CISAC Senior Fellow Siegfried Hecker and a delegation of American scientists traveled to Moscow last week to revitalize nuclear cooperation with Russia, despite diplomatic tensions between the United States and Russia over the crisis in Ukraine.

The delegation that traveled to Russia last week included former U.S. laboratory scientists Paul White, James Toevs, and K. David Nokes, as well as CISAC research assistants Peter Davis and Alla Kassianova and CISAC fellow Jason Reinhardt.

The team traveled to Russia to host a workshop and make the case that continued scientific cooperation in reducing nuclear risks – particularly to prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism – should remain a top priority for both countries, even as U.S.-Russia relations continue to deteriorate.

The White House has implemented increasingly stricter sanctions against top Russian officials and has restricted official travel and scientific cooperation. Washington accuses Moscow of trying to destabilize the new government in Ukraine by backing pro-Russian separatists in the former Soviet state.

Hecker chaired a Track II workshop at the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute (MEPhI) on April 24 on “Cooperation on Countering Nuclear Terrorism and Nonproliferation.” Presenters from Russian institutes and U.S. laboratories included Reinhardt, a national security systems analyst at Sandia National Laboratories who is pursuing a PhD at Stanford in Management Science & Engineering. He argued for expanded cooperation to counter nuclear terrorism and reduce the risk of global proliferation.

“It is paramount that American and Russian scientists continue to work together to deal with today’s nuclear risks despite the tension between our two nations,” says Hecker, a Stanford professor of management science and engineering. The former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory made his first trip to the Russian nuclear complex in early 1992, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to promote joint efforts to mitigate the threats posed by the huge Russian nuclear complex during a time of political and economic turmoil.

The threats have changed during the past 22 years, but have not gone away, Hecker says. Yet cooperation between Russian and American nuclear scientists has declined significantly during the past decade because Russia has recovered economically and has grown progressively more protective against external intervention. Now, the crisis in the Ukraine threatens to stop cooperation completely.

More than 200 students from MEPhI’s nuclear science and nonproliferation programs participated in the workshop, alongside prominent Russian scientists.

“The large audience indicates how seriously the nuclear specialists from both sides take the need to protect the world from the spread of nuclear weapons and materials to other states and non-state actors,” says Hecker, whose workshop grew from his Nuclear Risk Reduction Project (NRR), which is funded by the Carnegie Corporation and the MacArthur Foundation.

Hecker is also working with his former Russian counterparts at the Russian nuclear weapons laboratories on a book about the history of U.S.-Russia national laboratory cooperation, which is due out later this year. That book will tell the story of how the scientists worked together during difficult times to make the world a safer place.

Russian and American scientists discuss nuclear collaboration as students from the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute look on. Photo Credit: Peter Davis

We asked Hecker to answer several questions related to his trip to Moscow.

Why did you still travel to Moscow given the recent events in Ukraine?

I had to discuss the book with my Russian collaborators in order to meet our fall deadline for publication. We also wanted to reinforce the belief of scientists on both sides that we must continue to cooperate even, or perhaps especially, when our governments are at odds. That is why we organized the educational conference on nuclear cooperation.

Did the U.S. government try to stop you?

Since I went as a Stanford University professor, I did not need official approval. Key individuals in the government knew that I was going and did not try to stop me. However, colleagues from the Department of Energy’s nuclear laboratories were prohibited from attending a related conference and Washington canceled several official bilateral meetings and visits.

Were the Russians allowed to meet with your delegation?

Yes, we met with the key individuals on the Russian side and MEPhI organized a great conference. We did have to switch the venue of one of our side meetings from one of the Russian nuclear weapons laboratories to neutral ground. I think the Russian government did not want these meetings to look official after the U.S. government has canceled most interactions for the foreseeable future.

How do your Russian collaborators view the recent events in Ukraine?

Without exception, they viewed it with alarm and laid the blame squarely on the “fascists” who took over Kiev’s government illegally. They could not understand how the Americans could support what they see as an illegitimate regime. We got quite a lesson on the intertwined history of Russia and the Ukraine. They believe the Americans simply don’t understand the deep relations and commitment all Russians have for Ukraine. When we tried to give a Western point of view, some Russian colleagues told us that we have been brainwashed by Washington and the media.

How does the downturn in relations affect your views on the need for cooperation?

Despite their views on Ukraine, our Russian colleagues all said we must continue to work the nuclear issues together. So while we couldn’t agree on Ukraine, we agreed for the need to keep up our work – which for me has now spanned 49 visits to Russia during the past 22 years. 

What role has CISAC’s collaboration with the Moscow Engineering and Physics Institute (MEPhI) played in your work on nuclear cooperation?

MEPhI is a great counterpart for CISAC and a number of other American universities. It educates about one-third of the scientists and engineers that make up the Russian nuclear complex. It is with the next generation that we have the best chance of reducing the global nuclear risks that we face now and in the future.

In conversation with Shorenstein APARC, Karen Eggleston, center fellow and director of the Asia Health Policy Program, reflects on her initial draw to Asian studies and eventual focus on comparative Asia health policy. She also shares perspectives on health reform in China and demographic change across East Asia, and talks about related upcoming activities.

How did you begin in Asia health policy?

I have long been interested in Asia in general. My initial appeal to the region came from my family’s roots (my grandfather taught Korean history at Berkeley) and early international travel. Only much later in graduate school did I come to the area of economics as a discipline and health policy as my specialty; however, I had been attracted to economic development and social policy in Asia earlier on. I started with an undergraduate degree in Asian studies, which followed with a Masters degree in Asian studies specifically focused on China and Korea. During graduate school, my father-in-law introduced me to unique perspectives, as he was a physician in China. When he visited the United States to present his work, I helped translate his findings. As my career developed, I had the privilege of working with many inspiring health economists, and economists interested in health policy, some of whom acted as my mentors at Harvard and here at Stanford - János Kornai, Victor Fuchs, Joseph Newhouse, Richard Zeckhauser, and Jay Bhattacharya, to name a few. These experiences helped to further narrow my focus and interests.

What led you to Stanford?

It was extremely exciting when the opportunity arose to come to Stanford. The university is a world-class learning environment and is unique in having a health policy program focused on Asia. I was recruited to the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at the founding of the Asia Health Policy Program. The Program is distinctive given its comparative approach focusing on the Asia-Pacific region, which differs from most other institutions. The west coast is also geographically closer to Asia, so you get a ‘flavor’ and infusion of Asian studies here more so than on the east coast. Not to mention, it was a delight to come back to my home state of California after many long years of New England winters.

To be a successful scholar of global health policy, what tools or perspectives should one be informed about?

Global health policy is a very complex field, and can be approached many ways. This, of course, makes it both exciting and challenging. My own approach is through the lens of economics. If you are looking at research and evidence-based policy, it can be beneficial to have either a social science background or a medical-clinical discipline (or both), perhaps combined with a specific geographic focus. Knowing about the history, culture, and institutions are very important for understanding health policy challenges. It also helps to build capacity within that region of focus. Partnering with practitioners and scholars in the country or region allows you to know what is really happening on-the-ground, and feed the research back into local policy decisions. I also think it is important to emphasize evidence over ideology – for example, to keep clear in your mind whether you are more of a policy advocate or academic. A scholar can play varying roles at different times in their careers, but it isn’t easy to do both fully at once. 

As China’s population and social inequalities continue to grow, are its current governance structures sustainable?

