Standing upright, then slowly clasping both hands and drawing them up to shoulder height, Kevin Won next kneeled on the floor. Bending forward, he bowed his head toward his silent audience.

Won’s demonstration of the Sebae, a traditional bow performed for elders during South Korea’s lunar new year, may have seemed out of place during a warm, sunny day on Stanford’s campus. But the intricate display was in perfect context during a cross-cultural conference for secondary school teachers from the United States to learn about Korean society, as well as providing a forum to directly engage with Korean teachers and students.

Despite Korea’s growing relevance worldwide, there has been little development of Korean studies below university-level, leaving a vacuum for misunderstanding, including stereotypes, to form at an early age. The conference – now in its third year – aims to shift this reality.

For three days in late July, twenty-four teachers from across America participated in a variety of activities and seminars intended to give them new perspectives and teaching strategies.

Gary Mukai, director of SPICE, welcomes participants.

The conference was co-organized by the Korean Studies Program (KSP) at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE), both in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. The two groups work together to convert research on Asia into material that is suitable for younger students.

“Our mission is to make Stanford scholarship accessible to all,” said SPICE director Gary Mukai, who has been with SPICE for over 26 years. SPICE and Shorenstein APARC, under the direction of Gi-Wook Shin, a professor of sociology, have coordinated curriculum development for key projects on Korean history and perceptions of wartime history in Northeast Asia. 

A cadre of scholars and practitioners from Stanford and other universities and organizations offered talking points and actionable ideas for instruction. Among them was David Straub, the associate director of KSP, who lived in Korea for eight years as a senior U.S. diplomat. 

The United States and Korea have a very close relationship, but lack equal dialogue, explained Straub. America is still “number one” for Koreans, as such, Koreans know more about the United States than Americans know about Korea. This imbalance can lead to misunderstanding. Straub took the teachers through the recent history of U.S.-Korea relations, which is often narrowed to the context of the Korean War. 

Two teachers work together on a curriculum exercise comparing political cartoons.

Since 1945, South Korea overcame extreme poverty and effectively established a democratic society, a transition that was uncommonly quick and relatively smooth, and one that now supports a global powerhouse of trade and culture.

Throughout the conference, SPICE staff demonstrated ways for educators to bring Korea, and greater Northeast Asia, into their classrooms. They gave the teachers a chance to practice student lessons. In one exercise, the teachers deciphered sets of political cartoons and compared news headlines from Japan, China and Korea, using material from SPICE instructional materials. 

Each activity was carefully prepared to guide teachers to examine their own preconceptions. Greater cultural awareness can come when both teachers and students are “more critical consumers of information,” said Rylan Sekiguchi, a SPICE curriculum specialist, in his presentation.

While curriculum is important, establishing rapport seemed an essential part of the conference. A key component to a successful cross-cultural workshop is creating a community, “and looking around the room, I think we’ve done that here,” said Mukai, in an address to participants at a reception.

Also in attendance was a delegation of 11 Korean teachers and students from Hana Academy Seoul, a private high school in Korea with a unique structure and curriculum. The school’s name comes from the Hana Financial Group, which established the school in 2010, and is also the supporter of the Stanford conference. The Korean students gave presentations that covered a wide range of topics, including an analysis of teenage life and the public education system in Korea.

(Left to right): Students Nayoon Kim, Kevin Won, Seung-hyun Kim and Sarah Chey presented on Korean culture and society.

Six students from Hana Academy Seoul performed Samulnori, one of Korea’s most popular genres of music. The musical group, known as Da-Seu-Reum, showcased their talents while wearing traditional, brightly colored outfits. Afterward, the students became the teachers – when they invited the American teachers to come up and play the instruments. 

Three students were also honored for their research and participation in the Sejong Korean Scholars Program (SKSP), a distance-learning opportunity for 25 high school students across the United States to engage in an intensive study of Korea for a semester. SKSP is dually led by SPICE and Shorenstein APARC, and sponsored by the Korea Foundation.

