Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Understanding Sexual Violence in Conflict, Program March 12th



Memorial to the ComfortWomen
in Chiba Prefecture, Japan
erected 1973
Understanding Sexual Violence in Conflict:
Regional Views of the Comfort Women Legacy

Featuring

Shu-Hua Kang
Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation

Mina Watanabe
Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace





Thursday, March 12, 2015
10:00AM – NOON
Rome Auditorium
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Event webcast HERE

Please join the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS and Asia Policy Point in commemorating International Women’s Day this month with a discussion by two spokeswomen for the survivors of sexual slavery. Ms. Mina Watanabe and Ms. Shu-Hua Kang have devoted their careers to the care of and advocacy for victims of sexual violence and trafficking in Asia, and will be in Washington after presenting at the 59th session of the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations in New York.

Shu-Hua KANG is Executive Director of the Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation (TWRF). TWRF was established in 1987 by a group of lawyers, scholars, and social workers to fight on the behalf of girls illegally forced into prostitution. In her 9 years at TWRF, she has devoted herself to promoting awareness about institutionalized sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WWII (“comfort women”), as well as to the prevention of gender violence in Taiwan. She is the executive producer of Song of the Reed, a documentary depicting the stories of Taiwanese "comfort women" survivors, as well as the chief editor of the book The Reason to be Strong, which shares the recovery processes of these survivors. She is currently leading a team in preparing for a women’s rights museum in the memory of Taiwanese “comfort women.”

Mina WATANABE is Secretary General of the Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace (WAM) based in Tokyo, which focuses on violence against women in conflict situations including military sexual slavery during the Second World War (the “comfort women”). Founded in 2005, WAM was a recipient of the Catholic Pax Christi’s International Peace Award in 2007. She has worked in women’s NGOs and parliamentarians’ offices with a focus on women’s rights, and was actively involved in The Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery held in Tokyo in 2000.

Copies of YOSHIMI Yoshiaki’s seminal book Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II will be available for purchase.

Happy Science and those who speak out against the Comfort Women

Mystery has always surrounded the upsurge of denier history in Japan. Generally, Japan's "truthers," those who believe Japan's war history and totalitarian state has been wrongly maligned, were on the fringes of society and academia. Politicians either ignored them or kept a quiet distance. Foreign scholars regularly dismissed any "surge" to the right in Japan as illusionary.

Nonetheless, Japan's current leadership can be described as both reactionary and non-apologetic for Japan's war conduct. The "truther" fringe is now mainstream and in power. In part this is a reflection of cultural malaise and insularity. Further the generation that experienced the war is no longer available to temper the views of those who did not. More important, however, is an increase of funding by denier/truther groups to political leaders, many who hail from wealthy families that were insulated from the war as well as profited from it.  

One active funder of the LDP is the millennial cult Happy Science. Happy Science group is promoting the "correct view of history," with the belief that it will help strengthen the US-Japan Alliance and eventually lead to the peace in Eastern Asia. They say the atomic bombs were not just and that the Nanjing Massacre is a fabrication. You can find their views on the Comfort Women Issue Here.

This month, for the first time, Happy Science identifies itself publicly as a supporter of the key truther groups that are trying to influence public opinion, including those in California who are suing the City of Glendale to remove the Comfort Women memorial. Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga recently stated at a February 24, 2015 press conference that the Kantei was in touch with organization coordinating the lawsuit.

The following is a annotated translation of the New York City event announcements found on the Nadeshiko Action and homepage. The first version of the flyer on the Nadeshiko website made no mention of Happy Science, but a more recent one, as displayed does.



THE 1st TEXAS NIGHT IN NYC: 
WHO ARE THE ANTI-JAPANESE
March  9, 6:30pm, New York, NY 

Gather, New Yorkers who love Japan!
This will be an enthusiastic discussion with Tony Marano a.k.a. "Texas Daddy," [2] known for his success in masterfully countering anti-Japanese propaganda, and his colleagues who are fighting with him in Japan and in the U.S. He is author of the column "Thrilling! Texas Daddy" in the Yukan Fuji [Evening Fuji, Fuji-Sankei tabloid].

Co-Sponsors: New York Seiron Society; Japan Mahoroba Support Agency; Society to Promote Correct Historical Views; Rompa Project. 
Supported by: Happy Science NY 

VENUE: [CANCELLED] Japanese American Association, 49 W 45th St, 11th floor
NEW VENUE:  Italian restaurant Luna Piena, 243 E 53rd Street. 
COST: $30 general, $20 students
RSVP Registration: limited to 100 people
Snacks and Wine

Speakers [under the photos, from left to right]: 

Mr. Shiro Takahashi (Meisei University prof, member of Gender Equality Council) [3]

Mr. Mitsuhiko Fujii (Rep, Rompa Project) [6]

Ms. Yumiko Yamamoto (Rep, Nadeshiko Action) [4]

Mr. Norimasa Suzuki (Rep NY Seiron Society) [5]

Moderator: Mr. Kiminobu Kimura (Rep, Happy Science NY (Society to Promote Correct Historical Views) [1]

Mr. Shunichi Fujiki (Texas Daddy Japan Office) [7]

“Thorough discussion & social exchange to explore ‘Japan from Now On’ with figures internationally flourishing in discussion activities”

What should the Japanese do against the anti-Japanese propaganda conducted throughout the world? This [event] will be an enthusiastic and demonstrative discussion!


COMFORT WOMEN NOT SEX SLAVES: PRESS CONFERENCE 
March 10, Noon-3:00pm, New York, NY
Lunch provided

SPEAKERS: Dr. Koichi Mera Chairman of the Board of the Study Group for Japan’s Rebirth [9]; Tony Marano, Propaganda Buster Blogger/Texas Daddy and others
VENUE: Westin Hotel Grand Central New York, 212 East 42nd St., Consulate Room. 

[Press Release Text] The Global Alliance for Historical Truth will hold a Press Conference in connection with the holding of U.N. Commission Meetings of Women’s Status in New York. At this Press Conference, GAHT will release a number of documents which support the thesis that the Comfort Women were NOT sex- slaves as many historians were led to believe. We will not just claiming an antithesis, but will demonstrate it with credible documents gathered from the archives of the United States Government as well as from other reliable sources.

