Journalism in Southeast Asia is triply constrained. In a given country, the regime in power may impose censorship or induce self-censorship. Outraged by an article, headline, or photograph, a threatening mob can achieve the same result. Concern for the bottom line may pressure commercial media to avoid "serious" analyses in favor of "lighter" stories with ostensibly greater reader, listener, or viewer appeal. Violence and sex may be featured for the same material reason. What is it like to work under such constraints? What strategies are available to journalists for defeating or deflecting them? How do the news environments in Indonesia and Thailand differ in these respects? What about the prejudices and preferences of journalists themselves? How do all these limits, incentives, and propensities go into the making of the news in Southeast Asia? Yuli Ismartono is uniquely suited to answer these questions. As a correspondent for TEMPO, she covered wars in Cambodia and Sri Lanka, drugs in the Golden Triangle, the student uprising in Burma, the Soviet exit from Afghanistan, Russian elections, the first Gulf War, and events in Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, and, of course, Indonesia. For five years while TEMPO was banned, she worked in television and corporate public relations while writing for The Indonesian Observer. Her current responsibilities as executive editor include managing TEMPOInteraktif (online news).

Widely regarded as a classic text of modern Vietnamese literature, Vu Trong Phung's The Storm (1936) is also the only colonial-era novel that features a leading member of the Indochinese Communist Party (ICP) as its main character. As a result, the novel provides rare insight into popular Vietnamese attitudes of the day toward communism and local communist activists. This issue merits attention because studies of early Vietnamese communism tend to approach the movement from the inside exclusively (by examining the institutional development of the Party and the lives and ideas of its leaders) while more or less ignoring perceptions of it from without. It is also important because the Party has long fostered a suspiciously monochromatic image of itself over time as an entity that is invariably modern, scientifically oriented, morally virtuous, socially based in the lower classes and deeply nationalistic. The process whereby this cluster of vaguely Stalinist attributes came to embody the transhistorical nature of the Party dovetailed with the consolidation of communist control over state power in northern Vietnam after 1954. Vu Trong Phung's The Storm, however, calls into question the historical continuity of the Party's character and reputation by presenting a pre-Stalinized portrait of the Vietnamese communist leadership. The recovery of this image is significant because of the likelihood that it reflected a widely held view of the movement during the late colonial era and because it is consistent with a fragmentary body of historical evidence about the nature of the ICP during its formative stage of development. Finally, a consideration of recent debates over the novel will reveal the limited extent to which the Party has been prepared, during the reform era, to tolerate the spread of unorthodox narratives of its origins and historical development. Peter Zinoman is associate professor of history and Southeast Asian studies at the University of California, Berkeley. His first book - The Colonial Bastille: A History of Imprisonment in Vietnam, 1862-1940 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001) - was awarded the John K. Fairbank Prize in East Asian History from the American Historical Association in 2,002. He is currently working on a study of the writer Vu Trong Phung and the emergence of modernist movements in inter-war Vietnam. His most recent publication - Dumb Luck: A Novel by Vu Trong Phung (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002) - is a translation of a vernacular-language satire of colonial society in Vietnam published originally in 1936.

Over the last two years in Southeast Asia, acts of terror done in the name of Islam have divided analysts into two broad camps. Academic specialists on Islam in Southeast Asia have tended to emphasize the moderation of the vast majority of Muslims in the region and the local roots of so-called jihadist violence there. While not denying the moderation of most Muslims, Western journalists and officials have relied more on intelligence reports and detainee confessions to situate Southeast Asian jihadists within a global terrorist network organized and inspired by Al Qaeda. Compared with Western journalists and officials, scholars have also tended to portray Islam as a basically tolerant religion and to seek nonreligious explanations and motivations for seemingly Islamist violence. If the scholars have had faith in explanatory contexts--distinctively local, historical, cultural, socioeconomic, and political--their counterparts in media and policy circles have been more inclined to showcase conspiratorial texts: interrogation transcripts, recordings of clandestine conversations, and the selectively Koranic rhetoric of militant Islamists urging global jihad. Which of these contrasting perspectives is superior, analytically and as a basis for counter-terror policy? Are the perpetrators of apparently Islamist terror in Southeast Asia thinking and acting locally? Or globally? Is there a demonstrably Al Qaeda network in the region? If so, what sort of a structure is it? How does it operate? Can a "war" against it succeed? If not, what might be a better approach? Zachary Abuza is an assistant professor of political science and international relations at Simmons College. His most recent book is Renovating Politics in Contemporary Vietnam (2001). Foreign-affairs journals that have published his work include Asian Survey and Contemporary Southeast Asia. He has spoken on Southeast Asian subjects before Congress, at the State Department, on Jim Lehrer's "NewsHour," and in the pages of the Wall Street Journal and Time, among other media. He received his Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1998. In 1995-96 he was a visiting researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Hanoi.

Shorenstein APARC is delighted to announce the presentation of the first annual Shorenstein Journalism Award, a prize awarded jointly by Harvard and Stanford.

The Award goes to Pulitzer Prize-winning author Stanley Karnow, and the program begins at 7:30PM, January 17th, 2002, in McCaw Hall, Arrillaga Alumni Center, 356 Galvez Street, Stanford University. The program is free and open to the public. It will open with music and a light buffet reception, followed by a formal presentation of Mr. Karnow and a review of his contributions. Mr. Karnow will then deliver an address featuring personal reflections on the state of his craft, and on fifty years of change and continuity in Asia. He will also take questions from the audience.