“I feel very honored to attend, and have learned a lot about U.S.-Korea relations,” said Won, who is from Korea and attends The Taft School in Connecticut. “But mostly, I am just glad my presentation went well.” 

Won, a relative newcomer to public speaking, explained Korean holidays and how to perform a traditional bow. After demonstrating the correct posture and sequence to the audience, he asked for, and easily received, teacher participation. 

Kelly McKee, a teacher from Illinois, tries playing the Buk, a drum used in Samulnori, with direction from a Hana Academy Seoul student.

“From the impeccably credentialed presenters to the wonderful pacing of the presentations, I thoroughly enjoyed my three days here,” said Eladio “Lalo” Martin, a humanities teacher at Cesar Chavez Middle School in Watsonville.

“This conference, by far, is the best I’ve ever attended,” he added. Martin has been teaching for more than 18 years, and says he looks forward to returning to Stanford.

“The speakers have been fantastic,” said Kelly McKee, a social studies teacher. “They’ve shared in-depth expertise on topics like Korea’s special economic zones and North Korea – areas you can’t find in professional development workshops elsewhere.”

McKee, who works at Lake Forest High School in Illinois and is a leader of a student exchange program to Shanghai, says she plans to supplement her Korea unit with what she has learned. As the availability of Asian studies curriculum continues to grow, she says the future certainly looks bright.

On a rainy day last November, twelve fellows made their way up the steps of San Francisco’s City Hall, a true initiation to the town that’s often shrouded in fog. But the grey didn’t affect the day’s mood. Meeting with representatives from the Mayor’s Office, the fellows learned about California’s legislature through the unique lens of San Francisco, the only city statewide that is also designated as a county.

City Hall is just one of many site visits that the fellows attended during their time in the Corporate Affiliates Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, a cornerstone initiative that has brought professionals from Asia to Stanford since 1982.

“This year, our class was one of the most diverse ever, with fellows coming from Northeast to South Asia and representing a wide array of expertise from business to aerospace,” says Denise Masumoto, the manager of corporate relations at Shorenstein APARC. “We structured the program to support their interests and spur conversation with APARC scholars, and with those in the community beyond.”

The Corporate Affiliates Program provides yearlong fellowships for professionals from Asia who come to Stanford to learn about the United States, exchange ideas and participate in activities of mutual interest. The fellows keep a busy schedule: conducting a research project, auditing classes and attending site visits and seminars.

Now at the end of the academic year, the 2013–14 class has all but just departed. Before this, Shorenstein APARC spoke with three fellows about their experience: Tetsuo Ishiai from Tokyo, Japan; Tejas Mehta from Mumbai, India; and Wendy (Wei) Wang from Beijing, China. Highlighting moments and memories, the fellows struck conversations that underlined a few common themes.   

Thinking dynamically

At the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford offers a unique base for fellows. As a hub for technology and venture capital, the area has an entrepreneurial buzz that grabs your attention, Ishiai says.

“To move toward open architecture, this entails movement to a more service-oriented structure,” he explains, and says that industry must ask the right questions. “What specialized services and facilities are required for this? What should be developed as the standard going forward?”Ishiai, who normally works at Mitsubishi Electric’s headquarters in Japan, has examined the shift in data management practices and its implications for business during his time at Shorenstein APARC, leveraging his experiences from over twenty years at the company.

When asked if he would share anything when he arrived back home, Ishiai says a message he will convey is the importance of creativity and determination.Ishiai says Silicon Valley offered an excellent environment to perform his research; he joined conferences at Stanford and visited many IT companies in the Bay Area. Ishiai also talked with industry executives through his courses at Stanford’s d.school.

“Exciting thinking and passion for starting new business ventures was very evident in Silicon Valley culture,” he says. “This type of support and ambition should be encouraged in Japanese corporate culture, especially among young employees, who can often be less recognized.”

Ishiai says he made many connections here, and looks forward to returning to Stanford in the future.

Finding partners

When asked to describe a favorite memory, Wang says that challenges have brought forth her richest experiences as a fellow. Speaking English on a daily basis and finding a stride in university life again were obstacles at first, she says, but when paired with the right people and resources, good things happened.

“I connected with a graduate student at CEAS, who I met with weekly to practice my language skills and share cultural observations,” she says. “We became close friends – I even hosted members of his family when they visited California.”Wang normally works in corporate banking at the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), an entity with an expanding scope of business overseas. To suit this trend, Wang says she sought to improve her English skills while in the United States. Masumoto encouraged her to seek out Stanford’s Center for East Asian Studies (CEAS), which offers advanced Chinese language instruction. There, Wang found a surplus of graduate students who were eager to help.

The theme of collaboration echoed in the courses she audited at the Graduate Business School, which allowed her to interface with top executives from JetBlue and Nike in a small group setting, and through dialogue with her research advisor, Jean C. Oi, a professor and director of the Stanford China Program at Shorenstein APARC. 

“Each time I met with Jean, she would offer up a slew of new questions,” Wang says. “She pushed me to really examine the details of my research – a different experience than I’m used to in China where expression is less direct, open.”

Comparative perspective

The global pharmaceutical industry sees extensive overlap between the government, business and academic sectors worldwide, but the variation across countries is what makes it so interesting, says Mehta, who has worked in medical marketing at Reliance Life Sciences for nearly a decade.

“A significant difference between India and the United States is the two country’s health care systems with respect to their insurance structures,” he says. “However, all stakeholders, whether in the United States or India or elsewhere, share the common objective of improving patient’s treatment outcomes and reducing overall cost of healthcare.”

Mehta analyzed challenges for pharmaceutical businesses through his courses at the Graduate Business School, such as “Leading Strategic Change in the Health Care Industry.” The course is structured to examine the environment for incumbent health care players like companies and hospitals, but also to look at the dynamics for entrepreneurial start-ups. A prime opportunity, given the budding initiatives for innovative treatment and health information services in Silicon Valley. A comparative perspective is necessary to learn from and question how things are done both at home and abroad. Mehta says being at Stanford, an institution with a strong foundation in medicine, greatly informed his research. His focus on theranostics, an emerging field of customizable testing and treatment for patients, was enhanced through dialogue on- and off-campus.

The classroom experience, coupled with visits to a variety of businesses in the Bay Area, gave Mehta a fuller view of the intricate market for U.S. medicine, and its relations with government and the private insurance system.

Looking back, he says it is hard to single out a few memories because there are many, but one that would top his list is visiting City Hall.

Northeast Asia is a global center of economic dynamism, propelled by phenomenal growth in social and cultural interactions among the region's nations. Still, wounds from past wrongs, committed during times of colonialism and war, have not yet fully healed, and the question of history has become a highly contentious diplomatic issue. After one and a half years in office, the leaders of China and South Korea (Korea hereafter) still refuse to hold bilateral summits with their Japanese counterpart, largely due to disputes over the past. Questions about history touch on the most sensitive issues of national identity, making it very difficult for countries to compromise.

How should we understand and approach current historical tensions in Northeast Asia? Pessimists worry that the legacies of the past will persist and that there is not much we can do about it. Optimists believe that these issues will inevitably fade over time as the wartime generation passes away and the countries of the region become increasingly integrated economically and culturally.

Last summer, I had an opportunity to deliver a special lecture series at a Korean university. More than 30 students from China, Japan, Korea, the U.S. and Europe attended the lectures, which focused on problems related to the modern history of Northeast Asia and territorial disputes. I asked students whether they thought Japan had apologized for its past actions of aggression. Korean and Chinese students mostly replied that Japan had either "not apologized at all" or was "not sincere." In contrast, most Japanese students were hardly aware of the misfortunes of the past and the controversies about the government's stance.

The historical amnesia of Japanese students is most worrisome, but the insistence by Chinese and Korean students that the Japanese have not apologized at all is troubling, too. Although the definition of "apology" may vary depending on circumstances, it is undeniable that Japanese leaders, including prime ministers, have directly expressed regret about Japan's actions of aggression to Koreans and Chinese. Of course, legitimate doubts arise in Korea and China as to Japan's sincerity. More than once, a prime minister's apology has been undercut by the denial of wartime responsibility by his education minister, or by a subsequent visit by the prime minister to the Yasukuni Shrine to Japan's war dead.

