Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room
CISAC has endowed its first William J. Perry International Security Fellowship with $1 million in private donations. The fellowship is one of several visiting positions for pre- and postdoctoral researchers that CISAC plans to establish in honor of Perry, the 19th U.S. secretary of defense and former CISAC co-director.
The center announced the first fellowship endowment at a dinner Oct. 17 to celebrate William J. Perry's 80th birthday.
"We live in an era of increased opportunity and peril. Issues of international security have grown in scope and complexity," said Stanford University president John L. Hennessy, who attended the dinner. "The Perry fellowship program will provide a vital training ground for tomorrow's leaders, giving them the opportunity to work across disciplines and develop solutions to these difficult challenges."
Perry fellows will reside at CISAC for a year of policy-relevant research on international security issues. They will join other distinguished scientists, social scientists, and engineers who work together on security problems that cannot be solved within any single field of study. CISAC researchers address overlapping issues in nuclear weapons policy, proliferation, and regional tensions; biosecurity; homeland security; and effective global engagement.
"The fellowships are a fitting tribute to a scholar and leader whose many years of service continue to provide a more secure future for all of us," said CISAC co-director Siegfried S. Hecker.
"Bill Perry guided CISAC and its science program during a formative period, as its second science co-director," said Scott D. Sagan, CISAC co-director. "The center continues to benefit immeasurably from the early leadership he provided as well as from his ongoing contributions in teaching, research, and policy advising."
Perry's career offers a model of sound policy informed by rigorous scholarship. With bachelor's and master's degrees in mathematics from Stanford and a PhD from Penn State, he became a leader in the electronics industry and a frequent advisor to the U.S. government on national security technologies. He served as U.S. undersecretary of defense for research and engineering in 1977 and returned to industry in 1981. Perry served as co-director of CISAC from 1988 until 1993, when he was called back to Washington to be secretary of defense.
In awarding Perry the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1997, former President Bill Clinton said, "When the history of our time is written, Bill Perry may well be recorded as the most productive, effective secretary of defense the United States ever had."
Perry returned to Stanford, where he continues to teach and mentor students who will carry on his tradition of leadership. At CISAC he co-directs the Preventive Defense Project, a research collaboration between Stanford and Harvard universities.
Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (speaker), with a PhD in political science from Stanford as well as a law degree from Yale, focuses his scholarship on how organizations cope with the legal responsibility for managing complex criminal justice, regulatory, and international security problems. He has published the leading academic paper on the operation of federal money laundering laws, and one of the most exhaustive empirical case studies of public participation in regulatory rulemaking proceedings. Recent projects address the role of criminal enforcement in managing transnational threats, the physical safety of refugee communities in the developing world, legislative and budgetary dynamics affecting the federal Department of Homeland Security, and the impact of bureaucratic structure on how institutions implement legal mandates. Professor Cuéllar is an affiliated faculty member at the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation, and a member of the Executive Committee for the Stanford International Initiative. Before joining the Stanford Law School faculty in 2001, he served as senior advisor to the U.S. Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Enforcement and clerked for Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
David M. Kennedy (discussant) is the Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History at Stanford University and winner of the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for his book, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War. Reflecting his interdisciplinary training in American Studies, which combined the fields of history, literature, and economics, Kennedy's scholarship is notable for its integration of economic and cultural analysis with social and political history. His 1970 book, Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger, embraced the medical, legal, political, and religious dimensions of the subject and helped to pioneer the emerging field of women's history. One of his later books, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (1980), used the history of American involvement in World War I to analyze the American political system, economy, and culture in the early twentieth century. He is a graduate of Stanford University (BA, history) and Yale University (MA, PhD, American studies).
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room
In recent decades the Middle East's strategic architecture has changed significantly with the rise in the regional influence of the non-Arab states of the Middle East: Iran, Turkey and Israel and the considerably reduced influence of the key Arab states, that used to be the prime movers in the Arab world: Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Secular nationalism is in apparent retreat as free elections in Turkey and the Palestinian Authority seem to indicate. What does this all mean for the Arab-Israeli peace process, and especially for the arrival at a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians? What does this mean for the chances of success of greater US and European involvement?
Synopsis
To Prof. Susser, the Middle East is dealing with a variety of key issues. He explains that the fallout of Iraq has led to widespread anxiety that the Middle East could shatter into a chaos of sectarian violence, beginning with a breakdown in Iraq. In addition, Prof. Susser notes the social economic decline in the Middle East which has caused emigration and, most importantly, a changing power dynamic in the region. Citing Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia as previous regional superpowers, he believes that the current major players are Iran, Turkey, and Israel, all of which are non-Arab. Prof. Susser argues this power shift was accelerated by the fall of the USSR, as well as the presence of the US. He focuses particularly on the role of Iran, a country he feels is trying to establish a “crescent of influence.” Prof. Susser believes the Israel-Hezbollah war was the start of a new era of conflicts between Israel and Iran as they battle over the regional architecture that will shape the future of the Middle East. He argues that Lebanon is therefore a key battleground in the conflict.
