James O. Ellis Jr. retired as president and chief executive officer of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), in Atlanta, Georgia, on May 18, 2012. He became an affiliate of CISAC in Fall 2013. For 2013-2014, he is the Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow and member of the Arctic Security Initiative at the Hoover Institution.
INPO, sponsored by the commercial nuclear industry, is an independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to promote the highest levels of safety and reliability--to promote excellence--in the operation of nuclear electric-generating plants.
In 2004, Admiral Ellis completed a distinguished thirty-nine-year navy career as commander of the United States Strategic Command during a time of challenge and change. In this role, he was responsible for the global command and control of United States strategic and space forces, reporting directly to the secretary of defense.
A 1969 graduate of the US Naval Academy, Admiral Ellis was designated a naval aviator in 1971. His service as a navy fighter pilot included tours with two fighter squadrons and assignment as commanding officer of an F/A-18 strike/fighter squadron. In 1991, he assumed command of the USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. After selection to rear admiral, in 1996 he served as a carrier battle group commander leading contingency response operations in the Taiwan Straits.
His shore assignments included numerous senior military staff tours including commander in chief, US Naval Forces, Europe, and commander in chief, Allied Forces, Southern Europe, during a time of historic NATO expansion. He led United States and NATO forces in combat and humanitarian operations during the 1999 Kosovo crisis.
Ellis holds a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and, in 2005, was inducted into the school’s Engineering Hall of Fame. He completed United States Navy Nuclear Power Training and was qualified in the operation and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion plants. He is a graduate of the Navy Test Pilot School and the Navy Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun). In 2013, Ellis was elected to the National Academy of Engineering.
In 2009 he completed three years of service as a presidential appointee on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and, in 2006, was a member of the Military Advisory Panel to the Iraq Study Group.
Nabil Mouline is a senior researcher in The French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and The School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS). Prior to this, he was a research professor at the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (Sciences Po). He earned a Ph.D. in history from the Paris-Sorbonne University and a Ph.D. in political science from the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (Sciences Po).
He is the author, among other works, of The Imaginary Caliphate of Ahmad al-Mansûr: Power and Diplomacy in Morocco in the 16th Century (PUF, Paris, 2009) and The Clerics of Islam: Religious Authority and Political Power in Saudi Arabia (PUF, Paris, 2011). Cambridge University Press and Yale University Press will publish the English translation of these two books in 2014 respectively.
During his residency at Stanford, he will work on a book on the sociological history of Saudi Arabia.
Encina Hall
616 Serra Street
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
0
mouline@stanford.edu
Visiting Scholar, ARD
Mouline_HS.jpg
Nabil Mouline is a senior researcher in The French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and The School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences (EHESS). Prior to this, he was a research professor at the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (Sciences Po).
He earned a Ph.D. in history from the Paris-Sorbonne University and a Ph.D. in political science from the Institute of Political Studies of Paris (Sciences Po).
He is the author, among other works, of The Imaginary Caliphate of Ahmad al-Mansûr: Power and Diplomacy in Morocco in the 16th Century (PUF, Paris, 2009) and The Clerics of Islam: Religious Authority and Political Power in Saudi Arabia (PUF, Paris, 2011). Cambridge University Press and Yale University Press will publish the English translation of these two books in 2014 respectively.
During his residency at Stanford, he will work on a book on the sociological history of Saudi Arabia.
Nabil Mouline
Visiting Scholar, Program on Arab Reform and Democracy
Speaker
CDDRL
William J. Perry was only 18 when he found himself surrounded by death, a young U.S. Army mapping specialist in Japan during the Army of Occupation. The atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and World War II had just come to an end.
“The vast ruins that once had been the great city of Tokyo – nothing, nothing had prepared me for such utter devastation that was wrought by massive waves of firebombing rained down by American bomber attacks,” said Perry, who was then shipped off to the island of Okinawa in the aftermath of the last great battle of WWII.
More than 200,000 soldiers and civilians had been killed in that closing battle of 1945, codenamed Operation Iceberg.
“Not a single building was left standing; the island was a moonscape denuded of trees and vegetation,” Perry told a rapt audience during a recent speech. “The smell of death was still lingering.”
