Abstract: Taiwan (the Republic of China) has been changing with the times. So has its diplomacy. Having served his country for more than 40 years in various important diplomatic posts under different administrations, Ambassador Chen is one of Taiwan’s most seasoned diplomats. He joins us to share his personal experience and perspectives of Taiwan’s diplomacy. It is a historical review, but also an attempt to explore the future. Ambassador Chen believes that the diplomacy of Taiwan is unique because of its unique background. Although it should be defined by its own people, the country has been heavily influenced by the Chinese Mainland and the United States of America. How to promote Taiwan’s interests while preserving its identity and dignity, and conducting the balancing exercises in an asymmetric international environment has always been the crux of diplomacy in Taiwan. Ambassador Chen’s insights will allow us a better understanding of diplomacy in Taiwan, its successes and frustrations and presenting a possible roadmap for the future.

C.J. Chen is the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (1999-2000). He has also served as Taiwan’s de facto Ambassador to the United States (2000-2004) and European Union (2004-2006). Having spent most of his career in the Foreign Ministry, Mr. Chen is regarded as one of Taiwan’s most accomplished diplomats and an expert on U.S./Taiwan relations. He was educated in Taiwan, Britain, Spain and the US, and has extensive experience representing his nation in the United States. He began his first tour of duty in Washington, D.C. in 1971 and was later a key member of the team that negotiated with the United States government for the future relations between Taiwan and the U.S. after the U.S. switched diplomatic ties from the Republic of China (ROC) to the People’s Republic of China) in 1979. Mr. Chen was heavily involved in communicating with the U.S. Congress during the implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) which still serves as the back bone and framework for U.S./ Taiwan relations. In addition to Mr. Chen’s diplomatic experience, he was also selected by the Kuomintang (KMT), to be a member of the Legislative Yuan, where served under both the blue (KMT) and green (DPP) administrations.

Abstract
In 1989 more than 700 South African political prisoners went on indefinite hunger strike to protest their detention. The unprecedented scale forced the South Africian government to release hundreds of incapacitated prisoners into public hospitals and enabled the active intevention of progressive medical professionals, social workers and human rights lawyers.

The presentation explores the widespread impact of these events in galvanizing the anti-apartheid struggle, energizing international human rights organizations and propelling the new international medical protocols on the ethical care of political prisoners on hunger strike.

Nayan Shah is Professor and chair of the Department of American Studies and Ethnicity at the University of Southern california. He is the author of Contagious Divides,Epidemics and Race in San Francisco's Chinatown (Universty of California Press, 2001) and Stranger Intimacy Contesting Race Sexuality and Law in the North American West (University of California Press 2011) which was awarded the Norris and Carol Hundley Prize by the American Historical Association PAcific Branch for the most distinguished book on any historical subject. Since 2011 Shah is co-editor with Beth Freeman of GLO, The Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies.

Co-sponsored by: American Studies, Comparative Literature. Modern Thought and Literature, History,Theater Arts and Performance Studies

Bio:

Emily Arnold-Fernández is the executive director of Asylum Access, an innovative international nonprofit that transforms the human rights landscape for refugees in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Using a unique combination of grassroots legal assistance and broader advocacy and strategic litigation efforts, Emily leads a team of refugee rights advocates to make human rights a reality for refugees, so they can live safely, work, send children to school and rebuild their lives. 

Emily was a fall 2012 Social Entrepreneur in Residence at Stanford's Program on Social Entrepreneurship. 

Abstract: 

For the last half-century, the international response to refugees has been internment.  Today, the average time in a refugee camp has reached 17 years. 

When refugees reach “safety,” we imprison them behind barbed wire fences, often for years, sometimes for generations.  We relegate them to starvation rations if aid runs low or politics intervenes.  They almost never have adequate access to police, courts, or other mechanisms that could protect them from crime or ensure justice for victims.  Adults are not allowed to go out and get a job, to feed their families and fill their days.  Children grow up knowing no other life. 

And refugees are protesting.  Recently, a riot broke out in Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan after Syrian refugees attempted to leave the camp without permission. Hundreds of other refugee protests never make the news. 

Answers to this problem have so far focused on supporting so-called “urban refugees” – refugees who have chosen to leave camps, usually illicitly, to move to the city.  But what if we brought the city to the refugees? 

Building cities, not camps, in refugee arrival zones has the potential to transform refugee response.    Developing urban centers that can attract and support both locals and refugees creates the conditions for refugees to meet their own needs and make choices about their own lives, while also growing the regional and national economy and increasing opportunities for locals to thrive. 

Building a city in place of a camp won't be easy.  It requires convincing and coordinating multiple actors to make long-term investments in a refugee arrival area.  National and local governments must work with development funders to implement roads, high-volume sanitation systems, and other infrastructure.  Corporations must be invited, and at times incentivized, to locate factories, IT centers or other labor-intensive operations in the new location.  Underemployed local populations in other urban centers must be made aware and take advantage of opportunities in the emerging city, so that refugees do not vastly outnumber the local population.  This (correctly) sounds complex, but coordinating diverse actors for rapid development in the context of a mass influx lies exactly within the UN refugee agency's area of expertise. 

To build a successful city also requires a policy framework and enforcement infrastructure that can ensure resources are equitably distributed.  Refugees currently in urban areas often experience deep discrimination, exploitation, and poverty when their rights are not effectively protected.  Refugees must be able to access resources and opportunities equitably with locals if the new city is to live up to its promise. 

