Silicon Valley Leaders Forum: Changing Silicon Valley

Thursday, September 24, 2009 | 8:30 AM -Thursday, September 24, 2009 | 3:45 PM

On Thursday, September 24, 2009, the Stanford Program on Regions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (SPRIE) at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center will be convening a Silicon Valley Leaders Forum.

This public forum will bring together area researchers and thought leaders to discuss the turbulent changes the Valley is experiencing and address the question of whether the fundamental drivers that have enabled the region to be an innovative and entrepreneurial world leader will continue to be in play in coming years.

This event will serve as the kickoff for SPRIE's latest research project on Silicon Valley's next phase of transformation, a further and updated exploration of the ideas in The Silicon Valley Edge.

The first part of the day will feature a lineup of Silicon Valley luminaries, and the afternoon will close with a panel focused on changes in the venture capital industry.

Lunch will be served and paid registration is required for this event.

Schedule:

8:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m.	Registration
8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.	"Stanford and its (changing) relationships with Silicon Valley" John Hennessy, President, Stanford University
9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.	"Change is the Medium of Opportunity: Channeling Silicon Valley's Strengths to Lead on the Challenges of the 21st Century" James C. Morgan, Chairman Emeritus, Applied Materials
10:30 – 10:45 a.m.	Break
10:45 -11:45 a.m.	"The Entrepreneur and The Cloud—Silicon Valley Rejuvenated" John Seely Brown, Independent Co-Chairman, Deloitte Center for Edge Innovation
11:45 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.	Lunch
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.	"Silicon Valley's Innovation Engine: Are We a Resilient Region?" Doug Henton, Chairman and CEO, Collaborative Economics, and lead for the Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network 2010 Index of Silicon Valley
2:00 – 3:30 pm	Venture Capital Panel Neal Bhadkamkar, Monitor Ventures Bob Patterson, Peninsula Ventures Marianne Wu, Mohr Davidow

Keynote speakers:

John L. Hennessy joined Stanford's faculty in 1977 as an assistant professor of electrical engineering. He rose through the academic ranks to full professorship in 1986 and was the inaugural Willard R. and Inez Kerr Bell Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from 1987 to 2004.

From 1983 to 1993, Dr. Hennessy was director of the Computer Systems Laboratory, a research and teaching center operated by the Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science that fosters research in computer systems design. He served as chair of computer science from 1994 to 1996 and, in 1996, was named dean of the School of Engineering. As dean, he launched a five-year plan that laid the groundwork for new activities in bioengineering and biomedical engineering. In 1999, he was named provost, the university's chief academic and financial officer. As provost, he continued his efforts to foster interdisciplinary activities in the biosciences and bioengineering and oversaw improvements in faculty and staff compensation. In October 2000, he was inaugurated as Stanford University's 10th president. In 2005, he became the inaugural holder of the Bing Presidential Professorship.

James C. Morgan is chairman emeritus of Applied Materials. He previously served as chairman of the board from 1987 to 2009 and as chief executive officer from 1977 to 2003. Prior to joining Applied Materials as president in 1976, he was a senior partner with WestVen Management, a private venture capital partnership affiliated with the Bank of America Corporation. Prior to WestVen, he was with Textron, a leading diversified manufacturing company.

With one of the longest tenures of any FORTUNE 500 CEO, Mr. Morgan has an extensive history in business and philanthropy. Mr. Morgan is a recipient of the 1996 National Medal of Technology for his industry leadership and for his vision in building Applied Materials into the world's leading semiconductor equipment company, a major exporter and a global technology pioneer which helps enable the Information Age. Awarded by the President of the United States, the Medal of Technology recognizes technological innovators who have made lasting contributions to America's competitiveness and standard of living. Among his many honors, Mr. Morgan is a recent recipient of the prestigious Semiconductor Industry Association Robert N. Noyce Award, the highest honor bestowed by the SIA, for outstanding achievement and leadership in support of the U.S. semiconductor industry, and the Spirit of Silicon Valley Lifetime Achievement Award from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, for his ethics, community engagement and business success.

John Seely Brown is the Independent Co-Chairman of the Deloitte Center for Edge Innovation. In addition, he is a Visiting Scholar and Advisor to the Provost at USC.

Prior to that he was the Chief Scientist of Xerox Corporation and the director of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)--a position he held for nearly two decades. While head of PARC, Brown expanded the role of corporate research to include such topics as organizational learning, knowledge management, complex adaptive systems, and nano/mems technologies. He was a cofounder of the Institute for Research on Learning (IRL). His personal research interests include the management of radical innovation, digital youth culture, digital media, and new forms of communication and learning.

John, or as he is often called--JSB-- is a member of the National Academy of Education and a Fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence and of AAAS and a Trustee of the MacArthur Foundation. He serves on numerous public boards (Amazon, Corning, and Varian Medical Systems) and private boards of directors. He has published over 100 papers in scientific journals and was awarded the Harvard Business Review's 1991 McKinsey Award for his article, "Research that Reinvents the Corporation" and again in 2002 for his article "Your Next IT Strategy."

In 2004 he was inducted in the Industry Hall of Fame.

With Paul Duguid he co-authored the acclaimed book The Social Life of Information (HBS Press, 2000) that has been translated into 9 languages with a second addition in April 2002, and with John Hagel he co-authored the book The Only Sustainable Edge which is about new forms of collaborative innovation. It also provides a novel framework for understanding what is really happening in off-shoring in India and China and how each are inventing powerful news ways to innovate, learn and accelerate capability building.

JSB received a BA from Brown University in 1962 in mathematics and physics and a PhD from University of Michigan in 1970 in computer and communication sciences. In May of 2000 Brown University awarded him an honorary Doctor of Science Degree. It was followed by an Honorary Doctor of Science in Economics conferred by the London Business School in July 2001. And in May of 2004 he received an Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from Claremont Graduate School. In 2005, he received an honorary doctorate from University of Michigan and delivered their commencement speech.

Doug Henton has more than 30 years of experience in innovation and economic development at the national, regional, state, and local levels. Doug is nationally recognized for his work in bringing industry, government, education, research, and community leaders together around specific collaborative projects to improve regional competitiveness.

Doug is a consultant to the California Economic Strategy Panel, California's state economic strategy process linked to innovation, industry clusters, and regions. He has worked extensively in California to help develop regional economic and innovation strategies for Silicon Valley, Sonoma, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, San Diego, the Central Valley, and others. He was primary consultant to the Fresno's Regional Jobs Initiative, which used the clusters of opportunity methodology to identifying promising areas for development. Doug has also consulted with the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, advising on economic development strategies. He has worked with the Great Valley Center on identifying promising areas for economic development, including renewable energy. In addition, Doug has worked with Next 10 on the continued development of the California Green Innovation Index.

He has also been consultant to several other state and regional agencies and organizations, including the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Chicago Metropolis 2020, the Potomac Conference, and Arizona Partnership for a New Economy. He has assisted Oregon with its current strategy for economic development, and has advised governors in New York, Ohio, Washington, and others on their economic and workforce policies.

Doug holds a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and Economics from Yale University and a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

Venture Capital Panelists:

Neal Bhadkamkar is a co-founder of Monitor Venture Partners, L.P. (MVP), an early stage venture capital fund affiliated with The Monitor Group. MVP invests in seed and first round companies that are commercializing technologies in markets where Monitor Group's knowledge and client base can be used to reduce market risk. He is currently on the boards of Nanostellar, a catalyst company based on nano-scale materials design, and Verdezyne, a "green chemistry" company based on synthetic biology. He is also a board observer at Matisse Networks, which designs, manufactures and sells metro-area Ethernet switches based on Ring Optical Burst Switching.

Prior to establishing MVP, Neal was VP of Engineering and Manufacturing at Zowie Intertainment, an Interval Research spin-off that made "smart-toys". At Zowie he oversaw the design and manufacture of custom ASICs, firmware, game software, plastic parts and the final product using a supply chain that spanned five countries. Before Zowie, Neal was at Paul Allen's Interval Research Corporation, initially as a member of the research staff and later as the head of Interval's commercialization activity, in which role he managed the transition of research projects into commercial ventures. Earlier in his career Neal was a management consultant with the Boston Consulting Group and with the Monitor Group, and was a Research Associate at the Harvard Business School.