It is a great opportunity for American historians, commentators and reporters who work on Japan to enrich, improve, and/or revise their knowledge about Japan during the war time in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

For improving understanding of the issue, some related events to the current Comfort Women issue will be presented. Presentations will be made by Dr. Koichi Mera, Tony Marano and associates.
Marano in Glendale, CA

2ND NEW YORK NIGHT: A JAPAN TO LOVE
March 12, 6:00-9:00pm, New York, NY. 

Who are Japanese in New York? What does it mean to love Japan? What can we do?

Learn about the anti-Japanese activities and discuss what Japan-loving Japanese can do. Expore concrete ideas for future action based on what we learned in the first discussion event on the March 9th.

Learn about the present situation of anti-Japanese activities in Japan and in the U.S. and the [proper] attitude of the Japanese [i.e. ,what kind of attitude Japan should have] about them from the live voices from the activities being unfolded one after another out there in the field now. Also discuss what we can do in New York.

Co-Sponsors: New York Seiron Society; Japan Mahoroba Support Agency [*8]; Society to Promote Accurate Historical Views; and Ronpa Project.
Supported by: Happy Science USA

VENUE: [CANCELLED] The Japanese American Association, 49 W 45th St, 11th floor
NEW VENUE: Italian restaurant Luna Piena, 243 E 53rd Street.
COST: $30 general, $20 students
Registration: limited to 100 people.
RSVP
[no mention of wine and snacks]

SPEAKERS:

Mr. Mitsuhiko Fujii (Rep, Rompa Project) [6]

Mr. Norimasa Suzuki (Rep NY Seiron Society) [5]

Mr. Kiminobu Kimura (Rep, Happy Science NY) [1]

[under the photo]

Ms. Kaori Koyasu (Japan Mahoroba Support Bureau)


ANNOTATIONS/EXPLANATIONS

[1] 木村 公宣  Kiminobu Kimura, representative from Happy Science (Koufuku no Kagaku), a far-right, millennial religious cult. He also identifies as representing this group, 正しい歴史認識を訴える会 [tadashii rekishi-ninshiki wo uttaeru kai] Group to Promote Correct [the/a] Historical View[s]. No information on the Internet. Ad-hoc groups like these tend to be fronts for Happy Science.

[2] テキサス親父 Texas Daddy, Tony Marano, retired telephone company employee from Bronx, New York. Pro-Japan, pro-whaling historical revisionist video blogger who has become an icon in Japanese rightwing groups. Went to France with Rompa Project to campaign against sympathetic Comfort Women manga from South Korea in an international campaign. Reported in Yukan Fuji Here and Here. Traveled with Nadeshiko Action to Geneva to campaign against the Comfort Women at the UN Human Rights Commission and visited the Comfort Women memorial in Glendale, California where he ridiculed the Comfort Women as ugly and joined with Mitsuhiko Fujii and Shun Ferguson in placing a bag over the statue's head.

[3] 高橋史郎  Shiro Takahashi, Conservative education critic who is founder and chairman of The Association of Parental Education or Oyagaku that blames poor parenting for children's learning disabilities. Takahashi was part of the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, which successfully campaigned to eliminate mentions of "comfort women" in most Japanese history textbooks. He is an Abe advisor and Abe is chairman of his parliamentary support group. He is a member of the Cabinet's Gender Equality Council. 

His cv on the Meisei University website says he has an MA in Education from Waseda University, and was a visiting research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute (Feb 1981 - Dec 1982). His books on Amazon include: Japan's traditional child raising revisited through brain science: maldevelopment can be prevented and improved, 2010 [脳科学から見た日本の伝統的子育て―発達障害は予防、改善できる; No-kagaku kara mita nippon no dento-teki kosodate: hattatsu shogai wa yobou, kaizen dekiru] and What America did to Japan during occupation so that Japan shall never be able to rise again, 2014 [日本が二度と立ち上がれないようにアメリカが占領期に行ったこと; Nippon ga nido to tachiagarenai youni amerika ga senryo-ki ni okonatta koto] and [translated title]

[4] 山本優美子 Yumiko Yamamoto, President of  the"comfort women" denier group Nadeshiko Action. Prior to founding Nadeshiko Action, Yamamoto was the vice president and secretary general of notorious anti-Korean racist organization, Zaitokukai, a past she never discusses.

[*5] 鈴木規正 Norimasa? [Noritada?] Suzuki, based on web search, it appears that Suzuki is a reiki practitioner living in New York. Seiron is the name of a conservative Japanese monthly magazine, and "Seiron Societies" across Japan began as discussion groups of Seiron readers, and evolved into a political groups supporting far-right agendas.Assumption is that the New York Seiron Society is a group of readers of Seiron in New York.

[*6] 藤井実彦 Mitsuhiko Fujii, Rompa Project is a "comfort women" denier group connected to Happy Science. Fujii admits to being a follower of Happy Science, but denies that his group is a front organization. His interview on the Happy Science website is HERE and HERE. Other articles about Rompa project on the Happy Science website include: One, Two Three.

[*7] 藤木俊一 Shunichi Fujiki, or "Shun Ferguson" online. Business owner who approached Tony Marano and coordinated the marketing campaign bringing him into right-wing stardom. His Facebook page consistently contains extreme anti-Korean hate speech.

[*8] 子安 香 Kaori Koyasu is a Japanese-English translator living in New York. A fan of Shigeharu Aoyama, the Japanese TV commentator who popularized the myth of rampant anti-Japanese bullying and harassment in Glendale after the city had installed a Comfort Women memorial statue, Koyasu founded Japan Mahoroba Support Agency (then Japan Mahoroba Support Association) in 2014 to plan Aoyama's lecture in New York City and to bring together Japanese people on the East Coast who share similar views. She spells her first name "Kaoli" instead of a more common "Kaori." "Mahoroba" is an ancient Japanese word describing a far-off land full of bliss and peace.

[9] 目良浩  Koichi  Mera, head of Global Alliance for Historical Truth (GAHT) and Study Group for Japan’s Rebirth. A page in Fujioka's Association for Advancement of Unbiased View of History website describes Mera as having taught at: ハーバード大学、Harvard; 筑波大学、Tsukuba University; 東京大学、Tokyo University; 東京国際大学、Tokyo International University [which is not in Tokyo; established 1965; a national-level cram school says the standard deviation for entrance exam is 49 or so (in other words, below 50)]; 南カリフォルニア大学 University of Southern California. It also notes that Mera was born in Korea 1933 and a graduate of Tokyo University in civil engineering He may have received his Masters and Doctorate are from Harvard. He is a co-author of マッカーサーの呪いから目覚めよ日本人, [Makkahsah no noroi kara mezameyo Nippon-jin;  Awake, Japanese, from the Curse of MacArthur].

LATER: This page was edited and updated. March 15, 2015. The Japanese American Association canceled in embarrassment the meetings to be held in their building. The venue was shifted to a nearby Italian restaurant as noted above. Sankei incorrectly reports that protesters against the meeting were detained. 

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Abe's history committee defuses responsbility


Commission impossible for Abe’s foreign policy

By Michael Cucek, Temple University Japan
Originally published in East Asia Forum, 3 March 2015


On 25 February, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe convened the first meeting of a new special advisory council, the Commission on a Framework for the 21st Century. The rather ambiguously and grandiosely named council is to meet with him over the coming months, presenting the results of their deliberations on five topics. The prime minister will presumably include the gist of the commission’s recommendations in his Prime Minister’s Statement to be delivered on August 15, the 70th anniversary of Japan’s acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, the act ending the combat phase of World War II.

The first topic the commission will address is how Japan should view its and the world’s courses through the 20th century, and what lessons may be drawn from them. Second, what path has Japan trod in the 70 years since the end of World War II, and to what extent have Japan’s pacifism, economic development and contributions to the international community have been appreciated? Third, what path has Japan traveled in regards to reconciliation, first with the US, Australia and Europe but especially with China, South Korea and the rest of Asia? Fourth, what should Japan’s vision for relations in the 21st century be? Finally, what specific measures should Japan undertake 70 years into the post-war period.

The membership of the commission is top notch: 16 of the most influential and recognizable senior commentators and reporters on foreign policy, diplomacy and international image management. The council’s president Taizo Nishimuro is the eldest at 79. He is Chairman of Japan Post and former chairman of both Toshiba Corp and the Tokyo Stock Exchange. His presence provides the council with actual personal memory of the war and its end. Rumiko Seya, the director of the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention, is the youngest at 38. Most of the members of the commission are in their late 60s, meaning that while they have no direct experience of the war, their lives span both Japan’s rise to global economic power and its decades of struggle and relative decline since the collapse of the asset price bubble.

Some reports have incorrectly characterized the commission as composed mostly of academics. Though many of the members currently use academic titles, many are not university scholars. Professionally the commission’s membership is quite varied. Mitsubishi Corporation Chairman Yorihiko Kojima stands at the pinnacle of traditional Japan Inc. corporate culture [Company frequently sued for slave and forced labor claims during the war]. Globis Capital Partners president Yoshito Hori represents Japan’s young, entrepreneurial business class. Yukio Okamoto (for whom the author used to work) and Kunihiko Miyake are former career diplomats. Keiko Iizuka and Takao Yamada are senior journalists, hailing from two news organizations one of which is the most supportive (Yomiuri Shimbun) and the other the most critical (Mainichi Shimbun) of the Abe administration.

Politically, the council can be characterized as moderate-right in orientation. Terumasa Nakanishi of Kyoto University is the one hardliner on the commission. His presence is more than balanced though by the presence and authority of Nishimuro, who serves as the president of the New China-Japan Friendship Committee of the 21st Century. Nishimuro is one of the few members of the elite who have close relations with the leaders of China. Most of the membership of the council would be best called conservative, both in the sense of advocating for greater legalization of the SDF’s use of military force in line with international norms and in wanting those changes to be incremental and not disruptive to the peace in East Asia.

Nishimuro will be a formidable chairman. But the power to shape consensus within the commission will have to be shared with his deputy, Shinichi Kitaoka. Kitaoka, the president of the International University of Japan and the former Japan chair of the Japan–China History Research Committee is a long-time close Abe confidant. He served as deputy chairman of the Advisory Panel on Reconstruction of the Legal Basis for Security, the council that gave the Abe administration the intellectual argument for the constitutionality of Japan engaging in limited collective self-defense operations. He will likely play a highly influential role on the commission.

Most of the members — with the exception of Nishimuro, Iizuka and Seya — have long been part of Prime Minister Abe’s network of advisers. Miyake, a fluent speaker of Arabic, Chinese and English, is often treated by the media as the prime minister’s private spokesman on security and international affairs.

That such talent is so close to the prime minister should be a cause for celebration. But it could well be wasted. Abe has managed in the past to consult with wise persons, weigh their advice and then go on to do what he wanted to do as if he had never talked to anyone at all — his 26 December 2013 visit to Yasukuni Shrine being the most glaring example of his stubborn self-direction.

Furthermore, the sheer mass of talent and attention being brought to bear upon the Prime Minister’s Statement on the 70th Anniversary is many orders of magnitude greater than what is necessary. If Abe wanted to please the US government and satisfy the governments of China and South Korea, all he would have to do is reissue the 1995 Statement of Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama on the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. That he has inaugurated a commission to supplement his own statement is evidence he does not intend to follow in the path to reconciliation mapped out by the Murayama Statement.

Unfortunately for Abe, the members of the commission and the citizenry of Japan, the Murayama Statement is the minimum standard expected by the governments of the US, China and South Korea. If, after the deployment of all the experience and knowledge of the commission, Abe fails to hit the expected notes and to transcend the Murayama Statement, the letdown felt by those governments, and the damage done to Japan’s international stature, will be all the greater.

The prudent course for Abe would have been to discourage the build-up of expectations for his statement, to work through the normal diplomatic and bureaucratic channels in its production and forget about the text immediately after reading it. As of 25 February, that humble, cautious path is closed.


Michael Cucek is an Adjunct Fellow at the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies, Temple University, Japan. He was formerly a senior research analyst at Okamoto Associates Inc, a consulting firm led by commission member Yukio Okamoto. He is an APP member 

New York Programs on Comfort Women - Carpe Diem

Today is International Women's Day. For ten days, from March 9 to 20, the 59th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women takes place at United Nations Headquarters in New York. It will be a time of exchange, challenge, declaration, learning, and protest. There will be a number of events on the Comfort Women issue.

DECLARE


March for gender equality on International Women’s Day! 

8 MARCH 1:30 to 5:00 PM
Commemoration of the 20-year anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action
Sponsored by UN Women,  the City of New York, the UN Women for Peace Association, NGO CSW New York, Man Up Campaign, and the Working Group on Girls.
March through New York City midtown, starting at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza and ending on Times Square


PROTEST

Protest against Japanese far-right historical revisionists in New York City

9 MARCH 5:30 PM, 49 W. 45th Street NYC
Sponsored by Sloths Against Nuclear State and others at
Protest panel discussions organized by Happy Science and Nadeshiko denying the Comfort Women history held Japanese American Association of New York
See HERE for descriptions of the three events these organizations are sponsoring

LEARN


Truth and Justice for “Comfort Women” Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military during WWII

9 MARCH 12:30 to 2:00 PM, Armenian Convention Center, Grand Ballroom, 630 Second Avenue
Sponsored by Human Rights Now (HRN)
Ms. Kazuko Ito, Esq., Secretary General of Human Rights Now (HRN) and a member of the UN Women Regional Civil Society Advisory Group (Asia Pacific)
Ms. Mina Watanabe, Secretary General Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace (WAM)
Ms. Kelli Muddell, Director of the Gender Justice Program at the International Center for Transitional Justice
Ms. Shu-Hua Kang, Executive Director, Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation

Survivors' Voice: Film Screenings of Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military during WWII'Song of the Reed' and 'Breaking the History of Silence'

10 MARCH 2:00 to 5:30 PM, TECO, 1 East 42nd Street, B1 

Sexual Violence During Wartime: Accountability, Achievements and Challenges

12 MARCH, 3:00 to 4:15 PM, Conference Room E - UN General Assembly Building
Sponsored by the Republic of Korea, Women's Human Rights Commission of Korea

Saturday, March 7, 2015

Monday in Washington, March 9, 2015

BEGINNING A NEW ERA: INDIA'S UNION BUDGET 2015-2016. 3/9, 8:45-10:00am. Sponsor: Peterson Institute for International Economics (IIE). Speaker: Arvind Subramanian, Chief Economic Advisor to the government of India.

THE URBAN IMPERATIVE: TOWARDS COMPETITIVE CITIES. 3/9, 11:00am-12:30pm. Sponsor: World Bank Group. Speakers: Paul Romer, Professor of Economics, NYU; Abha Joshi-Ghani, Director, Knowledge Exchange & Learning, World Bank; Ravi Kanbur, Professor of World Affairs, Cornell University; Junaid Kamal Ahmad, Senior Director, Water Global Practice, World Bank; Ani Dasgupta, Global Director, World Resources Initiative.

PRISON AND PERSECUTION IN TURKMENISTAN. 3/9, 12:30-2:00pm. Sponsor: Open Society Foundation (OSF). Speakers: Ruslan Myatiev, Founder, Alternative Turkmenistan News; Kate Watters, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Crude Accountability; Catherine Cosman, Senior Policy Analyst, US Commission on International Religious Freedom. 

THE UKRAINE CRISIS AND JAPAN’S RUSSIA CHALLENGE. 3/9, 12:30-1:30pm, Lunch. Sponsor: East-West Center Washington. Speaker: Dr. Michito Tsuruoka, Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute for Defense Studies (NIDS) for Japan’s Ministry of Defense.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, VERMONT. 3/9, 12:30pm. Sponsor: National Press Club (NPC). Speaker: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT. Location: NPC, 529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor. Contact: http://www.press.org/events/npc-luncheon-senator-bernie-sanders-vermont, Fee.

A CONVERSATION ON THE MIDDLE EAST WITH STEPHEN HADLEY. 3/9, 1:00-2:00pm. Sponsor: SAIS Foreign Policy Institute, Johns Hopkins University. Speakers: Stephen Hadley, Former US Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; Amb. Shirin Tahir-Kheli, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Institute.

TAILORED SOLUTIONS TO PRIORITIZE WOMEN AND GIRL'S HEALTH GLOBALLY. 3/9, 1:30-3:00pm. Sponsor: Global Health Council. Speaker(s): TBA.

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME. 3/9, 2:00-4:00pm. Sponsor: Stimson Center. Speakers: Sen. Christopher Coons, D-DE; Luis Arreaga, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; Monica Medina, Senior Director of International Ocean Policy at the National Geographic Society; Zachary Romanow, Philanthropy Engineer, Palantir Technologies; Madhuri Kommareddi, Director of Program Development, Clinton Foundation; Ellen Laipson, President and CEO, Stimson Center; Johan Bergenas, Deputy Director, Managing Across Boundaries, Stimson Center.

AMERICA'S STRATEGIC DILEMMA: A REVISIONIST RUSSIA IN A COMPLEX WORLD. 3/9, 2:15-3:15pm. Sponsor: CSIS. Speakers: Robert Menendez, D-NJ, Senate Foreign Relations Ranking Member; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor; John Hamre, President and CEO, CSIS.

OF MARINES, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, GUANTANAMO AND BEYOND. 3/9, 4:30-6:00pm. Sponsor: Institute of World Politics (IWP). Speaker: David C. Iglesias, J.D., US Navy (Ret.), Director, J. Dennis Hastert Center for Economics, Government and Public Policy. Wheaton College.

OF MARINES, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, GUANTANAMO AND BEYOND. 3/9, 4:30-6:00pm. Sponsor: Institute of World Politics (IWP). Speaker: David C. Iglesias, J.D., US Navy (Ret.), Director, J. Dennis Hastert Center for Economics, Government and Public Policy, Wheaton College.

UNDERSTANDING ISIS AND AL-QAEDA AND POTENTIAL WAYS TO DEAL WITH THE TWO THREATS. 3/9, 6:00-8:00pm. Sponsor: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Speaker: William Braniff, Executive Director, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, University of Maryland.

IMAGINING A HUMANIST EDUCATION GLOBALLY. 3/8-3/13. Sponsor: Comparative and International Education Society.

Japan demanded control over China in 1915, and failed

final agreement accepting modified demands

Centennial lessons for Abe from the ’21 Demands’

by Jeff Kingston, Temple University

first published by The Japan Times, March 7, 2015

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and fellow revisionists prefer to think that Japan’s 20th century imperialist aggression has been misunderstood. But on this score they are isolated not only from the international community, but also within Japan.

In January and February, Emperor Akihito and Prince Naruhito respectively expressed in their ineffable way their shared concerns about Abe’s revisionist agenda on history and the Constitution. Moreover, some senior members of the Liberal Democratic Party are also anxious about the forthcoming Abe statement, which will mark the 70th anniversary of Japan’s surrender.

Even NHK news recently highlighted the key phrases of the 1995 Murayama statement, which accepted responsibility and apologized for the aggression and colonialism that Abe cavils about but really can’t ignore. He has convened a blue-ribbon panel of eminent figures to offer advice, but his options are limited unless he wants to be remembered as “Abe the Shirker.”

A century ago, in 1915 [January 18], the Japanese government presented “21 Demands” to the Republic of China at a time when that government was weak, financially dependent on Tokyo, and Europe was focused on auto-genocide. The timing was therefore propitious, but it all blew up in Japan’s face when the Chinese leaked the contents of the ultimatum to governments in Europe and the United States. Under pressure, Japan backed down. It withdrew the fifth set of demands that would have turned China into a quasi-colony.

This experience embittered Tokyo and raised alarms in Western capitals about Japan’s hegemonic ambitions in China. More importantly, Japan became public enemy No. 1 to the Chinese and the main target of a rising tide of anti-foreign nationalism; a boycott cut Japanese exports to China by 40 percent. So it appears that Japan’s diplomatic initiative was a major blunder.

By the time World War I broke out in 1914, Japan was already a significant imperial power in Asia with colonies in Taiwan and Korea. During the war, based on surging investments and exports, Japan was displacing Great Britain as the preeminent foreign power in China and had already secured significant mining interests and a major railway concession in Manchuria. Given the fragility of the new republic, Japan’s rapidly expanding interests in China and Tokyo’s certainty that there were beneficial synergies to be tapped, the 21 Demands had a powerful logic, but only for the Japanese.

But what if the West had acquiesced to Japan’s hostile takeover of China via the 21 Demands? How might that have influenced subsequent developments in the region? Gaming such a scenario is complicated and there are all sorts of contingent factors that cannot all be considered in this brief space, but the possibilities are intriguing. One would involve Japan strengthening the central government, convincing the prominent nationalist Sun Yat-sen to assume power, curbing the rise of warlordism and containing political turmoil. In fact there were many Chinese nationalists at the time that greatly admired Japan and knew there was a lot to learn and gain from more extensive relations. Sun was well-disposed toward Japan at the time and considered it to be a beacon in Asia, so if he had lent his prestige to the collaborative project, it might have gained some legitimacy.

If Japan had managed to improve governance and develop and modernize China along the lines it pursued in Manchukuo in the 1930s, could Japan’s regional rampage from 1931 to 1945 have been averted? Might this not have improved the well-being of the Chinese and avoid the horrific war Japan waged there that claimed some 15-20 million lives, displaced 100 million more and destroyed the nascent modern economy?

Alas, this would have involved continued imperial exploitation of China under Japan’s leadership, but if Tokyo had gained control in 1915 and countered nationalist hostility by making common cause with the Kuomintang and improving living standards, there might have been no need to subjugate Manchuria from 1931, no escalation of hostilities in 1937 and no need to widen the war to Southeast Asia in 1941 to secure the natural resources needed to win the war in China. No Pearl Harbor and all that happened in its aftermath, including Hiroshima. Surely the U.S. would have found some other reason to enter the war against Adolf Hitler, but Asia might have been spared Japan’s inferno.

The Great Depression was already undermining the basis of colonialism in Southeast Asia and Hitler was administering the coup de grace in Europe, so strong nationalist movements in the region could have achieved independence without Japan’s invasions and brutal occupations. And, if Japanese forces had not decimated the Kuomintang army lead by Chiang Kai-shek — and instead had bolstered his nationalist government — China might have been spared the many subsequent Mao-made disasters and could have followed an accelerated modernization similar to what the Kuomintang launched in Taiwan, way before Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 reforms. Perhaps.

Rana Mitter, a Sinologist at Oxford University, thinks that any Japanese quasi-colonial rule would have lasted a generation at most, but probably less. He believes that, “the same thing that happened on 4 May 1919 — angry nationalist revivalism — would have happened, just a bit later than it did in practice.” The Japanese would have faced, “an insurgent movement from within China (and) holding on to China — as the (World War II) period showed — would have been too expensive and difficult for Japan to manage.”

Stanford University historian Peter Duus points out that the Western powers would not acquiesce to the 21 Demands because “Japan now seemed to have its eye not simply on Southern Manchuria but also on the Shantung Peninsula and the Yangtze Valley.” From a European perspective, he says, “they were getting too big for their britches.”

Duus also thinks Sun was an unlikely partner.

“It is difficult to imagine that Sun would have become a ‘puppet’ as Pu Yi did later on” in Manchukuo, Duus argues. “He had an agenda of his own, and he had a charisma that allowed him to be independent. He also had the support of a younger generation of more militantly nationalist leaders that was coming along behind him.”

Moreover, “Chinese nationalists also thought the Japanese were too big for their britches.” So a puppet state would not have survived the post-World War I tide of Chinese nationalism and “the Japanese might have found themselves in a ‘China quagmire’ two decades before they did in fact.”

So whatever other whimsies revisionists may harbor, the upcoming Abe statement can’t really gloss over the fact that Japan’s ambitions for empire put it on a collision course with Asian nationalisms with catastrophic consequences for the entire region

For more background see: China, Japan, and the 21 Demands

Thursday, March 5, 2015

When Ambassador Reischauer was stabbed in Japan 1964


The slashing of US Ambassador to South Korea Mark Lippert is not without precedent. On March 24, 1964, as then-US Ambassador to Japan Edwin Reischauer was leaving the US Embassy in Tokyo he was attacked by a deranged young man.

Amb. Reischauer was stabbed in the thigh slicing through his femoral artery and leaving the tip of the knife against his thigh bone. The wound was four inches deep and 12 inches long. He ended up with a 20-inch scar from his knee to his waist.

click to order
He was almost killed. He nearly bled to death, like his brother from a wound received by a Japanese bomb in Shanghai 1937. The blood transfusion eventually did kill him, as he caught hepatitis from the blood he received.

Despite the pain, discomfort, and fog, the Ambassador the next day wrote this famous, gracious reassurance to the Japanese people:

I was born and grew up in Japan; and now that I have received Japanese blood, I finally feel that I have become half-Japanese.

It saved the Ikeda cabinet and calmed a difficult situation.

George Packard's 2010 book Edwin O. Reischauer and the American Discovery of Japan details the incident starting on page 205.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Comfort Women are France's fight too

[Japan's] Stance on ‘comfort women’ undermines fight to end wartime sexual violence
BY KAYOKO KIMURA

MAR 4, 2015


Today, no one would deny that the following case is a war crime and that these acts represent some of the most serious violations of international humanitarian and human-rights laws.

Capt. X, an officer with an invading army, came across two young sisters on the battlefield. He sexually assaulted the older girl before taking the small amounts of cash the pair had on them, and their clothes and underwear.

He confined these two young women to his company’s living quarters for seven weeks, and organized or tolerated the abuse and rape of the sisters by his subordinates. After seven weeks of this ordeal, the sisters were shot dead.

This account can be found in official documents preserved in the National Archives in Tokyo. The captain was a Japanese soldier, 28 years old, while the two victims were French sisters, the youngest aged 14. It happened in March 1945 during the Japanese invasion of Indochina, France’s colony in Southeast Asia that spanned parts of modern-day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

These papers are the first documentary evidence to come to light of sexual violence committed on French women by Japanese soldiers. The documents have been in the National Archives since 1999, after being transferred from the Ministry of Justice. Although they became available to the public in 2007, it was only last summer that they were examined by researchers.

These records were originally issued by the Permanent Military Tribunal in Saigon (now Ho Chi Minh City), which dealt with the so-called minor war crimes trials conducted by France after World War II. According to the documents, in January 1947 Capt. X was convicted of murder, rape, complicity in rape and robbery in connection to events including the massacre of more than 40 French prisoners of war. The court condemned him to death and the sentence was carried out on Aug. 12, 1947.

The first international war crimes tribunals — the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials — were established by the Allies to prosecute suspected war criminals for acts committed during World War II. Although suspects were rarely referred to or charged by the Tokyo tribunal over sexual crimes against women, documentary evidence in 87 rape cases and eight more relating to the “comfort women” — women and girls forced to provide sex for Japanese forces before and during the war — were submitted to the court.

At the Class B and C tribunals — the minor war crimes trials — more than 30 sexual violence cases were prosecuted as war crimes, and all the defendants in these trials were found guilty. Historian Hirofumi Hayashi of Kanto Gakuin University in Yokohama, an authority in this field, has already revealed Dutch trials in Batavia (now Jakarta) in which Japanese officers were convicted for the forced prostitution of 35 Dutch women.

The Tokyo tribunal applied the principles of the Hague Conventions of 1907 — the first international treaty implicitly outlawing sexual violence — and Geneva Conventions of 1929, which stated that women prisoners of war should “be treated with all consideration due to their sex.”

Of course, these treaties and conventions did little to protect women from violence in World War II, a fact that spurred the revision of the Geneva Conventions in 1949 to read: “Women shall be especially protected . . . against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.” With that move, international legal prohibitions against sexual violence in conflict were considerably expanded.

In the 1990s, at the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, rape and other forms of sexual violence were recognized as breaches of international law. In the following decade, preventing sexual violence in conflict became a global human-rights and security concern.

As interest in safeguarding women’s rights in wartime has grown and measures have been put in place, the Japanese government has been vocal in its support of this trend. In June 2014, the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict was held in London. At the largest-ever event of its kind, Nobuo Kishi, the parliamentary senior vice-minister for foreign affairs, told participants from more than 140 nations: “Anyone who had been charged with these crimes ought to stand trial in accordance with international law. There is also an urgent need to provide assistance for the victims of sexual violence.”

The summit was almost completely ignored in Japan. Ironically, the public and media were much more preoccupied at the time by picking apart the results of a government-ordered review of the 1993 Kono Statement, the Japanese government’s apology for the forcible recruitment of comfort women to satisfy the needs of Japanese soldiers in WWII.

The irony is that although the current Japanese government might not accept it, these comfort women have contributed a great deal to preventing sexual violence in conflict around the world. Although rape and other forms of sexual violence were already considered international crimes before WWII, the coercion and abuse suffered by the comfort women were not discussed easily or openly for decades after their ordeal ended. It was only in the 1990s that the first voices were raised. When three Korean women filed suit in Japan in December 1991, comfort women — and sexual violence in conflict — became a public issue. Women, especially sexual assault victims, have channeled the shame they suffered under for half a century into fundamental human rights.

Which brings us to the question: Why do so few people in Japan make the link between the wider issue of sexual violence in conflict and the comfort women?

One explanation is that the latter issue tends to be depicted here as a purely diplomatic matter between South Korea and Japan. In reality, comfort women were recruited all over Asia, and their plight matters to a great many people around the world — not just on this continent — who are concerned with issues of women’s rights and justice. In Japan, however, still a male-dominated society, it seems people have trouble filtering out the nationalist noise and seeing the issue in terms of fundamental human and women’s rights.

In September 2014, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe mentioned sexual violence in conflict at the 69th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations: “We intend to make the 21st century a world with no human rights violations against women. Japan will stand at the fore and lead the international community in eliminating sexual violence during conflicts.”

The prime minister’s declaration flies in the face of his government’s refusal to objectively examine the historical facts and recognize Japan’s responsibilities toward the comfort women.

Abe and his nationalist supporters have cast doubt on the Kono Statement, suggesting that the testimonies of comfort women might be unreliable. But on the contrary, personal testimonies are regarded as crucial evidence by experts in this field because rape and sexual violence are such difficult experiences for women to talk about. If the former comfort women had not spoken, nobody would know what had happened in wartime. It is commonly accepted today in the international community that gathering evidence and testimony is invaluable to the prosecution process in such crimes.

In a statement in May 2013 to clarify his contentious remarks about comfort women, Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto said he hoped that the upcoming G-8 Summit would be an important opportunity for the nations’ leaders to examine how soldiers around the world behave toward women in wartime. But given the scale of the comfort women program and the controversy it continues to generate, the onus is on Japan to take the initiative and examine how its soldiers behaved toward women and girls on their march across Asia. Further, Japan should take the lead in demanding that other countries, especially former colonizer nations, examine the treatment of indigenous people across the continent during that period. For example, the minor war crimes trials conducted by France have never dealt with the ordeals faced by the local population in Indochina.

Ironically, as a consequence of shameful acts committed against women during WWII, Japan has led the world to recognize and prosecute sexual violence in conflict. As the 70th anniversary of the end of the war approaches, Japan needs to be reminded that it cannot be excluded from international norms.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Mongolia & The Koreas


A Potential Breakthrough in Mongolia’s Relations With North and South Korea

By: Mendee Jargalsaikhany
First published by the Jamestown Foundation's Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 12 Issue: 38
March 2, 2015

Mongolia takes a resolutely middle road when it comes to North and South Korea. It values its long-standing relations with the North while developing its newly-declared strategic partnership with the South. Due to its geographic location, wedged between Russia and China, Mongolia is often considered a “regionless” state. Therefore, engaging the two Koreas is particularly important for Mongolia as it attempts to integrate itself into Northeast Asia as well as expand its foreign economic and cultural interactions beyond China. Until now, the two Koreas have been hesitant about engaging in trilateral engagements with Mongolia, while the other major powers have, heretofore, paid little attention to Ulaanbaatar’s constructive engagements with Seoul and Pyongyang. However, the series of diplomatic initiatives that transpired over the past year suggest that the members to the Six Party Talks on de-nuclearizing North Korea—the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and North and South Korea—are changing their attitude toward Mongolia’s efforts. Meanwhile, both the Republic of Korea (ROK—South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK—North Korea) are evidently beginning to seek increasing economic opportunities in and with Mongolia.

In 2014, key international players began to publicly commend Mongolia’s sustained diplomacy, which does not isolate North Korea. Notably, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recognized Mongolia’s role in facilitating and hosting several meetings between Japan and the DPRK, especially for talks on the issue of North Korea’s abductions of Japanese citizens (Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, September 24, 2014). Mongolia hosted three rounds of meeting between Japan and North Korea in 2007–2012, and a secret meeting between the abductees and their Japanese relatives in March 2014 (Japan Times, March 26, 2014). Even though Mongolia’s diplomatic efforts seemed to attract little to no attention from the United States, they have been well received in the Japanese media.

It should also be noted that last year, Mongolia organized the so-called Ulaanbaatar Dialogue, involving all Northeast Asian states. The Ulaanbaatar Dialogue’s track II format includes a city mayors’ forum, women parliamentarian meetings, and a numerous sporting activities; and North Korea actively participated in all of these programs. Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly expressed his support for the Ulaanbaatar Dialogue initiative during his August 2014 visit to the Mongolian capital, as well as during a meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Dushanbe, last September (Ikon, 22 August 2014; Dushanbe SCO Summit Press Release, September 12, 2014).

South Korean and Russian attitudes toward Mongolia’s regional role are also changing. In particular, Seoul seems to regard Ulaanbaatar as a valued partner for its Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Engagement Initiative (NAPCI) as well as its Eurasia Initiative (Yonhap News, August 26, 2014). Meanwhile, with the upsurge in political contacts between Russia and the DPRK in 2014, Moscow has supported Mongolia’s engagement with North Korea (38 North, November 6, 2014). Indeed, during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Ulaanbaatar last September, both sides even agreed to collaborate on using the North Korean Rason port (Ikon, September 3, 2014). Both North Korea and Mongolia, as Russia’s traditional geopolitical pivots to Northeast Asia, welcome Russia’s engagement. Whereas, it is clearly in Russia’s interest to transform North Korea from a roadblock to an entryway for reaching non-Chinese markets across Northeast Asia.

Even Mongolia’s view in Washington has been undergoing a moderate shift. US policymakers are now weighing the options of using Mongolia as: 1) an example for political and economic transitions, 2) a venue for dialogue on economic cooperation, and/or 3) a staging area for humanitarian activities in the wider region (Brookings Op-Ed, No. 84, January 2015; CSIS, December 3, 2014).

With these increasingly positive attitudes among all the major players, Mongolia may be able to capitalize on its secure domestic and political situation, as well as its political neutrality toward both Koreas, in order to strengthen its ties with potential partners across Northeast Asia. At the same time, Ulaanbaatar hopes to be able to provide more opportunities for trilateral collaboration among Mongolia, the ROK and the DPRK, especially in areas of sustainable development.

In mid-January 2015, a North Korean aircraft picked up 104 heads of cattle from Mongolia, the first shipment of 10,000 promised animals to help the DPRK develop its animal husbandry sector as a part of Mongolia’s humanitarian assistance package to this country (News.mn, January 13). Although Mongolia provided livestock (goats) to North Korea in the past, this time both sides aim to implement a much larger project, which will help the DPRK build up its long-term food-production capacity. With its traditional experience in the animal husbandry industry, Mongolia raises 51.9 million grazing animals and is re-building its export capacity to Chinese, Russian and Japanese markets (National Statistics Office of Mongolia, January 2015).

Another area that both Koreas are interested in is the leasing of fertile Mongolian land—especially along the major river basins in the eastern and northern parts the landlocked Asian country. Under a four-year-old agreement between the ROK’s Korea-Mongolia Agricultural Development Initiatives (KMADI) and the local government of Mongolia’s Dornod province, South Korea leased 30,000 hectares of land in eastern Mongolia to develop eco-friendly agriculture and livestock breeding (Korea IT Times, March 11, 2011). In the long run, the project aims to bring South Korean capital and technology into Mongolia with a long-term objective of creating sustainable sources of agricultural and livestock production.

