Since the early 1990s the issue of how the Japanese remember World War II has been in the headlines over and over again. The most recent round of junior high school textbook revisions, for example, has created a firestorm of protest in Korea and China. But there is much evidence to belie the charge that the Japanese suffer from collective amnesia. War memory is not fixed but remains highly contested. Peter Duus, a historian of modern Japan, William H. Bonsall Professor of History at Stanford. He has written and edited several book on prewar Japanese imperialism, including The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910.

Nearly a quarter-century has elapsed since the Khmer Rouge held power in Cambodia (1975-78). Yet Cambodians still are shadowed by that catastrophic experience, and by conflicting legacies from other parts of their country's past. Cambodians continue to struggle to come to terms with what the Pol Pot era meant, and with what has happened to them since. After centuries of relative isolation, they must also contend with changes in Cambodia's identity in what seems to be an ever faster moving world. Views of Cambodia's history and destiny, formed in colonial and Cold War times, no longer seem to fit. But new interpretations have not yet taken hold. Epitomizing this confusion is the issue of bringing surviving Khmer Rouge leaders to justice. Over the last decade or so, efforts toward this end have inched forward and bogged down, beset by clashing political priorities and notions of justice and culpability. Cambodians ask themselves: Should we insist on remembering, or allow forgetting? Why? And with what implications for the future? David Chandler is the leading English-language historian of Cambodia. He holds degrees from Harvard College, Yale University, and the University of Michigan. From l972 to l997 he taught Southeast Asian history at Monash University in Australia. Since then he has held appointments at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the University of Oregon, and Cornell University. His books include A History of Cambodia (3rd ed., 2000), Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot (2nd ed., 1999), and Voices from S 21: Terror and History in Pol Pot's Secret Prison (l999). His many other writings include coauthorship of the classic history text, In Search of Southeast Asia (1971), the 3rd revised edition of which should appear next year.

The Kingdom of Bhutan, an independent country in the Himalayas, has designed its own theory and practice of socioeconomic development, which it calls "Gross National Happiness." Bhutan entered into relations with the outside world only in the early 1960s; since then it has pursued development in a way that is consonant with its own Buddhist values. An intrinsically interesting experiment in itself, Bhutan's experience now assumes broader relevancy as its pursuit of development must take account of the problems small nations and cultures confront in the face of the powerful impact of globalization. The Ambassador will discuss these problems and answer questions. His Excellency Om Pradhan, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Bhutan to the United Nations, was born in 1946 and was educated in India, England, and Hawaii. As Minister for Trade, Industry, Power, and Tourism in the Royal Government of Bhutan, he has been a central figure in Bhutan's economic and social development. He has also served as Bhutan's Ambassador to India, Nepal, and the Maldives, has led the Bhutanese delegation in several rounds of boundary talks with the People's Republic of China, has been a member of the National Assembly of Bhutan, and has participated in innumerable international and regional conferences.

Selections from Abernethy's The Dynamics of Global Dominance available in IIS library, 5th floor, Encina Hall East.

Separatism and terrorism, demonstrations and scandals, elite conflict and economic malaise ... With so much trouble on its hands, why should the Indonesian government willingly open up the Pandora's box that is the legacy of violence from the Suharto regime, especially since many of his associates remain politically active? Or is the risk of focusing on the past worth takingÑto administer justice and foster a humane consensus strong enough to ensure that such abuses do not recur? These difficult questions cannot be answered without taking local conditions into account: the sense of uncertainty and stagnation that hangs over the reform process; the widespread perception that in mysterious and powerful ways Suharto is still controlling events; and the apparent inability of Indonesian society to transform its recent history into a set of lessons that could generate momentum toward a better future. Mary S. Zurbuchen was based until recently in Jakarta, as the Ford Foundation's chief representative for Southeast Asia (1992-96) and Indonesia (1996-2000). She is the academic coordinator of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies at UCLA, where she is teaching a course on Indonesia while continuing her research on the intersection of history and memory in that country. Her many publications on cultural and social change in Indonesia include The Language of Balinese Shadow Theater (1987).

Scott explores themes of state-craft, sedentarization, etc. as part of a critique of state-making and development. In particular, he analyzes the paradoxes of attempts by states to create a fiscally and administratively legible property regime and population despite the economic and ecological imperatives of physical mobility. He elaborates the Southeast Asian variant of this historical argument. One of the great cleavages permeating Southeast Asian history and politics is the tension between hill and valley peoples, between downstream and upstream in insular Southeast Asia. Roughly, this corresponds to the social division between comparatively dense populations in valleys and 'downstream' who are often organized hierarchically into states, on the one hand, and more peripheral, dispersed, and mobile peoples who live in more egalitarian settings, on the other. These divisions are not merely of historical interest; they animate a good deal of the intra-state tension in contemporary Southeast Asia which has been understood in ethnic or religious terms.