This Arab Reform and Democracy research seminar will examine Lebanon’s failure to reform the electricity sector against the background of elaborate networks of client-patron relations, failing state institutions, and governance issues. It will explain how the electricity services have become a major element feeding Lebanon’s political and social fragmentation.

The electricity sector reform has featured as a major priority for several consecutive governments in Lebanon. Despite declared attempts at reform and legislative commitments, the state-run Electricité du Liban (EDL) still fails to ensure a reliable electricity supply, and has become a longstanding symbol of the profound political crisis affecting the Lebanese state and its institutions. The consequences of a failing sector and unreliable electricity supplies presents a number of impediments, the most important of which are those affecting Lebanon’s economic and social development and its regional integration. The failure to provide a systematic distribution of electricity also exacerbates inequalities along geographic, socio-economic and confessional lines.  During the summer of 2011, the electricity issue was brought to the public attention due to a major controversy in the current Lebanese government headed by Prime Minister Mikati. A last-minute deal prevented the government's fall and earmarked $1.2 billion of state financing to support some investments in infrastructure. However, practical implementation on the ground is still hindered by the patronage networks benefitting from the current status quo.

Katarina Uherova Hasbani is the Safadi Scholar of the Year at Stanford's Program on Arab Reform and Democracy, and is an energy policy expert focusing on MENA countries and their policies of energy diversification. She has worked for the European Commission, where she held several positions dealing with internal and external aspects of European Union’s energy policy, including the Cabinet of EU’s Energy Commissioner. Previously, she worked for Edelman and Cambridge Energy Research Associates, both consulting companies. She holds a master’s degree from the Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po) in Paris, a master’s degree in international relations and diplomacy and a bachelor’s degree in finance from Matej Bel University in Slovakia. She is currently based in Beirut where she lectures at the American University for Science and Technology.

 Read more about Katarina’s appointment as a Safadi Scholar of the Year here.

The implementation of the New START Treaty is going well and is a testament to the ongoing reset in relations with the Russian Federation.  As one Treaty provides a foundation for the next, the United States believes the vital cooperation will set the stage for further, deeper reductions.  This will not be easy.  The path from Prague was fast and straight and the first tasks along the way were long overdue or clear. Now, the path is moving into uncharted terrain.  The United States is committed to pushing forward with the momentum gained from New START. 

Speaker bio:

Rose Gottemoeller was sworn in as the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, in April 2009.  She was the chief negotiator of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russian Federation.  She was a senior associate in the Carnegie Russia & Eurasia Program in Washington, D.C., where she worked on U.S.–Russian relations and nuclear security and stability.  She also served as the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from January 2006 to December 2008.

Formerly Deputy Undersecretary of Energy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and before that, Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and National Security she was responsible for all nonproliferation cooperation with Russia and the Newly Independent States. She received a B.S. from Georgetown University and a M.A. from George Washington University.

Reminder: Rose Gottemoeller delivers the Drell Lecture at 4:00pm on Thursday, October 27 in Tresidder Union. No RSVP is required.

An extraordinary group of scientists in the last century included the aerodynamicist Theodore von Kármán, the physicists Leo Szilard, Eugene P. Wigner, and Edward Teller, and the mathematician John von Neumann. These Jewish-Hungarians first left Hungary for Germany, then were forced out of Europe, and in the United States they became instrumental in the defense of the Free World during World War II and the Cold War. The lessons of their lives and oeuvres will be discussed with emphasis on the most controversial one, Edward Teller, known also as “the father of the Hydrogen Bomb.”

Speaker bio:

István Hargittai is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, and the Academia Europaea (London). He is a Ph.D. of Eötvös University (Budapest), D.Sc. of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Dr.h.c. of Moscow State University, the University of North Carolina, and the Russian Academy of Sciences. His recent books include the six-volume Candid Science series (2000-2006), The Road to Stockholm (2002; 2003), Our Lives (2004), Martians of Science (2006; 2007), The DNA Doctor (2007), Judging Edward Teller (2010), and Drive and Curiosity (2011).

Edmund J. Malesky will argue that openness to foreign investment can have differential effects on corruption, even within the same country and under the same domestic institutions over time. Rather than interpreting bribes solely as a coercive “tax” imposed on business activities, he allows for the possibility that firms may themselves be complicit in using bribes to enter protected sectors or gain access to lucrative procurement contracts.  The propensity to bribe across sectors should vary with expected profitability related to investment restrictions. Thus, the linkage of foreign investment to corruption should increase dramatically as firms seek to enter restricted and uncompetitive sectors that offer higher rents. Malesky demonstrates this effect using a nationally representative survey of 10,000 foreign and domestic businesses in Vietnam. He also shows how the impact of domestic reforms and economic openness is affected by policies that restrict competition by limiting entry into a given sector.