These and other challenges must be explored and overcome: Refugee camps may be built in a day (or at least a matter of weeks), but transforming our response from internment to urban center will take careful planning, piloting of iterations, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.  The possibilities if we get it right are enormous: In place of segregated, aid-dependent camps, we'll have integrated, emerging urban economies offering opportunities for millions. 

Abstract:

The U.S. and the E.U. are often seen as fundamentally different democracy promoters. It has been argued that the U.S. has a more political approach, which is confrontational vis-à-vis host governments and promotes democracy bottom-up via civil society. The E.U., on the other hand, is perceived as more developmental, focusing on non-confrontational projects that are mostly top-down or focused on civil society organizations not critical of the government. The U.S.’s political approach has been criticized for being too donor-led, unilateral, and hardly respecting country ownership. But should American democracy assistance become more European?

Based on research on E.U. and U.S. democracy assistance programs in Ethiopia, CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow Karen Del Biondo explains the causes and consequences of a political and developmental approach to democracy assistance. She argues that the E.U. has indeed taken a more developmental approach, which can be explained by the European Commission’s commitment to the Paris Declaration principles on aid effectiveness, including ownership, alignment and, harmonization. This was possible because of the relatively autonomous position of the Commission vis-à-vis the Member States and the European Parliament. In contrast, USAID does not enjoy this bureaucratic autonomy, and has therefore paid lip service to aid effectiveness. Del Biondo discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a political and developmental approach in a semi-authoritarian regime such as Ethiopia. She finds that, although the impact of E.U. democracy assistance in Ethiopia can be questioned, the E.U.’s developmental approach has made the government of Ethiopia more open to E.U. democracy assistance, while the U.S.’s political approach led to a backlash.

Speaker Bio:

Karen Del Biondo is a 2012-2013 postdoctoral fellow at the CDDRL. Her research is funded with a Fulbright-Schuman award and a postdoctoral grant from the Belgian-American Educational Foundation (BAEF). She holds an MA in Political Science (International Relations) from Ghent University and an MA in European Studies from the Université Libre de Bruxelles. In 2007-2008 she obtained a Bernheim fellowship for an internship in European affairs at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Permanent Representation to the EU. 

Karen Del Biondo obtained her PhD at the Centre for EU Studies, Ghent University in September 2012 with a dissertation entitled ‘Norms, self-interest and effectiveness: Explaining double standards in EU reactions to violations of democratic principles in sub-Saharan Africa’. Her PhD research was funded by the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO). Apart from her PhD research, she has been involved in the research project ‘The Substance of EU Democracy Promotion’ (Ghent University/University of Mannheim/Centre of European Policy Studies) and has published on the securitisation of EU development policies. In January 2011 she conducted field research in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Her postdoctoral research will focus on the comparison between EU and US democracy assistance in sub-Saharan Africa.

Abstract:

The U.S. and the E.U. are often seen as fundamentally different democracy promoters. It has been argued that the U.S. has a more political approach, which is confrontational vis-à-vis host governments and promotes democracy bottom-up via civil society. The E.U., on the other hand, is perceived as more developmental, focusing on non-confrontational projects that are mostly top-down or focused on civil society organizations not critical of the government. The U.S.’s political approach has been criticized for being too donor-led, unilateral, and hardly respecting country ownership. But should American democracy assistance become more European?

Based on research on E.U. and U.S. democracy assistance programs in Ethiopia, CDDRL Postdoctoral Fellow Karen Del Biondo explains the causes and consequences of a political and developmental approach to democracy assistance. She argues that the E.U. has indeed taken a more developmental approach, which can be explained by the European Commission’s commitment to the Paris Declaration principles on aid effectiveness, including ownership, alignment and, harmonization. This was possible because of the relatively autonomous position of the Commission vis-à-vis the Member States and the European Parliament. In contrast, USAID does not enjoy this bureaucratic autonomy, and has therefore paid lip service to aid effectiveness. Del Biondo discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a political and developmental approach in a semi-authoritarian regime such as Ethiopia. She finds that, although the impact of E.U. democracy assistance in Ethiopia can be questioned, the E.U.’s developmental approach has made the government of Ethiopia more open to E.U. democracy assistance, while the U.S.’s political approach led to a backlash.

Image

Without a Fight is a feature length documentary film that explores how soccer can facilitate social change in Kibera, one of Africa’s largest slums.

When: Thursday, April 11th at 6pm

Where: Branner Lounge, Stanford University

RSVP: Join the event on Facebook

Dinner Provided from DARBAR Indian Restaurant

· Introduction by Sarina Beges, CDDRL Program Manager

· Post-screening Q&A with CFK-Kenya Executive Director Hillary Omala and Producer Beth-Ann Kutchma

About the Film

Footage of violent clashes fueled by polarizing national presidential elections is intertwined with profiles of youth from different religious and ethnic backgrounds as they navigate daily life and prepare for the final championship soccer game of the season. The film provides a glimpse often a very positive one into an Africa few have seen. It attempts to break stereotypes associated with people who live in extreme poverty while depicting sports as a tool that could be used to prevent violence among at-risk youth. The film made its World Premiere at the 11 MM Festival in Berlin, Germany in March 2012 and its North American Premiere at the Full Frame Documentary Festival in Durham, NC in April 2012. The soccer league is run by the international development organization,Carolina for Kibera. Watch the Film’s Trailer.