Institutions and Organizations
Authors
Donald K. Emmerson
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

August was a bloody month. There was barely time to mourn between the exploding bombs: first at the Marriott hotel in Jakarta on Aug. 5, at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and on a bus in Jerusalem on Aug. 19, then the two in Bombay on Monday. These were the latest sites in a chronology of carnage running from Casablanca through Riyadh and Bali to Manhattan's crumbling towers.

Each atrocity involved local actors and local motives. Each was perceived differently by the local populace, and the local repercussions of each terrorist act varied widely. Yet all were attributed to a single global menace: jihad. For three years now, acts of violence done in Allah's name have made terrorism and Islam almost synonymous, not just in Westerners' vocabularies but around the world.

From this blight, who will rescue Islam?

The nearly reflexive association of Islam and terrorism is not simply the creation of rush-to-judgment pundits and politicians. Not when the terrorists proudly proclaim religious inspiration for their acts. Both Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden have maligned Islam. But it is, above all, the jihadists who have distilled their faith to sacred hatred - of Americans, Christians, Jews and the millions upon millions of moderate or secular Muslims who disdain this perversion from within.

Muslims respond in different ways to Islamist violence. In Jakarta a few days after 11 Indonesians and a Dutchman were killed in the blast at the Marriott, I met up with two Muslim friends. They were brimming with conspiracy theories. Why, they asked, had 20 Americans reportedly canceled their reservations before the bomb went off? Could these no-shows have known in advance of the attack? Why was the severed head of the alleged perpetrator later found on the hotel's fifth floor? Had the CIA planted it there? Why were arrests made so soon? Could the U.S., or perhaps the Indonesian military, have staged the event?

Behind their questions lay an unspoken one: How could Muslims have done such a thing?

It would be convenient if my two friends despised Americans and were products of Islamist schools. But both men hold advanced degrees from top universities in the U.S. and exhibit no obvious animosity toward Americans. That two such people could give voice to such dark misgivings about U.S. intentions shows that Islam is not alone in its association with violence.

The flip side of denial is demonization. For some in the West, the enemy is not jihadists but all Islamists. Never mind that the vast majority of Muslims who promote their faith do so peacefully. The PowerPoint charts of counter-terrorism experts that ignore Muslim diversity and feature the evil genius Bin Laden reinforce a distorted, top-down view of Islam.

Al Qaeda's responsibility is all too real. But local context matters. For jihad to succeed, an outside agitator needs inside sympathizers, and their receptivity to recruitment will depend on local circumstances. Recognizing that Muslim societies are autonomous and heterogeneous is a necessary first step to realizing that Bin Laden and his version of Islam aren't absolute control.

Defenders of Islam in the West stress the fact that most of its billion-plus adherents are moderates who reject violence. Such reassurance is far preferable to demonization. But understanding is not served by exaggerations - that Islam or Muslims are always peaceful, or that jihadists entirely lack sympathy in the Muslim world. In Muslim communities, extremist and mainstream views intersect in many places, including schools, mosques and organizations. It is in these myriad local settings that Islam's connection to violence will or won't be broken.

Regrettably, reassurance sometimes lapses into denial. In Indonesia recently, several leading Muslim figures urged journalists to stop using the words "Islam" and "Muslim" in their coverage of the Marriott bombing. I've even heard Muslims object to the phrase "moderate Muslims" because it implies the existence of immoderate ones. Islam will never be rescued by language inspectors who would substitute deflection for introspection.

Can reform rescue Islam? In principle, yes, but in practice, not necessarily. There are at least a few individuals and groups in every Muslim society striving to make the practice of their faith more tolerant of difference and dissent, less restrictive toward women, more compatible with secular democracy and less preoccupied with imposing Islamic law. Liberal American observers tend to celebrate these reformers as rescuers of Islam.

Yet the sheer diversity of Muslim societies suggests that efforts to liberalize Islamic doctrine will face varying prospects of success. Before assuming that liberals and jihadists have nothing in common, one should remember that both advocate far-reaching changes that threaten the conservative views and habits of many mainstream Muslims. Reformers deserve American support. But preventing the status quo from getting worse may be a more realistic goal of such help than winning "hearts and minds" for humanism, let alone making the Muslim world look as secular and democratic as, say, Turkey.

Is America responsible for Islam's predicament? Some U.S. actions have fueled jihad. The American presence in Iraq could become a magnet for holy warriors comparable to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Muslims pressed by Washington to oppose the hijacking of Islam by jihadists may instead decry the hijacking of U.S. foreign policy by hard- liners around President Bush.

But jihadists were fighting enemies long before the United States was born. The drive to create Islamist states is more than an attempt to check American hegemony. Different U.S. policies might shrink Muslim hostility toward U.S. actions. But intransigent theocrats will not be assuaged by the compromises necessary to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Nor will either the failure or success of U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq remove the reasons for Islamist violence in other Muslim societies.

Also shaky is the notion that "they hate us for our values." The democracy Americans espouse remains popular in the Muslim world. American notions of equal treatment for women are less welcome. But a woman's opportunities vary among Muslim-majority countries, including those in Asia that preceded the U.S. in having female heads of state.

Americans are disproportionally responsible for a modern world most Muslims feel they never made. Extremists have used such alienation to justify jihad. But it is not up to Americans to rescue Islam.

Non-Muslims can avoid unnecessary provocations and false reassurances. They can facilitate liberal reform. But it is Muslims, acting in diverse local circumstances, who will or won't break the cycle of jihadist demonization and naive denial that is ruining the image of their religion. Whether to rescue their faith is a choice only they can make.

All News button
1
Paragraphs

This paper considers two questions. First, why did the Chinese government establish stock markets? Second, how have political interests shaped the key features of these markets? Based on both interviews and statistical analysis, the paper argues that China?s top Party-State leaders attempted to create stock market institutions that allow the state to maintain control over listed companies, and over ?the market? as a whole.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Authors
-

About the Talk: In Muslim-majority Indonesia and Malaysia, initial reactions to the American war in Iraq were overwhelmingly negative. Nor could support for American action be found among Muslim minorities in the Philippines, Singapore, or Thailand. But Southeast Asian Muslims were not equally or uniformly outraged. Complex and distinctive local contexts and agendas shaped Muslim anger and the responses to it. Dr. Emmerson will highlight these Southeast Asian settings and analyze the politics of anti-American backlash along a critical periphery of the Muslim world. Donald Emmerson is director of the Southeast Asia Forum at the Asia/Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. He teaches courses in international relations and comparative politics. His research interests focus on Islamism, regionalism, democratization, and US policy regarding Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Emmerson has testified before Congress in 1998, 1999, and 2001 on East Timor, Indonesia, and Southeast Asian topics. He assisted the Carter Center in monitoring Indonesia's national election and the UN vote on autonomy in East Timor. Members of the World Affairs Council: $5.00 Non-members: $8.00 Students with ID: Free To make a reservation, please contact the World Affairs Council at 415-293-4600. Cosponsored by the Asia/Pacific Research Center and Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation at Stanford University and the World Affairs Council of Northern California.

Stanford Law School, Alvarado and Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford University

0
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Affiliated Faculty, CDDRL
Affiliated Scholar, Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies
aparc_dke.jpg PhD

At Stanford, in addition to his work for the Southeast Asia Program and his affiliations with CDDRL and the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, Donald Emmerson has taught courses on Southeast Asia in East Asian Studies, International Policy Studies, and Political Science. He is active as an analyst of current policy issues involving Asia. In 2010 the National Bureau of Asian Research and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars awarded him a two-year Research Associateship given to “top scholars from across the United States” who “have successfully bridged the gap between the academy and policy.”

Emmerson’s research interests include Southeast Asia-China-US relations, the South China Sea, and the future of ASEAN. His publications, authored or edited, span more than a dozen books and monographs and some 200 articles, chapters, and shorter pieces.  Recent writings include The Deer and the Dragon: Southeast Asia and China in the 21st Century (ed., 2020); “‘No Sole Control’ in the South China Sea,” in Asia Policy  (2019); ASEAN @ 50, Southeast Asia @ Risk: What Should Be Done? (ed., 2018); “Singapore and Goliath?,” in Journal of Democracy (2018); “Mapping ASEAN’s Futures,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia (2017); and “ASEAN Between China and America: Is It Time to Try Horsing the Cow?,” in Trans-Regional and –National Studies of Southeast Asia (2017).

Earlier work includes “Sunnylands or Rancho Mirage? ASEAN and the South China Sea,” in YaleGlobal (2016); “The Spectrum of Comparisons: A Discussion,” in Pacific Affairs (2014); “Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia” in Indonesian Studies: The State of the Field (2013); “Is Indonesia Rising? It Depends” in Indonesia Rising (2012); “Southeast Asia: Minding the Gap between Democracy and Governance,” in Journal of Democracy (April 2012); “The Problem and Promise of Focality in World Affairs,” in Strategic Review (August 2011); An American Place at an Asian Table? Regionalism and Its Reasons (2011); Asian Regionalism and US Policy: The Case for Creative Adaptation (2010); “The Useful Diversity of ‘Islamism’” and “Islamism: Pros, Cons, and Contexts” in Islamism: Conflicting Perspectives on Political Islam (2009); “Crisis and Consensus: America and ASEAN in a New Global Context” in Refreshing U.S.-Thai Relations (2009); and Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (edited, 2008).