At 10:00AM, January 18th, 2002, in the Asia-Pacific Scholars Room on the third floor of Encina Hall, there will be a seminar discussion of Mr. Karnow's remarks. The discussants will include members of the Award Jury (Jim Thompson of the Neimann Foundation, David Greenway of the Boston Globe, and Donald K. Emmerson of Shorenstein APARC). Mr. Karnow will be therespondent.

Mr. Karnow has been hailed by Newsweek as "perhaps the best journalist writing on Asian affairs." Among his assignments, he traveled with Presidents Eisenhower and Johnson, and accompanied President Nixon to China in 1972. He was in Vietnam in 1959 when the first Americans were killed, and covered the war to its conclusion. In 1990, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for "In Our Image," a history of America's dealings with the Philippines. His other prizes include six Emmys, three Overseas Press Club awards, and Dupont, Peabody, and Polk awards for his role as chief correspondent to PBS.

The Shorenstein Award, which carries a cash prize of $10,000, honors a journalist not only for a distinguished body of work, but also for the particular way it has helped an American audience understand the complexities of Asia. It is presented jointly by the Shorenstein Forum at Stanford, and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University.

Dennis Harter is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and a Foreign Service Officer (since 1966) specializing in Asian Affairs. From 1968-1970, he served as a district senior advisor in the Mekong Delta, then as deputy director for Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia Affairs in the late 1970s. He has served as director of Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam Affairs during the period of normalization of relations with Vietnam, and as deputy chief of Mission (Deputy Ambassador) from August 1997 to the present. He also served in Hong Kong twice; in Taiwan and Indonesia, and was Consul General in Guangzhou, People's Republic of China from 1989-1993.

In 1975Ð76 the fall of Saigon was followed by national reunification and the establishment of the Socialist Republic. Access to the Mekong Delta was widely expected to facilitate rapid neo-Stalinist industrialization and the appearance of a powerful military threat to capitalist SEA. But this did not happen. By 1981 partial reforms had permitted all state enterprises to operate in markets and some degree of agricultural decollectivisation. In the second half of the 1980s there was a clear de-Stalinization of everyday life. And by 1989Ð90 a recognizable market economy had emerged. Since then the Vietnamese Communist Party has, with some success, negotiated a major opening-up of the country to foreign contacts. Vietnam has joined ASEAN, and has seen the emergence of land, labor, and capital markets, and the confused processes by which classes form. Fundamental economic and political change has therefore occurred. Growth has been rather fast and the use of state violence minimal. Politically, for the still-Leninist VCP, the shift from Plan to Market has been a great success. What is the political economy basis for this? Despite emergent capitalist classes and a market economy, the political economy of "post-transition" Vietnam is heavily marked by its recent history, and remains very different from other ASEAN members. Notwithstanding revolutionary change, dualities common to both the traditional and modern political economies have offered great potential for political restructuring. In this sense "development doctrines" are perhaps less exotic and more indigenous than elsewhere in SEA. This facilitates relatively harmonious political adaptation and is the key to understanding change. For example, wide rural land access, with a collective tinge in the most densely populated areas, has a strong and pervasive effect upon the macro political economy. "Voice and exit" are enhanced. Thus we see rather high levels of migration, and risk bearing be farmers. Rural GDP has grown fast through the 1990s. Also, real wages in urban areas tend to be higher and the labor regime less brittle. What are the political implications of such a land regime? At the end of the day, one reason for the lack of extensive state violence against the population seems to be that the party/state has sufficient sources of support and power for tense economic issues in the rural areas to be fought out without property rights needing violence to enforce them. These issues are fought out locally (within cooperatives and communes) and in macro contexts (access to world markets). But in the rural areas the state does not, apparently, need to support particular economic interests for its survival. One reason for this is that the "land issue" has been addressed through the adaptation of socialist models, so that large-scale land property is not (yet?) a major issue. Dominant groups in the rural areas do not depend upon land access for their incomes. Adam Fforde is a development economist. He holds an Oxford MA (Engineering Science and Economics), a London MSc (Economics) and a Cambridge PhD (Economics). He studied Vietnamese in Hanoi during 1978/79 and was a visiting scholar at the National Economics University (Hanoi) in 1985Ð86. He lived in Vietnam from 1987 to 1992 while working as an advisor to the Swedish aid program, and in Australia from 1992 to 1999, where he was a visiting fellow at the ANU and Chairman of Aduki Pty Ltd (Consultants). He is now senior fellow at the SEA Studies Programme, National University of Singapore. He has published on topics including the economic development of north Vietnam prior to 1975, agricultural cooperatives, and the transition from plan to market. He is currently working on class formation and the emergence of factor markets in the 1990s, industrial reform since the early 1960s, and Vietnamese development doctrine.

The Vietnam IT Forum 2001 will present an overview of Vietnam's infomation technology industry and its potential for U.S. participation. The conference showcases the emergence of Vietnam, particularly the technology sector and fetures the opportunities and challenges presented by these developments. The conference will examine the Bilateral trade Agreement, along with opportunities in softwre development, multimedia, telecommunications, networking, Internet/e-business, outsourcing, and foreign direct investment and financing. To indicate your interest in attending, please contact Q. Huy D. Do, Attorney-at-Law, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP. Tel: 415-954-0343, Fax: 415-391-2493, Email: qdo@ssd.com ***** THIS EVENT IS BY INVITATION ONLY. *****