My teaching experience illustrates the danger posed by a crucial gap in perceptions. History does not merely narrate events or developments. In reconstructing the past, it is inevitable that certain parts are omitted or stressed, producing different views. Divided historical memories separate nations, resulting in distinct, often contradictory, perceptions. Those perceptions become deeply embedded in the public consciousness, transmitted to succeeding generations formally by education and informally through the arts, popular culture and mass media.

Time isn't a cure-all

Why have these nations developed distinct, and incomplete, memories of the wartime period?

One common answer is that Japan was an aggressor while China and Korea were victims, but this is too simplistic to explain the complexities of modern history and collective memory in Northeast Asia. Different events acquire disproportionate weight in the formation of each nation's historical consciousness. For China and Korea, Japanese acts of aggression -- such as the Nanjing Massacre or forced labor and sexual slavery -- constitute the most crucial elements. For Japan, events related to U.S. actions, such as the firebombings of Japanese cities or the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are more important. Korea and China are a less significant element in Japan's memory, while Japan looms large in theirs.

Japan's focus on U.S. actions, over the sufferings of Koreans and Chinese, explains the country's historical amnesia and reluctance to come to terms with its Asian neighbors. Unlike Germany, postwar Japan developed a mythology of victimhood, shaped by the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the massive incendiary and atomic bombings of its cities. Victim consciousness provided fertile soil for the growth of postwar neo-nationalism that justified colonialism and war and denied Japan's responsibility for atrocities.

Balanced historical memory with a better understanding of the perspective of the other side is urgently needed. Japan needs to clearly comprehend the mindset of its neighbors, instead of complaining about its "apology fatigue." China and Korea are also responsible for educating their citizens about Japan's own struggle to come to terms with its past. That kind of mutual understanding rests on resuming efforts at joint historical study with a commitment to open-minded debate. Only then can the nations of Northeast Asia begin to narrow perception gaps and forge a shared view.

This is a task not only for governments but for civil society. We should encourage exchanges among young people from the three countries, including joint visits to historic sites such as the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Seodaemun Prison History Museum in Seoul. Such gatherings would constitute a regionwide attempt to share and heal the pains of the past. Disregarding or ignoring dark events means not only evading historical accountability but also missing the opportunity to learn from history. Germany's failure to learn from its defeat in World War I led to the rise of Nazism and another world war. The German experience should provide a valuable lesson for all, especially Japan.

We cannot depend on time alone to heal these wounds. When issues of the past posed a stumbling block in improving relations between China and Japan in the 1970s, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping said, "Because our generation is not wise enough to resolve all of the pending questions, let's leave the unsettled ones to the next generation." Contrary to his expectations, however, the two countries are stricken today with a worse situation involving history and territorial disputes, and the younger generation tends to be even more swayed by the fever of nationalism.

This is a moment of both danger and opportunity for Northeast Asia. The current impasse in regional relations demands a commitment to confronting the corrosive nationalism fed by the unresolved issues of history. As the wartime generation passes from the scene, they are called upon to leave behind a wiser generation capable of realizing the potential of Northeast Asia to be the center of the 21st century.

This article was originally carried by Nikkei Asian Review on 25 July and reposted with permission.

The Japanese Cabinet, headed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, announced a reinterpretation of the country’s Constitution on July 1st, marking a significant shift in its pacifist security policy that it has held for nearly seventy years.

A controversial aspect of the Constitution’s reinterpretation concerns Article 9, a defense clause that outlaws a traditional military and use of force to settle disputes. The recent announcement, however, suggests lifting Japan’s ban on collective self-defense, extending the country’s ability to apply use of force not only to respond to an armed attack against Japan but also when an armed attack occurs against its allies.

