The European Forum has taken a new name: The Forum on Contemporary Europe. This new name reflects the focus on contemporary issues facing Europe and its trans-Atlantic and global relations at the start of the twenty-first century. The change also reflects the directors' ambitious plans for growth in the near to mid-term future to meet scholarly and public dissemination needs for a program of research residencies, visionary teaching, and notable publications. The Forum's focus on Europe today spotlights timely issues and prominent figures in venues including:

Europe Now - Annual lecture by a prominent European public figure that addresses political, economic, security, and environmental issues facing the region and trans-Atlantic relations. This year's address will be delivered by the European Parliament's Greens/European Free Alliance Co-President, Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

European Integration/Payne Distinguished Lecture - Lecture by a prominent European public figure that addresses timely issues of integrating the expanding number of EU member states. This year's address will be delivered by best-selling author Ian McEwan.

Austrian and Central European Studies - The Forum will host an address on Austria's immediate past presidency of the European Council, delivered by the Honorable Eva Nowotny, Austrian Ambassador to the United States. The Ambassador's address will introduce the 2006-2007 interdisciplinary research and teaching program that brings a senior professor from an Austrian national competition to Stanford for a full-year Austrian chair position, and includes a multi-year conference meeting in Vienna and at Stanford. This year the program will also include a research symposium on the fiftieth anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.

EU-US Trade Relations conference - Annual event addressing international trade issues, global markets, and the interface between developing and developed countries.

Europe's changing ethnography research and lecture theme - The Forum sponsors researchers and public figures on a wide range of contemporary issues, and is scheduling a series of speakers and research projects on this year's topic of the changing ethnographic make-up of the European community.

Through this growth, the Forum continues to be dedicated to innovative thinking about Europe in the new millennium. The expansion of the European Union deepens the challenges of democratic governance, economic growth, security, and cultural integration. The increasingly complex challenges facing Europe and its global relations - including labor migration, strains on welfare economies, local identities, globalized cultures, expansion and integration, and threats of terrorism, coupled with Europe's recent struggle to ratify a single constitution - underline the need for analysis informed by public figures with policy background. Established in 1997, the Forum conducts trans-Atlantic research and convenes public programs to offer creative and cooperative solutions. Distinct from many academic programs at U.S. research universities, the European Forum at FSI focuses on public programs and the wide-spread dissemination of its research findings. The Forum focuses study of Europe on research themes including FSI's priority emphasis on international political economy, security, global environment, and good governance.

The Forum on Contemporary Europe is pleased to announce the hire of Dr. Roland Hsu as Assistant Director. Dr. Hsu is responsible for the Forum's daily operations, and works closely with the Forum's Director, Professor Amir Eshel, and Program Assistant Nancy Easterbrook on strategic planning and research and public dissemination program designs. Dr. Hsu is also Lecturer in the Introduction to Humanities Program at Stanford University. Dr. Hsu has been brought on board to develop the Forum's ambitious plans to expand its programs, to identify and coordinate international research teams, and to support flexible, interdisciplinary projects that respond in practical terms to the dynamics of European studies.

Founded in 1997, the Forum at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) has created a program for new thinking about Europe in the new millennium. The increasingly complex challenges facing Europe and its global relations - including labor migration, strains on welfare economies, local identities, globalized cultures, expansion and integration, and threats of terrorism, coupled with Europe's recent struggle to ratify a single constitution, underline the need at this point to build on the Forum's success and utilize Dr. Hsu's faculty research and senior administrative experience to shape the growth of the Forum as a sustained and dynamic inter-disciplinary program.

The directors' plans for the Forum's growth include sustained research residencies, a visionary teaching program, and an influential publication series. The plans aim to make the program address the most pressing issues facing Europe and its trans-Atlantic and global relations at the start of the 21st century. Along with the affiliated research programs at FSI, the Forum will also play an important part in advancing the agenda of Stanford's International Initiative - the campus-wide effort, based in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, to bring together faculty, researchers and students to address the global challenges of peace and security, governance, and human well-being. The Forum's scholars will analyze models for answers to these challenges in case studies of Western and Eastern European, Scandinavian, and European Union histories and policy initiatives.

