History
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center is happy to announce that Daniel Sneider has accepted the position of associate director for research. For the past year (2005-06), he has been a Pantech Fellow at the Center and involved in many Center projects and events.

Sneider has had a long career as a foreign correspondent and worked most recently as the foreign affairs columnist of the San Jose Mercury News. His column on foreign affairs, looking at international issues and national security from a West Coast perspective, is syndicated nationally on the Knight Ridder Tribune wire service, reaching about 400 newspapers in North America. He previously served as national/foreign editor of the San Jose Mercury News.

From 1990-94, Sneider was the Moscow bureau chief of the Christian Science Monitor, covering the end of Soviet Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. From 1985-90, he was Tokyo correspondent for the Monitor, covering Japan and Korea. He has worked in India covering South and Southeast Asia, covered the United Nations, and extensively covered defense and national security affairs.

Sneider's responsibilities as associate director for research will fall into two main categories: research management and program development. He will work closely with the Center's director and faculty to design and manage research projects. With the Center director, he will represent the Center in its interactions within the Freeman Spogli Institute and the University, and will serve as a liaison with specialists from the fields of academia, policy, and business. Sneider will also oversee the publication of Center research findings. He will also provide substantive support for the varied lecture and seminar series the Center hosts each year.

"He joins us at a critical time," says Center director, Gi-Wook Shin, "and I have no doubt that his contribution will give a tremendous boost to our research projects, particularly those that are policy-oriented."

Sneider will also be conducting his own research, which includes finishing his book on Cold War diplomatic history of the United States' alliances with Japan and Korea, and continue to write commentary on current policy issues in the Asia-Pacific region and on U.S. foreign policy.

Sneider will start in this position on July 1, after he has completed his Pantech Fellowship responsibilities.

All News button
1
Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
In the war on terror, the United States has become a military theater of operations. At stake, writes CISAC fellow Laura K. Donohue, is the long-held "principle, embedded in the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, that the U.S. military not be used for domestic law enforcement."

Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee will begin questioning Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency, about the National Security Agency's collection of U.S. citizens' telephone records.

The scrutiny of the NSA is deserved, but the Senate and the American public may be missing a broader and more disturbing development. For the first time since the Civil War, the United States has been designated a military theater of operations. The Department of Defense -- which includes the NSA -- is focusing its vast resources on the homeland. And it is taking an unprecedented role in domestic spying.

It may be legal. But it circumvents three decades of efforts by Congress to restrict government surveillance of Americans under the guise of national security. And it represents a profound shift in the role of the military operating inside the United States. What's at stake here is the erosion of the principle, embedded in the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, that the U.S. military not be used for domestic law enforcement.

When the administration declared the United States to be a theater of military operations in 2002, it created a U.S. Northern Command, which set up intelligence centers in Colorado and Texas to analyze the domestic threat. But these are not the military's only domestic intelligence efforts. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon controls "a substantial portion" of U.S. national intelligence assets, the traditional turf of the FBI and CIA.

In 2003, Congress created the job of undersecretary of Defense for intelligence to oversee the department's many intelligence bodies -- including a new entity called Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA.

CIFA was ordered to maintain a "domestic law-enforcement database" on "potential terrorist threats" to U.S. military installations, and it began collecting information on U.S. citizens.

In 2005, a presidential commission suggested that CIFA, set up as a clearinghouse for information, be empowered to conduct domestic investigations into crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism. Astoundingly, the commission declared that such an expansion of military powers would not require congressional approval; a presidential order and Pentagon directive would suffice. One Defense Department program feeding information to CIFA is TALON (Threat and Local Observation Notice), which is supposed to obtain data from "concerned citizens and military members regarding suspicious incidents" that could herald terrorist attacks. But the military appears to have interpreted its mandate broadly. A TALON report was filed on a protest against "war profiteering" by Halliburton, Newsweek reported. The protesters alleged the defense contractor overcharged for food for U.S. troops in Iraq.

Counterintelligence reports were also filed on New York University's OUTlaw, a decades-old organization of openly gay law students. "The term 'outlaw' is a backhanded way of saying it's all right to commit possible violence," concluded one misguided military investigator in a document obtained last month under the Freedom of Information Act." NBC reported that about four dozen TALON database entries on "suspicious incidents" were not about terrorism but about opposition to the Iraq war and military recruiting.

These misguided military forays into domestic surveillance harken back to Vietnam War-era abuses. This time, they are the result of a much broader intelligence-gathering effort by the military on U.S. soil. President Bush said last week, "We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." But a 2004 survey by the General Accounting Office found 199 data-mining operations that collect information ranging from credit-card statements to medical records. The Defense Department had five programs on intelligence and counterterrorism.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, created in 1961 to provide foreign military intelligence, now uses "Verity K2" software to scan U.S. intelligence files and the Internet "to identify foreign terrorists or Americans connected to foreign terrorism activity," and "Inxight Smart Discovery" software to help identify patterns in databases. CIFA has reportedly contracted with Computer Sciences Corp. to buy identity-masking software, which could allow it to create fake websites and monitor legitimate U.S. sites without leaving clues that it had been there. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is collecting data from 133 U.S. cities; intelligence sources told the Los Angeles Times that, when collection is completed, the agency would be able to identify occupants in each house, their nationality and even their political affiliation.