Neal has a PhD. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, an MBA from Harvard Business School, and a Bachelor of Technology degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. Neal lives in Palo Alto, California with his wife and three children.

Bob Patterson is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist with Peninsula Ventures. He is now pursuing on a full time basis a career begun in the 70's while practicing international corporate law with Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. Educated in Physics and Nuclear Engineering at UCLA and the U.S. Navy, before attending Stanford Law School and the Stanford GSB Executive Program, his legal and business career has focused on technology based entrepreneurship and the study of the science of capital formation for entrepreneurial based businesses, both domestically and internationally.

Marianne Wu is a Partner at MDV where she focuses on Cleantech investments. These typically involve significant technology or business model breakthroughs applied to large, evolving markets such as solar, biofuels and chemicals, clean coal, energy efficiency, smart grid, and water treatment and management. She leverages over 15 years of technology development and business experience to help entrepreneurs build meaningful, successful businesses. At MDV, she is on the Board of Laurus Energy and works closely with Zeachem and Catilin.

Marianne has been named one of Top 10 Women in Cleantech and one of Silicon Valley's Women of Influence. She is on the Advisory Committees of the Cleantech Open, Western Governors' Association, SdForum and Astia. She is a member of the Hua Yuan Science and Technology Association (HYSTA) VC Group and Environmental Entrepreneurs.

Prior to joining MDV, Marianne was VP Marketing at ONI Systems where she was responsible for product strategy and market development. Earlier in her career, Marianne was a consultant at McKinsey and Company where she advised major technology clients on strategic and operational issues. Marianne has conducted state-of-the-art research in materials, devices, and systems at Stanford University and started her career as a design engineer at Nortel Networks where she developed high-speed networking technologies.

Marianne earned both her doctoral and master's degrees from the School of Engineering at Stanford University and her bachelor's in Applied Science at the University of British Columbia.

Download pdf

Bechtel Conference Center

John Hennessy President, Stanford University Speaker

James C. Morgan Chairman Emeritus, Applied Materials Speaker

John Seely Brown Independent Co-Chairman, Deloitte Center for Edge Innovation Speaker

Doug Henton Chairman and CEO, Collaborative Economics Speaker

Workshops

Honorable Survivor: Mao's China, McCarthy's America and the Persecution of John S. Service

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 | 12:00 PM -Wednesday, September 30, 2009 | 1:30 PM

Lynne Joiner, author of Honorable Survivor: Mao's China, McCarthy's America and the Persecution of John S. Service will discuss and read from her new book, available October 7, 2009.

John Stewart Service (3 August 1909 - 3 February 1999) was an American diplomat who served in the Foreign Service in China prior to and during World War II. Considered one of the State Department's "China Hands," he was an important member of the Dixie Mission to Yan'an. Service correctly predicted that the Communists would defeat the Nationalists in a civil war, but he and other diplomats were blamed for the "loss" of China in the domestic political turmoil following the 1949 Communist triumph in China. In the immediate postwar years, Service was indicted in the Amerasia Affair in 1945, of which a Grand Jury cleared him of wrongdoing. In 1950 U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy launched an attack against Service, which led to investigations of the reports Service wrote while stationed in China. Secretary of State Dean Acheson fired Service, but in 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered his reinstatement in a unanimous decision.

Notable reviews:

"Sometimes a writer can use one person's story to illuminate an entire piece of history, and that is what Lynne Joiner does in her engrossing and readable book. . . . This is both a solid addition to scholarship of the Cold War era and the moving, very personal story of the life of one man: brilliant, flawed, long suffering, and honorable indeed."

-Adam Hochschild, author of King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa

"Joiner ably tells the tragic story of a good American laid low by the basest kind of character assassination masquerading as anti-Communism. All one can say is: 'Read this book and weep!"

-Orville Schell, Director of the Center for US-China Relations, Asia Society.

"Jack Service's experiences in wartime China and postwar America are an exciting tale with important resonances for current foreign policy challenges in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran as well as U.S.-China relations. I can't wait to see the movie."

-Susan L. Shirk, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State (1997-2000); currently Director, University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, U.C.-San Diego

‘This maelstrom of political intrigue, with Service at the center, is presented in well-documented and engaging detail. It is critical reading for anyone concerned with China policy and an instance of Congress and the FBI subverting justice."

