Dr. Nasr's talk will focus on the implications of change of the balance of power between Shi'as and Sunnis for regional politics in Iraq and for the emerging trends in Sunni militancy in the region.

Vali Nasr is a specialist on contemporary Islam and its relations to politics in the Muslim world. His recent work is focused on emerging patterns in Islamism, in particular with regard to Shi'i-Sunni sectarianism. He is the author of The Islamic Leviathan: Islam and the Making of State Power (Oxford University Press, 2001); Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism (Oxford University Press, 1996); an editor of Oxford Dictionary of Islam (Oxford University Press, 2003). His works on political Islam and comparative politics of South Asia and the Middle East has been published in a number of journals including, the New York Times, Comparative Politics, Asian Survey, Daedalus, Middle East Journal, and International Journal of Middle East Studies, as well as in numerous edited volumes on the Middle East, South Asia, political Islam and comparative politics. His work has been translated into Arabic, Indonesian, Chinese, and Urdu. Dr. Nasr has been the recipient of fellowship grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, and the Social Science Research Council.

Dr. Nasr earned his degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ph.D., 1991), the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (MALD, 1984), and Tufts University (BA, 1983).

A buffet lunch will be available to those who RSVP by 12:00pm, Wednesday, April 21 to Rakhi Patel. In the last three years, partly as the result of the efforts of a burgeoning conservative movement, the issue of human rights in North Korea has attained greater prominence in the statements and policy positions of the U.S. government. The administration connects this shift in emphasis in U.S. policy to its calls for greater moral clarity in foreign policy. At the same time, the administration has clearly enunciated its desire for regime change in North Korea, and the human rights issue has served as a method of cultivating public support for this policy, both domestically and internationally. Toward this end, the administration has revived a Cold War foreign policy approach from the 1970s and 1980s that connected human rights to economic and security issues--exemplified in the Jackson-Vanik amendment linking trade to emigration levels for Soviet Jews and the inclusion of human rights issues in the 1975 Helsinki Accords. The application of this model to North Korea demonstrates a failure to understand the differences between Eastern Europe and East Asia in general and the nature of civil society under Soviet communism and North Korean juche. It also fails to draw any useful lessons from the experience of the European Union and South Korea in dealing with Pyongyang on human rights. The unquestionably dire human rights situation in North Korea--and the character of its government and society--requires a set of policy approaches that need updating from the Cold War period and adaptation to the North Korean and East Asian context. John Feffer's most recent book is North Korea, South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis (Seven Stories, 2003). He is also the editor of the Foreign Policy in Focus book Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Policy after September 11 (Seven Stories, 2003). His other books include Beyond Detente: Soviet Foreign Policy and U.S. Options (Hill & Wang, 1990) and Shock Waves: Eastern Europe After the Revolutions (South End, 1992). His other edited collections include Living in Hope: People Challenging Globalization (Zed Books, 2002) and (with Richard Caplan) Europe's New Nationalism: States and Minorities in Conflict (Oxford University Press, 1996). His articles have appeared in The American Prospect, The Progressive, Newsday, Asiaweek, Asia Times, TomPaine.com, Salon.com, and elsewhere. He is a former associate editor of World Policy Journal and has worked for the American Friends Service Committee, most recently as an international affairs representative in East Asia. He serves on the advisory committees of FPIF and the Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea.

America has done more than any other country to change the world. Yet, paradoxically, America is one of the countries least prepared to handle the world that it has changed. America has sprinkled magical stardust into the eyes of billions. It has made them believe that they too can succeed and thrive. Yet the world order remains frozen in time. The multilateral architecture is a fossilization of the 1945 power structure. The world has changed. But its structures have not. Global contradictions are emerging. America should begin to prepare itself for them. Ambassador Mahbubani will explore and discuss these and related ideas drawn from his latest book (forthcoming in 2005). Kishore Mahbubani modestly describes himself as ?a student of philosophy.? Others, less modest, have called him ?an Asian Toynbee, preoccupied with the rise and fall of civilizations? (The Economist) and a ?Max Weber of the new ?Confucian ethic?? (Washington Post). Without question he is one of Asia?s leading public intellectuals. His many publications include the provocatively titled Can Asians Think? (1998). His thirty-year career as a diplomat has included postings in Cambodia, Malaysia, and the United States. He was president of the UN Security Council in January 2001 and May 2002 and a fellow at Harvard University in 1991-92. He holds degrees in philosophy from Dalhousie University (1976) and the University of Singapore (1971). This is the tenth Southeast Asia Forum seminar of the 2003-2004 academic year.

How do states know what lies in their national interest? Hironaka explores this issue through examination of colonial expansion, and other domains of state security and power. Given the critical role of interests in many social theories, surprisingly little research has been done on the question. Scholars routinely avoid the issue by inferring interests from observed action in a post-hoc and often tautological manner. Instead, Hironaka draws on organizational sociology as a starting point: Large organizational actors like states often experience great ambiguity regarding their interests. States function in a complex political and social world in which both state interests and the means of achieving those interests are often unclear. Hironaka proposes that states respond to this ambiguity by attending to and participating in discourses in the international community. Collective interaction revolving around interpretation of the "Great Powers" and significant international events (such as the outcome of major wars) provide the grist for an evolving international consensus regarding appropriate state strategies and behavior. When faced with ambiguity, states draw upon the international consensus to inform their interests. Consequently, the international community plays a critical role in shaping state policies -- and thus the conflicts that are likely to arise in the international system. Ann Hironaka is an assistant professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota.