International Relations

FSI researchers strive to understand how countries relate to one another, and what policies are needed to achieve global stability and prosperity. International relations experts focus on the challenging U.S.-Russian relationship, the alliance between the U.S. and Japan and the limitations of America’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.

Foreign aid is also examined by scholars trying to understand whether money earmarked for health improvements reaches those who need it most. And FSI’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center has published on the need for strong South Korean leadership in dealing with its northern neighbor.

FSI researchers also look at the citizens who drive international relations, studying the effects of migration and how borders shape people’s lives. Meanwhile FSI students are very much involved in this area, working with the United Nations in Ethiopia to rethink refugee communities.

Trade is also a key component of international relations, with FSI approaching the topic from a slew of angles and states. The economy of trade is rife for study, with an APARC event on the implications of more open trade policies in Japan, and FSI researchers making sense of who would benefit from a free trade zone between the European Union and the United States.

Edwin O. Reischauer, Harvard Professor and U.S. Ambassador to Japan, was a seminal figure in both American education about and policy toward East Asia. In his detailed new biography, Dr. George Packard brings together his scholarship and his personal experience working for Reischauer in the early 1960s.

Re-centering the U.S.-Japan Alliance after the turmoil of the 1960 Security Treaty Riots, Ambassador Reischauer relied on his deep understanding of and sympathy for Japan, stabilizing the bilateral relationship for decades. Packard's insights on this history have bearing today as the United States and Japan seek to build a new partnership to cope with emerging challenges.

George R. Packard, president of the United States-Japan Foundation, is the former dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, where he founded Johns Hopkins's Foreign Policy Institute, The SAIS Review, the Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, and the Hopkins-Nanjing Center in China. He has been a military intelligence officer, Foreign Service Officer, journalist, scholar, educator, and author.

Philippines Conference Room

Dr. George Packard President Speaker The United States-Japan Foundation
Seminars
Paragraphs

". . . History, values, memory, and identity are significant elements that can influence the 'soft power' of an alliance built on 'hard power,' and policy makers of both nations should not overlook their importance," says Gi-Wook Shin, director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and the Stanford Korean Studies Program, in the chapter that he contributed to the recently published book U.S. Leadership, History, and Bilateral Relations in Northeast Asia.

In his chapter "Values and History in U.S.-South Korean Relations," Shin discusses developments in the types of issues that the United States and South Korea have collaborated on in recent years--including free trade agreements, Iraq and Afghanistan military operations, and policy coordination toward North Korea--and the significance of issues of history, values, memory, and identity--such as inter-Korean reconciliation and memories of U.S. military maneuvers in Korea--that have given the U.S.-South Korea relationship a "more complex and multidimensional" nature.

Published by Cambridge University Press in October 2010, the book was edited by Gilbert Rozman of Princeton University's Department of Sociology.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Cambridge University Press in "Issues of History, Values, Memory, and Identity in the U.S.-South Korea Relationship"
Authors
Gi-Wook Shin
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
Programs to enlist developing countries in climate change mitigation by granting credits for carbon emissions reductions across entire sectors like transportation are quite appealing in principle. However, as researcher Adam Millard-Ball shows in PESD Working Paper #97, "Adverse Selection in an Opt-In Emissions Trading Program: The Case of Sectoral Crediting for Transportation, " any practical implementation of such schemes would entail thorny trade offs between economic efficiency, environmental effectiveness, and political acceptability.

Sectoral crediting mechanisms such as sectoral no-lose targets have been proposed as a way to provide incentives for emission reductions in developing countries as part of an international climate agreement, and scale up carbon trading from the project-level Clean Development Mechanism to the sectoral level.

Countries would generate tradable emission credits (offsets) for reducing emissions in a sector below an agreed crediting baseline. However, large uncertainties in the regulator's predictions of the counterfactual business-as-usual baseline are likely to render sectoral no-lose targets an extremely unattractive mechanism in practice, at least for the transportation case study presented here. Given these uncertainties, the regulator faces a tradeoff between efficiency (setting generous crediting baselines to encourage more countries to opt in) and limiting transfer payments for non-additional offsets (which are generated if the crediting baseline is set above business-as-usual).