The young man quickly understood the staggering magnitude of difference in the destruction caused by traditional firepower and these new atomic bombs.
“It had taken multiple strikes by thousands of bombers and tens of thousands of high explosive bombs to lay waste to Tokyo,” he recalls. “The same had been done to Hiroshima and then to Nagasaki with just one plane – and just one bomb. Just one bomb.
“The unleashing of this colossal force indelibly shaped my life in ways that I have now come to see more clearly,” said Perry, who would go on to become the 19th secretary of defense. “It was a transforming experience. In many ways – I grew up from it.”
William J. Perry in 1945 in his U.S. Army Air Corps uniform.
William J. Perry in 1945 in his U.S. Army Air Corps uniform. Photo Credit: U.S. Army
Now, nearly seven decades later, the 86-year-old Perry has come full circle. His new winter course will take students back to his fateful days in Japan after the United States became the first – and last – nation to use atomic weapons. He’ll go through the Cold War, the arms race and expanding nuclear arsenals, and today’s potential threats of nuclear terrorism and regional wars provoked by North Korea, Iran or South Asia.
Living at the Nuclear Brink: Yesterday & Today (IPS 249) – to serve as the backdrop for an online course at Stanford next year – concludes with the declaration Perry made in 2007: The world must rid itself entirely of nuclear weapons. And students will get a primer on how to get involved in organizations that are working on just that.
“They did not live through the Cold War, so they were never exposed to the dangers and therefore it doesn’t exist to them; it’s just not in their world,” Perry said of millennial and younger students. “I want to make them aware of what the dangers were and how those dangers have evolved.”
Perry and former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, both Democrats, joined former Republican Secretaries of State George P. Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger in launching a series of OpEds in The Wall Street Journal (the first in 2007) that went viral. Together they outlined how nations could work together toward a world without nuclear weapons.
“I think I have some responsibility since I helped build those weapons – and I think that time is running out,” Perry said in an interview.
Perry helped shore up the U.S. nuclear arsenal as undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, procuring nuclear weapons delivery systems for the Carter administration. Later, as secretary of defense for President Bill Clinton, his priority became the dismantling of nuclear weapons around the world.
Taubman, a consulting professor at CISAC, will guest lecturer in Perry’s class, along with CISAC’s Siegfried Hecker, David Holloway, Martha Crenshaw and Scott Sagan. Other speakers are expected to include Shultz, a distinguished fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution; Andrei Kokoshin, deputy of the Russian State Duma; Ashton B. Carter, who just stepped down as deputy secretary of defense; Joseph Martz of the Los Alamos National Laboratory; and Joeseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund.
The world is far from banning the bomb. According to the Ploughshares Fund, an estimated 17,300 nuclear weapons remain in the global stockpile, the majority of which are in Russia and the United States.
President Barack Obama declared shortly after taking office in his first foreign policy speech in Prague that because the United States was the only country to have used nuclear weapons, Washington “has a moral responsibility to act.”
“So today, I state clearly and with conviction, America’s commitment to seek the peace
and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” Obama said back in May 2009.
Perry – a senior fellow at CISAC who received his BS and MS from Stanford and a PhD from Pennsylvania State University, all in mathematics – laments the regression of the movement to dismantle the nuclear legacy of the Cold War.
Obama has so far not acted on his pledge in his contentious second term, as China and Russia expand their stockpiles. North Korea and Iran are attempting to build nuclear weapons and India and Pakistan are building more fissile material. The U.S. Senate still has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the U.S. and Russia have not moved forward on a follow-up to the New START Treaty.
Perry recognizes that the issue is slipping from the public conscience, particularly among young people. So he’s putting his name and experience behind a Stanford Online course slated to go live next year. It will correspond with the release of his memoir, “My Journey at the Nuclear Brink” and will take a more documentary approach, weaving together key moments in Perry’s career with lectures, archival footage and interviews and conversations between Perry and his colleagues and counterparts.
"Bill Perry has had a remarkable career and this project draws on his unparalleled experience over a pivotal period in history," said John Mitchell, vice provost for online learning. "We hope his brilliant reflections will be useful to everyone with an interest in the topic, and to teachers and students everywhere."
