Siegfried Hecker and his research assistant, Peter E. Davis, write that South Korea's nuclear energy program has become model that countries aspiring to obtain nuclear energy should emulate.

CISAC Senior Fellow Siegfried Hecker and his research assistant, Peter E. Davis, write in this Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article that South Korea's nuclear energy program has become model that countries aspiring to obtain nuclear energy should emulate.

Warning against the “dangers of excessive hubris,” former U.S. Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth emphasized the intricacies and complexity of creating American foreign policy and called for the government to exercise greater restraint and better understand the countries it engages with.

The veteran diplomat and visiting lecturer at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies called for the United States to exercise greater self-restraint and better understand the history and current circumstances of countries it engages with. 

“The making of U.S. policy is inherently a very, very difficult enterprise,” said Bosworth, positioned at Stanford for winter quarter.

“The issues tend to be complex, and they frequently pose moral as well as political choices,” he said. “I found that perfection is usually the enemy of the good in the making of foreign policy and is, for the most part, unattainable.”

Foreign policy can be ambiguous and difficult at times; it is a process that can be compared to gardening because “you have to keep tending to it regularly,” Bosworth said, referencing former Secretary of State George Shultz’s well-known analogy.

Bosworth, who served for five decades in the U.S. government and for 12 years as dean of Tuft’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, delivered these thoughts in the first of three public seminars this quarter. He is the Frank E. and Arthur W. Payne Distinguished Lecturer in residence at FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC).

He cautioned against America’s tendency to revert to military power when crisis occurs. “I believe that when at all possible, we need to choose diplomacy over force,” Bosworth asserted, “although it is sometimes true that diplomacy backed by potential force can be more effective.” 

Citing Afghanistan, Iraq and Southwest Asia, Bosworth noted these among other examples as situations of excessive power projected by the American foreign policy arm. In some cases, pride may have gotten the better of policymakers who sometimes “want to be seen as doers and solvers.”

Bosworth pointed out that the nature of our actions speaks loudly – both at home and abroad – thus sensitivity and sincerity are important in any international exchange.

Since the Vietnam War, American values and the push for democracy are not always well received by other countries. And there’s often good reason for that, he said.

“It is awkward for the U.S. to campaign for more democracy elsewhere when our own model seems to have increasing difficulty in producing reasonable solutions for our own problems,” he said.

Democracy is “not a cure-all” for every nation and this is reflected in the amended model adopted by countries such as Singapore, Indonesia and Burma. However, Bosworth said he remains confident that the American democratic system “will prevail and eventually work better than it seems to be working now.”

Bosworth will explore the challenges of maturing democracies in Japan and South Korea and negotiations and management of relations with North Korea in his two other Payne lectures. The Payne Lectureship brings prominent speakers to campus for their global reputation as visionary leaders, a practical grasp of a given field, and the capacity to articulate important perspectives on today’s global challenges.

Bosworth entered the Foreign Service in 1961, a difficult yet “exciting time to join the government,” he said.

“At the age of 21, I was the youngest person entering my class,” he said, “and of the 38 people, there were only two women…and were zero persons of color and only a handful who were not products of an Ivy League education.” The State Department of then is very different compared to the one that exists today; this signals positive, necessary change in the diplomatic corps.

Bosworth, having served three tours as a U.S. ambassador in South Korea (from 1997 to 2001); the Philippines (from 1984 to 1987); and Tunisia (from 1979 to 1981) and twice received the State Department’s Distinguished Service Award (in 1976 and 1986), has a long established career.

He brings great wisdom on foreign affairs given his extensive engagement as a practitioner and a writer, said former colleague and Shorenstein APARC distinguished fellow Michael H. Armacost.

“To say that Steve has had an extraordinarily distinguished career in the Foreign Service doesn't quite capture the range of his accomplishments, I can’t think of very many Foreign Service officers in this or any other generation that have left a footprint on big issues in three consecutive decades,” Armacost acknowledged. 

During his time at Stanford, Bosworth will hold seminars and mentor students who may be interested in pursuing a career in the Foreign Service, in addition to the two upcoming public talks.

A student seeking this very advice posed a question in the discussion portion following Bosworth’s talk.

Speaking to anyone considering a Foreign Service career, Bosworth said one must “think about it hard, and think again.” He said public service is a privilege, not so much a sacrifice as the typical notion holds. “It can be a great career as long as you have the right perspective on it,” he ended.

Microblogs, Youtube, and mobile communications. These are a few of the digital platforms changing how we connect, and subsequently, reshaping global societies. 

Confluence of technology and pervasive desire for information has in effect created widespread adoption. There is no doubt the Information Technology (IT) revolution is in full swing.

Comparing case studies across Asia and the United States, the fifth and final Stanford Kyoto Trans-Asian Dialogue (DISCONTINUED) considered opportunities and challenges posed by digital media. Experts and top-level administrators from Stanford and universities across Asia, as well as policymakers, journalists, and business professionals, met in Kyoto on Sept. 12-13, 2013.

Relevant questions asked included: What shifts have occurred in traditional versus digital media for how people get information, and how does this differ across countries? What is the potential for digital media in civil society and democratization? Is it a force for positive change or a source of instability?

In the presentations and discussion sessions, participants raised a number of key, policy-relevant points, which are highlighted in the Dialogue’s final report. These include:

Digital media does not, on its own, automatically revolutionize politics or foster greater democratization. While the Internet and digital media can play an instrumental role, particularly where traditional media is highly controlled by the government, participants cautioned against overemphasizing the hype. One conception is that the Internet can instead be viewed as a catalyst or powerful multiplier, but only if a casual chain of latent interest exists. That being said, greater exposure of youth to digital media, particularly in areas of tight media control, can open new areas of awareness.

The upending of traditional media business models has not been replaced by viable digital media business models. As media organizations struggle with their business models, the quality of reporting is threatened. For traditional organizations, maintaining public trust can be challenging, particularly during wars after disasters, while in areas with previously tightly controlled press, digital media may be perceived as more authentic. On the one hand, policy-driven agenda setting may be easier in some issue areas, but digital media may amplify interest in controversial issues, particularly with history issues in Asia.

As Cloud Computing platforms provided by a small group of mostly U.S. companies is increasingly the underlying platform for digital media—as well as our digital lives in general—issues of information security and privacy are at the forefront of much of the public’s mind. Revelations by former U.S. contractor Edward Snowden about the extent of the US government’s espionage activities raise concerns among journalists concerned with issues such as free speech of the press, media independence from government, and protection of sources. 

Previous Dialogues have brought together a diverse range of scholars and thought leaders from Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, India, Australia and the United States. Participants have explored issues such as the global environmental and economic impacts of energy usage in Asia and the United States; the question of building an East Asian regional organization; and addressing higher education policy and the dramatic demographic shift across Asia.

The annual Stanford Kyoto Trans-Asian Dialogue was made possible through the generosity of the City of Kyoto, the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, and Yumi and Yasunori Kaneko.

“Teaching doesn’t stop after class—it shapes and develops into many different avenues.”

Perhaps this is a guiding belief behind Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) at Stanford.

Known for his directorship at Shorenstein APARC, Shin is also recognized as a professor of sociology and in the leading role of the Korea Program that he founded more than a decade ago. In this inaugural Faculty Spotlight Q&A, Shin talks courses, research and administration—and perhaps most poignantly—about the ongoing collaboration with students far beyond their time at Stanford.

What are you looking forward to with the Center in year 2014?

As you may know, Shorenstein APARC is entering its thirty-first year and we have much to be pleased with. Our six well-established programs are strong in their approach to interdisciplinary research and policy-oriented outcomes. As director, my goal is to support the success of these programs in broaching questions and guiding purposeful interaction between the United States and Asia.

Political transition, demographic change, and economic development are being seen at varying levels across Asia. At the same time, regional tensions continue to rise and shifting internal dynamics signal unrest. The need for dialogue and new perspectives is essential. We must ask the question: how can we constructively engage?

In February, for example, the Koret Conference will examine opportunities for the outside world to engage with North Korea. Given the current security situation, this dialogue is not incredibly easy, but it is essential. This conference will bring experts to Stanford’s campus who will create a strong policy report and offer insight into the foreign policy debate. The year ahead at Shorenstein APARC presents many opportunities for students, affiliates, and the surrounding community to become involved.

This quarter, you are teaching the course “Nations & Nationalism” and often teach a variety of comparative courses on politics and sociology – what do you find most challenging about teaching?

Shin: For me, a challenging aspect of teaching is finding a balance between teaching theory and equipping students with the tools to approach real-world problems. I do not wish for students to leave with purely theoretical and scholarly arguments; my aim is to give students the means to ask questions and prepare them to sort out today’s complex challenges.

Nationalism remains an important challenge. As we can see in Northeast Asia today, the tension among China, Japan and the Koreas speaks to the interdisciplinary relationship between nation and society—political ramifications caused in part by long-standing historical narratives. In my course, students survey major works and consider a wide range of regional and domestic factors that contribute to political identity. 