Finally, about 30–40 thousand Mongolians live in South Korea, and 3,000 South Koreans and 2,000 North Koreans reside (or work) in Mongolia. Moreover, South Korea is becoming a major gateway for Mongolians to reach the Asia-Pacific region and North America: 65,000 Mongolians travel to and through Seoul every year. Currently, there are 20 flights in the summer and 12 in the winter between Seoul and Ulaanbaatar. Thus, South Korea has grown into one of Mongolia’s largest trading partners and has increased its investment in the landlocked country’s mining, infrastructure and services sectors. Although on a smaller scale, Mongolian businesses are also eyeing investments in North Korea, if Pyongyang gradually opens up its economy.

If these trends continue, Mongolia may appeal for even more economic and cultural collaboration with the two Koreas. And there appears to be ever greater potential for collaboration on sustainable economic projects such as agriculture, tourism and infrastructure development.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Monday in Washington, March 2, 2015

AIPAC POLICY CONFERENCE 2015. 3/1-3/3. Sponsor: American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC).

BUILDING A CAREER OVERSEAS WITH USAID. 3/2, 9:00-10:30am. Sponsor: CSIS's Project on US Leadership in Development. Speakers: Herbie Smith, Director, Mission to Yemen, USAID; Tamra Halmrast-Sanchez, Deputy Director, Mission to Yemen, USAID. 

INNOVATION IN A RULES-BOUND WORLD: HOW REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT CAN SPUR GROWTH. 3/2, 9:30am-2:30pm. Sponsor: Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Speakers: Sen. Angus King, (I-Maine); Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, (D-AZ); Will Marshall, President and Founder of Progressive Policy Institute; Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist for Progressive Policy Institute; Jason Wiens, Policy Director in Research and Policy for the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation; Adam Theirer, Senior Research Fellow with the Technology Policy Prigram at the Mercatus Center at George Mason; Cary Coglianese, Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania; Megan McArdle, View Columnist for Bloomberg; Joseph Gulfo, Former CEO of Mela Sciences; Robert Graboyes, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason; Toby Bloom, Deputy Scientific Director of the New York Genome Center.

THE FED IN THE 21ST CENTURY: INDEPENDENCE, GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY. 3/2, 10:00am-12:30pm. Sponsor: Brookings Institution. Speakers: Charles Plosser, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia; Peter Conti-Brown, Fellow, Stanford Law School; Jeremy Stein, Professor of Economics, Harvard University; Viral Acharya, Professor of Economics, New York University; Former Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA; Ben Bernanke, Fellow in Economic Studies, Brookings; Ruth Porat, Executive Vice President and CFO, Margan Stanley; Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, Brookings.

THE ISRAELI ELECTIONS AND A FUTURE PEACE PROCESS IN THE LIGHT OF PAST NEGOTIATIONS. 3/2, Noon-1:00pm. Sponsor: Wilson Center's Middle East Program. Speaker: Galia Golan, Chair, Program on Diplomacy and Conflict Studies, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. 

ASIA'S BRAVEST WOMEN: THE STORY BEHIND THE RISE OF YOUNG, FEMALE HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS IN ASIA. 3/2, 12:15-1:45pm. Sponsor: New America, Breadwinning and Caregiving Council. Speakers: Zin Mar Aung, Co-Founder of RAINFALL, Winner of the International Women of Courage Award in 2012, Co-Founder of Yangon School of Political Science; Catherine Antoine, Director and Managing Editor of Radio Free Asia; Binh T. Nguyen, Director of Human Rights for Vietnam Political Action Committee, Former Chair of the Virginia Asian Advisory Board, Director of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanity and Public Policies; Elizabeth Weingarten, Associate Director of Global Gender Parity Initiative.

MAKING VALUE FOR AMERICA: EMBRACING THE FUTURE OF MANUFACTURING, TECHNOLOGY, AND WORK. 3/2, 2:00-5:00pm. Sponsor: National Academy of Engineering. Speakers: Nick Donofrio, former Executive Vice President, Innovation and Technology, IBM; Steve Hoover, CEO, Palo Alto Research Center (PARC); Theresa Kotanchek, CEO, Evolved Analytics; Arun Majumdar, Professor, Senior Fellow, Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University; John Tracy, Chief Technology Officer, Boeing; Sharon Vosmek, CEO, Astia.

SHARI'A LAW IN ACEH. 3/2, 2:00-3:00pm. Sponsor: CSIS Sumitro Chair for Southeast Asia Studies. Speakers: Kira Kay, Director of the Bureau for International Reporting; Jason Maloney, Director of the Bureau for International Reporting; Andreas Harsono, Indonesia Researcher for Human Rights Watch.

RESILIENCE FOR PEACE: A NEW AGENDA. 3/2, 3:00-5:00pm. Sponsors: Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program; USAID's Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation. Speakers: Cynthia Brady, Senior Conflict Advisor, USAID; Sundaa Bridgett-Jones, Associate Director of International Development, Rockefeller Foundation; Melissa Brown, Director, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, USAID; Roger-Mark De Souza, Director of Population, Environmental Security and Resilience, Wilson Center; Jon Kurtz, Director of Research and Learning, Mercy Corps; Tom Staal, Acting Assistant Administrator, USAID.

THE MEANING OF NEVER AGAIN: GUARDING AGAINST A NUCLEAR IRAN. 3/2, 3:30pm. Sponsor: The World: The Values Network. Speakers: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX; Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA; Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Laureate; Shmuley Boteach, Rabbi. 

INTERNET FREEDOM 2.1: LESSONS FROM ASIA’S DEVELOPING DEMOCRACIES. 3/2, 4:30-6:00pm. Sponsor: German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Speaker: Dhruva Jaishankar, Transatlantic Fellow of the Asia Program at GMF.

THE FUTURE OF THE FIGHT AGAINST ISIL. 3/2, 5:00-6:30pm. Sponsor: Atlantic Council. Speakers: Gen. John Allen, USMC (Ret.), Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, US Department of State; Frederick Kempe, President and CEO of Atlantic Council.

INSTITUTIONALIZING HEALTH AND EDUCATION FOR ALL: GLOBAL GOALS, INNOVATIONS, AND SCALING UP. 3/2, 5:30-7:00pm. Sponsor: GW International Education Program, International Development Studies. Speakers: author Colette Chabbott, Adjunct Professor, International Education, GW; Jennifer Brinkerhoff, Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs, GW.