts are feverishly considering ways to make U.S. commitment to Taiwan more credible and enhance overall military deterrence against China. A recent $750 million arms sale proposal to Taiwan is part of these efforts, as is talk of inviting Taiwan to a democracy summit, which undoubtedly would provoke Beijing’s ire.

Some have argued that America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan undermines efforts to signal U.S. support for Taiwan. On the surface, it may seem as if the U.S. withdrawal would be a good thing for China’s prospects at what it calls “armed reunification.” Indeed, this is the message the nationalist Chinese newspaper The Global Times is peddling: The United States will cast Taiwan aside just as it has done with Vietnam, and now Afghanistan.

However, the American departure from Afghanistan creates security concerns in China’s own backyard that could distract it from its competition with the United States. Beijing’s strategy to protect its global interests is a combination of relying on host nation security forces and private security contractors and free-riding off other countries’ military presence. Analysts have concluded that China is less likely than the United States to rely on its military to protect its interests abroad. Beijing appears committed to avoiding making the same mistakes as Washington — namely, an overreliance on military intervention overseas to advance foreign policy objectives.

Now there will be no reliable security presence in Afghanistan and undoubtedly broader instability in a region with significant economic and commercial interests for China. Chinese leaders are also worried that conflict in Afghanistan could spill across the border into neighboring Xinjiang, where Beijing’s repressive tactics have already been the cause of much international opprobrium.

The reality is, the United States stayed much longer in Afghanistan than most expected. This upsets China’s calculus about what the United States would do in a Taiwan crisis, since conventional wisdom in Beijing had been that the painful legacy of Somalia would deter Washington from ever coming to Taipei’s aid.

But U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have called these assumptions into question. Taiwan, with its proportionately large economy and semiconductor industry, is strategically important to the United States. U.S. power and influence in East Asia are reliant on its allies and military bases in the region and America’s broader role as the security partner of choice. If Taiwan were to fall to Chinese aggression, many countries, U.S. allies included, would see it as a sign of the arrival of a Chinese world order. By comparison, Afghanistan is less strategically important, and yet the United States stayed there for 20 years.

If Taiwan were to fall to Chinese aggression, many countries, U.S. allies included, would see it as a sign of the arrival of a Chinese world order. By comparison, Afghanistan is less strategically important, and yet the United States stayed there for 20 years.
Oriana Skylar Mastro

This does not bode well for any designs Beijing might have for Taiwan.

It’s true that China would benefit from a home-field advantage given Taiwan’s proximity, and that Beijing’s arsenal is far greater than Taiwan’s. China, too, would likely enjoy more domestic public support for any conflict than the U.S. would for yet another intervention.

But if China has any hope of winning a war across the Strait, its military would have to move fast, before the United States has time to respond. Chinese planners know that the longer the war, the greater the U.S. advantage. Unlike Chinese production and manufacturing centers, which can all be targeted by the United States, the American homeland is relatively safe from Chinese conventional attack. China is far more reliant on outside sources for oil and natural gas, and thus vulnerable to U.S. attempts to cut off its supply.

And the Chinese economy would suffer more: Since the war would be happening in Asia, trade would be bound to be disrupted there. The United States would need to stick it out for only a short time — not 20 years — for these factors to come into play.

A call on Thursday between Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi hinted at the stakes — the two “discussed the responsibility of both countries to ensure competition does not veer into conflict,” according to the White House.

Chinese leaders already expected a tense relationship with the Biden administration. Now they are faced with the fact that the United States might have the will and resources to push back against Chinese aggression, even if it means war.

So, while there may be other reasons to oppose the end of the war in Afghanistan, the impact on China’s Taiwan calculus is not — and should not be — one of them.

Read More

Figures of Kuomintang soldiers are seen in the foreground, with the Chinese city of Xiamen in the background, on February 04, 2021 in Lieyu, an outlying island of Kinmen that is the closest point between Taiwan and China.
Commentary

Strait of Emergency?

Debating Beijing’s Threat to Taiwan
Strait of Emergency?
An Island that lies inside Taiwan's territory is seen with the Chinese city of Xiamen in the background.
Commentary

The Taiwan Temptation

Why Beijing Might Resort to Force
The Taiwan Temptation
A case holding lunar rock and debris collected from the Moon by China's space program that is part of a display at the National Museum of China is seen on March 2, 2021 in Beijing,
Commentary

Chinese Space Ambition

On the American Foreign Policy Council Space Strategy podcast, Center Fellow Oriana Skylar Mastro discusses how China views space and why the United States must not surrender global leadership in pursuing aspirational and inspirational space goals.
Chinese Space Ambition
Hero Image
All News button
1
Subtitle

In a New York Times opinion piece, Center Fellow Oriana Skylar Mastro argues that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan does not represent a potential catalyst for an impending Chinese attack on Taiwan.

Peace in Afghanistan: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”

-
 
This is a virtual event. Please click here to register and generate a link to the talk. 
The link will be unique to you; please save it and do not share with others.
 