-Richard H. Solomon, former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Relations; currently President of the U.S. Institute of Peace

"Honorable Survivor is the gripping tale of one man's extraordinary life in wartime China and the Kafkaesque era of McCarthyism in America. Lynne Joiner does a masterful job of using new materials to illuminate how personal decisions, great historical forces, and the actions of vindictive and overzealous officials shaped developments in China, the United States, and U.S.-China relations in ways that have yet to be fully resolved."

-Thomas Fingar, former U.S. Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis; currently lecturer at Stanford University

"Jack Service did not lose China. On the contrary, he was a hero of the times. . . . This well-written and thoroughly researched book . . . helps us understand the machinations and failures of U.S.-China policy, on both the American and Chinese sides."

-Victor Hao Li, former President, East-West Center, Honolulu, and former Shelton Professor of International Law, Stanford Law School

Lynne Joiner is an Emmy award-winning broadcast journalist, news anchor, and documentary filmmaker. Her work has included assignments for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, Christian Science Monitor Radio, Newsweek, and Los Angeles Times Magazine. She lives in San Francisco, California.

Philippines Conference Room

Lynne Joiner Media Consultant Speaker Shanghi International TV Channel

Seminars

Two jailed American journalists in North Korea returned home

Read more about Two jailed American journalists in North Korea returned home

News Type

News

Date

Wed, 08/05/2009 - 12:00

Paragraphs

Former President Bill Clinton and his delegation brought the two American journalists home. North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il issued the journalists a "special pardon" when Mr. Clinton and his delegation met him in Pyongyang. "Among those accompanying Mr. Clinton was David Straub," associate director of Korean Studies Program at APARC, "who had held talks with the North Koreans through what is known as the 'New York connection.'"

Hero Image

All News button

Obama's Trifecta: So Far, So Good

Read more about Obama's Trifecta: So Far, So Good

News Type

Commentary

Date

Tue, 08/04/2009 - 12:00

Paragraphs

US President Barack Hussein Obama's speech on June 4, 2009 in Cairo, the second of three planned trips to Muslim-majority countries, was outstanding.

First, it opened daylight between the US and Israel. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are impediments to a two-state solution and a stable peace with Palestine. Obama did not split hairs. He did not distinguish between increments to existing settler populations by birth versus immigration with or without adding a room to an existing house. The United States, he said, does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. Period.

The American Israel Political Affairs Committee, which advertises itself as America’s pro-Israel lobby, cannot have been pleased to hear that sentence. But without some semblance of independence from Israel, the US cannot be a credible broker between the two sides. It is not necessary to treat the actions of Israeli and Palestinian protagonists as morally equivalent in order to understand that they share responsibility for decades of deadlock. New settlements and the expansion of existing ones merely feed Palestinian suspicions that Israel intends permanently to occupy the West Bank. Nor did Obama’s criticism of Israeli settlements prevent him from also stating: Palestinians must abandon violence. Period.

Second, alongside his candor, he showed respect. The most effective discourse on controversial topics involving Islam and Muslims is both sensitive to feelings and frank about facts, as I argue in a forthcoming book (Islamism: Contested Perspectives on Political Islam). Inter-faith dialogues that rely on mutual self-censorship–an agreed refusal to raise divisive topics or speak hard truths – resemble sand castles. Empathy based on denial is unlikely to survive the next incoming tide of reality. Respect without candor, in my view, is closer to fawning than to friendship.

As Obama put it in Cairo, ‘In order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. As the Holy Quran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” His listeners applauded – most of them, perhaps, because he had cited their preferred Book, but some at least because he had defended accuracy regardless of what this or that Book might avow.

In the partnership that Obama offered his audience, sources of tensions were not to be ignored. On the contrary, we must face these tensions squarely. He then followed his own advice by noting that extremists acting in the name of Islam had in fact killed more adherents of their own religion than they had Christians, Jews, or the followers of any other faith. In the same candid vein, he noted with disapproval the propensity of some Muslims to repeat vile stereotypes about Jews, the opposition of Muslim extremists to educating women, and the fact of discrimination against Christian Copts in Egypt, the very country in which he spoke.

