As the fifteenth class of CISAC Honors students prepares to receive their hard-earned honors conferrals, members of the sixteenth class are excited to embark on their honors journey.

“I wanted to do this since freshman year,” said Sarah Sadlier, who will be one of twelve members of the 2016 honors class. “One of my friends and mentors was Ryan Mayfield (Class of 2013) who did the honors program and he invited me to watch his thesis presentation and he talked to me about his thesis throughout the year. It seemed like a fun process.”

Aaron Zelinger and Alexa Andaya, who will be joining Sadlier this fall, also became interested in the honors program their freshman year.

“I took PoliSci 104S with CISAC Co-Director Amy Zegart and CISAC Honors Co-Director Martha Crenshaw and I just loved the international exposure that it provided but also how interdisciplinary it was. They pitched CISAC and I knew I wanted to do it. I want to be in an immersive program surrounded by like-minded peers with a professor challenging my ideas,” said Zelinger.

“I wrote a paper on CISAC for a class so I got to know a little about the program and spoke with Martha Crenshaw. I realized how much work and guidance the honors students get and I realized that it’s a unique undergraduate experience and I figured it would be a good way to immerse myself in this topic before I move on to graduate school,” Andaya said.

The other 2016 honors students are Kayla Bonstrom, Abby Fanlo, Chelsea Green, Varun Gupta, Daniel Kilimnik, Ben Mittelberger, Matthew Nussbaum, Jana Persky, and Carolyn Wheatley.

The CISAC Honors program, established in 2000, accepts applications from interested juniors every winter quarter. The program is highly selective, with class sizes usually capped at twelve students. Students from any disciplinary major may apply.

“We look for students with high academic accomplishment, genuine interest in international security, and sufficient commitment, energy, and motivation to research and write a thesis. We also look for a mix of majors and backgrounds,” said Martha Crenshaw, who co-directs the program along with FSI Senior Fellow Coit Blacker.

Honors students begin their immersion in September when they will travel to Washington, D.C. for a two-week Honors College. Crenshaw and Former Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a CISAC affiliate, will be leading this fall’s Honors College.

“The Honors College provides students a superb exposure to many of the organizations and actors who shape and influence America's national security policies. The experience also helps them begin to develop their thesis as they test their propositions with those with whom they meet and through interactions with the Honors College faculty,” Eikenberry said.

This will be Eikenberry’s third time participating in the Honors College. “Without exaggeration, I look forward to every day of the Honors College. The meetings are extraordinary learning opportunities for students and faculty alike, and I find it rewarding to help contribute to the education of some very talented students. I am especially excited about the visit to the Gettysburg National Park where we will explore the timeless threads of continuity in strategy and warfare with a Civil War historian and veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.

Surprises often happen during students’ time in D.C. For example the class of 2015 met with President Obama advisor and Stanford alumna Valerie Jarrett as well as Admiral Michael Mullen, the former Chair of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. In 2007, honors students in a meeting with Steve Hadley at the National Security Council were surprised when President George W. Bush walked in and invited them into the Oval Office. Students sometimes have a chance to connect with CISAC Honors alums. This year they will meet with Varun Sivaram, Class of 2011, now an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. Sivaram will introduce the Class of 2016 to a Middle East expert and will also talk about his post-CISAC career trajectory.

The centerpiece of the honors program is the honors thesis. Sadlier’s research focus is on Brazil and its interest in the Middle East and how it sees itself as an emerging power. Zelinger plans on researching how China’s investments in new technology for asymmetric capabilities are a form of deterrence, and, if so, what their strategic outlook looks like with respect to the U.S. Andaya is interested in comparing Al Qaeda with ISIS.

Students are provided individual guidance by thesis advisors and CISAC Honors Teaching Assistant Shiri Krebs. Next year will be her third year serving as T.A.

She meets with students, reads and comments on their drafts, and helps them with their projects and the challenges that come with them. She also teaches sessions on various methodological issues including interviews, surveys, experiments, and bibliographical software.

“I just love helping the students making their intellectual dreams come true,” she said.

Next year’s class is already thinking about how they will realize them. 

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told a Stanford audience Thursday that mass surveillance programs are designed to find possible terrorists, not snoop on American citizens.

She pointed to the rise of groups like ISIS – now in 12 countries, she said – and the gruesome spectacles of their brand of terrorism as proof that the world is more dangerous than ever.

"I don't think during my lifetime I've ever seen the degree of evil that is out there in the world today," said Feinstein, noting mass murders and beheadings of innocent civilians, including children. "These [surveillance] programs aim to protect this country, pure and simple. They're not aimed to go after Americans."

Feinstein was the final speaker in the yearlong series titled "The Security Conundrum." She spoke in a colloquy format with Stanford's Philip Taubman, consulting professor at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the final speaker in the yearlong series titled 'The Security Conundrum.' 

Image

The discussion comes during a national debate on how to strike the right balance between security and liberty when technology now makes it possible for the government to collect phone and email data on citizens. With the USA Freedom Act expiring on June 1, Congress is considering legislation to reform the National Security Agency's mass surveillance program.

"We recognize that some reform is in order," said Feinstein, who plans to fly back to Washington for a rare Sunday Senate session on the expiring law.

"The big reform is that the data would be held by the phone companies and not the NSA," she said. If red flags resulted in queries, then warrants would have to be approved.

She took issue with descriptions of those programs as "mass surveillance." In 2013, warrants were sought in just 12 cases out of 288 queries about possible suspects. She said it is a selective process to find a suspect who raises enough concerns to trigger a query.

Feinstein's talk, titled "Congressional Oversight and the Intelligence Community," was held at CEMEX Auditorium.

Feinstein served as chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2009 to 2014 and is now the ranking minority member. She played a leading role in the Senate investigation of the Central Intelligence Agency detention and interrogation program following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

'Miscarriages of justice'

Taubman asked Feinstein if she was worried that the surveillance programs could track law-abiding citizens, like more primitive efforts in the 1960s and '70s that targeted political and civil rights groups. Feinstein acknowledged that abuses happened in the past, but that congressional oversight of the programs – as is the case today – is essential to a fair process.

In particular, Feinstein decried the government's interrogation process of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay that resulted in claims of torture. Her committee reviewed considerable intelligence data on that issue. "We found there were terrible miscarriages of justice," she said.

She described intelligence agencies as akin to "presidents" in the power they wield. "How do you make these agencies follow the law?" she asked. The only way is to "get in deep enough and close enough" to make it impossible for them to tell an "untruth" in a congressional hearing, she said.

Taubman suggested that it's extremely hard for a few dozen congressional staffers and members to oversee large agencies that employ thousands of people. "You're outgunned," he said.

Feinstein replied that "we have to look beyond the hearing." She said bipartisanship and a focus on producing effective legislation that addresses real problems is critical. "That's the nature of what we do."

She added that no other country in the world has an intelligence committee with as strong an oversight function as does the United States. China and Russia, for example, have growing intelligence agencies but no one watching them.

Feinstein agreed with Taubman that too much secrecy is detrimental to a democratic society. She said she wished she would have held more open, public meetings while in charge of the intelligence committee.

Feinstein expects that renewing the legislation will depend on perhaps three votes in the Senate. "It's possible. If not, the law ends at midnight and that creates a chink in our armor. There's no question in my mind," she said.

Feinstein said there is a "backup" bill that is similar to the USA Freedom Act, but she would prefer to reform the original legislation.

Taubman asked her if the surveillance efforts were actually preventing terrorist acts.

Feinstein said that people are arrested every week under the program, and that relevant information also goes to other countries to help them.

But more than ever, she noted, it's the private sector – not the government – that is extremely enterprising in collecting vast amounts of data from people, such as how they use their cellphones or surf the web.

CIA, China an issue

A California Democrat and Stanford graduate, Feinstein has served in the U.S. Senate since 1993.

When asked why she continues to work as a public servant, she said that 9/11 was a pivotal point in her life. That tragic event and flawed intelligence regarding the justification for the war in Iraq convinced her that a senior position on the intelligence committee would give her a way to help protect her country and fellow citizens.

Taubman expressed amazement that the CIA was actually spying on Feinstein's committee during its review of the hostage intelligence data.

"It was a real dust-up, there's no question about. I think it was a real violation of the separation of powers," she said.

On other issues, such as the rise of China, Feinstein said that country is now practicing "soft power" and flexing its muscles in the South China Sea. Plus, China is "eating our lunch" in regard to cybersecurity.

"I am very worried," she said. "I do not see China as a necessary enemy, but it seems to be going the opposite direction now."

In addition to CISAC, sponsors of "The Security Conundrum" series included the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Hoover Institution, Stanford Continuing Studies, Stanford in Government and Stanford Law School.

The series "was designed to be an open inquiry in the ongoing debate on how to balance security and liberty," said Amy Zegart, co-director of CISAC and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

This year the series has also included Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA; journalist Barton Gellman; and former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein will speak at Stanford next Thursday, May 28, about striking a balance between security and liberty at a time when Congress is considering legislation to reform the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs.

Feinstein, D-Calif., is the final speaker in the yearlong Security Conundrum lecture series. She will engage in conversation with Stanford's Philip Taubman, a consulting professor at Stanford'sCenter for International Security and Cooperation and former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times.

Feinstein is expected to discuss Congress' role in overseeing America's intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, and laws that govern their operations. The idea behind the Security Conundrum series is to invite national experts to Stanford to explore issues raised by the federal government's mass surveillance programs, especially in the area of national security, privacy and civil liberties.

The talk, titled "The Security Conundrum: An Evening with Senator Dianne Feinstein," is free and open to the public. It starts at 6:30 p.m., and will be held at the Cemex Auditorium, 641 Knight Way on campus. No TV cameras or film equipment are permitted. Advance registration is required – register here for tickets.

Feinstein has been at the center of the debate about the NSA since Edward Snowden's disclosures exposed an array of mass surveillance programs in 2013. She served as chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from 2009-2014 and is now the ranking minority member.

Feinstein also played a leading role in the Senate investigation of the CIA detention and interrogation program following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. She pressed to make the Senate report public, and some parts of it were eventually released. A Stanford graduate, Feinstein has served in the U.S. Senate since 1993.

The Security Conundrum is co-sponsored by Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, the Center for International Security and Cooperation, the Hoover Institution, Stanford Continuing Studies, Stanford in Government and Stanford Law School.

Amy Zegart, CISAC co-director and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, has said CISAC and the Hoover Institution would conduct a similar series on international cybersecurity challenges in the coming academic year.

The Security Conundrum series for this past year included Gen. Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA; journalist Barton Gellman; and former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall.

As people around the world look to support earthquake relief efforts in Nepal, scholars from Stanford and the London School of Economics and Political Science offer new research that can help donors make better decisions about where and how to contribute their money.

“NGO reports tend to focus on quantity in delivery, such as numbers of homes and people served—but not on quality,” write Yong Suk Lee (Stanford) and J. Vernon Henderson (LSE).

In a forthcoming paper, the coauthors evaluate reconstruction efforts in Indonesia following the 2004 earthquake and tsunami, and find two trends: aid agencies that directly execute their services—point-to-point—perform the highest quality work. And, when agencies contract their services, higher quality work is performed when a global, not domestic, implementer completes the work.

Knowing this reality, and with improved disclosure of outcomes, the coauthors hope that donors would be able to make more informed choices.

Fishing village survey 

Figure 1. A map details the survival rate of the population and flood damage within northern Indonesia in 2004. Darker shaded areas show a higher survival rate, lighter shaded areas show a lower survival rate. Striped areas denote flooding, largely on the northeastern border. Boundaries marked with thicker lines are ‘kabupaten,’ or county divisions, and lightly colored lines are ‘kecamatan,’ or sub-county units larger than a village alone. (Courtesy of Yong Lee).

Through fieldwork and three rounds of surveys – in 2005, 2007 and 2009 – Henderson and Lee investigated aid work in Aceh, an area of coastal villages in northern Indonesia (Figure 1).

Humanitarian efforts there focused on “hard aid” such as construction of houses and fishing boats. Total aid delivered amounted to $7.7 billion and was implemented by international and domestic aid agencies—some directly and some as contractors—as well as the Indonesian government.

First, Henderson and Lee conducted a pilot survey, and then with a cohort of surveyors from the University of Indonesia, held interviews with village leaders and fishing families. Participants were asked to rate their housing accommodation, and if applicable, how their fishing activity compared to before the disaster.

“Mostly, we sat with villagers to see how willing they were to talk about aspects of aid,” Lee said. “Since it was several years after the tsunami hit, people were pretty open throughout the process.”

Data from those surveys was combined with information from the Recovery Aceh-Nias relief project database maintained by the government and the U.N., as well as demographic information provided by participants.

Delivering aid: Global v. local

Empirical analysis revealed that aid agencies such as the Red Cross and Catholic Relief Services reflected higher quality aid delivery (at a mean quality near 3.00), while agencies such as Save the Children and Concern Worldwide reflected lower quality (at a mean quality between 1.0-1.5).

“What’s surprising is that reputation didn’t really line up with what was expected,” Lee said, citing a few renowned agencies that didn’t receive high marks.

Lee said this could be explained by the fact that aid agencies that specialize in disaster recovery are better equipped, while a learning curve might exist for agencies with wider missions.

Global aid agencies are more likely to have logistical experience given their reach across multiple disaster situations. And while all NGOs face reputational costs for their results, global aid agencies are greater exposed to criticism because, by size, they’re more visible.

Yet, while global aid agencies and implementers may have the raw skills, local implementers have the cultural know-how.

“Local implementers might not have the most experience – like how to construct a house or manufacture a fishing boat – but they will likely know what’s actually desired,” Lee said. “So, there are obvious tradeoffs at play.”

For example, villagers reported bad ventilation in houses. This was because some aid agencies used small windows and concrete instead of wood material more traditionally used in Indonesia. Some boats were impossible to use because of improper design; they sank upon first use or fell apart after a few months.

Image

Collection of photos from fieldwork in Aceh, Indonesia, provided courtesy of Yong Lee. Upper left: A house built in an aid project village shows windows retrofitted after initial construction. Upper right: Boats constructed by aid agencies for fishing activity are refashioned to serve as water taxis for people and cars. Lower: Fishing boats sit unused on the side of the road many of them impossible to use, according to villagers surveyed.

Logistics and oversight

Aid delivery depends in many ways on the location and scale of the disaster. But, a few main aspects can determine if an aid agency doing its own work or operating as an implementer meets or exceeds expectations.

Henderson and Lee suggest that agencies that were highly supervisory had greater positive outcomes from their workers. In the case of Aceh, better monitoring and insistence on quality by leadership is a likely corollary between construction of better quality homes and boats.

“Rather than just give money, NGOs need to really oversee the projects. Organization and management are essential facets,” Lee said. “And that requires a lot of additional effort on their part.”

Oversight is especially relevant in disaster situations because of the often-overwhelming need for reconstruction. A flood of less-skilled workers enters the market to fill this gap, and on average the quality of work degrades.

“It’s much more difficult to impose quality control at this point,” Lee said. “So the implication that comes out of it is how does the implementer effectively utilize less-skilled workers.”

Getting to know the implementers and evaluating their work in-progress would help ensure quality on behalf of the aid agency. And, better dissemination of information about aid outcomes would help assure donors that their monies are being applied in the best possible way.

Future study

Most “hard aid” delivered to Aceh’s villages had finished by 2010, but “soft aid” such as democracy promotion and women’s empowerment stayed longer.

Henderson and Lee conducted one final survey in 2011. The data has been offered as open source material for researchers along with the larger data set.