At the heart of his winter course, online class and memoir are what Perry calls the five great lessons he learned in the nuclear age. The first four are grim remnants of what he witnessed over the years: the destructive nature of the atomic bombs on Japan; his mathematical calculations about the number of deaths from nuclear warfare; his work for the CIA during the Cuban Missile Crisis; and one pre-dawn call in 1978 from the North American Aerospace Defense Command saying there were 200 missiles headed toward the United States from the Soviet Union. That turned out to be a false, but terrifying alarm.
His fifth final lesson is hopeful, if not cautionary. It goes like this:
As secretary of defense from 1994 to 1997, Perry oversaw the dismantling of 8,000 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union and the United States and helped the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus to go entirely non-nuclear. In that mission, he often visited Pervomaysk in the Ukraine, which was once the Soviet Union’s largest ICBM site, with 700 nuclear warheads all aimed at targets in the United States.
On his final trip to Pervomaysk in 1996, he joined the Russian and Ukrainian defense ministers to plant sunflowers where those missiles had once stood.
“So reducing the danger of nuclear weapons is not a fantasy; it has been done,” Perry said. “I will not accept that it cannot be done. I shall do everything I can to ensure nuclear weapons will never again be used – because I believe time is not on our side.”
Abstract The framework of "LGBT rights" can be critiqued as challenging tradition or as culturally specific, yet at the same time, it can be essential to one's sense of identity and justice. Where can the discourse of "public health" help overcome barriers for LGBT people, both within the right to health and beyond? What are the limits to using public health to talk about human rights, LGBT or otherwise? What are the dangers of conflating these distinct areas of concern? We will explore these questions and focus on how academics and activists can most effectively navigate challenges to benefit both public health and LGBT rights.
Jessica Stern is the Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. As the first researcher on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights at Human Rights Watch, she conducted fact-finding investigations and advocacy around sexual orientation and gender identity in countries including Iran, Kyrgyzstan, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. As a Ralph Bunche Fellow at Amnesty International, she documented police brutality for what became its landmark report on police brutality in LGBT communities in the U.S., “Stonewalled.” She was a founding collective member and co-coordinator of Bluestockings, then New York’s only women’s bookstore. She has campaigned extensively for women’s rights, LGBT rights, and economic justice with the Center for Constitutional Rights, Control Ciudadano, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, and the Urban Justice Center. She holds a masters degree in human rights from the London School of Economics. She is frequently quoted in the Mail & Guardian, Al Jazeera English, the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France Presse, Deutsche Welle, Voice of America, The Guardian and The BBC.
Building 200 (History Corner)
Room 205
Stanford University
Jessica Stern
Executive Director
Speaker
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission
CHP/PCOR’s three new faculty members bring a varied background in behavioral health economics, law and children’s health outcomes
By Teal Pennebaker
Three researchers, whose work spans the globe as well as disciplines, have joined CHP/PCOR. They include a health law professor, a physician economist interested in how behavioral issues influence patient outcomes, and another physician economist who will focus on health economic issues among children in developing countries.
“We are thrilled to welcome Marcella Alsan, David Studdert, and David Chan to our centers. Each of these folks fit into our centers' mission to produce rigorous relevant research by people who care deeply about the topics they probe,” CHP/PCOR Executive Director Kathryn McDonald said. “We credit the current community of scholars at Stanford with attracting these talented individuals to join forces with us.”
Professor David Studdert has spent the past six years at the University of Melbourne’ Law School teaching and studying policy issue at the intersection of health and legal systems. His most recent research has investigated the relationship between speeding tickets and auto accidents, how patient complaints can be used as indicators health care quality, and how claimants move through workers’ compensation systems.
“David is one of the leading scholars in the world in health law and we are fortunate to have him join our faculty,” CHP/PCOR Director Doug Owens said. “David’s recruitment provides a terrific opportunity to expand our policy work, and his research will serve as the nucleus for joint training and research with our colleagues in the law school.”