The first-best outcome is attainable through setting a generous crediting baseline. However, this comes at the cost of either increased environmental damage (if developed country targets are not adjusted to account for non-additional offsets), or transfers from developed to developing countries that are likely to be too high to be politically feasible (if developed country targets are made more stringent in recognition that many offsets are nonadditional). A more stringent crediting baseline still generates a large proportion of non-additional offsets, but renders sectoral no-lose targets virtually irrelevant as few countries opt in.

All News button
1
-

What has the United States accomplished with its unprecedented build-up of immigration enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border and in the interior of the country since 1993? How has this effort shaped the migration projects of Mexicans?  From the standpoint of U.S. policymakers, what has “worked,” what has not, and why?  In explaining major changes in migration flows since 2007, which matters most: U.S. border enforcement or the Great Recession?  In addressing these questions, Professor Cornelius will draw upon extensive fieldwork conducted in 2010 in rural Jalisco, the San Francisco Bay area, and Oklahoma City, as well as a new analysis of survey data from UCSD’s Mexican Migration Field Research and Training Program covering 2007-2010.

Wayne A. Cornelius is Co-Director, Education Programs, of the University of California’s Global Health Institute (UCGHI); Associate Director, UC Center of Expertise on Migration and Health; and a Core Faculty Member, Division of Global Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California-San Diego. He is Director Emeritus of the UCSD Center for Comparative Immigration Studies; Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Emeritus; and Theodore E. Gildred Professor of U.S.-Mexican Relations at UCSD. He is a past President of the Latin American Studies Association and an elected member of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York). One of the world's foremost experts on Mexican migration to the United States, comparative immigration policy, international migration and health, and the Mexican political system, Cornelius conducted field research in Mexico and the United States nearly every year from 1970 to 2009.  His latest among more than 280 publications on migration is a book titled Mexican Migration and the U.S. Economic Crisis: A Transnational Perspective.

Co-sponsored by Bill Lane Center for the American West, Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS), Chicana/o Studies, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Institute on the Politics of Inequality, Race and Ethnicity at Stanford (InSPIRES), MEChA, Stanford Humanities Center and Stanford Immigrant Rights Project.

Levinthal Hall

Wayne Cornelius Co-Director, Education Programs, University of California's Global Health Institute Speaker
Lectures
-

Gerald Warburg earned his BA in Political Science and Education at Hampshire College and MA in Political Science at Stanford in 1979, where he worked closely with CISAC fellows. He is now Executive Vice President of Cassidy & Associates, a prominent public affairs firm in Washington DC, and has served as a visiting professor at Georgetown University, Penn, Stanford, and Hampshire. He has also recently been appointed Professor of Practice of Public Policy at the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. Warburg has more than a decade of experience as a senior aide to members of both the U.S. House and Senate leadership. As Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Alan Cranston on Trade, Defense, and Foreign Policy, he coordinated the Senator’s work on the Committees on Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and the International Finance and Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Banking Committee. Previously, Mr. Warburg served as Legislative Assistant for Energy, Environment and Trade issues to U.S. Representative Jonathan B. Bingham, Chairman of the International Economic Policy and Trade Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Warburg was also an aide to U.S. Senator John Tunney on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. He is the author of Conflict and Consensus: The Struggle Between Congress and the President Over Foreign Policymaking (Harper & Row, 1989), and a novel (about Stanford China scholars) entitled The Mandarin Club, (Bancroft Press, 2006).

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

Gerry Warburg Executive Vice President Speaker Cassidy & Associates
Seminars

Reuben W. Hills Conference Room

Amy Zegart Associate Professor Speaker UCLA School of Public Affairs
Seminars
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
In mid-September, honors students from the Interschool Honors Programs convened by FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law and the Center for International Security and Cooperation traveled to Washington, D.C., with their faculty advisors for senior-level meetings and policy briefings. They met with senior U.S. government officials from the White House, State Department, Homeland Security, and the intelligence community, with representatives of international organizations such as the World Bank, and NGOs, think tanks and other policy forums engaged in international affairs.
All News button
1
Authors
Donald K. Emmerson
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The United States and the ASEAN group of nations have further strengthened political, economic and security ties, after their second full-scale summit in New York.