Prof. Susser feels this conflict is a struggle against Iran and Shiite influence. One can notice the shift in dynamic in the region through the fact that other Arab states are now on the same side as Israel, whereas before no Arab state would side with the Israelis. Prof. Susser believes this is partly because there is a shifting power balance from Sunnis to Shiites in the Middle East, a radical change that goes against the traditional order of the region.
Prof. Susser moves on to focus to another potential radical change, a two state solution between Israel and Palestine as set out by the Annapolis conference in November 2007. He argues that it is most unlikely that the US will actually get the two sides to sign a final agreement resolving the conflict in the near future. At the same time, Prof. Susser reveals his belief that it is imperative that negotiations do not shoot to high. This “courts failure” and leads to disaster. In fact, Prof. Susser argues for “courting success.” He explains that this must be achieved through realistic goals such as a secure ceasefire, and that the Palestinians may be less reluctant in agreeing to interim solutions. Finally, Prof. Susser emphasizes that if an interim approach is unsuccessful and a permanent solution is not agreed upon, then Israel must not ignore the unattractive but perhaps necessary option of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Prof. Susser argues that although this may seem like a failure, the status quo works better for Arabs such as Hamas who seek to delegitimize Israel.
About the speaker
Professor Asher Susser, Director for External Affairs of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at TAU. Professor Susser holds a PhD in Modern Middle Eastern History at Tel Aviv University and he taught for over twenty-five years in the University's Department of Middle Eastern History and is presently a visiting Professor at Brandeis University. He has been a Fulbright Fellow, a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago and Brandeis University and a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In 2006 Professor Susser was selected as TAU's Faculty of Humanities Outstanding Lecturer. In 1994 Professor Susser was the only Israeli academic to accompany Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to his historic meeting with King Hussein of Jordan for the signing of the Washington Declaration.
Presented by the Forum on Contemporary Europe.
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
The President of the Basque Autonomous Community will discuss his "Road Map to bring an end to the Basque Conflict," including his offer of a political agreement already made to Madrid, based on a rejection of violence and an embrace of democratic principles and a Basque society plebiscite.
Synopsis
In a visit marked by controversy and protesting, President Ibarretxe clearly delivers his view on how the Basque country can establish sustainable human development. President Ibarretxe quickly stresses, however, that two challenges stand in the way of this goal. The first is securing peace from the violence of ETA, and the second is attaining political normalization through agreement with Spain. Citing dialogue as key, he explains that this conflict, lasting since the 19th century, must be resolved through political and democratic means based on the principle of self-determination. President Ibarretxe sets out the history of the Basque people, possibly the oldest in Europe, while revealing its openness to universal art and culture, as well as the Basque region’s top level social welfare. The Basque country, which has been ranked third in the UN’s Human Development Index, places emphasis on identity and innovation in striving forward. President Ibarretxe explains that 30 years after the 1979 Basque statute of autonomy, a clear majority demand a new framework for relations with Spain.
Therefore, President Ibarretxe reveals the “roadmap” he has formulated for the Basque country to achieve political normalization, as he puts it. His approach begins with four preliminary considerations. The first consideration is that the problems of the violence of ETA should not be confused with the political conflict between the Basque government and Spain. Secondly, President Ibarretxe argues that a key prerequisite to any solution is that the violence of ETA ceases immediately regardless of the state of the political conflict. Thirdly, stressing the importance of a necessary maxim to be used as a point of reference in the struggle for justice, President Ibarretxe emphasizes the defense of human rights without exception as fundamental to success. The fourth consideration that President Ibarretxe puts forward is that the right to self-determination is central to adopting a solution.
However, President Ibarretxe’s “roadmap” also offers concrete action through five specific steps. The five-step process begins with an offer of a political agreement based on ethics and democracy to Spain, something which President Ibarretxe has already extended to the Spanish government. Subsequently, President Ibarretxe offers a plenary session of the Basque parliament to either ratify any agreement reached with the Spanish government and call for a popular vote for Basque society to ratify the agreement as well or call for a popular vote to break a deadlock in the negotiation process. After the popular vote, President Ibarretxe reveals further negotiations will follow to end the violence of ETA and establish a new framework for Basque political parties to work under. Finally, President Ibarretxe offers a referendum in 2010 for the Basque people to vote on the result of this process. In concluding his talk, President Ibarretxe calls for any steps forward to be centered around “dialogue, democratic respect, and the liberty to decide.”
President Ibarretxe kindly takes the time to answer numerous questions on a variety of challenging issues. This question-and-answer session, where the questions are asked in English and President Ibarretxe replies in Spanish, is included in the recording. Unfortunately however, the translation of President Ibarretxe's responses cannot really be heard.
Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center
For most of the postwar period, Japan has been a paragon of political stability among industrial democracies. Since the formation of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in 1955, Japan has enjoyed remarkable political continuity. With the exception of less than a year of opposition government in the early 1990s, the LDP has ruled Japan for more than half a century.