Studdert, who will spend a quarter of his time at Stanford Law School, plans to focus on regulatory “hot spotting” in the short term—an approach that uses statistical profiling techniques to make regulation more efficient in areas ranging from medical malpractice to road safety. “There’s a lot going on in health care regulation in the United States,” Studdert said. “I hope to be able to collaborate with others at PCOR--it’s a very exciting, bright group of researchers with plenty of areas of mutual interest.”
Studdert has actually worked with CHP/PCOR members before—he was at RAND in the late 1990s while CHP/PCOR Professor Jay Bhattacharya was there. Similarly, CHP/PCOR’s newest faculty Marcella Alsan and David Chan have actually spent ample time together—before coming to Stanford, they did the same internal medicine residency program at the Brigham Women’s in Boston. Both Chan and Alsan will also practice medicine at the Veteran Affairs hospital part-time as is the case for some of the other clinical faculty members at CHP/PCOR.
“We are delighted that we were able to recruit two exceptional physician economists to our centers,” Owens said. “Marcella brings deep understanding of global health from her training in infectious diseases along with the methodologic skills of an economist. It is a rare combination and will enable her to make exceptional contributions in understanding the interplay of health and economics in the developing world. "
Assistant Professor Marcella Alsan, who has a PhD in economics, a master’s in public health and a medical degree, will focus her research on policy questions in international health, particularly among children in developing countries. Right now she’s finishing up a project looking at the spillover effects for the siblings and family members of children participating in a large-scale immunization program in Turkey. Alsan is also in the midst of revising a job market paper about how disease affects long-term economic development of Africa.
“I’m a researcher, a physician and a past global health resident at Brigham and Women's hospital. All of that fits in best here at CHP/PCOR. Stanford is a stellar academic institution and has a growing global health and development community,” Alsan said. “At PCOR, they do excellent research and have wide interests. There isn’t pressure to be narrowly focused on one topic or one publication style.”
Assistant Professor David Chan, who has a PhD in economics and training in internal medicine, will focus on how behavioral issues impact productivity in health care systems.
"Dave is uniquely trained to study the productivity of healthcare systems. Given the extraordinary need to reduce costs and provide high-value care, we believe Dave’s work on health care productivity will be enormously important in understanding some of the most difficult challenges for medicine today," Owens said.
Chan’s current work includes studying the impact of whether doctors choosing which patients they see affects their patients’ health outcomes; the effects on patients’ health outcomes if a doctor sees them at the beginning or end of the doctor’s shift; and whether providing doctors financial incentives—e.g. linking the number of ultrasounds a doctor gives out to their pay—impacts patient health outcomes.
“The environment at the centers is just great for someone who’s multidisciplinary. It’s a small place but surrounded by so many great partners within walking distance -- the business school, economics department, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), the computer science department, and so on,” Chan said. “It’s great to be back in California. I even bought a bike—I’ve never really ridden a bike this much!”
Encina Hall
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
0
fafchamp@stanford.edu
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Professor, by courtesy, of Economics
marcel_fafchamps_2025.jpg
Marcel Fafchamps is a Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and a member of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. Previously, he was the Satre Family Senior Fellow at FSI. Fafchamps is a professor (by courtesy) for the Department of Economics at Stanford University. His research interests include economic development, market institutions, social networks, and behavioral economics — with a special focus on Africa and South Asia.
Prior to joining FSI, from 1999-2013, Fafchamps served as professor of development economics in the Department of Economics at Oxford University. He also served as deputy director and then co-director of the Center for the Study of African Economies. From 1989 to 1996, Fafchamps was an assistant professor with the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. Following the closure of the Institute, he taught for two years at the Department of Economics. For the 1998-1999 academic year, Fafchamps was on sabbatical leave at the research department of the World Bank. Before pursuing his PhD in 1986, Fafchamps was based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for 5 years during his employment with the International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency that oversees employment, income distribution, and vocational training in Africa.
He has authored two books: Market Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa: Theory and Evidence (MIT Press, 2004) and Rural Poverty, Risk, and Development (Elgar Press, 2003), and has published numerous articles in academic journals.
