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.

Paragraphs

In this report, we will attempt to answer the following three main questions: What economic

and trade policy reforms have been introduced? What have been the impacts of these

reforms on agricultural production and trade? How has domestic food security at the

national and householdlevels been affected by the reform process?

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
Scott Rozelle
-

Professor Ferrary will present the results of a comparative study between Silicon Valley and Sophia Antipolis (France). He and co-authors Michel Bernasconi (Ceram) and Ludovic DiBiaggio (Ceram) examine to what extent the endogenous growth of a high-tech cluster depends on two factors:

  1. The complete set of communities of practices (Wenger, 1998) providing the complementary competences needed to create and develop start-ups (e.g. scientific researchers, managers, engineers, VC, lawyers, consultants, etc.)
  2. The quality of interactions between these communities of practices, defined as a group of people linked by strong ties (Granovetter, 1973) to produce expertises through frequent interactions. The coordination and circulation of information depend on the quality of weak ties between these communities.

Is a high-tech cluster handicapped if a community of practices is missing? And/or if the quality of inter-communities interactions is poor? Professor Ferrary will share the results of testing these hypotheses in Silicon Valley and Sophia Antipolis.

About the Speaker

Michel Ferrary is Professor of Management at Ceram Graduate School of Business in Sophia-Antipolis (French Riviera). Previously, he was a visiting scholar for two years at Stanford's Department of Sociology, where he analyzed social networks in Silicon Valley and the new practices of corporate venturing used by large high-tech companies. Professor Ferrary has published journal articles on a wide array of topics, including labor markets, competencies management, banking strategy, the use of social networks in banking activities, corporate venturing, and social networks in Silicon Valley. He received his PhD in business administration from HEC Business School (France).

Philippines Conference Room

Michel Ferrary Professor of Management Ceram Graduate School of Business, Sophia-Antipolis
Seminars
Authors
David G. Victor
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs
In an article appearing in The Financial Times, David Victor and C. Ford Runge argue that the pending WTO case over genetically modified foods will do the U.S. more harm than good.

America's farm lobbyists have long been pressing their government to launch a formal trade dispute against the European Union's ban on genetically modified crops. This week they got their way, as the US and more than a dozen allies started proceedings within the World Trade Organisation.

For US farmers - the world's top planters of GM crops - the case is a welcome chance to crack open a lucrative market. But the case may ultimately do their country more harm than good.

Now is a particularly bad time to embark on a dispute that will inflame anti-Americanism in Europe. In the broader, already deteriorating relationship with continental Europe, the US has much more important issues at stake, notably reviving the Doha round on trade and mending diplomatic relationships strained by the Iraq war. Moreover, a close look at the options reveals that each of the plausible outcomes from a dispute would leave the US worse off than before.

First, the US could pay the political costs of launching an inflammatory dispute and then lose. Most press accounts compare this case with one of the first disputes ever handled by the WTO: the EU's ban on beef that had been produced using hormones. The EU lost because its ban had no basis in science and in "comparable" areas of food policy it had adopted much less strict rules - a telltale sign that the ban was a protectionist gambit.

On the surface, the cases appear similar. Although the science on the health risks of GM food is contested, essentially all the credible evidence shows that these foods are safe, which would seem to indict the EU ban. But in critical ways the cases differ. Across the board, the EU is tightening food safety regulations in ways that seem irrational by standard cost/benefit tests but, crucially, are broadly non-discriminatory and consistent - the key tests for whether a trade ban is legitimate. Moreover, the GM ban is a temporary measure - unlike the permanent ban on beef hormones - and trade rules allow more flexibility for countries that implement temporary measures when they can claim the science is uncertain.

Second, the EU could change its rules in the middle of the dispute. For several years, EU bureaucrats have been designing a new set of standards that would "reopen" Europe's markets to GM foods if traders complied with onerous tracing and labelling requirements. This shift would make it harder for the US to win because trade laws are tolerant of labels that allow consumers to make the final choice. While the US might respond by dropping the suit, it would be more likely to redirect the dispute against the tracing and labelling rules. In the past, hotly contested trade disputes have usually taken on a myopic life of their own. Each side digs in and the political damage spreads.

Third is the most likely (and worst) outcome: the US could win. The victory would be Pyrrhic because the issues are fundamentally ones of morality and technology - they must be settled in the courts of consumer opinion. On this score, the beef hormones case is instructive. Even today, hormone-treated beef is no more able to find European consumers than it was before the US won its case; and the years of legal wrangling have led to counter-sanctions that have harmed a wide variety of unrelated products and industries. The antagonism over GM foods appears to be unfolding in much the same way.

A better strategy would have been to stay the course that US policy has followed ever since the controversy over GM crops broke out in the late 1990s. Time is on America's side because the technology is already proving itself in the marketplace and European opponents will find themselves increasingly isolated.

But now that Washington has pulled the trigger, what can be done? The greatest danger is that both sides of the Atlantic slide into a tit-for-tat retaliation. But a trade war will cause untold harm to an alliance already in stress and make it harder to rejuvenate the soggy world economy. Cooler heads must prevail.

In Europe, the critical need is to reform the moratorium on GM foods. Frustration over its inability to get the import ban lifted is what pushed Washington to this desperate act. In the US, serious movement in Europe must be seized as pretence to rescind the WTO case before the antagonisms of hearings, judgment, appeal and retaliation unfold.

All News button
1
-

11:30 a.m.: "Digital Content Industry in the Information Technology Era" Eiji Tsujimoto, Impress Corporation (Advisor: Harry Rowen) 11:50 a.m. : "Internet Business Strategy for Newspaper Companies" Hiroshi Nozawa, Asahi Shimbun Company (Advisor: Russ Hancock) 12:10 p.m.: "Venture Capital and Entrepreneurship in the Silicon Valley and the Greater China Region" Joseph Huang, AllCan Investment Company (Advisor: Marguerite Hancock) 12:30 p.m. : "How Can Japan Make Effective Industrial Policies For Promoting New Technologies and Industrial Revitalization?" Kosuke Takahashi, Development Bank of Japan (Advisor: Mike Armacost) 12:50 p.m. : "The Difference of Information Strategy Between the USA and Japan" Tatsushi Tatsumi, Sumitomo Corporation (Advisor: Marguerite Hancock) 1:10 p.m. : "Comparative Study of Technology Policy for Small Business Between the USA and Japan" Hidetaka Nishimura, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Advisor: Mike Armacost) 1:30 p.m. : "How Can China Learn from U.S. Small Business Policies?" Tingru Liu, Infotech Ventures Comapany (Advisor: Harry Rowen) Lunch served to those who respond to Yumi Onoyama by 12:00 noon Tuesday, May 20, 2003. Please contact Yumi via email at yumio@stanford.edu.

Philippines Conference Room, Encina Hall, Third Floor, Central Wing

-

About the Talk: In Muslim-majority Indonesia and Malaysia, initial reactions to the American war in Iraq were overwhelmingly negative. Nor could support for American action be found among Muslim minorities in the Philippines, Singapore, or Thailand. But Southeast Asian Muslims were not equally or uniformly outraged. Complex and distinctive local contexts and agendas shaped Muslim anger and the responses to it. Dr. Emmerson will highlight these Southeast Asian settings and analyze the politics of anti-American backlash along a critical periphery of the Muslim world. Donald Emmerson is director of the Southeast Asia Forum at the Asia/Pacific Research Center at Stanford University. He teaches courses in international relations and comparative politics. His research interests focus on Islamism, regionalism, democratization, and US policy regarding Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Emmerson has testified before Congress in 1998, 1999, and 2001 on East Timor, Indonesia, and Southeast Asian topics. He assisted the Carter Center in monitoring Indonesia's national election and the UN vote on autonomy in East Timor. Members of the World Affairs Council: $5.00 Non-members: $8.00 Students with ID: Free To make a reservation, please contact the World Affairs Council at 415-293-4600. Cosponsored by the Asia/Pacific Research Center and Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation at Stanford University and the World Affairs Council of Northern California.

Stanford Law School, Alvarado and Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford University

0
Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Affiliated Faculty, CDDRL
Affiliated Scholar, Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies
aparc_dke.jpg PhD

At Stanford, in addition to his work for the Southeast Asia Program and his affiliations with CDDRL and the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, Donald Emmerson has taught courses on Southeast Asia in East Asian Studies, International Policy Studies, and Political Science. He is active as an analyst of current policy issues involving Asia. In 2010 the National Bureau of Asian Research and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars awarded him a two-year Research Associateship given to “top scholars from across the United States” who “have successfully bridged the gap between the academy and policy.”

Emmerson’s research interests include Southeast Asia-China-US relations, the South China Sea, and the future of ASEAN. His publications, authored or edited, span more than a dozen books and monographs and some 200 articles, chapters, and shorter pieces.  Recent writings include The Deer and the Dragon: Southeast Asia and China in the 21st Century (ed., 2020); “‘No Sole Control’ in the South China Sea,” in Asia Policy  (2019); ASEAN @ 50, Southeast Asia @ Risk: What Should Be Done? (ed., 2018); “Singapore and Goliath?,” in Journal of Democracy (2018); “Mapping ASEAN’s Futures,” in Contemporary Southeast Asia (2017); and “ASEAN Between China and America: Is It Time to Try Horsing the Cow?,” in Trans-Regional and –National Studies of Southeast Asia (2017).

Earlier work includes “Sunnylands or Rancho Mirage? ASEAN and the South China Sea,” in YaleGlobal (2016); “The Spectrum of Comparisons: A Discussion,” in Pacific Affairs (2014); “Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia” in Indonesian Studies: The State of the Field (2013); “Is Indonesia Rising? It Depends” in Indonesia Rising (2012); “Southeast Asia: Minding the Gap between Democracy and Governance,” in Journal of Democracy (April 2012); “The Problem and Promise of Focality in World Affairs,” in Strategic Review (August 2011); An American Place at an Asian Table? Regionalism and Its Reasons (2011); Asian Regionalism and US Policy: The Case for Creative Adaptation (2010); “The Useful Diversity of ‘Islamism’” and “Islamism: Pros, Cons, and Contexts” in Islamism: Conflicting Perspectives on Political Islam (2009); “Crisis and Consensus: America and ASEAN in a New Global Context” in Refreshing U.S.-Thai Relations (2009); and Hard Choices: Security, Democracy, and Regionalism in Southeast Asia (edited, 2008).

Prior to moving to Stanford in 1999, Emmerson was a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he won a campus-wide teaching award. That same year he helped monitor voting in Indonesia and East Timor for the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center. In the course of his career, he has taken part in numerous policy-related working groups focused on topics related to Southeast Asia; has testified before House and Senate committees on Asian affairs; and been a regular at gatherings such as the Asia Pacific Roundtable (Kuala Lumpur), the Bali Democracy Forum (Nusa Dua), and the Shangri-La Dialogue (Singapore). Places where he has held various visiting fellowships, including the Institute for Advanced Study and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 



Emmerson has a Ph.D. in political science from Yale and a BA in international affairs from Princeton. He is fluent in Indonesian, was fluent in French, and has lectured and written in both languages. He has lesser competence in Dutch, Javanese, and Russian. A former slam poet in English, he enjoys the spoken word and reads occasionally under a nom de plume with the Not Yet Dead Poets Society in Redwood City, CA. He and his wife Carolyn met in high school in Lebanon. They have two children. He was born in Tokyo, the son of U.S. Foreign Service Officer John K. Emmerson, who wrote the Japanese Thread among other books.

Selected Multimedia

Date Label
Donald K Emmerson Professor Speaker
-

This is a presentation of joint work with Dr. Rafiq Dossani, Shorenstein APARC. About the Talk: IT (Information Technology) outsourcing has become a standard approach for many Fortune 3000 and smaller companies to achieve cost-effectiveness. However, while outsourcing at the low end of the value chain has gained acceptance, many issues remain unresolved at the high end of the IT value chain. We develop a characterization of outsourcing firms, suppliers, and tasks that is useful in providing guidelines on when to outsource, and whom to outsource to. These guidelines for IT outsourcing strategies are based on a study of US customers, and Indian IT suppliers, involving questionnaires and interviews. To our knowledge, this is first study that has captured the supplier characteristics in the level of detail, which will be discussed by Dr. Akella in his talk. Professor Ram Akella is currently professor of IE and Management, and was the founding director, SUNY Center for Excellence in Global Enterprise Management. At Stanford, the University of California, Berkeley, and Carnegie Mellon University, as a faculty member and director, Professor Akella has led major multi-million dollar interdisciplinary team efforts in high tech and semiconductors. His current research interests include in process learning, quality, fab economic models, cost of ownership and financial justification for IT Management and equipment, production planning and control, and bio-informatics. His other interests are enterprise systems, IT and software, financial engineering, high tech and e-business, and range from cell and factory level design and control to enterprise-wide coordination and logistics, including supply chain management and contracts, financial engineering and investment, demand management, e-commerce and e-business exchanges, and product and process portfolios for risk management and design capacity management.

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

Ram Akella Professor, IE and Management SUNY
Seminars
-

Is unipolarity--American primacy--good or bad for the world? For Southeast Asia? For Indonesia? How dangerous or constructive is the Bush doctrine of preemption? Should the U.S. try to spread democracy abroad? If not, why not? If so, why and how--by example, persuasion, force? Has the war in Iraq squandered American "soft power"? How has that conflict affected the campaign against terrorism in Southeast Asia? Has the U.S. been ignoring the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)? Or has ASEAN become so irrelevant that it deserves to be ignored? In the run-up to Indonesia's presidential election in April 2004, should the U.S. support the incumbent, Megawati Sukarnoputri? Or would that only strengthen her Islamist opponents by enabling them to portray her as an American pawn? What grade does the Bush administration's policy toward North Korea deserve? These are among the questions to be addressed in a wide-ranging evaluation of what the United States is doing, should be doing, and should not be doing in Asia.

Jusuf Wanandi has long been Indonesia's best-known analyst of Southeast Asian regionalism and the politics and foreign policies of Indonesia and the United States. He holds leadership positions in the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, the Prasetiya Mulya Graduate School of Management in Jakarta, and the Foundation of Panca Bhakti University in Pontianak (West Kalimantan). He heads the company that publishes Indonesia's leading English-language daily, The Jakarta Post. He co-founded Indonesia's most successful foreign-affairs think tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. He has co-authored or co-edited more than a dozen books, including Europe and the Asia Pacific (1998), Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region (1993), and Asia and the Major Powers (1988).

Daniel and Nancy Okimoto Conference Room

Jusuf Wanandi Senior Fellow Speaker Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta
Seminars
-

Ground Floor East Conference Room, Encina Hall, East, Ground Floor

David A. Lake Department of Political Science UCSD
Lectures
-

Mrs. Sadako Ogata assumed office as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on 18 February 1991. She was elected to this post by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1990, for three years starting 1 January 1991. Mrs. Ogata was reelected on 4 November 1993 for a further period of five years (January 1994 to December 1998). On 29 September 1998, Mrs. Ogata was reelected by the General Assembly to a further two-year period (see Press Release). Mrs. Ogata was Dean of the Faculty of Foreign Studies at Sophia University in Tokyo since 1989. Prior to that (1987-1988), she was Director of the Institute of International Relations at the same university. Since 1980, she was Professor at the Institute. Mrs. Ogata was the Independent Expert of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the Human Rights Situation in Myanmar in 1990. From 1982 to 1985, she was Representative of Japan on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. From 1978 to 1979, she was Chairman of the Executive Board of UNICEF. Professor Ogata received a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley in 1963, an M.A. in International Relations from Georgetown University in Washington D.C. in 1953 and a B.A. from the University of the Sacred Heart in Tokyo in 1951. Professor Ogata has published a number of books on diplomatic history and international relations as well as numerous articles. Recent publications include: "Refugees, A Multilateral Response to Humanitarian Crises," Elberg Lecture delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, UNHCR 1992; "The Movement of People," RSA Journal Volume V, 140 (5432), The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, 1992; "Towards a European Immigration," The Philip Morris Institute for Public Policy Research, Brussels, 1993; and "Refugees in Asia: From Exodus to Solutions," Charles Rostov lecture delivered at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1995.

Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, First Floor, Central Wing

Mrs. Sadako Ogata Former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Speaker
Lectures
-

Philippines Conference Room, Encina Hall, Third Floor, Central Wing

E. Taylor Atkins Visiting Professor of History Speaker University of California, Berkeley
Seminars
Subscribe to International Relations