President Barack Obama said the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which groups ten countries, had the potential for true world leadership. President Obama also made it clear that he saw Asia as a vital plank of US foreign policy.

DR EMMERSON: In the run-up to the summit, there was a big question. Would the partnership be declared as being strategic in nature? That was a key word in the discussion and what happened was the leaders basically finessed the issue. It's not hard to suspect that they worried that if they declared a strategic partnership with the United States, this would cause alarm in Beijing. Because let's remember in the run-up to this summit, we've had a lot of activity - the split between China and Japan over the disputed islands, one could continue with some evidence of a more muscular Chinese foreign policy, its commitment to its claim to possess basically the entire South China Sea, escalating that to the level of a core interest, presumably equivalent to their interest in recovering Taiwan. I could go on, but in many case, it was understandable that the subtext of the meeting was what will China think? So basically what the summit did was to finesse the issue. They decided to pass on the question of raising the partnership to quote - a strategic level - unquote, to the ASEAN US Eminent Persons Group, presumably expert advisors that would be convened and would make recommendations down the road.

And one of the most remarkable things about the statement was how much ground it covered. I mean, among the topics and issues that the leaders committed themselves to do something about, were 14 as I count them, 14 different subjects. Human rights, educational change, trade and investment, science, technology, climate change, interfaith dialogue, disaster management, illicit trafficking, international terrorism, I could go on. So it is clear to me that one of the tasks that ASEAN and the US will have to face in the coming months, is to try to insert some sense of priority.

LAM: On that issue of priority, the US President, Barack Obama, of course, postponed a couple of visits to Indonesia due to pressing domestic demands. Did he in anyway express American commitment to the ASEAN region?

DR EMMERSON: Yes, this was particularly kind of, I suppose you could say, evident in the fact that the meeting occurred at all, finally it was organized. It lasted two hours. He was apparently quite engaged and engaging during that period of time. And I think there is no question that the United States under his administration is committed to South East Asia as a region, indeed has agreed with the leaders of ASEAN, that ASEAN should play a central role in the process of building regional cooperation in East Asia.

LAM: And, of course, one of the topics that came up as well was the South China Sea, that entire region, given the competing maritime and territorial claims vis-à-vis the Spratley and Paracel Island groups. Do you think China is watching the US relationship with ASEAN, this growing relationship - do you think Beijing might be watching it with unease?

DR EMMERSON: Yes, absolutely. I am confident that they are watching it with considerable unease and I note that the statement that the leaders made, made no reference whatsoever to the South China Sea, presumably because of sensitivity with regard to Beijing's possible reaction. The topic was implicitly mentioned, but not explicitly.

LAM: And what about within ASEAN, the grouping itself? The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, on the weekend said that the ASEAN nations' credibility might suffer if they did not take a tougher line with Burma and this is in view of the upcoming elections in November. This is presumably directed at specifically China and India, but it could also be referenced to ASEAN could it not, because Burma is a member of ASEAN. Do you see that changing anytime soon with ASEAN, that ASEAN countries, leading members like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, that they might take a stronger stand with the military junta in Rangoon?

DR EMMERSON: The election in Myanmar, if I can call it an election, since it will be highly compromised and manipulated will take place, at least is scheduled to take place November 7th. Indonesia does not take over the chairmanship of ASEAN until the 1st January. So the question is, since Indonesia is a democratic country, arguably, the most democratic of any country in South East Asia, will it use its opportunity to try to put pressure on Burma in the year 2011? My own view is that ASEAN will probably not fulfill Ban Ki-moon's hope, will not exercise significant pressure on the junta. Instead, we could get the opposite situation in which so long as there is not major violence associated with the election, it will essentially be received by ASEAN as a kind of minimally-acceptable basis for assuring the Burmese junta that ASEAN still treats them as a full member. In other words, it's quite possible that the junta may get away with what I take to be a kind of facade effort to legitimate their rule.

Hero Image
D Emmerson headshot2
Donald K. Emmerson, director of the Southeast Asia Forum
All News button
1
Subscribe to International Relations