Ryo Sahashi, a visiting associate professor at Shorenstein APARC, writes on the %link1% that it is necessary for Japan to enhance its deterrence through greater diplomacy, not just an enlargement of its military. He says Japan, like other nations, is entitled to secure its territory and pursue its own alliance partners. However, the lack of public support toward the reinterpretation is concerning, and will present challenges as the administration seeks to implement its new policies.

Sahashi also spoke with %link2% about Japan’s changing security paradigm in the context of Mr. Abe’s state visit to Canberra, Australia. He points out that it will take a year for the administration to change the laws associated with the Constitution’s reinterpretation, saying this time gap will allow the Government to shore up national support. His interview is available below, it starts around minute 1:12.

Following the Cabinet’s announcement, a poll conducted by the Yomiuri Shimbun reported a 48 percent approval rating of the Abe administration, down nine percentage points when compared to last month. Daniel Sneider, the associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC, says in the %link3% that the poll reflects the public’s lack of support for the policy changes.

Stanford economist Takeo Hoshi’s new co-authored working paper, “Implementing Structural Reforms in Abenomics: How to Reduce the Cost of Doing Business in Japan,” is cited in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe formed a panel to rewrite national textbooks that reference the country's wartime past. Daniel Sneider, associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC, says those actions are a “backdoor way of limiting references to Japanese aggression” in an Economist article analyzing the history debates.

Update: A full report summarizing the discussion of the 12th Korea-U.S. West Coast Strategic Forum is available below.

Northeast Asia has been rife with animosity over the past year. Among the outstanding concerns are China’s naval movements in the South China Sea and the threat of a fourth nuclear missile test by North Korea. While no major incidents have occurred in recent months, the uncertainty weighs heavily on policymakers and observers. What if an accidental clash happens in the sea or air?

Senior security scholars and practitioners from South Korea and the United States recently gathered for the Korea–U.S. West Coast Strategic Forum, a Track II workshop to exchange views on these major issues impacting the Northeast Asia region.

The Strategic Forum, established in 2006, is held semiannually and alternates between Seoul and Stanford, hosted by the Korean Studies Program at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. The Korean counterpart organization is the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, the foreign ministry’s think tank within the Korea National Diplomatic Academy. 

Twenty-four participants gathered on June 20 at the Bechtel Conference Center, and offered a diversity of opinions on Korean peninsula issues and the potential impact they could have on the countries’ allies. The participants collectively expressed a desire for regional stability, increased dialogue, and commitment to maintaining the U.S.–ROK alliance and cooperation on other trust-building activities.

The conference operates under the Chatham House Rule of individual confidentiality to allow for candid conversation. A few main points from the sessions are disclosed below:

Session I: Northeast Asia Regional Dynamics

Many participants shared the concern that trilateral relations between China–South Korea–Japan are at one of the worst points in recent history.

China’s current attitude toward its neighbors and the United States was discussed at length. Many participants discussed the strategic trajectory of China and how the country’s domestic situation may challenge its ability to effectively move forward, contrary to popular perceptions that simply straight-line its current growth rate into the indefinite future. 

Korean participants expressed concern toward Japan’s position, particularly following Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Yasukuni Shrine and the stance he has taken on other wartime issues like “comfort women.” They said they hoped the United States would do more to help Korea–Japan relations, as participants recognized the desirability of increased trilateral U.S.–Japan–Korea security and diplomatic cooperation.

Session II: U.S.­–Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA)

Participants shared the view that the U.S.­–Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) is serving to broaden and deepen the U.S.­–ROK relationship.

The KORUS FTA is only in its second year of implementation, so additional time is needed to make a comprehensive evaluation, but it appears that it will significantly increase bilateral trade as time passes.

Session III: U.S.–ROK Alliance

The U.S.­–ROK relationship, on the whole, is in very good shape. South Korea and the United States have similar policies in most strategic areas.

The two countries cooperate on many diplomatic and security initiatives, such as the U.S. 28,500-strong troop presence in South Korea and many United Nations peacekeeping missions abroad. 

Session IV: North Korea

Participants agreed that North Korea continues to engage in provocative behavior. This remains the chief concern of the U.S.–ROK alliance, as well a priority of the international community in total.

The policies of the United States and South Korea toward North Korea are well-coordinated and principled, but a number of Korean and American participants expressed concern that more creative thinking was needed, as the challenges North Korea poses are increasing. 

Reports from past forums are available on the Shorenstein APARC website.

Phillip Lipscy, the Thomas Rohlen Center Fellow at FSI and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, talks about his time at Stanford as a student and teacher. In conversation with Shorenstein APARC, Lipscy highlights current projects and motivations to research in the fields of East Asian political economy and international relations.

You studied at Stanford as a student and returned as an assistant professor and center fellow. What led you back to campus? What has changed, remained the same?

Stanford is an incredible place to pursue the kind of research I am interested in, which focuses on international relations and the political economy of East Asia. Stanford’s political science department is among the top in the world, and Shorenstein APARC is among the most highly regarded research centers focusing on the Asia-Pacific region. All of these things have remained the same since I was a student. Probably the biggest change since I was an undergraduate is the broadening and deepening of expertise at Shorenstein APARC, particularly in the areas of Korean studies and health policy. 

What motivated you to pursue research on East Asia?

When I was an undergraduate at Stanford, Professor Daniel Okimoto was a great mentor and inspiration (he was the co-founder of Shorenstein APARC and now Professor Emeritus of Political Science). I think his influence was the most important factor. I was also born to a multicultural family and spent about equal parts of my childhood in Japan and the United States, so I have always been interested in the differences among societies and how they interact. 

One focus of your research areas is on energy policy in Japan and other countries. What lessons can you draw from your research for policymakers?

I show in my recent piece in the Annual Review of Political Science that political scientists largely neglected energy issues after the oil shocks of the 1970s. There needs to be more research on the politics of energy. One of the findings of my recent work is that countries generally do better in achieving energy efficiency improvements in political systems where consumers have less influence: the governments of these countries can get away with imposing higher prices on energy consumption, which leads to conservation and efficiency. One illustration is Japan, which achieved very high levels of energy efficiency after the oil shocks, but which has struggled in recent years as bureaucratic scandals and electoral reform have tilted the scales in favor of consumer interests. There is an obvious tradeoff though, because political insulation also means less accountability. A good illustration of the downside of insulation is the collusion between policymakers and utility companies in Japan, which was made painfully obvious after the Fukushima disaster. Our study of nuclear power plants shows that large, influential utilities in Japan, which tend to be politically powerful, were also the least prepared against a potential tsunami.

Another of your research streams is on international organizations such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Do you see East Asia’s role expanding in these organizations over time?

I am working on a book that examines how international organizations respond to shifts in international power, such as the one we are observing today with the rise of Asia. In a forthcoming article in the American Journal of Political Science, I show that there are important differences in how institutions adapt to these sorts of global changes, and I offer an explanation for how these differences arise. My research shows that East Asia is consistently underrepresented in many of the major international organizations that have become central to the functioning of the international system since the end of World War II. The world is changing rapidly, but the international architecture is struggling to keep up. East Asia’s position in these institutions will surely grow over time, but there is also the danger that dissatisfied countries will disengage and seek alternatives, fracturing the postwar order developed by the United States. This is one of the topics I explore in my forthcoming book.

Can you tell us about your involvement in the upcoming Summer Juku on Japanese Political Economy?

I am co-organizing the Summer Juku along with Takeo Hoshi and Kenji Kushida. The Juku was Takeo’s idea. We hope to develop it into the premier venue for exciting new research on Japanese political economy. Judging from the quality of papers submitted for the first two meetings, we are well on our way. Along with a new discussion platform we are planning, which focuses on Japanese political economy, and the Japan lunch series, which just completed its second year, the Juku really showcases the breadth and depth of Shorenstein APARC’s engagement with the study of contemporary Japan. 

Tell us something we don’t know about you.

I once learned Kyogen, traditional Japanese comic theater, from a living national treasure.

The Faculty Spotlight Q&A series highlights a different faculty member at Shorenstein APARC each month giving a personal look at his or her scholarly approaches and outlook on related topics and upcoming activities.