Prior to moving to Stanford in 1999, Emmerson was a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he won a campus-wide teaching award. That same year he helped monitor voting in Indonesia and East Timor for the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center. In the course of his career, he has taken part in numerous policy-related working groups focused on topics related to Southeast Asia; has testified before House and Senate committees on Asian affairs; and been a regular at gatherings such as the Asia Pacific Roundtable (Kuala Lumpur), the Bali Democracy Forum (Nusa Dua), and the Shangri-La Dialogue (Singapore). Places where he has held various visiting fellowships, including the Institute for Advanced Study and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 



Emmerson has a Ph.D. in political science from Yale and a BA in international affairs from Princeton. He is fluent in Indonesian, was fluent in French, and has lectured and written in both languages. He has lesser competence in Dutch, Javanese, and Russian. A former slam poet in English, he enjoys the spoken word and reads occasionally under a nom de plume with the Not Yet Dead Poets Society in Redwood City, CA. He and his wife Carolyn met in high school in Lebanon. They have two children. He was born in Tokyo, the son of U.S. Foreign Service Officer John K. Emmerson, who wrote the Japanese Thread among other books.

Selected Multimedia

Date Label
Donald K Emmerson Professor Speaker
-

5:30 pm registration 6:00 pm program followed by reception Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Founders' Room, 5th Floor, San Francisco $12 Members of the Asia Society $15 Non-members $8 Student with ID Please contact that Asia Society to register for this event. They can be reached at 415-421-8707. Experts on Indonesia's political, social, and economic climate will share their insights on the challenges and opportunities ahead for the world's fourth most populous country. Organized in conjunction with the upcoming release of Asia Society's Asian Update on decentralization in Indonesia, this panel will assess some of the key issues facing the largest Muslim society in the world. With presidential elections scheduled for April 2004, what progress has been made toward political reforms and increased accountability in Indonesia? As regional conflicts in Aceh and Papua continue to simmer and expanded military authority is being debated, how will Indonesia balance its needs for effective central authority and greater regional autonomy? Will transferring power and resources downward merely decentralize corruption? How will Indonesia's economy fare in the face of the war in Iraq, sagging American and global markets, and the prospect of higher energy prices? How have the AmericanÑled wars against terrorism and the Iraqi regime affected Indonesia's domestic politics and relations with the United States? Please join us for a timely and informative briefing on political, economic, and social developments in Indonesia today.

Public Policy Institute of California, 500 Washington Street, Founders' Room, 5th floor, San Francisco, CA

0
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Affiliated Faculty, CDDRL
Affiliated Scholar, Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies
aparc_dke.jpg PhD

At Stanford, in addition to his work for the Southeast Asia Program and his affiliations with CDDRL and the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, Donald Emmerson has taught courses on Southeast Asia in East Asian Studies, International Policy Studies, and Political Science. He is active as an analyst of current policy issues involving Asia. In 2010 the National Bureau of Asian Research and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars awarded him a two-year Research Associateship given to “top scholars from across the United States” who “have successfully bridged the gap between the academy and policy.”

Emmerson’s research interests include Southeast Asia-China-US relations, the South China Sea, and the future of ASEAN. His publications, authored or edited, span more than a dozen books and monographs and some 200 articles, chapters, and shorter pieces.  Recent writings include The Deer and the Dragon: Southeast Asia and China in the 21st Century (ed., 2020); “‘No Sole Control’ in the South China Sea,” in Asia Policy  (2019); ASEAN @ 50, Southeast Asia @ Risk: What Should Be Done? (ed., 2018); “Singapore and Goliath?,” in Journal of Democracy (2018); “Mapping ASEAN’s Futures,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia (2017); and “ASEAN Between China and America: Is It Time to Try Horsing the Cow?,” in Trans-Regional and –National Studies of Southeast Asia (2017).