Edmund Malesky is an associate professor of political science at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego. He has published in leading political science and economic journals, including the American Political Science Review and the Journal of Politics, and has been awarded the Harvard Academy Fellowship and Gabriel Almond Award for best dissertation in comparative politics. Malesky serves as the lead researcher for the Vietnam Provincial Competitiveness Index and Cambodian Business Environment Scorecard.

For more information please see the event web page.

The 11^th Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam was significant in several respects. It placed diplomacy in the forefront of Vietnam’s efforts to maintain peace, stability, and national security, including naming more diplomats as full members of the Central Standing Committee. For the first time, the Party officially identified protecting national interest as the top priority of Vietnam’s foreign policy. The Party continued to push for broader horizons in policymaking to facilitate Vietnam’s integration in the larger world. The Party also agreed that Vietnam should anchor itself to ASEAN and promote its relations with China and the United States. Prof. Tuan will discuss these and other aspects and implications of Vietnam’s foreign policy.

Ta Minh Tuan is a member of Vietnam’s Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP Vietnam), CSCAP’s Study Group on Countering the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Asia Pacific, and Pacific Forum CSIS’s Young Leaders Program. He has been a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and the University of South Carolina. His degrees are from the Polish Academy of Sciences’s Institute of Political Studies (PhD), Mahatma Gandhi University’s School of International Relations (MA), and the Hanoi University of Foreign Studies (BA).

In September 2011 the U.S. bilateral alliance system in the Asia-Pacific—the “San Francisco System” (SFS)—turned 60 years old. Against the expectations of theorists who argue that alliances cannot be sustained in the absence of a commonly perceived mutual external threat, the SFS remains operative and viable. It remains so even as multilateral approaches to regional order-building in the Asia-Pacific have proliferated. Although the identity and functions of the SFS have evolved, the speakers will argue that it remains—and will remain—a critical security mechanism in the likely absence of a comprehensive and consensual regional security arrangement that could supersede it. Their remarks will convey the findings and projections of a recent study of Asia-Pacific security undertaken by  Australian National University (ANU) and supported by the MacArthur Foundation’s Asia Security Initiative.

John Ravenhill returned to ANU in 2004, after holding the chair of politics at the University of Edinburgh from 2000. He currently directs the School of Political Science and International Relations at ANU’s College of Arts and Social Sciences. Before joining ANU in 1990, he was an associate professor at the University of Sydney, and assistant professor at the University of Virginia, after completing his PhD at the University of California, Berkeley.  He has held visiting professorships at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies; Nanyang Technology University, Singapore; the University of Geneva; the International University of Japan; and the University of California, Berkeley. His many articles have appeared in leading journals including World Politics, International Organization, Review of International Political Economy, Review of International Studies, New Political Economy, World Policy Journal, World Development, and International Affairs. His research interests include global political economy, especially the fields of trade and production, and Australian foreign policy.

William T. Tow came to ANU in early 2005, having been a professor of international relations (IR) at the University of Queensland and at Griffith University, and an assistant professor of IR at the University of Southern California. His visiting-scholar positions have included APARC (1999) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. Among his many writings are Politics in the Asia-Pacific: A Regional–Global Nexus? (edited, Cambridge University Press, 2009); Asia Pacific Strategic Relations: Seeking Convergent Security (Cambridge University Press, 2001); and articles in the China Journal, Review of International Studies, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, China Quarterly, International Affairs, Survival, and Asian Survey. He also heads the ANU IR component of the Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security, was editor of the Australian Journal of International Affairs, has held positions with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Fulbright Commission, and received an Australian Award for University Teaching in the Social Sciences Category.

Brendan Taylor’s writings include Sanctions as Grand Strategy (2010); American Sanctions in the Asia-Pacific (2010); and articles in Asian Security, the Australian Journal of International Affairs, International Affairs, and Survival.  In addition to leading the ANU-MacArthur Asia Security Initiative Focus Group (since 2009), he has served as associate investigator, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security; graduate studies convenor, Political Science and International Relations, ANU; and lecturer and post-doctoral fellow, SDSC.

David Envall is a Japan specialist with an interest in how foreign policy is made. He edits the ANU-MacArthur Project’s policy papers. His essays will appear in the Asian Journal of Political Science and in volumes on Australian-Japanese politico-security relations and on strategic and structural changes in the Asia-Pacific security environment.