Fafchamps served as the editor-in-chief of Economic Development and Cultural Change until 2020. Previously, he had served as chief editor of the Journal of African Economies from 2000 to 2013, and as associate editor of the Economic Journal, the Journal of Development Economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, and the Revue d'Economie du Développement.
He is a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an affiliated professor with J-PAL, a senior fellow with the Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development, a research fellow with IZA, Germany, and with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, UK, and an affiliate with the University of California’s Center for Effective Global Action.
Fafchamps has degrees in Law and in Economics from the Université Catholique de Louvain. He holds a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Berkeley.
Iran has struck a historic deal with the United States and five other world powers (known as the P5+1), agreeing to temporarily halt its nuclear program for six months in exchange for limited and gradual relief of sanctions. Iran agreed to halt its uranium enrichment above 5 percent and the foreign powers agreed to give Iran access to $4.2 billion from oil sales. The six-month period will now give diplomats time to negotiate a more sweeping agreement.
We ask three Stanford scholars to weigh in on the technical and political merits of the agreement. CISAC Senior Fellow, Siegfried Hecker, has been working on Track II diplomacy with Tehran in recent years and was one of a number of Americans who met with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his delegation of diplomats and nuclear scientists after the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York in September. Iranian-American Abbas Milani is director of Hamid and Christina Moghadam Program in Iranian Studies at Stanford and a contributing editor at The New Republic. Ivanka Barzashka is a CISAC affiliate and a research associate at the Centre for Science and Security Studies, King’s College, London, who specializes in Iran’s nuclear capability.
Just how close did Iran come to being able to build a bomb?
Hecker: Very close, possibly weeks away from making sufficient highly enriched uranium bomb fuel, and six months or so away from building a nuclear weapon. Iran developed the nuclear weapon option under the umbrella of the pursuit of civilian reactor fuel. The technologies for developing reactor fuel and bomb fuel are the same, the difference is in the level of enrichment in Uranium-235: 3 to 5 percent for commercial reactors, as much as 20 percent for research and medical isotope production reactors, compared to roughly 90 percent for weapons. The IAEA reports that Iran has not satisfactorily explained nor given access to work and sites suspected of past nuclear weapons-related activities.
This leads me to conclude that Iran had likely previously done most of the work necessary to build nuclear weapons once it obtained the capacity to produce bomb fuel. Iran’s extensive missile development and testing program also points to Tehran pursuing the option of missile deliverable nuclear weapons.
Does the agreement make it more difficult for Iran to pursue the bomb?
Hecker: Yes, the agreement places temporary limits on the level of enrichment of nuclear material and provides for the conversion or dilution of the highest enriched material (20 percent). It will also temporarily halt Iran installing more or better centrifuges to produce enriched uranium at an increasing rate. Iran has also agreed to temporarily halt construction of the heavy-water reactor in Arak. These steps modestly increase the amount of time it would take Iran to obtain nuclear bomb fuel in a breakout scenario. In addition, increased monitoring of facilities as called for in the agreement will provide us with a better understanding of existing capabilities in known facilities and what may exist in potential covert facilities.
They were very close ... six months or so away from building a nuclear weapon." - Hecker
Why is Iran’s heavy-water reactor in Arak of such concern?
Hecker: It provides a potential second path to the bomb. Iranian nuclear specialists recently told me in New York that they began to design that reactor 20 years ago to replace the old, small American-provided reactor in Tehran that was being used for medical isotope production and research. Construction is several years behind schedule, but I was told it is close to completion. When complete, it would allow Iran to produce badly needed medical isotopes. But concurrently, the choice of reactor design and power level also means that it will produce enough plutonium to fuel one or two bombs per year if Iran decided to extract the plutonium from the spent reactor fuel. The Iranian specialists told me that they are very keen to find a solution that provides them with the means to make medical isotopes and alleviates international concerns about plutonium production. That’s a worthy goal, but a tall order that was left for the long-term agreement.
What prevented Iran from building the bomb?
Hecker: I believe Iran’s leadership settled for developing the option for the bomb, but has not yet decided to build or demonstrate the bomb. Until recently, it is also likely that Iran did not have sufficient bomb fuel to build the bomb. I believe they now have that capacity; therefore our focus should be on convincing them not to flip the bomb production switch.
Can you envision a long-term agreement that will prevent Iran from building the bomb?
Hecker: Completely getting rid of the bomb option is not possible through military action or sanctions with political pressure. The only chance is through diplomatic means. We need to make it clear to the Iranian regime that they are better off without pursuing the bomb. This will take time. Iran Foreign Minister Zarif told me that even appearing to pursue the bomb is bad for Iran’s nuclear security. Now if we can only get the Iranian leadership to believe that. If Iran wants nuclear energy and relations with the West, I believe we need nuclear integration, not isolation, such as those peaceful programs in South Korea and Japan.
Kerry's video message about the Geneva Talks
Stepping aside from the leaders and countries involved, what do you think this six-month agreement means to the Iranian people themselves?
Milani: I think in the short run, it has brought them a double sense of joy and relief: joy that war might be averted, and relief that dire days of economic hardships might begin to end and that maybe the country will no longer be a pariah and join the community of nations. But I think there is also some trepidation: Will the interim agreements turn into an enduring policy or will the radicals use the interim sanction relief to get out of the current jam and then resume their policies?
Are you hopeful this is a significant step forward or is it too early to tell?
Milani: I think it is too early to be definitive but my sense is that momentum is building for the successful continuation of the thaw. Policies of the regime in the last years brought the country to the verge of the abyss. One could put a bit of Biblical touch to what President Rouhani himself says: men and women do not live by centrifuges alone. They need bread and freedom.
This is a win for Obama but it also appears to be a huge win for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Do you believe he is sincere in his commitment to negotiate and keep the talks on track?
Milani: I think Rouhani is one of the cleverest, most cunning and brutality pragmatic leaders the Islamic Republic has seen. He understands that the status quo is untenable and fashions himself as its potential reforming savior. He needs to make this deal work – one that is acceptable to the West, and the international community and sellable domestically as at least a win-win agreement – if he is to politically accomplish his goals as a disciplined man of great ambitions.
The Israelis are up in arms and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal “a historic mistake” that gives too much to the Iranians. But shouldn’t they be pleased that Iran has stepped back?
Milani: Many in Israel are up in arms, yet others are confident that the U.S. and EU will pursue their interests while never making a deal that threatens Israel's security. In time I think the second narrative might even dominate Israeli discourse.
Is the deal nothing more than a successful confidence-building exercise?
Barzashka (As told to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on Nov. 25): The agreement, the first in nearly a decade of confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program, is a win for diplomacy and proof that Obama’s strategy of direct engagement with Iran works. Enabled by high-level, face-to-face meetings between Tehran and Washington, the deal was struck despite significant opposition by hardliners in the United States, Iran and Israel.
The P5+1 and Iran adopted tangible, though modest, confidence-building measures that demonstrate both sides are serious about negotiations. The deal reflects reasonable compromises. For example, the P5+1 initially demanded that stockpiled, 20 percent-enriched uranium be shipped out of Iran, but exporting uranium was unacceptable for Tehran. Instead, the two sides agreed that Iran would convert 20-percent enriched uranium hexafluoride to uranium oxide or downblend it to below 5 percent—measures that still buy threat reduction without crossing Iran’s red line.
Finally, the agreement succeeds in building trust by leaving out the hard questions, such as Iran’s right to enrichment, which would be addressed during the next phase of negotiations.
Hero Image
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his fellow P5+1 foreign
ministers, as well as Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (center) listen as European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton speaks
after the group concluded negotiations about Iran's nuclear capabilities on November 24, 2013.
The Tahrir and Gezi Park protests were, amongst many other things, moments of energetic artistic creativity, in the sound world as well as other domains. Though well documented, and clearly a vital component of the political energies and transformations of the moment, they have proved difficult to think about. This talk, a musicologist's perspective, will explore them in the light of some recent thinking about crowds and social movements.