Before coming to Stanford Dr. Hsu was Assistant Professor of Modern European History at the University of Idaho, and Senior Associate Director of Undergraduate Advising and Research at Stanford, as well as Academic Advisor in the College of the University of Chicago. At Chicago Dr. Hsu earned his doctorate in Modern European History, and taught in the Humanities and also served as Assistant Director of the University Writing Programs. His research and teaching explore the relationship between politics, art, and memory. Dr. Hsu wrote his dissertation on modern European intellectual and cultural history at the University of Chicago. His most recent work on post-Revolutionary France reconsiders the use of the analytic category of memory in historical interpretation. The book manuscript in progress: Troubling Memory: Making Monuments, Tourists, and a Collective Past in Nineteenth-Century France engages scholarly literature on collective memory by reintroducing gender, work, and neighborhood network identities to differentiate the "collectivities" of collective memory.

Given Tehran's defiant response to the European and American effort to constrain its nuclear program, it is time for bolder diplomacy out of Washington. U.S. President George W. Bush should take a page from the playbook of Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with an evil Soviet regime--competing in the war of ideas, but addressing the enemy's security concerns through arms-control agreements.

Iran's intransigence is both deeply unfortunate and perfectly predictable. It is unfortunate because Tehran's refusal to suspend its uranium-enrichment operations immediately--as demanded in July by the U.N. Security Council in a legally binding resolution--suggests that Iran is moving more quickly than expected toward a nuclear-weapons capability. Tehran has now turned the nuclear crisis into a test of the whole U.N. Security Council system. And Russia and China's current position, threatening to veto any biting sanctions against Iran, suggests that the Security Council may well fail this crucial test.

Tehran's response is predictable, however, because the offer on the table contains both inadequate economic carrots and barely credible threats of sanctions and military force. The carrots appeared impressive at first glance--in return for a suspension of enrichment we reportedly promised to provide light-water nuclear reactors and to help Iran with civil aviation and telecommunications technology. But we did not offer the one incentive that might possibly work, security guarantees that could reduce Iran's desire for nuclear weapons.

This omission is striking. The Iranian government can't talk openly about their security concerns because that would blow their cover story that the nuclear program is only for energy production. And Washington does not want to discuss such worries because it wants to keep open the possibility of removing the regime by force. "Security assurances are not on the table," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice too cleverly argued this spring: "It is a little strange to talk about security guarantees ... I thought the Iranian position was that they weren't developing a nuclear bomb."

This is partly a crisis of our own making, as the Bush administration has practiced the reverse of Teddy Roosevelt's maxim--speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. Think about how Tehran reacted when Bush stated (in his second Inaugural Address), "The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: 'Those who deny freedoms to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." Or when Bush dramatically told reporters last April that "all options are on the table," in direct response to a question about whether he was considering a nuclear attack against Iran. Such statements only encourage Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent quickly, before the United States can carry out its perceived aggressive intent. Last month, Iran's National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani pointedly complained about such rhetoric. "How can a side that wants to topple the regime also attempt to negotiate?"

Given the current vulnerability of U.S. forces in Iraq, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and the lack of Israeli success against Hizbullah, Iranian officials seem confident that they face no immediate threat of a U.S. military assault. But they are clearly worried that Bush just might attack Iran right before he leaves office in January 2009, or that his successor might do so once U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq.

The best way to prevent a nuclear Iran is for Washington to offer the kind of security assurances that might reduce support in Tehran for building a nuclear arsenal. It will be hard to make such assurances credible, but a public U.S. promise to take forcible regime change off the table, and a U.N. Security Council commitment to protect the "political sovereignty" of Iran could help. Involving the Security Council could also pull China and Russia back into the nonproliferation coalition and enhance the U.N.'s legitimacy.

There is very little time left, which means negotiations should begin despite Iran's unfortunate opening position. Tehran's response reportedly indicated a willingness to negotiate all aspects of its nuclear program, so working out an agreement for Iran to limit itself to low-level uranium enrichment might still be possible. This would work only if Tehran accepts full IAEA inspections and a freeze on future centrifuge construction. Will they? The one thing that might cause Tehran to do so, and that would compensate for any loss of face, would be an assurance that the United States will not launch another preventive war, as it did in Iraq, to remove the Iranian regime. If in turn we get a nuclear-free Iran, that's a good deal for the West as well.

Dirctor David Victor and Research Fellow Mark Hayes engaged with a team of researchers from the US, Germany, Brazil, and Argentina to discuss the development of Atlantic Basin gas markets. The seminar is expected to provide a foundation for a new study on the role of LNG imports for Brazil centered at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ).