Reality stands in the way of a quickly transformed U.S.-Russia relationship, Stanford historian Norman Naimark said. Naimark, an expert in Russian history and faculty affiliate at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), anticipates that "strategic constraints" will set in for the incoming Trump administration as it begins to understand some of the fundamental differences between Moscow and Washington.

The relationship between the two longtime global rivals may not change as fast or dramatically as some suggest, Naimark said. In fact, “deals” may be harder to make with the Putin regime in Russian than Trump anticipates.

CISAC recently interviewed Naimark on the subject of future U.S.-Russia ties:

How might the election of Donald Trump change the U.S.-Russia relationship?

There are many important things we do not yet know about the future Trump administration. How will his foreign policy team reflect (or not) the views of the Republican establishment, including the vice president, on issues towards Russia? How wedded is Trump to his campaign rhetoric and promises about Russia? How influential will the new president be in the making of foreign policy, when his interests and self-proclaimed competence clearly relate to domestic issues? How ready will the Trump administration be to reverse long-standing U.S. treaty and alliance obligations, both formal and informal?

Answers to those questions would help us assess the range of possibilities for any changes in Russian-American relations, which are presently worse than at any time since the beginning of the 1980s, the period of what some call the “second Cold War.” If Hillary Clinton had won the election, one could have been fairly certain that relations would have continued at their present parlous, if steady state, with both sides taking actions to undermine the other, while criticizing the other’s motives. Some commentators have suggested that the Trump victory opens a door for concessions on the part of the Americans – on Crimea, on Ukraine, on Syria, on sanctions, on NATO troops in the eastern member nations – that might encourage Putin to respond accordingly, improving the tone and content of Russian-American relations.

But I would caution against thinking that this will come fast, if it comes at all, or that the impact will be groundbreaking or of significant duration. There are some fundamental differences between Moscow and Washington that reflect deep and abiding issues. For example, both look at Russia’s “sphere of influence” from opposite perspectives: while Putin seeks to expand and consolidate it, the U.S. follows a revived containment policy. “Deals” may be harder to make with Russia under these circumstances than Trump anticipates.

If U.S. foreign policy establishment generally holds skeptical views of the Putin regime, how difficult will it be for Trump to strike off on his own in reshaping the relationship?

The history of American foreign policy since the Second World War has demonstrated that the president and his immediate advisors can have enormous influence on the flow of events. Again, nothing happens at once, independent of a cumbersome process of formulating and executing policy changes. But profound shifts do happen and they can alter the trajectory of American foreign policy. Still it is important to remember that Putin’s determined anti-American stance has Russian domestic political determinants that will impede change, even if President-elect Trump initiates steps to improve the character of the relationship.

What are the biggest flashpoints or challenges between Russia and the U.S.?

Ukraine, Syria, and the lifting of sanctions are probably at the top of the list, though the recent slippage of the arms control regime is a matter of great concern. The problems associated with Ukraine – both the issue of the illegal annexation of Crimea and the Russian destabilization of and military interference in Donbass – have been “handed off” by Washington to the Europeans in general and Germany, with Angela Merkel in the lead, in specific.

The Minsk II sanctions are a European initiative to get the Russians to conform to international norms on a Ukrainian settlement. Trump could hardly make a deal with Putin about Ukraine without serious European input.

Syria is different, though the constraints here also seem extremely difficult to overcome, given the U.S.’ principled opposition to strengthening Assad in power. Secretary of State John Kerry’s dogged attempts to come to an agreement with the Russians about Syria involved, as best we know, a number of important American concessions. Though both the United States and the Russian Federation are deeply hostile to ISIS, and it makes sense for both to join forces to attack the terrorist entity, the maintenance of the Assad regime would be very hard for the U.S. foreign policy and military establishment to accept.

Why does Putin seemingly think Trump is better for Russia than Hillary Clinton would have been?

Some of it is personal: Trump and Putin have said positive things about one another, though these exchanges were based in part on a mistranslation of a supposed compliment to Trump by Putin. Trump has been more conciliatory about dictators and has explicitly promised better relations with Russia. But the issues go deeper. Trump has indicated that he would reduce the United States’ support of NATO and reevaluate U.S. support of Ukrainian interests, both of which would weaken the American position in Europe, one of Moscow’s major foreign policy goals.

The Russian president also welcomes Trump’s readiness to recalibrate American involvement in Syria. Meanwhile, Clinton was seen as having tried to undermine Putin’s election to the Russian presidency in 2012 and as supporting an aggressive democratization program in Russia. She is the personification for him of the liberal, internationalist, and interventionist wing of the Washington foreign policy establishment that advocates, in his view, the Americanization of the international order.