Bio:
Martin Stokes is King Edward Professor of Music at King's College, London. He is an ethnomusicologist, working primarily on the questions of ethnicity, identity, emotions, globalization in the context of the Middle East. His most recent book, The Republic of Love: Cultural Intimacy in Turkish Popular Music (University of Chicago Press, 2010), has received the Merriam Prize from the Society for Ethnomusicology. Among his other publications are Celtic Modern: Music on the Global Fringe (Scarecrow 2004), Ethnicity, Identity and Music: The Musical Construction of Place (Berg 1994), and The Arabesk Debate: Music and Musicians in Modern Turkey (Oxford 1992).
Co-sponsored by the Mediterranean Studies Forum, the CDDRL Program on Arab Reform and Democracy, Department of Music, and Department of Anthropology
Encina Hall West - Room 208
Martin Stokes
King Edward Professor of Music at King's College
Speaker
London
Tech City in East London is the fastest growing tech cluster in Europe, beginning with 15 tech companies in 2008 and now boasting now more than 1300 startups as well as leading global firms including Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Intel.
On October 30, 2013, the Silicon Valley Project of Stanford Graduate School of Business hosted a seminar on London as a hub of innovation featuring Eze Vidra, Head of Campus London and Google for Entrepreneurs European Outreach, and Samantha Evans, Vice Consul for Software of UK Trade and Investment (UKTI).
Vidra spoke about London from the perspective of Campus London, Google's first physical startup hub worldwide, which launched in March of 2012 with the mission statement “let’s fill this town with startups!” Campus London sees itself as an “open source” building, working with many partners, and offering the benefits that come with a dedicated working space to as many potential entrepreneurs as possible. Since its opening, over 1,000 startups have benefited from programs and more than 200,000 people have attended over 1,500 events. Perhaps the most unexpected statistic offered by Vidra was the number of cups of coffee sold in the basement of Campus London, which is a co-working space that anyone can register to use. “I believe there’s a correlation between innovation and coffee, and we have pretty damn good coffee,” Vidra exclaimed. They sold more than 90,000 cups of coffee in their first year of operation.
Image
Speaking from the vantage point of a national government trade and investment organization, Evans offered insights into how government policy can impact the growth of Tech City as a development hub, identifying key policy changes such as reducing the corporate tax rate and creating new R&D tax credits. Evans emphasized that the UK government’s support of Tech City isn’t about creating a new innovation hub from scratch through top-down dictates. The government, she said, recognized a naturally occurring and organically growing cluster of technology companies in East London and made a conscious decision to “help businesses evolve and grow” in a “long-lasting” manner.
Vidra said that Google also “noticed that there was an organic cluster forming in East London.” The company, he said, is trying to provide some of the necessary infrastructure and helping to foster growth and to build up the community. “What we’re trying to do is not to build a new Silicon Valley or try to create something artificially,” said Vidra, “we should build bridges, not valleys.”
Google, with all its resources, couldn’t create something out of nothing, Vidra recognized. He pointed out that “in London everything is encapsulated in one city … every brand, every bank, every organization you can think of.” Vidra argued that London represents an ideal confluence of talent, capital, and ideas, so Google is attempting to act in an enabling role. “We don’t replace universities, we don’t replace accelerators. We actually work with all of these partners and set up a discussion and the environment for them to be active and help entrepreneurs.”
Vidra admits that London still has a ways to go in terms of competing with other innovation hubs like Silicon Valley, New York, and Israel, particularly when it comes to liquidity and exits, but is optimistic about London’s future. He says that London is an “underserved market by startups,” with lower costs, less competition for talent, and much less competition between startups.
Image
The government’s involvement in promoting Tech City has met with some positive feedback on policy measures. “There’s two policies that have really changed the game in London,” Vidra said about the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS). These government programs have “unlocked unprecedented amounts of capital” for early stage startups. He also praised the government’s Tech City Investment Organization (TCIO) for championing the tech sector through offering grants, bringing in investments from international companies, helping international VCs to set up offices, promoting startups, and assisting companies in going public.
“You can debate what’s the role of government to create entrepreneurship or foster innovation, but we need all the help we can get.” These government policies don’t result in “fake growth,” insists Vidra, “it’s not going to make or break their businesses … but if there’s actually something there it’s going to be much easier for them to grow.”
William J. Perry in 1945 in his U.S. Army Air Corps uniform.