Third, his speech was notable for what it did not contain. The word ‘terrorism’,’ a fixture of the Manichean rhetoric of George W. Bush, did not occur once. Back in Washington, in his 26 January televised interview with Al Arabiya, Obama had used the phrase Muslim world 11 times in 44 minutes – an average of once every four minutes. In the run-up to his Cairo speech, the White House had repeatedly hyped it as an address to ‘the Muslim world.’ Yet in the 55 minutes it took him to deliver the oration, the words ‘Muslim world’ were never spoken. He must have been advised to delete the reference from an earlier draft of his text.

I believe the excision strengthened the result, but not because a ‘Muslim world’ does not exist. Admittedly, one can argue that 1.4 billion Muslims have too little in common to justify speaking of such a world at all. But the already vast and implicitly varied compass of any ‘world’ diminishes the risk of homogenization. One can easily refer to ‘the Muslim world’ while stressing its diversity. Many Muslims and non-Muslims already use the phrase without stereotyping its members. No, the reasons why Obama avoided the phrase were less definitional than they were political in nature.

Had Obama explicitly addressed the Muslim world in Cairo, he would have risked implying that his host represented that Muslim world, as if Egypt were especially authentic–quintessentially Muslim–in that sphere. That would have been poorly received in many of the other Muslim-majority societies that diversely span the planet from Morocco to Mindanao.

Several years ago a professor from Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, which co-sponsored Obama’s appearance, told me in all seriousness that Indonesian Muslims, because they did not speak Arabic, were not Muslims at all. Obama did not wish to be read by the followers of ostensibly universalist Islam as endorsing such a parochially Arabo-centric conceit.

The US president could, of course, have mentioned the Muslim world and in the next breath denied that it was represented by Egypt, a country under an authoritarian regime with a reputation for corruption of near-Nigerian proportions. But it was far smarter and more effective for Obama to have shunned the phrase altogether, thereby avoiding the need to clarify it and risk implying that his hosts were somehow less than central to Islam, less than paradigmatically Muslim. Such a candid but insensitive move would have triggered nationalist and Islamist anger not only in his Egyptian audience, but in other Muslim-majority countries as well. Indonesian Muslims, for example, would have wondered with some apprehension whether to expect comparably rude behavior were he to visit their own country later this year.

Obama’s listeners at Cairo University were, instead, subjected to twin eloquences of absence and silence: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s not being present, and Obama’s not mentioning him at all. Eloquent, too, was the absence of Israel from his itinerary. This omission was not a sign of hostility toward Tel Aviv, however. He termed the US-Israel bond ‘unbreakable.’ Not visiting Israel merely signaled that Washington on his watch would not limit its foreign-policy horizon to what any one country would allow.

Obama mispronounced the Arabic term for the head covering worn by some Muslim women. The word is hijab not hajib. But that small slip was trivial compared with the brilliance and timeliness of what he had to say. Rhetoric is one thing, of course; realities are quite another. The tasks of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum and improving relations with the heterogeneous Muslim world are more easily discussed than done. Illustrating that Muslim world’s extraordinary diversity are the many and marked differences between Turkey, where Obama spoke on 6 April on his first overseas trip, his Egyptian venue two months later, and Indonesia, which he is likely to visit before the end of 2009.

Before his choice of Cairo was announced, several commentators advised him to give his Muslim world speech in June in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. Rather than risk legitimating Mubarak’s autocracy, they argued, he should celebrate Indonesia’s success in combining moderate Islam with liberal democracy.

Following their advice would have been a mistake. Not only did speaking in Cairo enable Obama boldly to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a podium close to its Middle Eastern epicenter. Had he traveled to Indonesia instead, his visit would have been tainted by an appearance of American intervention in the domestic politics of that country, whose President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is up for re-election on 8 July.

Earlier in his career, Yudhoyono completed military training programs in the US, at Fort Benning and Fort Leavenworth, and earned a master’s in management from Webster University in St. Louis. No previous Indonesian head of state has had a closer prior association with the United States. Yudhoyono’s rivals for the presidency are already berating him and his running mate as neo-liberals who have pawned Indonesia’s economy to the capitalist West. Obama could feel comfortable keeping the autocrat Mubarak at arm’s length in Cairo, but in campaign-season Indonesia the US president would have been torn between behaving ungraciously toward his democratically chosen host and appearing to back him in his race for re-election.

Yudhoyono’s popularity ratings among Indonesians are even better than Obama’s are among Americans. The July election is Yudhoyono’s to lose. But the winner’s new government will not be in place until October. The US president was wise to postpone visiting Indonesia until after its electoral dust has cleared and the next administration in Jakarta has taken shape. A gathering of leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, which Obama is expected to attend, is conveniently scheduled for mid-November in Singapore. He could easily visit Indonesia en route to or from that event.

An Indonesian journalist in Cairo interviewed Obama shortly after his speech. The president virtually confirmed this November itinerary by saying that his next trip to Asia would include Indonesia. He said he looked forward to revisiting the neighborhood in Jakarta where he had lived as a child, and to eating again his favorite Indonesian foods – fried rice, bakso soup, and rambutan fruit among them.

A trifecta happens when a gambler correctly predicts the first three finishers of a race in the correct order. Obama appears to have bet his skills in public diplomacy on this sequence: Ankara first, then Cairo, then Jakarta.

One can ask whether his actions will match his words, and whether the US Congress will go along with his prescriptions. But with two destinations down and one to go, Obama is well on his way to completing a trifecta in the race for hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

A version of this essay appeared in AsiaTimes Online on 6 June 2009.

All News button

The Globalization of Cleantech: The Fifth Annual Globalization of Services Conference

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 | 8:00 AM -Tuesday, December 8, 2009 | 5:00 PM

Silicon Valley is increasingly invested in clean technologies and is already looked upon as a global leader in new technological development. As happens with most new technologies in their infancy, Silicon Valley's focus is currently on component manufacturing. However, a difference from earlier technology cycles is the upfront impact of globalization, especially the emergence of China and India as providers of skilled labor and large markets. Accordingly, the globalization of cleantech could follow some well-trodden paths and some new ones:

As manufacturing gets modularized, firms such as Applied Materials might shift component work to East Asia. Some of this is already happening.
System integration and other service provision might increasingly be provided by the large Indian system integrators. As of 2009, however, there is little evidence of this happening.
Firms in Europe and East Asia have been investing in cleantech for some time now, and might participate in technological leadership.

In each case, we are interested in exploring the time-frame and the driving forces. These will typically be outcomes of a mix of regulatory, domestic market and skills issues.

The conference, the fifth in the annual series on the Globalization of Services, will likely host about 20 academics and 40 corporates, as with past events.

Presentations are planned by firms in Silicon Valley in the fields of component manufacturing, systems integration and service provision; by overseas service providers on how outsourcing in these areas improves outcomes in terms of strategic direction, efficiency, cost-savings and accountability; by OEMs on supply-chain linkages with service outsourcers; and by venture capitalists and consultants on how their work helps the process of outsourcing cleantech services.

Registration is required for this event ($30 by Dec. 4, $45 late) and includes continental breakfast, lunch and free parking. Use the RSVP link at the top of the page to register.

Information on the previous Globalization of Services conference, including presentations, is available here.

8:00	Registration and Breakfast
8:30	Welcome and Objectives Rafiq Dossani
8:35-9:15	Keynote: Fostering the Green Economy--The Case of California Ricardo Martinez Garcia, Deputy Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency
9:15-10:30	Panel: Cleantech technology trends Marc Hoffman, Glacier Bay \| Ajit Nazre, Kleiner Perkins \| Swaminathan Venkataraman, Standard & Poor's Lead discussant: Professor Dimitris Assimakopoulos, Grenoble School of Management, France
10:30-10:45	Break
10:45-12:30	Panel: Software and services Chris Farinacci, Hara.com \| Matt Denesuk, IBM \| Sai Gundavelli, Solix Lead discussant: Professor Petri Rouvinen, ETLA Finland
12:30-1:45	Lunch
1:30-3:30	Panel: Manufacturing Charles Consorte, Zeptor \| Chris D'Couto, Neah \| Marc Hoffman, Glacier Bay Lead discussant: Professor Margot Gerritsen, Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University
3:30-3:50	Break
3:50-5:30	Panel: Globalization Rafiq Dossani, Stanford \| Joe Muscat, Ernst and Young \| Bob Nelson, Akin Gump \| Sean Wang, ITRI \| Tomoya Yamashiki, Toray Industries (America) Inc. Lead discussant: Henry Rowen, Stanford University

This conference is the 5th annual "Globalization of Services" conference, made possible through the generosity and efforts of ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, the University of Colorado, Denver and Wipro.