Earlier work includes “Sunnylands or Rancho Mirage? ASEAN and the South China Sea,” in YaleGlobal (2016); “The Spectrum of Comparisons: A Discussion,” in Pacific Affairs (2014); “Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia” in Indonesian Studies: The State of the Field (2013); “Is Indonesia Rising? It Depends” in Indonesia Rising (2012); “Southeast Asia: Minding the Gap between Democracy and Governance,” in Journal of Democracy (April 2012); “The Problem and Promise of Focality in World Affairs,” in Strategic Review (August 2011); An American Place at an Asian Table? Regionalism and Its Reasons (2011); Asian Regionalism and US Policy: The Case for Creative Adaptation (2010); “The Useful Diversity of ‘Islamism’” and “Islamism: Pros, Cons, and Contexts” in Islamism: Conflicting Perspectives on Political Islam (2009); “Crisis and Consensus: America and ASEAN in a New Global Context” in Refreshing U.S.-Thai Relations (2009); and Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (edited, 2008).

Prior to moving to Stanford in 1999, Emmerson was a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he won a campus-wide teaching award. That same year he helped monitor voting in Indonesia and East Timor for the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center. In the course of his career, he has taken part in numerous policy-related working groups focused on topics related to Southeast Asia; has testified before House and Senate committees on Asian affairs; and been a regular at gatherings such as the Asia Pacific Roundtable (Kuala Lumpur), the Bali Democracy Forum (Nusa Dua), and the Shangri-La Dialogue (Singapore). Places where he has held various visiting fellowships, including the Institute for Advanced Study and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 



Emmerson has a Ph.D. in political science from Yale and a BA in international affairs from Princeton. He is fluent in Indonesian, was fluent in French, and has lectured and written in both languages. He has lesser competence in Dutch, Javanese, and Russian. A former slam poet in English, he enjoys the spoken word and reads occasionally under a nom de plume with the Not Yet Dead Poets Society in Redwood City, CA. He and his wife Carolyn met in high school in Lebanon. They have two children. He was born in Tokyo, the son of U.S. Foreign Service Officer John K. Emmerson, who wrote the Japanese Thread among other books.

Selected Multimedia

Date Label
Donald K Emmerson Professor Speaker
Yuli Ismartono Executive Editor Speaker TEMPO Magazine, Jakarta, Indonesia
Nancy Peluso Professor of Environmental Social Science Speaker Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley
Harry Bhaskara Managing Editor Moderator Jakarta Post
Paragraphs

Does the World Trade Organization promote democracy? A large part of the heated and pro-tracted debate over China?s application for WTO membership revolved around this question. Prior to China?s WTO accession in December 2001, this debate had dragged on for nearly fifteen years. While one side argued that WTO membership would promote democratization in China, others argued that the wealth generated through economic integration would provide the resources to maintain authoritarian rule. Only time will tell whether WTO accession will contribute to pressures for democratization in China. In the meantime, however, this paper examines the empirical basis for these competing claims about the effects of GATT/WTO memberships on domestic political systems. Based on statistical analysis of a global data set, this paper concludes that members of the international trade regime are more likely than nonmembers to be democracies. However, there is little evidence that WTO membership in itself can promote democratic transition. Instead, it appears to be the case that democratic countries are more likely to seek to join the WTO.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Authors
Paragraphs

Does the World Trade Organization promote democracy? A large part of the heated and pro-tracted debate over China's application for WTO membership revolved around this question. Prior to China's WTO accession in December 2001, this debate had dragged on for nearly fifteen years. While one side argued that WTO membership would promote democratization in China, others argued that the wealth generated through economic integration would provide the resources to maintain authoritarian rule. Only time will tell whether WTO accession will contribute to pressures for democratization in China. In the meantime, however, this paper examines the empirical basis for these competing claims about the effects of GATT/WTO memberships on domestic political systems. Based on statistical analysis of a global data set, this paper concludes that members of the international trade regime are more likely than nonmembers to be democracies. However, there is little evidence that WTO membership in itself can promote democratic transition. Instead, it appears to be the case that democratic countries are more likely to seek to join the WTO.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Authors
Paragraphs

Command economies gave Communist-era elites administrative control and material privilege but severely restricted money income and private wealth. Markets and privatization inject new value into public assets and create unprecedented opportunities for elite insiders. These opportunities depend on the extent of regime change and barriers to asset appropriation. Regime change varies from the survival of the entire party hierarchy to its rapid collapse and defeat in competitive elections. Barriers to asset appropriation vary with the extent, pace, and form of privatization, and the concentration and liquidity of assets. Different combinations of such circumstances jointly affect the extent to which elites obtain ownership of control of privatized assets, use political office to extract larger incomes, move into salaried elite occupations, or fall out of the elite altogether. Regime change and barriers to asset appropriation affect change at the national level, but outcomes vary across economic sectors because of characteristics of organizations, elite positions, and assets. This elementary theory serves to integrate varied findings from recent research on Central Europe, China, and Russia, and yields predictions for other regions.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
American Sociological Review
Authors
Andrew G. Walder
Paragraphs

