Dr. Lee currently holds the Edward G. and Nancy S. Jordan Endowed Chair in Economics and is a professor in the Department of Demography at University of California - Berkeley (Berkeley). He has taught courses in economic demography, population theory, population and economic development, demographic forecasting, population aging, indirect estimation, and research design, as well as a number of pro-seminars.

Professor Lee is also the director of the Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging at Berkeley, funded by the National Institute of Aging. His current research includes including modeling and forecasting demographic time series, the evolutionary theory of life histories, population aging, Social Security, and intergenerational transfers.

He has received several honors, including Presidency of the Population Association of America, the Mindel C. Sheps Award for research in mathematical demography, the PAA Irene B. Taeuber Award for outstanding contributions in the field of demography. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a Corresponding member of the British Academy. He has chaired the population and social science study section for NIH and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Population, and served on the National Advisory Committee on Aging (NIA Council).

Professor Lee holds an MA in demography from the University of California, Berkeley, and a PhD in economics from Harvard University.

This talk will examine the patterns and characteristics of the "politics of protest" by civil society actors in South Korea after its democratic transition in 1987. Kim will utilize a recently compiled dataset called Protest Event Database Archive Korea (PEDAK) to analyze main features of protest politics in the post-transitional period and highlight continuities and changes in social protest. The persistence of popular protest has important implications for the future of South Korean democracy.

Sunhyuk Kim is Chair of the Department of Public Administration at Korea University, Seoul, Korea. He was Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and the School of International Relations at the University of Southern California, Visiting Professor at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University, and Research Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. He is the author of The Politics of Democratization in Korea (2000), Economic Crisis and Dual Transition in Korea (2004), and numerous articles on South Korean politics and foreign policy. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University.

As its miracle growth continues seemingly unabated into a fourth decade, China's emergence as a global economic and political power is accepted as inevitable. China is changing and the world is changing in response.

There is, however, considerable disagreement about the nature of China's transformation and the consequences of its growth, with some predicting an inevitable crisis in China's political and economic systems. Yet social scientists gathering fresh data at China's grassroots see growing evidence of a profound transformation of institutions in both rural and urban China. The panelists will discuss and answer questions on the tensions and opportunities found in contemporary China, including: markets, governance, environment, and, inequities.

Cosponsored with the Center for East Asian Studies

Melanie Manion - Professor of Public Affairs and Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Professor Manion studied philosophy and political economy at Peking University in the late 1970s, was trained in Far Eastern studies at McGill University and the University of London, and earned her doctorate in political science at the University of Michigan. Her research has focused on institutions and institutionalization in Chinese politics. Her current research focuses on representation, especially the changing role of local congresses in mainland China.

Leonard Ortolano - UPS Foundation Professor of Civil Engineering in Urban and Regional Planning, Stanford University

Professor Ortolano's research stresses environmental policy implementation in developing countries, technology transfer, and the role of non-governmental organizations in environmental management. Several current projects concern air and water pollution control regulations in China.

Scott Rozelle - FSI Helen F. Farnsworth Senior Fellow, Shorenstein APARC, Stanford University

Before arriving at Stanford, Dr. Rozelle was a professor at the University of California, Davis (1998-2000) and an assistant professor in the Food Research Institute and Department of Economics at Stanford University (1990-98). His research focuses almost exclusively on China and is concerned with agricultural policy, the emergence and evolution of markets, and the economics of poverty and inequality.

Moderated by Andrew Walder - Director-Emeritus, Shorenstein APARC; FSI Senior Fellow and the Denise O'Leary and Kent Thiry Professor of Sociology, Stanford University

Professor Walder is an expert on the sources of conflict, stability and change in communist regimes, and his current research focuses on the impact of China's market reforms on income inequality and career opportunity. He is also conducting historical research on the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1969, with an emphasis on the Beijing Red Guard movement during 1966 and 1967.

Burma (Myanmar) has been under military rule since 1962. It is the least free country in Southeast Asia by the latest Freedom House ranking of political rights and civil liberties. The current junta's leader, Senior General Than Shwe, has made Daw Aung San Suu Kyi arguably the best known political prisoner in the world. In August-September 2007, following steep hikes in fuel prices, scores of protesters marched in silence and were dispersed or arrested. The protests spread beyond the capital and included at least one by Buddhist monks--a significant development in a largely Buddhist country. Meanwhile, delegates to a national convention convened by the regime completed guidelines for a future constitution. This step on a supposed road map to democracy was criticized by some observers as a ploy to institutionalize army control. Others treated the guidelines less skeptically on the grounds that even regime-favoring rules might be used to nudge the country toward reform, and were thus better than no rules at all.

How should outsiders respond to these conditions? With policies of isolation? Or of engagement? Which of the two logics is more powerful: that isolation will deprive the junta of needed support and thus help spark democratization? Or that engagement will expose the country to liberalization and thus incrementally undermine the regime? Is there a mixed logic worth implementing between these extremes? Or have the mounting protests inside Burma opened a crucial window of opportunity that replaces these alternatives with a radical new logic of carpe diem:that outsiders should actively intervene in support of the opposition and in favor of regime change now? Not to mention the junta's own rationale for retaining power: that military rule is preferable to any alternative.