Agenda

Download pdf

Gundavelli Solix

Download pdf

Contexts of terror in Indonesia

Read more about Contexts of terror in Indonesia

Authors

Donald K. Emmerson

News Type

Commentary

Date

Thu, 07/23/2009 - 12:00

Paragraphs

Jim Castle is a friend of mine. I have known him since we were graduate students in Indonesia in the late 1960s. While I labored in academe he went on to found and grow CastleAsia into what is arguably the most highly regarded private-sector consultancy for informing and interfacing expatriate and domestic investors and managers in Indonesia. Friday mornings he hosts a breakfast gathering of business executives at his favorite hotel, the JW Marriott in the Kuningan district of Jakarta.

Or he did, until the morning of July 17, 2009. On that Friday, shortly before 8am, a man pulling a suitcase on wheels strolled into the Marriott's Lobby Lounge, where Jim and his colleagues were meeting, and detonated the contents of his luggage. We know that the bomber was at least outwardly calm from the surveillance videotape of his relaxed walk across the lobby to the restaurant.

He wore a business suit, presumably to deflect attention before he blew himself up. Almost simultaneously, in the Airlangga restaurant at the Ritz Carlton hotel across the street, a confederate destroyed himself, killing or wounding a second set of victims. As of this writing, the toll stands at nine dead (including the killers) and more than 50 injured.

On learning that Jim had been at the meeting in the Marriott, I became frantic to find out if he were still alive. A mere 16 hours later, to my immense relief, he answered my e-mail. He was out of hospital, having sustained what he called "trivial injuries", including a temporary loss of hearing. Of the nearly 20 people at the roundtable meeting, however, four died and others were badly hurt. Jim's number two at CastleAsia lost part of a leg.

The same Marriott had been bombed before, in 2003. That explosion killed 12 people. Eight of them were Indonesian citizens, who also made up the great majority of the roughly 150 people wounded in that attack - and most of these Indonesian victims were Muslims. This distribution undercut the claim of the country's small jihadi fringe to be defending Islam's local adherents against foreign infidels.

But if last Friday's killers hoped to gain the sympathy of Indonesians this time around by attacking Jim and his expatriate colleagues and thereby lowering the proportion of domestic casualties, they failed. Of the 37 victims whose names and nationalities were known as of Monday, 60% were Indonesians, and that figure was almost certain to rise as more bodies were identified. The selective public acceptance of slaughter to which the targeting of infidel foreigners might have catered is, of course, grotesquely inhumane.

Since Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was first elected president in 2004, Indonesia's real gross domestic product has averaged around 6% annual growth. In 2008 only four of East Asia's 19 economies achieved rates higher than Indonesia's 6.1% (Vietnam, Mongolia, China and Macau). In the first quarter of 2009, measured year-on-year, while the recession-hit economies of Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand all shrank, Indonesia's grew 4.4%. In the first half of 2009, the Jakarta Stock Exchange soared.

The economy is hardly all roses. Poverty and corruption remain pervasive. Unemployment and underemployment persist. The country's infrastructure badly needs repair. And the economy's performance in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) has been sub-par: The US$2 billion in FDI that went to Indonesia in 2008 was less than a third of the $7 billion inflow enjoyed by Thailand's far smaller economy, notwithstanding Indonesia's far more stable politics.

Nevertheless, all things considered, the macro-economy in Yudhoyono's first term did reasonably well. We may never know whether the killer at the Marriott aimed to maximize economic harm. According to another expat consultant in Jakarta, Kevin O'Rourke, the day's victims included 10 of the top 50 business leaders in the city. "It could have been a coincidence," he said, or the bombers could have "known just what they were doing".

Imputing rationality to savagery is tricky business. But the attackers probably did hope to damage the Indonesian economy, notably foreign tourism and investment. In that context, the American provenance and patronage of the two hotels would have heightened their appeal as targets. Although the terrorists may not have known these details, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company is an independently operated division of Marriott International, Inc, which owns the JW Marriott brand, and both firms are headquartered on the outskirts of Washington DC.