Even though political economy is not my expertise, institutions and how they adapt to a society’s needs is pertinent to anyone looking at health reform. For example, in China, there has been a lot of debate since the leadership transition and its implications for national health administration. Should health policy be led solely by the Ministry of Health, now the Health and Family Planning Commission? The Ministry runs the hospitals but is not in charge of the urban insurance system – this falls to Labor and Human Resources. Other branches of government administer regulation, pricing and other aspects of health policy. And of course the Ministry of Finance, and National Development and Reform Commission, play key roles. Like many countries, China has over 14 different ministries and agencies that are involved in the organization of its health system. Thus a relevant question is: who is in charge of taking the next step and coordinating between those entities? A health reform office was established directly under the State Council. Population aging is another issue that spans multiple sectors and policymaking entities. The Chinese government will be impelled to adapt its policies to face new challenges.

What are the connections between health policy and demographic change? Can you tell us about your upcoming work?

One important connection between health policy and demographic change is that the burden of disease changes as the population changes. A country with a large young population (like India) will have a different burden of disease than a country with a large older population (like Japan). If fertility and mortality rates decline, the burden of disease shifts toward chronic, non-communicable disease incidence. Partly, this trend reflects a ‘triumph’ from control of infectious disease and the demographic transition (with longer lives and lower fertility), but then it presents a new set of challenges for society to deal with problems of that older population. Some of my work compares China and India, which have similarities in size and socio-economic diversity. This May, I am helping to organize a conference at the Stanford Center at Peking University in Beijing with my Stanford colleagues Jean Oi, Scott Rozelle and Xueguang Zhou, and our collaborators at the PRC National Development and Reform Commission. The conference will compare urbanization and demographic trends in China and India. It is envisioned that the conference will lead to two separate book projects – one on urbanization in China in comparative perspective and another on demographic change in China and India. We will also present findings that were an outcome of a three-year research project, with initial findings published in The Journal of Asian Studies.

Tell us something we don’t know about you.

In my youth, I was very much into equestrian vaulting and played the violin. As one of my mentors said to all his students, ‘you might not be the world’s best at any one category, but if you look at the overlap between different categories, you could be distinctive.’ So I might very well be one of the world’s only horse-vaulting, violin-playing health economists, for what it’s worth.

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

President Barack Obama’s trip to four Asian nations – Japan, South Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines – set out to address an ambitious agenda, including trade negotiations, territorial disputes, and the threat of North Korea. Scholars at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center in the Freeman Spogli Institute provided commentary to local and international media about the state tour.

Ambassador Michael Armacost, a distinguished fellow at Shorenstein APARC, evaluated the goals of the trip, saying it aimed to deliver a message of reassurance to East Asia that the U.S. rebalance is intact. Armacost highlighted the efforts to negotiate a 12-nation trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as the centerpiece of the Obama trip to Asia. He was interviewed by Weekly Toyo Keizi, a Japanese political economy magazine. An English version of the Q&A is available on Dispatch Japan.

Many foreign policy issues shadowed the outset of President Obama’s Asia trip, the crisis in Ukraine and Syria, among others. Daniel Sneider, associate director of research at Shorenstein APARC, said in Slate that Asian nations notice where the United States focuses its time. Obama’s commitment to the region may have come across as distracted given the breadth of his current foreign policy agenda.

Sneider also spoke with LinkAsia on Obama’s stop in Tokyo. President Obama met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe; the two leaders addressed issues surrounding territorial disputes and attempted to reach an agreement on outside market access issues in the TPP negotiations.

Donald Emmerson, director of Shorenstein APARC’s Southeast Asia Forum, offered an assessment of America’s ‘pivot to Asia’ and on the significance of the Malaysia and Philippines visits. He said the trip most notably reinforced America’s efforts to upgrade security commitments and promote freer trade negotiation in that region. The Q&A was carried by the Stanford News Service.

Emmerson spoke with McClatchyDC on two occasions about the Philippines leg of the tour. He commented on Obama’s statement reaffirming the United States’ security commitment to Japan, which recognized Japan’s administrative control over the Senkaku Islands. Emmerson suggested the greater context of claims in the South China Sea must be considered, including Manila’s. He also said maintenance of the security alliance is a positive step, but trade is a an essential part of the the pivot's sustainablility.