Noting this, Lee said, “We’re thrilled that people are looking into the data further. It’s exactly what we wanted.”

Research projects applying the data include the impact of the tsunami on Aceh’s local economies and health effects on the population, among other areas.

Ban Ki-moon, the eighth secretary-general of the United Nations, will deliver a public speech at Stanford University on Friday, June 26.

Ban’s visit will highlight the 70^th anniversary of the founding of the U.N., part of a larger trip to the Bay Area to commemorate the San Francisco Conference, where the charter establishing the U.N. was signed in 1945. After his speech, he will participate in a question and answer session with Ambassador Kathleen Stephens, the U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Korea (2008-11).

The Stanford event will take place at 3 p.m. RSVP is required by June 24; seating is first come, first served. Media must pre-register by 9 a.m. on June 25.

It is Ban’s second visit to Stanford in under three years. In Jan. 2013, he delivered a speech to mark the occasion of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC)’s thirtieth anniversary.

“I believe we face a unique opportunity,” Ban said in Dinkelspiel Auditorium. “Because the changes we face are so profound – the decisions we make will have a deeper and more lasting impact than perhaps any other set of decisions in recent decades.”

Calling on students to be ‘global citizens,’ he spoke about the ongoing crisis in Syria, the mandate to act on climate change, and the need for a sustainable peace worldwide.

“Growing up, the U.N. was a beacon of hope for me and my country,” he said. “I urge you to harness that same spirit and make a difference.”

Ban was born in the Republic of Korea in 1944. As a youth, more than fifty years ago, Ban visited California during his first trip to the United States with a Red Cross, saying “my trip here opened my eyes to the world.” He has since held a 37-year career in public service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including the role of minister of foreign affairs and trade, foreign policy advisor and chief national security advisor to the president.

“It’s truly our pleasure to host Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the seventieth anniversary of the U.N.,” said Gi-Wook Shin, a Stanford professor and director of Shorenstein APARC. “The U.N. has had a profound impact on the shaping of global order in the postwar era. And Ban’s leadership has steered the organization toward the world’s most pressing aims.”

Ban is reaching the end of his term as secretary-general. He assumed office in Jan. 2007 and was reelected for a second term in June 2011. Over his tenure, Ban has led a major push toward peace and non-proliferation activities, youth, women’s rights and the environment. He has urged leaders of China, Japan and South Korea to work harder on reconciliation over the wartime past to ensure long-term stability in the region.

The June 26 event, which can be followed at #UNatStanford, is co-sponsored by Shorenstein APARC and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University; with promotional co-sponsors Asia Society, Asia Foundation and the World Affairs Council of Northern California.

CONTACT: Event inquires may be directed to Debbie Warren, dawarren@stanford.edu or (650) 723-8387; Media inquires may be directed to Lisa Griswold, lisagris@stanford.edu or (650) 736-0656

When China first proposed creating the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2013, it generated considerable anxiety in Washington and many other capitals. Many pundits and policymakers view the AIIB as a bid to undermine or replace the international architecture designed by the United States and its allies since the end of World War II. Although several U.S. allies, including Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have declared their intention to join the AIIB, others, including Japan, have expressed ambivalence. For its part, the United States has made it clear that it will seek to influence the institution from the outside. But it would be a mistake to shun or undermine the AIIB. Rather, it should be welcomed. Both the United States and Japan have far more to gain by joining the AIIB and shaping its future than remaining on the sidelines.

The details remain vague, but the AIIB is meant to be a multilateral development institution that will focus on infrastructure needs in Asia. There is no question that this is a deserving cause. Asia’s large population, rapid growth, and integration with the global economy all generate demand for better infrastructure. A report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) estimates the region needs about $750 billion annually in infrastructure-related financing. Citing historical underinvestment, McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm based in New York City, proclaims a “$1 trillion infrastructure opportunity” in Asia. [...]

This article was originally published on Foreign Affairs on May 7, 2015, and an excerpt has been reproduced here with permission. The full article may be viewed on the Foreign Affairs website.