ABSTRACT:
Despite major international conferences and milestones fast approaching, the peace process in Afghanistan is unlikely to end soon. Referring to the many interdependent and intractable issues to negotiate, the lead U.S. negotiator conceded that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” Even if ongoing diplomatic efforts yield agreements, such deals – like the February 2020 U.S.-Taliban agreement – will likely be difficult to implement, verify, and enforce. Underlying core concerns, like the presence of transnational terrorist networks and Kabul’s weak institutional capacity, will persist regardless of the diplomatic process. This event will explore the status and prospects of the current peace process and its implications for U.S. policy. It will consider the long-term political competition between the Taliban and the Kabul government, the role of U.S. forces, and the constructive and disruptive roles that regional actors may play.

SPEAKERS:
Asfandyar Mir
Dr. Asfandyar Mir is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. His research is on the international security of South Asia, US counterterrorism policy, and al-Qaeda, with a regional focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Some of his research has appeared in peer-reviewed journals, such as International Security, International Studies Quarterly, and Security Studies, and his commentary has appeared in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, H-Diplo, Lawfare, and the Washington Post Monkey Cage. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago and a BA and MA from Stanford University.
Dipali Mukhopadhyav
Dr. Dipali Mukhopadhyay is an associate professor at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on the relationships between political violence, state building, and governance during and after war. She is currently serving as senior expert on the Afghanistan peace process for the U.S. Institute of Peace. She is the author of Good Rebel Governance: Revolutionary Politics and Western Intervention in Syria (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming) with Kimberly Howe, and Warlords, Strongman Governors and State Building in Afghanistan(Cambridge University Press, 2014). Prior to joining the Humphrey School, Mukhopadhyay was on the faculty at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs from 2012 to 2020. She holds a PhD from Tufts University and a BA from Yale University.
 
MODERATOR:
Arzan Tarapore
Dr. Arzan Tarapore is the South Asia research scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, where he leads the newly-restarted South Asia research initiative. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the National Bureau of Asian Research. His research focuses on Indian military strategy and contemporary Indo-Pacific security issues. He previously held research positions at the RAND Corporation, the Observer Research Foundation, and the East-West Center in Washington. Prior to his scholarly career, he served as an analyst in the Australian Defence Department, which included an operational deployments to Afghanistan. Arzan holds a PhD in war studies from King’s College London.

This event is co-sponsored by: The Center for South Asia
Via Zoom webinar. Please register at:  https://bit.ly/3cOcabZ
Seminars

Transnational Policy Challenges in the Bay of Bengal

-

 

4:00-5:00pm California, 18-February 2021
7:00-8:00pm Washington DC, 18-February 2021
3:00-4:00am  Kenya, 19-February 2021
11:00am-12:00pm Sydney, Australia 19-February 2021

 

The Bay of Bengal, while split by national boundaries and even our concepts of distinct South and Southeast Asian regions, is re-emerging as a connected geographic and demographic space. Some of Asia’s most consequential transnational policy challenges will be most starkly presented here, across the borders of India, Bangladesh, and Burma – and traditional policy-making structures are already struggling to cope with environmental disasters, the mass movement of people, and the yawning need for economic connectivity. This webinar will examine these policy challenges, from the fragility of the Sundarbans ecosystem to the transnational implications of the Burma coup, and whether existing state and multilateral institutions are capable of addressing them.

SPEAKERS:

Kelley Eckels Currie
Kelley Eckels Currie served as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues and the U.S. Representative at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.  Prior to her appointment, she led the Department of State’s Office of Global Criminal Justice (2019) and served under Ambassador Nikki Haley as the United States’ Representative to the UN Economic and Social Council and Alternative Representative to the UN General Assembly (2017-2018).  Throughout her career, Ambassador Currie has specialized in human rights, political reform, development and humanitarian issues, with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region. She has held senior policy positions with the Department of State, the U.S. Congress, the Project 2049 Institute, and several international and non-governmental human rights and humanitarian organizations.  Ambassador Currie holds a Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center.

Tanaya D Gupta
Tanaya Dutta Gupta is a PhD Candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Davis. Tanaya’s dissertation research focuses on climate change, (im)mobilities and borders in the Bengal delta region of Bangladesh and India. Her educational background includes MA in Sociology and Geography. As visiting researcher with the International Centre for Climate Change and Development and collaborator with the Observer Research Foundation, Tanaya participates in policy conversations through her research. Her research has been funded by the National Geographic Society and UC Davis Graduate Program Fellowships. 

Constantin Xavier
Constantino Xavier is a Fellow in Foreign Policy and Security Studies at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, in New Delhi, where he leads the Sambandh Initiative on regional connectivity. He is also a non-resident fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. His research and publications focus on India’s changing role as a regional power, and the challenges of security, connectivity and democracy across South Asia and the Indian Ocean. Dr. Xavier regularly lectures at various Indian, European and American universities, as well as at civilian and military training institutions in India. He holds a Ph.D. in South Asian studies from the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, and an M.A. and M.Phil. from Jawaharlal Nehru University.  