In 2002, the Defense Department launched the granddaddy of all data-mining efforts, Total Information Awareness, to trawl through all government and commercial databases available worldwide. In 2003, concerned about privacy implications, Congress cut its funding. But many of the projects simply transferred to other Defense Department agencies. Two of the most important, the Information Awareness Prototype System and Genoa II, moved to NSA headquarters.

The Pentagon argues that its monitoring of U.S. citizens is legal. "Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on intelligence" agencies collecting information on Americans or disseminating it, says a memo by Robert Noonan, deputy chief of staff for intelligence. Military intelligence agents can receive any information "from anyone, any time," Noonan wrote.

Throughout U.S. history, we have struggled to balance security concerns with the protection of individual rights, and a thick body of law regulates domestic law enforcement agencies' behavior. Congress should think twice before it lets the behemoth Defense Department into domestic law enforcement.

All News button
1
-

Professor Li Shian is a Professor of History and Director of American and European Studies at Beijing's Renmin University. He is the Chief Editor of the journal World History and is a Council Member of the China Society for Human Rights Studies, which he has represented at several international human rights conferences. A former Chairman of the History Department at Renmin University, Dr. Li was awarded his doctorate at the University of Birmingham in 1989, and did post-graduate work at Stanford University from July 1990 to October 1992. He is the author of several books, including A Study of American Human Rights History and A History of the Development of Western Capitalism.

Professor Li will deliver remarks on the role human rights plays in US-China relations, from a Chinese perspective. He will begin with an exposition of human rights in traditional and post-1949 China, and drawing on this, review US-China exchanges on human rights post-June 4, 1989. He will discuss different approaches for addressing what Chinese and Americans both recognize as a central if contentious issue in their relations: respect for international laws as they protect both individual and collective freedoms.

Philippines Conference Room

Li Shian Professor of History and Director of American and European Studies Speaker Beijing's Renmin University
Seminars
-

Recently, a Russo-Turkish strategic relationship has emerged. Trade in general and energy (gas) supplies in particular play a key role in shaping ties between the two countries. But Moscow and Ankara seem to be on the same page too with regard to major regional issues as well: the Iraq war, Iran's nuclear program, security in the Black Sea-Caspian area, and "frozen conflicts" in the South Caucasus. Despite being a NATO member and an EU candidate country, Turkey appears to be much closer to Russia than to the West on all these issues.

Moreover, with the Iraq situation becoming ever more volatile in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, and the anti-Turkish sentiments on the rise in many European countries, Ankara is deeply dissatisfied with the nature of its relations with Western powers and is, therefore, seeking new strategic allies. In this context, Moscow looks like a natural and valuable partner. Russia, for its part, is also going through a rough patch in its relations with the West and is looking for prospective allies.

Interestingly, the Turkish-Russian rapprochement is accompanied by heated internal debates on Russia and Turkey's international identities and the re-emergence in both countries of Eurasianism -- the ideology that, among other things, promotes historical and cultural affinity between Russia and Turkey.

Igor Torbakov is a historian and analyst who specializes in the political affairs of the former Soviet Union. He holds an MA in History from Moscow State University and a PhD from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He was a Research Scholar at the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow; a Visiting Scholar at the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington DC; a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, New York; and a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University. He is now based in Istanbul, Turkey and writes regularly on these issues for a variety of publications.

Encina Basement Conference Room

Igor Torbakov Historian and Journalist Specializing in the Political Affairs of the Former Soviet Union Speaker
Seminars
-

About the series: The year 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the end of Pacific War and Japan's unconditional surrender. Post-war Japan has embraced a new constitution that renounced war as a right of the nation and for the past six decades pursued economic growth under democratic government. Ironically, the years leading to this anniversary were filled with various disputes over territorial and historical issues with China and Korea and questions from neighboring countries whether Japanese society is shifting towards the right. Triggered by Prime Minister Koizumi's official visits to Yasukuni Shrine, which enshrines "A" class war criminals, anti-Japan sentiment is widely spreading among its neighboring countries, accompanied by strong nationalism, and is posing a potential threat to the political stability of the region.

This colloquium series will focus on Japan's relationship with China and Korea and the historical controversies that are central to their deteriorating political relationship. The series speakers will address the following questions: What are the historical roots of these controversies? How did post-war Japanese foreign policy effect and was effected by Japan's handling of its militaristic past? What is the nature of domestic politics of these three countries that politicizes these historical issues and influences their responses to one another?

Each of the speakers in this series has been asked to address a specific aspect of Japan's relations. Professor Kimura will address the post-war political relationship between Japan and Korea.

