We apologize for the delay in sending out this week’s memo! Here’s what happened at Stanford over the last two weeks.
U.S. Special Representative to North Korea takes optimistic view of denuclearization talks
Description: Stephen Biegun and Robert Carlin at FSI event.
Image Credit: Linda A. Cicero / Stanford News Service
On January 31, the Freeman Spogli Institute hosted a conversation with U.S. Special Representative to North Korea Stephen Biegun. A day earlier, Donald Trump had complained after his intelligence chiefs had contradicted his optimistic national security assessments, including that of the North Korean threat, tweeting that “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school.” Whereas Trump claimed that there was “a decent chance of denuclearization” in North Korea, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee that North Korea denuclearization was “unlikely” because North Korean leadership views “nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival.”
Biegun took the more optimistic Trump view on talks, and he touted the President’s individual efforts in North Korean diplomacy several times. Biegun claimed that Trump, “more so than any previous president, is committed to bringing peace with North Korea,” and that his “courageous” leadership at the Singapore Summit “interrupted trajectory to conflict.” During that June summit, Trump and Kim agreed to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,” but little progress has occurred since that meeting.
Despite his optimism, Biegun acknowledged the lack of tangible results and that we still have “more work ahead of us than we do behind us,” but he added that the “stars have never been aligned” for North Korean denuclearization negotiations, and that our current “opportunity is the greatest we have ever had.” Biegun took encouragement from the fact that “no US citizens are wrongfully detained in North Korea,” that it has been more than 400 days since North Korea has conducted “provocative nuclear tests,” and in the trend toward actual demilitarization of the DMZ. He invoked small diplomatic milestones, ones unrelated to denuclearization, as steps that could foster goodwill and open the floodgates for meaningful progress toward denuclearization. Biegun included the State Department’s new, more favorable approach toward reviewing requests for travel exemptions for U.S. citizens intent on providing humanitarian aid to North Korea in this category. He likewise characterized a DPRK return of remains of American soldiers as a potential step that might lay the groundwork for more substantive denuclearization negotiations.
Biegun’s broader strategy of trading economic incentives for denuclearization adds nothing new to North Korean diplomacy, but perhaps his cooperation with academic experts will have add a new flavor to U.S. strategy. Visiting fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation Robert Carlin, who has worked officially on US-DPRK negotiations in the past and has provided informal assistance to Biegun’s current team, praised Biegun’s uncommon willingness to take advantage of such expertise: “He listens and that’s what makes him so great.” Carlin suggested that Biegun’s willingness to listen was a rare quality for U.S. negotiators. Biegun several times singled out the expertise of Stanford’s faculty on North Korea, praising it as “the most formidable collection of expertise on North Korea that can be found anywhere in the United States today.” The theories and strategy developed on this campus may have an important role to play in US-DPRK relations with Biegun at the helm.
Since Biegun’s FSI talk, he has re-engaged with his North Korean counterpart. Earlier this week, Biegun met with his North Korean counterpart Kim Hyok Chol for three days in Pyongyang, where they discussed advancing Trump and Chairman Kim’s Singapore Summit commitments. Biegun and Special Representative Kim have agreed to meet once more this February prior to a February 27-28 summit between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim.
Stanford’s Relationship with China
China has attracted increasingly greater scrutiny as a national security threat in recent years, and the Trump administration has been particularly wary of Chinese influence at home and abroad. This sentiment was evident during Attorney General Nominee Bill Barr’s Senate confirmation hearings in January, when Barr labeled China “the primary rival” of the United States. In light of China’s status as a national security threat and the hefty government funding that Stanford receives, this piece from the Stanford Review suggested that Stanford take a closer look at its relationship with China, which the piece argued was inappropriately complacent.
Stanford has recently taken steps to limit its research relationship with the Chinese telecom supplier Huawei, which is widely speculated to include backdoors on behalf of the Chinese government. This pause in research partnerships with Huawei comes in the wake of two federal indictments against the company, a federal request for the extradition of a senior Huawei executive, and moves by several California universities to remove all Huawei equipment in compliance with the NDAA, a Trump administration bill requiring such action of all institutions receiving federal funding. A Stanford representative took care to note that Stanford maintains an inclusive policy: “The current pause [on Huawei research partnerships] affects only Huawei … We continue to be committed to international collaboration for the advancement of knowledge.”
The Chinese national security threat implicates important questions about Stanford’s place in the world. Is Stanford primarily an international institution, or an American one? How do the interests of Stanford University align with the interests of the United States government? How do we reconcile a mission that promises inclusion and requires a coming together of individuals of diverse backgrounds and interests for the advancement of learning with a genuine threat to the national security of this country? The answers to these questions will shape university policy on China.
Stanford Fellow Accuses Virginia Lt. Governor of Sexual Assault
On Wednesday, Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences Fellow Vanessa Tyson came forward and issued a statement through the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks that she was sexually assaulted in 2004 by current Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax. Tyson is studying the politics and policies surrounding sexual violence against women and children in the United States, and she has received widespread support from the academic community following the allegations. Fairfax has denied the allegations and claims that their 2004 sexual encounter was consensual. On Friday, a second accuser came forward against Fairfax.
These allegations deepen the confusion surrounding Virginia politics. The other two top-ranking officials in the state of Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring, have admitted to wearing blackface during their 1980s school days within the past week. All three officials, Fairfax, Northam, and Herring have refused to resign in the face of heavy pressure to do so. Fairfax, Northam, and Herring are Democrats. Should all three resign, then Republican Speaker of the House Kirk Cox would assume the governorship. Those familiar with the Virginia Democratic establishment have speculated that establishment Democrats would prefer Fairfax and Northam to resign, while Herring would stay on as governor, but it remains uncertain whether any of the three will bow to public pressure to leave office.
Presidential Hopeful Cory Booker’s Revealing Stanford Daily Introspection
Description: U.S. Senator Cory Booker at OpenXChange event at Stanford in 2016.
Image Credit: Erica Evans / The Stanford Daily
On Feb. 1, Cory Booker (‘91, ‘92) officially declared his 2020 presidential candidacy. Following his entry to the field, several unusually revealing articles from his time at The Stanford Daily have resurfaced. Booker’s introspective exploration of the evolution of his views on homosexuality in particular has garnered national interest. Booker’s account is a transformation from initially “well-trained,” false tolerance that masked a deep-seated “disgust and latent hostility” to genuine effort at acceptance of the gay community. Booker credited gay peer counselor Daniel Bao with sparking this transformation with his moving account of endured persecution.” Booker’s recognition that Bao’s experience was analogous to the persecution Booker’s own grandparents had faced growing up as African-Americans finally forced Booker to confront the fact that the root of his hatred was not caused by some defect in the gay community, but instead represented a shortcoming within himself. For a more comprehensive review of Booker’s tenure at the Daily, check out this Daily article.
And In Case You Missed It…
Law students ride the ‘Justice Bus’ (Kekauoha / Stanford News)
Lord Browne of Madingley to Deliver 2019 Commencement Speech at Stanford GSB (Stanford Graduate School of Business)
Faculty Senate debates role of Hoover Institution on campus (Dardet / Stanford Daily)
Dean’s letter to Stanford Engineering community on death of student (Widom / Stanford News)
Please forward widely!
Forward this newsletter to new students so that they can subscribe to the Monday Memo and stay informed. Similarly, if you are not yet subscribed, you can do so here. Thanks for reading!