Maureen Aung-Thwin, while working on Burma at the Open Society Institute (founded by financier/philanthropist George Soros), is an active member of the Asia Committee of Human Rights Watch. She is a trustee of the Burma Studies Foundation, which oversees the Center for Burma Studies at Northern Illinois University. She received a BA from Northwestern University and did graduate work at NYU.

Zarni, while researching democratic transition at Oxford, has been active in "Track II" negotiations with the Burmese junta. In 1995 he founded the Free Burma Coalition, which favored sanctions. Later his position evolved toward engagement. He edited Active Citizens under Political Wraps: Experiences from Myanmar/Burma and Vietnam (2006). He received a PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Co-sponsored with the Asia Society Northern California and the Center for Southeast Asia Studies at UC-Berkeley.

Vietnam has become the newest "Asian tiger." The US played a leading role in negotiating Vietnam's January 2007 entry into the World Trade Organization and the 2001 US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement. Requirements in these treaties have accelerated the pace of economic and legal policy reforms in Vietnam. Combined with other initiatives, the reforms are giving rise to the domestic institutions, economic policies, governing procedures, and rule of law needed to grow a market economy, facilitate the fledgling private sector, and rationalize the state sector. US foreign assistance has been intensively involved in this effort. The effects of these changes have been felt in faster growth, increased trade, more foreign and domestic investment, and continued poverty alleviation. Within this context, the seminar can address an especially difficult and complex question: How might these reforms, and the changes they have foster, affect the political development of the country?

Steve Parker recently returned from nearly six years in Vietnam, where he served as the project manager for the STAR-Vietnam Project--the first major USAID-funded technical assistance program in post-war Vietnam. In that context he worked with the prime minister's office in Hanoi to help more than forty government agencies make the changes needed for Vietnam to implement the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) and accede to the World Trade Organization. His latest writing is a "Report on the 5-Year Impact of the BTA on Vietnam's Trade, Investment and Economic Structure." Previously he worked as an economic specialist for the US government and the Asia Foundation, and was posted to Vietnam, Indonesia, and Japan with USAID, the Asian Development Bank, and the Harvard Institute for International Development.

Co-sponsored with the Stanford Center for International Development.

In recent years the largest Muslim-majority country, Indonesia, has seen the growth of contrary trends: a peaceful movement for democracy led and supported mostly by Muslims but also incidents of terrorism and signs of paramilitarism linked mainly to radical Islamists. Prof. Hefner will examine the role of Indonesia's Islamic madrasas in both cases, assess the likely future of Indonesian Muslim politics, and explore the implications of Indonesia's experience for the wider Muslim world.

Robert W. Hefner has directed the program on Islam and civil society at Boston University since 1991. He has conducted research on religion and politics in Southeast Asia for over three decades, and has authored or edited a dozen books and several major policy reports. His most recent books include, Schooling Islam: The Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education (edited with Muhammad Qasim Zaman, Princeton University Press, 2007); ed., Remaking Muslim Politics: Pluralism, Contestation, Democratization (Princeton, 2005); and Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia (Princeton, 2000). He is the invited editor of the sixth volume of the forthcoming New Cambridge History of Islam, Muslims and Modernity: Society and Culture since 1800, and is now writing a book for the Carnegie Corporation on Islamic education and democratization in Indonesia.

Nuclear weapons play a modest but significant role in the national security strategies of key states in the Asian security region. Relevant in a small number of situations and augmenting conventional forces, their role is frequently indirect. The primary role of nuclear weapons is basic or central deterrence.

Despite ongoing efforts, the offense and defense roles of nuclear weapons continue to be limited. Contemporary conceptions and practices of deterrence, however, span a wide spectrum and differ substantially from that of the Cold War. Absence of severe confrontations, multiple threats of unequal urgency, and the relatively small size of Asian nuclear forces have made general deterrence (as opposed to immediate deterrence) the norm. Extended deterrence continues to be relevant, but is largely psychological and symbolic to assure allies and prevent them from pursuing independent nuclear options.

Nuclear weapons have not fundamentally altered the strategic picture in Asia. They have had a limited impact on the distribution of power, lines of amity and enmity, alliances, and conflict resolution. Although there could be some destabilizing consequences, on net nuclear weapons have contributed to security and stability in Asia that is underpinned by several pillars.

Muthiah Alagappa is a distinguished senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. He has held several appointments at the East-West Center including director of the East-West Center Washington (2001-2007) and director of studies (1999-2001). He has been a visiting professor at Columbia University, Stanford University, Keio University, and the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia; and adjunct faculty at George Washington University, University of Malaya, and National University of Malaysia.

Dr. Alagappa is the series editor for the Asian Security book series published by Stanford University Press and is on the editorial board of several journals. His research interests include international politics and security in Asia and the Pacific and comparative politics of Asia. He has a Ph.D. in international affairs from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

His recent publications include Civil Society and Political Change in Asia: Expanding and Contracting Democratic Space, author and ed., Stanford University Press, 2004, Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, Stanford University Press 2002, and Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia, Stanford University Press 2001. He is currently editing a book on nuclear weapons and security in twenty-first century Asia.