This past summer, following the July elections for the Upper House of Japan's parliament (the Diet), Japan entered a new era of political uncertainty. The opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won control of the Upper House in a stunning defeat for the LDP. For the first time, control of the Diet is split--the ruling coalition of the LDP and the Komeito Party still control the lower house that determines the formation of the government. Passage of basic legislation now gives rise to intense political battles. There is widespread anticipation that the LDP will be forced to carry out early elections for the lower house next spring, opening the door to the possibility that the opposition could come to power in Japan.
The election results surprised many observers, who were blinded by the LDP's massive victory in the 2005 lower house elections, under the leadership of then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Koizumi had called a snap election around the issue of reforming the postal savings system, but that success was an aberration from a long-term trend of declining support for the LDP that grew during the 1990s. Increasingly, Japanese saw the party as a hostage to special interests and their allies in the bureaucracy who have used the budget to fund wasteful pork barrel projects--Japan's own "bridges to nowhere"--particularly in rural areas. Younger urban and suburban voters who favor deregulation and reform had come to see the LDP as an obstacle to needed change.
Koizumi, who came to power as prime minister in 2001, single-handedly reversed this downward trend of support. He developed a strong personal following, an appeal that came in large part from positioning himself as a maverick reformer who ran against his own party and against the opposition in equal measure. His five years in office were a testament to his charisma and ability to rise above the system that brought him to power.
Unfortunately for the LDP, this appeal does not seem to extend beyond Koizumi. After leaving office in 2006, he was replaced by Shinzo Abe, an LDP conservative who typified the party's long history of rule, in that he is the grandson of a former prime minister and the son of a former cabinet minister. Abe's policy agenda largely ignored the concerns of Japanese voters about the failing social welfare system and the impact of global competition, and instead favored conservative themes such as "patriotic" education and the revision of the postwar American-imposed constitution.
Voters decisively repudiated Abe, his agenda, and his party in the Upper House vote. The opposition DPJ, led by the wily former LDP leader Ichiro Ozawa, emphasized economic reform, as well as relief for those in rural and urban Japan who are falling behind. The DPJ's election manifesto focused on pension reforms--bolstered by a scandal of tens of millions of lost pension records--price supports for farmers, subsidies for families with children, and a crackdown on wasteful government spending.
The election result triggered Abe's resignation and in September 2007, he was replaced by his LDP rival Yasuo Fukuda. The new premier has managed, temporarily, to halt the massive slide in the government's support. Ozawa's mistakes have helped in this task. The DPJ, mainly for reasons of the legislative calendar, chose a foreign and security policy issue--the reauthorization of Japan's naval mission in the Indian Ocean in support of the U.S.-led "war on terrorism"--as the first test of strength. The DPJ has opposed this mission, arguing that Japan should not deploy forces overseas except in support of United Nations authorized operations.
This water was further muddied when Ozawa emerged from a series of meetings with Fukuda to announce his support for a deal on the maritime mission, tied to the formation of a "grand coalition" to govern Japan. The coalition proposal was reportedly offered by Fukuda and seemed to acknowledge the LDP's weakness. Ozawa's willingness to embrace this deal puzzled most observers and his own party repudiated him. Over the span of a few days, Ozawa resigned his party leadership and then agreed to come back to the post after issuing a public apology for his actions. Polls show that Ozawa suffered a significant loss of support from a public that is increasingly eager for change. But Fukuda is also very vulnerable. Among other things, the LDP is now stung with a growing scandal over questionable deals with defense contractors.
The Japanese Diet and political scene are now poised for months of battles over a range of policy issues, most of them related to domestic policy and the budget, rather than foreign policy. The DPJ, with a chastened Ozawa back at the helm, is apparently ready to use its control of the Upper House to challenge the ruling party coalition. Political uncertainty is now likely to be a dominant feature of Japanese life for months, if not years, to come.
Professor Brown's fields of interest include the history of political theory, nineteenth and twentieth century Continental theory, critical theory, and cultural theory (including feminist theory, critical race theory, and postcolonial theory). She is best known for intertwining the insights of Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Freud, Frankfurt School theorists, Foucault, and contemporary Continental philosophers to critically interrogate formations of power, political identity, citizenship, and political subjectivity in contemporary liberal democracies. Brown's current work focuses on the relationship of political sovereignty to global capital and other transnational forces, including those associated with religion, law, culture and moral discourse.
Professor Brown received her Ph.D in Political Philosophy from Princeton University in 1983. Prior to coming to Berkeley in 1999, she taught at the University of California, Santa Cruz and at Williams College. Brown's books include Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading in Political Theory (Rowman and Littlefield, 1988), States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Princeton, 1995), Politics Out of History (Princeton, 2001), Left Legalism/Left Critique, co-edited with Janet Halley (Duke, 2002), Edgework: Critical Essays in Knowledge and Politics (Princeton, 2005), and Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire (Princeton, 2006). She has lectured widely in Europe and North America, has held a number of distinguished visiting lectureships, and has recently been a Senior Fellow of the American Council of Learned Societies, a Member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and a UC Berkeley Humanities Fellow.
Encina Ground Floor Conference Room