Second-round revenge against the Marriott may also have played a role - assaulting a place that had rebuilt and recovered so quickly after being attacked in 2003. Spiteful retribution may have influenced the decision to re-attack the Kuta tourist area in Bali in 2005 after that neighborhood's recovery from the bomb carnage of 2002. Arguable, too, is the notion that 9/11 in 2001 was meant to finish the job started with the first bombing of the Twin Towers in 1993. And in all of these instances, the economy - Indonesian or American - suffered the consequences.

Panic buttons are not being pushed, however. Indonesian stock analyst Haryajid Ramelan's expectation seems plausible: that confidence in the economy will return if those who plotted the blasts are soon found and punished, and if investors can be convinced that these were "purely terrorist attacks" unrelated to domestic politics.

Sympathy for terrorism in Indonesia is far too sparse for Friday's explosions to destabilize the country. But they occurred merely nine days after Yudhoyono's landslide re-election as president on July 8, with three months still to go before the anticipated inauguration of his new administration on October 20. That timing ensured that some would speculate that the killers wanted to deprive the president of his second five-year term.

The president himself fed this speculation at his press conference on July 18, the day after the attacks. He brandished photographs of unnamed shooters with handguns using his picture for target practice. He reported the discovery of a plan to seize the headquarters of the election commission and thereby prevent his democratic victory from being announced. "There was a statement that there would be a revolution if SBY wins," he said, referring to himself by his initials.

"This is an intelligence report," he continued, "not rumors, nor gossip. Other statements said they wished to turn Indonesia into [a country like] Iran. And the last statement said that no matter what, SBY should not and would not be inaugurated." Barring information to the contrary, one may assume that these reports of threats were real, whether or not the threats themselves were. But why share them with the public?

Perhaps the president was defending his decision not to inspect the bomb damage in person - a gesture that would have shown sympathy for the victims while reassuring the population. He had wanted to go, he said, "But the chief of police and others suggested I should wait, since the area was not yet secure. And danger could come at any time, especially with all of the threats I have shown you. Physical threats."

Had Yudhoyono lost the election, or had he won it by only a thin and hotly contested margin, his remarks might have been read as an effort to garner sympathy and deflect attention from his unpopularity. The presidential candidates who lost to his landslide, Megawati Sukarnoputri and Jusuf Kalla, have indeed criticized how the July 8 polling was handled. And there were shortcomings. But even without them, Yudhoyono would still have won. In this context, speaking as he did from a position of personal popularity and political strength, the net effect of his comments was probably to encourage public support for stopping terrorism.

One may also note the calculated vagueness of his references to those - "they” - who wished him and the country harm. Not once in his speech did he refer to Jemaah Islamiyah, the network that is the culprit of choice for most analysts of the twin hotel attacks. Had he directly fingered that violently jihadi group, ambitious Islamist politicians such as Din Syamsuddin - head of Muhammadiyah, the country's second-largest Muslim organization - would have charged him with defaming Islam because Jemaah Islamiyah literally means "the Islamic group" or "the Islamic community".

One may hope that Din's ability to turn his Islamist supporters against jihadi terrorism and in favor of religious freedom and liberal democracy will someday catch up to his energy in policing language. Yet Yudhoyono was right not to mention Jemaah Islamiyah. Doing so would have complicated unnecessarily the president's relations with Muslim politicians whose support he may need when it comes to getting the legislature to turn his proposals into laws. Nor is it even clear that Jemaah Islamiyah is still an entity coherent enough to have, in fact, masterminded last Friday's attacks.

Peering into the future, one may reasonably conclude that the bombings' repercussions will neither annul Yudhoyono's landslide victory nor derail the inauguration of his next administration. Nor will they do more than temporary damage to the Indonesian economy. As for the personal aspect of what happened Friday, while mourning the dead, I am grateful that Jim and others, foreign and Indonesian, are still alive.

Donald K Emmerson heads the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University. He is a co-author of Islamism: Contested Perspectives on Political Islam (Stanford University Press, November 2009) and Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (Stanford/ISEAS, 2008).

Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.