MODERATOR:

Arzan Tarapore
Arzan Tarapore is the South Asia research scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University, where he leads the newly-restarted South Asia research initiative. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the National Bureau of Asian Research. His research focuses on Indian military strategy and contemporary Indo-Pacific security issues. He previously held research positions at the RAND Corporation, the Observer Research Foundation, and the East-West Center in Washington. Prior to his scholarly career, he served as an analyst in the Australian Defence Department, which included operational deployments as well as a diplomatic posting to Washington, DC. Arzan holds a PhD in war studies from King’s College London.

 

This event is co-sponsored by: Center for South Asia 
 

 

 

 

This is a virtual event via Zoom.  Please  Register at: https://bit.ly/3txBBVq
Kelley Eckels Currie former Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues
Tanaya Dutta Gupta University of California, Davis
Constantino Xavier Centre for Social and Economic Progress- New Delhi
Seminars

Rebuilding International Institutions Will be Tough but Necessary, Say Stanford Experts Thomas Fingar and Stephen Stedman

Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On September 29, the APARC China Program hosted Thomas Fingar and Stephen Stedman for the program “Rebuilding International Institutions.” The program, which was moderated by China Program Director Jean Oi, examined the future of international institutions such as the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), and World Health Organization (WHO) in our evolving global political landscape. While Fingar and Stedman acknowledged that such institutions facilitated attainment of unprecedented peace and prosperity after WWII, they also asked difficult questions: Are these institutions still adequate? And if not, how will we change them?

Shorenstein APARC Fellow Thomas Fingar kicked off the session by asking whether or not US-China tensions would impede cooperation on major global challenges, or if those challenges were so serious as to render such rivalries immaterial. Perhaps the most obvious example of such a crisis is the current COVID-19 pandemic. The efforts to curb the virus’ spread not only by individual countries, but also by international organizations like the WHO, have proven largely inadequate. According to Fingar, our existing institutions need to be reformed or supplemented to deal with these types of threats. However, such an overhaul of our international systems will be difficult, he says.

How, then, will we go about such a massive project? Stephen Stedman, Deputy Director at Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), responded by explaining that the current failure of international cooperation makes such undertakings tough. Globalization has been a double-edged sword: On one hand, more contact, perhaps inherently, leads to increased tension. The resurgence of traditional notions of sovereignty in 2010, kickstarted by the opposition of countries like Russia and China to what was seen as UN overreaching, has led to a reduction of international cooperation overall. On the other hand, Fingar posits that our interconnectedness may force us toward cooperation despite rivalries as we face more and more transnational threats. International institutions create rules to organize and manage our many interconnected relationships so that we can deal with our problems effectively and reduce friction.

Stedman also pointed to the upcoming US elections and the major impact their outcome will have on how these problems are addressed—or not. In the last four year, the United States has pulled back significantly from international institutions and agreements, leaving a gap that China has started to fill. Furthermore, despite the US’s retreat from international responsibility, the country still remains a critical actor in global initiatives. China’s embrace of a global leadership role is not inherently negative, but its future relationship with the US will need to be “managed in a way that you get greater cooperation and not just paralysis.” Stedman says that it is likely that progress will need to be made on a bilateral front in order to have productive conversations about international issues with China.

Concluding on an optimistic note, Fingar voiced his hope that the current tensions and negative perceptions between rivals might ultimately “be mitigated by success in dealing with a common problem,” because “experience does shape perceptions.”

A video recording of this program is available upon request. Please contact Callista Wells, China Program Coordinator at cvwells@stanford.edu with any inquiries.

Read More

View of building roof in the Forbidden City complex and the Beijing skyline in the background
News

New Fellowship on China Policy Seeks to Strengthen U.S.-China Relations

Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Center invites applications for the inaugural 2021-22 China Policy Fellowship from experts with research experience on issues vital to the U.S. China policy agenda and influence in the policymaking process.
New Fellowship on China Policy Seeks to Strengthen U.S.-China Relations
Cover of the book Fateful Decisions: Choices That Will Shape China's Future
News

Thomas Fingar and Jean Oi Analyze the Choices and Challenges Facing China’s Leaders

Fingar and Oi joined the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations to discuss their edited volume, ‘Fateful Decisions: Choices that Will Shape China’s Future.’
Thomas Fingar and Jean Oi Analyze the Choices and Challenges Facing China’s Leaders
Woman in a face mask looking at a stock market board
News

Pressing “Re-start”: Business Operations in China after COVID-19 – Highlights of Survey Results and Conversation with Prominent China CxOs

“[T]he biggest challenge for us is really how to . . . navigate through all the unknowns. I mean, at that time [of COVID-19], at every stage we were facing different challenges . . . different phases” stated Zhiqiang (ZZ) Zhang, President of ABB (China).
Pressing “Re-start”: Business Operations in China after COVID-19 – Highlights of Survey Results and Conversation with Prominent China CxOs
Hero Image
All News button
1

APARC International Potluck Day

-

The Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center cordially invites its faculty, scholars, staff, affiliates, and their families to join APARC's first International Potluck Day! Join us to celebrate the diversity of APARC through a multicultural smorgasbord of food. Bring a dish from your home country or family heritage to share with the APARC community as we take the time to mix, mingle, and celebrate the diversity that makes APARC special.

Due to current circumstances, we will be postponing this event until further notice. Thank you for your understanding.

Subscribe to Middle East and North Africa