Philippines Conference Room

Kan Kimura Professor, Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies Speaker Kobe University
Seminars
-

Co-sponsored by the German Studies Department and the German Consulate General, San Francisco

Over the past 25 years, the discussion surrounding the history of National Socialism and the Holocaust has developed into a meaningful topic of discourse in German politics, society and culture. Since the 1990s, there has been talk of a real "remembrance boom", which materialized in a flood of academic literature and autobiographies, television documentaries and feature films, as well as documentation centers, centers for eye witnesses, memorials and monuments. In the year 2005 - 60 years after the end of WWII in Europe - this collective process of commemoration presumably reached a climax: preceded by fifteen years of debate, the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe was inaugurated in Berlin. However, the Memorial is still debated today. The history of its genesis is illustrative of the problematic nature of finding an appropriate form for the commemoration of the Holocaust. Many issues have led to the questioning of the traditional forms and functions of a memorial and the search for alternative strategies of commemoration. Dr. Pottek will introduce examples of contemporary commemorative art in order to demonstrate the breadth of artistic strategies for remembrance in Germany and to inspire a discussion about appropriate and less appropriate forms of commemorative art.

Dr. Marina Pottek studied history of art, German literature and Romanic literature at the University of Bochum and received her Ph.D. from the University of Bonn. Her main topics are modern European and American art, contemporary art, art and memory, conceptual art, and narrative art. Since 1998, Dr. Pottek has held a scientific assignment at the University of Bonn and has worked at the equal opportunity office (public relations manager, curator of an interdisciplinary exhibition on female scientists, coordinator for the mentoring programme for talented female scientists at the University of Bonn).

Encina Basement Conference Room

Dr. Martina Pottek Speaker Bonn University
Seminars
-

The United Nations Secretariat--the main part of the UN bureaucracy directly under the Secretary-General--has arguably changed or been challenged more than any other part of the UN system in recent years, with more and more mandates and rising expectations. Though much attention has been given to the reform of the Security Council, and though Washington has made UN 'management reform' a core pillar of its UN policy since the Oil-for-Food scandal, the UN Secretariat has nevertheless proved singularly impervious to even the common sense suggestions for improvement. In many ways, there is a greater gap today than at any time in the past between what the Secretariat does, what it's meant to do, and the capacity it has. Why has improvement been so difficult and what have been the recurrent mistakes of UN reform efforts? With the election of a new Secretary-General due in late 2006, can we think about the UN bureaucracy in a different and more practical way?

Thant Myint-U is a visiting senior fellow at the International Peace Academy. He is also a senior advisor to the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum at the Social Science Research Council and a Fellow of the Cambridge University Centre for History and Economics.

From 2000-2006 he worked in the United Nations Secretariat, first for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and then for the Department of Political Affairs (DPA). From 2004-5 he was Chief of DPA's Policy Planning Unit of the Department of Political and in 2005-6 he was a Senior Political Officer in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. In 2004 he was also a member of the Secretariat of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

Thant Myint-U has also served on three United Nations peacekeeping operations, with UNTAC in Cambodia in 1992-3 and with UNPROFOR and UNMIBH in the former Yugoslavia from 1994-6. In 1994 he was the UN's senior spokesman in Sarajavo.

From 1994-1999 Thant Myint-U was a fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, where he researched and taught Asian and British imperial history. He received his bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1988, his master's degree in international relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in 1992 and his PhD in history from Cambridge University in 1996.

He is the author of several published and broadcast works, including two books: The Making of Modern Burma (Cambridge University Press, 2000) and The River of Lost Footsteps: Remembering Burma's Past (Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2006 forthcoming).

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

Thant Myint-U Senior Visiting Fellow Speaker International Peace Academy
Seminars
-

For nearly twenty years, an array of mainly Western governments, NGOs, and international organizations including the UN have tried to promote democracy in Burma using sanctions and diplomacy. The net result has been an ever more entrenched military dictatorship, a looming humanitarian crisis, and a possible resumption of armed conflict. How are we to think about this failure in international policy? Thant Myint-U will identify at the core of this external impotence a singularly ahistorical analysis of Burma, its 44-year-old dictatorship, and its even longer-running civil wars. He will also ask: Could things have been handled differently? What does Burmese history tell us about what is and is not possible today? And what are the prospects for constructive change?

Thant Myint-U is a senior visiting fellow at the International Peace Academy in New York City. In 1994-99 he was a fellow of Trinity College in Cambridge University where he taught Indian and colonial history. He has also served for many years in the United Nations, first in three different peacekeeping operations (in Cambodia and ex-Yugoslavia) and then at the United Nations Secretariat in New York. In 2004-05 he was in charge of policy planning in the UN's Department of Political Affairs. He has written two books on Burma: and The River of Lost Footsteps (2006) and The Making of Modern Burma (2000). He was educated at Harvard and Cambridge Universities and completed a PhD in modern history at Cambridge in 1996.

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

Thant Myint-U Fellow, Centre for History and Economics Speaker King's College, Cambridge University
Seminars
Subscribe to History