North Korea's renewed bid for nuclear weapons poses an urgent, serious foreign policy challenge to the United States. The current situation -- though it bears a resemblance to the events of 1993-1994 -- is far more dangerous and difficult. North Korea has developed longer-range ballistic missiles; South Korea's growing nationalism has put its U.S. relations on shakier ground; and the United States is distracted by the wars on terrorism and for regime change in Iraq.

Despite these challenges, good prospects still exist for a diplomatic resolution to the North Korea problem. North Korea's dire economic circumstances have made it more vulnerable to outside pressure at a time when its neighbor nations and the United States are increasingly concerned about its nuclear ambition. Military means would not only exact huge human casualties but also deepen U.S. estrangement from Seoul and diminish prospects for developing a joint strategy with other Asian powers.

Given the urgency and complexity of the current situation, appointment of a special coordinator for North Korean policy could help the administration to formulate a unified policy, sell it to Congress, coordinate it with allies, and present it to Pyongyang. In any event, a key requirement will be real "give and take" negotiations with South Korea to arrive at a coordinated strategy.

In the end, Pyongyang must choose: economic assistance and security assurance on the condition that all nuclear activities be abandoned, or dire consequences if nuclear programs continue. Any new agreement, however, must avoid the deficiencies of the 1994 Agreed Framework. It must be more verifiable, less readily reversible, more comprehensive, more politically defensible, and more enforceable through the involvement of North Korea's neighbors.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Authors
Michael H. Armacost
Daniel I. Okimoto
Gi-Wook Shin
-

Seeking to tap the huge potential of Greater China, many in Asia seek to replicate the Silicon Valley model. Yet, as much art as it is science, successful VC investing has proven to be uneven in Asia. Why? With respect to innovation, why is it that Asians have good reputations for replicating but not creating cutting edge technology? Is there a disconnect when this is compared to the experiences of U.S. high-tech icons, such as Intel and Apple, filled with Asian-born -- and in many cases educated -- scientists and businessmen? How does the Silicon Valley experience track with Singapore's determined efforts to promote creativity? What lessons, if any, are applicable to Greater China? With respect to entrepreneurship in Greater China, it is clear that Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Mainland are full of hard-driving individuals seeking to build wealth and prosperity. However, in some ways, is there perhaps an overabundance of entrepreneurship? Are there too many in this part of the world who want to be in charge and too few to follow and implement? How can a more productive form of entrepreneurship be fostered?

About the speaker
Dr. Ta-lin Hsu is chairman and founder of H&Q Asia Pacific (H&QAP), a premier private equity firm investing in Asia and the U.S. since 1985. Through ten offices in the region, H&QAP invests in a variety of high-growth sectors, including technology, biotech, financial services, media and branded consumer products. H&QAP manages sixteen funds with approximately $1.6 billion in assets invested in over 250 portfolio companies. Three of these funds comprise $1.1 billion in assets and invest on a diversified basis across the Asia Pacific region while the remaining thirteen funds are country funds.

Dr. Hsu holds numerous advisory positions with governmental and industry organizations. He was a founding member of the prestigious Technology Review Board of Taiwan, a group established to advise the Executive Yuan on all technology matters. Dr. Hsu was also a founder of the Monte Jade Science & Technology organization, the premier nonprofit organization promoting technology exchange between Taiwan and the U.S. He was also a founder and first president of the Bay Area Chapter of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, the largest Chinese-American engineering society in the U.S.

Dr. Hsu received his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of California, Berkeley following a M.S. in electrophysics from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn and a B.S. in physics from National Taiwan University. He was a staff scientist at Allied Chemical for two years before joining IBM Research Laboratories in 1973. Dr. Hsu worked at IBM for twelve years, reaching the position of senior manager in the research division -- with corporate responsibility for advanced research and development of mass storage systems and technology -- before joining Hambrecht & Quist as a general partner in 1985.

Dr. Hsu is an Advisory Board Member of the the University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Asia Foundation.

Philippines Conference Room

Dr. Ta-Lin Hsu Chairman and Founder Hambrecht & Quist Asia Pacific
Seminars
Subscribe to Institutions and Organizations