Having been at Stanford since 2001 as a senior fellow at FSI and a professor of sociology, what do you most enjoy about working here?

Shin: Stanford provides constant opportunities to learn and engage with new people. Fellows and corporate affiliates join us at Shorenstein APARC each year. It is a pleasure to meet, work and engage in conversation with such a wide variety of scholars and professionals. This is what I have enjoyed most about the Stanford community—meeting very good people in my 13 years here.

It’s especially rewarding to see my students succeed after their time at Stanford. Even after leaving campus, many of my former students continue to work in collaboration with me. For instance, I worked with Paul Chang, an assistant professor of sociology at Harvard University, on a research project on social movements in Korea, which produced articles and a book. Currently, I am working on two collaborative projects with doctorate students I previously taught—one on global talent in Korea and the other on cultural diversity in Asian higher education and corporations.

Can you tell us about your research collaboration and upcoming work?

At present, I am working on three major research projects. My first project is a collaborative one with my former student, Joon Nak Choi, who is now an assistant professor at the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Our book, which is currently under review by a major academic press, examines the spread of global talent from the viewpoint of social capital instead of human capital. While the “brain drain” perspective permeates most literature on global talent recruitment, we claim that the spread of global talent generates social capital, creates transnational bridges, and transfers positive returns back to the home country. As a Korean who has lived and worked in the United States for more than 30 years, this inquiry is especially salient to me.

A second project with another former student, Rennie Moon, an assistant professor at Yonsei University in Seoul, examines cultural diversity issues and challenges in Korea and Asia. We review current programs and policies in universities and corporations and investigate how promoting diversity in ethnically homogenous societies like Korea and Japan can contribute to innovation and creativity. Through this project, we seek to stimulate a much-needed conversation about the value of diversity in Korea and across Asia and what embracing diversity can mean and do for these societies. 

Similarly, I have been working on the final installment of the Divided Memories and Reconciliation project with Daniel C. Sneider, associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC. Through in-depth interviews with over 50 opinion leaders in Japan, Korea, South Korea and the United States, we have gathered and analyzed opinions on memories of the Pacific wars, which have become even more relevant as they manifest in current geopolitics. We are currently writing a book based on the interviews and this will conclude a multi-year research project on the Divided Memories that will have produced four books when this gets published.

All of these projects are based on rigorous academic research but also seek to draw policy implications and suggestions to solve real world issues and problems.

The Faculty Spotlight Q&A series highlights a different faculty member at Shorenstein APARC each month giving a personal look at his or her teaching approaches and outlook on related topics and upcoming activities.

Stephen W. Bosworth, a former diplomat and expert on Korea, will spend the winter quarter at Stanford as a visiting lecturer.

Bosworth was a United States ambassador to three countries: South Korea (from 1997 to 2001); the Philippines (from 1984 to 1987); and Tunisia (from 1979 to 1981).

He was the President Barack Obama’s Special Representative for North Korea Policy between 2009 and 2011 and held several other senior positions at the State Department. He was a dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and is currently a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

At Stanford, he will be a Payne Distinguished Lecturer at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, in residence at FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

Prior to his arrival at Stanford University, Bosworth also served as the Director of Policy Planning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs, among other senior level positions at the State Department. Bosworth co-authored Chasing the Sun, Rethinking East Asian Policy in 2006, and focuses on U.S.-Asia foreign policy, energy security and inter-governmental relations.

The Payne lectureship, named after Frank and Arthur Payne, presents prominent speakers chosen for their international reputation as leaders who emphasize visionary thinking, a broad grasp of a given field, and the capacity to engage the larger community in important issues. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is also spending this academic year as a Payne lecturer.

Bosworth will deliver three public lectures at Stanford. His first talk will focus on his extensive experience in the diplomatic service. The public lecture and reception will take place in the Bechtel Conference Center in Encina Hall on Feb. 3. The two other lectures will address negotiations and relations between North Korea and the U.S. management of its alliance with Japan and South Korea.

CISAC and FSI Senior Fellows Siegfried Hecker and William J. Perry write in this New York Times OpEd that Iran has little to show for its 50-year pursuit of a nuclear program. They argue Iran should forego its attempts to build the bomb and concentrate on learning how to build better nuclear power plants, which would aid the country's beleaguered economy and promote international cooperation.

"Japan and South Korea became leading global reactor vendors by doing so," they write. "This could constitute a pragmatic and honorable choice. Such a solution offers the best opportunities for technical and industrial development with greatest economic gain and and least danger of proliferation."