With this said, Putin is surely nervous about Trump’s inconsistencies and volatility, which could exacerbate rather than calm Russian-American tensions.

What does history tell us about the U.S.-Russia relationship and what may happen in the future?

Since the beginning of the Cold War (some might argue since the Russian Revolution, almost a century ago), the relationship between the U.S. and Russia has been fraught with deep tensions and mutual hostility. The Cold War was a very dangerous period of relations, when proxy wars, dramatic international crises, and the potential use of nuclear weapons dominated the relationship. One of the major disappointments of the post-Cold War period is the unsuccessful integration of the Russian Federation in the international system as a force for peace and stability. Putin is an important part of the story. But there are also deep historical and structural reasons for this problem and they will not be solved by the waving of an American president’s magic wand. Though both countries are changing, we may have to wait a good long while for the Putin-era enmity to disappear.

Naimark is also the Donald Andrews Whittier Fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center, the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies in the history department, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution and an affiliated faculty fellow at the Europe Center at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. He recently published a new book, Genocide: A World History.

Follow CISAC on Twitter at @StanfordCISAC and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/StanfordCISAC.

MEDIA CONTACTS

Norman Naimark, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 723-2674, naimark@stanford.edu

Clifton B. Parker, Center for International Security and Cooperation: (650) 725-6488, cbparker@stanford.edu

The U.S.-Asia Security Initiative at Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, in collaboration with the Japan Center for International Exchange, has published a report highlighting the findings from its Inaugural U.S.-Japan Security Workshop, a Track 1.5 dialogue in Tokyo that convened government and military officials from the United States and Japan, as well as scholars and regional experts, in May 2016.

The report, titled “Japan’s Evolving Defense Policy and U.S.-Japan Security Cooperation: Expectations versus Reality,” examines recent changes in Japan’s defense policy and the implications of these revisions on the U.S.-Japan alliance and regional security.

Sections of the report include:

• American and Japanese Perspectives on the Security Trends in Asia
• The Impact of the New Security Policy on U.S.-Japan Security Cooperation Efforts
• Defense Cooperation and Weapons Development & Acquisition
• Conclusions—Facing the Policy and Operational Challenges Head-On

Rising tensions in Asia underscore a need for expanded security cooperation. The report is offered as a tool to American and Japanese policy researchers and practitioners who seek to study and address the evolving security environment and what the future holds for the alliance.

The report may viewed by clicking here.

Amy Zegart, co-director of CISAC, wrote the following op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle:

Donald Trump’s stunning win has made many wonder: Just how dangerous could a Trump foreign policy be? There are plenty of reasons to be afraid, very afraid.

Marjorie Kiewit, a former CISAC researcher and longtime supporter, passed away at her home in Boston on Nov. 12, 2016.  She was 95.

Kiewit was a researcher for the Center for International Security and Cooperation under John W. Lewis, CISAC co-founder and the William Haas Professor of Chinese Politics. She was also a generous and enthusiastic supporter of CISAC’s mission to make the world safer through knowledge and education.

Lewis said, “Marjorie worked throughout CISAC in its formative years and supported with wonderful gifts the entire center. In the last 10 years or so, she primarily supported my project (the Project on Peace and Cooperation in the Asian-Pacific Region), but she embraced the overall center's commitment to peace.”

For example, Lewis and his co-author acknowledge the support of Kiewit that made this 2016 research paper on China’s interests in the South China Sea possible. Always maintaining such connections after her two-plus decades at Stanford, Kiewit worked on campus at the Northeast Asia-United States Forum and then CISAC. She also served as a member of Stanford’s Board of Visitors for the Institute of International Studies. 

One Stanford colleague said Kiewit possessed an “intuitively correct understanding of the world events and world leaders.”  Another described her as “engaged, intelligent and relevant to how we faced extraordinary challenges and opportunities with the Chinese, North Koreans and Russians. She brought light and joy into all of our work."

Roots and results

Image

Kiewit maintained her association with Stanford for over three decades until her death, during which time she traveled with high-level delegations to China, Russia, and North and South Korea and cultivated close relationships with Chinese educators and senior policy makers to share ideas and proposals in the field of educational and foreign policy. She was also the founder and served as longtime chairperson of the Helios Foundation, which supports charitable institutions throughout the world and promotes philanthropy for future generations. She spent the last 20 years living in Boston to be near family, which was always a priority in her life, her family stated.

Kiewit was preceded in death by her two husbands; parents; two brothers, John and William Harkins; and her daughter, Linda Jacob.  She is survived by her sister, Barbara Belle of Belleville, Wis.; her daughters Barbara (Jack) Aalfs of Sioux City, Iowa and Nancy (Tom) McLoughlin of Mystic, Conn.; her son John (Lynne) Buchanan of Appleton, Wis.; her son-in-law Jonah Jacob of Boston; and seven grandchildren, 12 great-grandchildren, and three step-grandchildren. 

A celebration of Kiewit's life will be held next summer in Appleton, Wis.  Donations in her memory may be made to the Marjorie Buchanan Kiewit Scholarship Fund at Lawrence University. The address is:

Development Office, Lawrence University

711 E. Boldt Way

Appleton, WI 54911

Scholars and affiliates of Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) and experts in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies have offered commentary to media about the U.S. presidential election and its impact on U.S.-Asia relations.

The next administration's policy directions were also the focus of Shorenstein APARC-sponsored events held in Seoul, Stanford and Tokyo. A select list of links to commentary and an article about the Stanford event are located below. The list will continue to be updated.

Post-election commentary

"Trump says he won't ratify the TPP, what are the implications?" cites Donald K. Emmerson, Talk Media News, Nov. 29, 2016

"U.S. economy and security under the new president," television segment with Takeo Hoshi, also cites symposium held in Tokyo, Nikkei CNBC (in Japanese), Nov. 18, 2016

"Our allies are afraid. Here's how Trump can reassure them.," by Michael McFaul, from Seoul, Washington Post, Nov. 17, 2016

"Trump unlikely to drastically change U.S. defense policy on South Korea," cites Shorenstein APARC affiliates and symposium held in Seoul, The Korea Herald, Nov. 15, 2016

"Int'l community needs realistic goal for N.K. nuke talks," interview with William J. Perry, Yonhap News (in English and Korean), Nov. 15, 2016

"The Repudiation of American Internationalism and What It Means for Japan," by Daniel Sneider, Toyo Keizai (in English and Japanese), Nov. 11, 2016

"S.Korea-U.S. alliance won't change because of the election," cites Kathleen Stephens, Yonhap News, Nov. 9, 2016

"U.S. Economic and Foreign Policy under the New Administration," includes video of the Tokyo panel discussion, Nov. 20, 2016

Pre-election commentary

"Stanford scholars analyze the next U.S. administration's Asia-Pacific policy," Caixin Media (in Chinese), Nov. 7, 2016

"Shorenstein APARC scholars explore Asia policy challenges facing next administration," Shorenstein APARC, Oct. 31, 2016

Cautious optimism in Asia toward Trump administration

By Lisa Griswold

U.S. President Barack Obama’s term will end in January 2017 and a new administration led by Donald Trump is expected to take office, so: what does this mean for U.S. policy toward Asia?

A panel discussion featuring scholars from the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) in the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI) convened at Stanford on Tuesday to discuss policy directions and to offer perspectives of reactions to the election in South Korea and Japan, having just returned from there.

“This election was contentious, divisive, and at many times, surprising. There were different opinions about the results, but in general, people expressed a lot of concern throughout Asia,” Stanford professor Gi-Wook Shin said in his introductory remarks.

Shin, who is also the director of Shorenstein APARC, moderated the event, which included remarks from Michael Armacost, a Shorenstein APARC fellow and former U.S. ambassador to Japan and the Philippines; Kathleen Stephens, the William J. Perry Distinguished Fellow and former U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Korea; and Takeo Hoshi, an FSI senior fellow and director of Shorenstein APARC’s Japan Program.

Unprecedented election

Trump, who has never before held a political role, has unique credentials compared to his predecessors and his views break from the Republican Party establishment, traditionally pro-free trade and active in foreign policy.

“It’s difficult to guess what Trump’s foreign policy reflexes will be,” said Armacost, a former National Security Council official, who emphasized that international relations are often prompted by unplanned occurrences.

Trump has said, for example, that he would withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement, rescind its membership in the World Trade Organization, and scrap the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation trade deal brokered by the Obama administration.

The president-elect, however, has amended some views communicated during the campaign, and is likely to rely on his national security advisors for guidance on foreign policy issues.

“Trump may well be a skillful bargainer, but I suspect that striking a real estate deal is a lot simpler than negotiating with foreign sovereign governments on issues that carry a lot of cultural and historical baggage,” said Armacost, who served as U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs from 1984-89.

“Still his pragmatism, I think, is a virtue. Trump seems a smart fellow, and he sure has a steep learning curve ahead. We can only hope he will manage it well,” he added.

Uncertain path, opportunity

Echoing Armacost, Hoshi said Trump’s changed positions over the past few weeks have made it difficult to predict what’s ahead for U.S. economic and trade policy.

Trump, who campaigned with a message of restoring lost jobs in America, urged that the U.S. government reform several areas of economic policy and governance, such as its interaction with the Federal Reserve and implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, a set of regulatory reform measures enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis.

Hoshi, an economist, suggested Trump faces an uphill battle in his attempts to reconcile campaign rhetoric and political reality, especially in the midst of the president-elect’s break from the Republican Party establishment and promises made to voters.

The view of the election from Japan, Hoshi added, is that the United States is receding from its leadership role in the world, particularly in the area of trade.

Trump promised early on to nix the TPP and has remained steadfast, releasing a video message shortly after the election confirming his position. That decision is interpreted in Japan as a symbol of America’s withdrawal, said Hoshi, noting that a similar sentiment on trade would have been expected if Hillary Clinton were elected since she too promised to rollback the deal.

“The United States was the leader behind the TPP, but now it’s saying ‘we are out.’ For Asian people, this represents a really drastic change and a loss of credibility,” Hoshi said.

Asian countries, however, could use a void left by an American departure in trade policy to step in. “Maybe some countries will see it as an opportunity,” he said.

Unease over democratic processes

Stephens, who was in Seoul when the U.S. election results were called, said Koreans shared “a sense of unease about our [mutual] democratic processes.”

South Korea, like the United States, has a democratic system of government – a republic. The Asian country is currently embroiled in its own political upheaval as calls for the resignation of President Park Geun-hye continue following accusations of corruption.

Stephens, who served in the U.S. Foreign Service for 35 years before coming to Stanford, also noted that there was some trepidation about a Trump-led administration in Korean policy circles. It’s a known ambition of policy advisors to forge connections in anticipation of the new administration, but the Trump/Pence win was so unexpected that now there’s a “scramble to make those relations,” she said.

The president-elect’s phone calls and meetings with foreign leaders provided some reassurance though, particularly with South Korea and Japan, two countries with formal U.S. alliances that Trump had initially questioned over their nuclear policy and cost of local U.S. military presence, she said.

“The priority for the Trump administration should be to affirm the importance of U.S. alliances and to make very clear the commitment to securing them,” Stephens said.

A new U.S. administration also provides an opportunity to undertake a policy evaluation, which could carry implications for South Korea, in trade policy and its attempt to reengage North Korea, she said.

Japanese and American scholars and practitioners gathered at Stanford recently for “Womenomics, the Workplace, and Women,” a full-day conference seeking to find pathways to advance opportunity for women in society and the workplace.

Nearly 75 people attended the public conference, which included 20 speakers and was co-sponsored by Stanford’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and the Clayman Institute for Gender Research, as well as the United States-Japan Foundation and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Takeo Hoshi, director of the Japan Program at Shorenstein APARC, noted that women in Japan and the United States have long encountered obstacles related to gender. Currently, the United States and Japan rank 45^th and 111^th, respectively, on the Global Gender Gap Index.

“The conference is a unique opportunity for experts from Japan and Silicon Valley to learn from each other and their countries’ recent attempts to tackle gender diversity, particularly in the areas of business and technology,” Hoshi said.

The Japanese government’s inclusion of women’s advancement in its economic growth strategy 'Abenomics,' named after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is “one of the few good policies,” Hoshi said, yet complex cultural constraints and workplace policies need to change in order for it to work. Similarly, in Silicon Valley, while strides have been made, gender diversity still lags in corporate leadership and boards of directors especially in the areas of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

Panelists shared perspectives on women’s status, leadership and work-life balance in both countries throughout four panel discussions led by Hoshi, and Shelley Correll, director of the Clayman Institute and professor of sociology; Kenji Kushida, Japan Program research scholar; and Mariko Yoshihara Yang, a visiting scholar at Shorenstein APARC.

One broad theme that emerged in the discussions: gender equity progress takes time. Closing the gender gap will come incrementally and a multidisciplinary approach could help the process. 

Areas highlighted by the panelists included a need to address unconscious bias and to improve programs that support women in the workplace as well as those seeking to re-enter the labor force after taking time off, such as increased access to childcare and elimination of “evening work” for those who hold full-time jobs.

Panelists suggested expanding educational opportunities, mentorship and peer-to-peer networks among women, as well as training centered on gender equity for all employees. Quotas and government incentives for organizations that adopt equity practices were also proposed to achieve greater female representation.

Additional discussions took place between the panelists in a closed-door workshop the following day. A report that details outcomes and a set of policy recommendations is expected in 2017; the full list of panelists, topics addressed and conference agenda can be viewed here.