This article originally appeared in The Stanford Daily.

European Union (EU) High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell M.S. ’75 visited the Hoover Institution on Monday for an event hosted by the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI).

In a keynote speech followed by a conversation with the institute’s director and former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, Borrell delved Europe’s crucial role and responsibilities in addressing ongoing war in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as geopolitical security and emerging technology more broadly.

Borrell emphasized the need for EU countries to collectively adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape and increase their strategic responsibility. He stressed the importance of European unity in the face of challenges posed by Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, noting that the security landscape has “dramatically changed.”

“Europe has to learn to speak the language of power,” Borrell said, emphasizing the need for Europe to increase its military capacities while utilizing all available tools to face global challenges.

Listen to Representative Borrell's full discussion with Michael McFaul below on a special episode of World Class podcast.

Follow the link for a transcript of "Strategic Responsibility in the EU, United States, and Beyond."

Regarding the Israel-Gaza war, Borrell called for a political process that would empower the Palestinian Authority and reach a solution for peace, describing the current state as “a stain on human consciousness.” He urged the international community to push for a ceasefire, secure the release of hostages, and ensure better access to humanitarian aid in the region.

“It is not a natural catastrophe what is happening in Gaza. It is not an earthquake, it is not a flood when you come and help people suffering the consequences. [It] is a manmade disaster, is a manmade catastrophe,” Borrell said.

Among the other global challenges Borrell called for Europe to address was the continent’s dependence on China for critical materials and technologies. He emphasized the importance of coordinating with the US to counter China’s growing influence in the global economic and political sphere.

“More coordination in front of China should be one of the most important things that the Europeans and the Americans should do in order to balance the challenges of this world,” Borrell said.

More broadly, Borrell spoke to the importance of coordination between the US and EU to work globally to protect “political freedom, economic prosperity, and social cohesion.”

Borrell acknowledged that the United States is a global leader in emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, and stressed the importance of cooperation on trade and technological innovation. He expressed concern that regulatory hurdles may be hindering the EU’s ability to catch up with the U.S. in the technology sector and emphasized the significance of transatlantic collaboration in shaping the future of technology.

“I am happy to know that we are partners in building a responsible and human-centric technological innovation,” Borrell said.

The importance of partnership across countries was a throughline in Borrell’s speech, as he concluded with a reminder of the interconnectedness of global security and social well-being. “You cannot be secure at home if your neighbor is not eating dinner.”

Watch High Representative Borrell's full keynote remarks below. Video courtesy of the European Commission.

The problem, Fayyad said, is that a two-state solution has never been defined with adequate precision. “Part of this is to be expected if something is going to be the product of negotiations,” as was not the case in prior years with proposals such as the Oslo Accords.

On Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinian militants led by Hamas attacked Israel, killing almost 1,200 people, and Israel responded by launching an invasion of Gaza that has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians as of April 2024. With the war ongoing for seven months now, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict goes back many decades to 1948, when Israel was established. The question now is, what does the future hold for Gaza, the Palestinian people, Israel, and stability in the Middle East?

Fayyad raised the issue of what the key organizing principle to determine a future State of Palestine and a peaceful solution with Israel could be.

He said, “That process must be preceded by formal recognition of our rights as a people, our national rights. It's very important. Oslo was not about that. Oslo was very transactional.”

‘Voices in these discussions’

Sallam, a moderator, said in an email prior to the event that “the ongoing war has caused a grave humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza with tens of thousands of deaths, a serious risk of famine, and a pressing public health crisis. It is important for us to advance as many conversations as possible about how we got to this reality and how we can find a peaceful exit out of it. And it is imperative to elevate and center Palestinian voices in these discussions.”

He added, “Dr. Fayyad’s visit to CDDRL’s Program on Arab Reform and Democracy promises to shed light on a host of pressing questions that the Stanford community has been grappling with since last year. It is a timely opportunity to learn, engage, and deliberate.”

Fayyad is an economist who served as minister of finance for the Palestinian Authority from 2002 to 2005 and as prime minister from 2007 to 2013. During his tenure, he introduced a number of economic and governance reforms. Afterward, he founded "Future for Palestine," a nonprofit development foundation. He also worked for the International Monetary Fund, including as the resident representative in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Currently, he is a Visiting Senior Scholar and Daniella Lipper Coules '95 Distinguished Visitor in Foreign Affairs at the Princeton School of Public Affairs. He is also a distinguished statesman at the Atlantic Council and a distinguished fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Recognition of Rights

Fayyad said that the recognition of Palestinian rights is critical to any future negotiations. “One of the key lessons learned is that it's a mistake to engage in a problematic process that is not defined well in terms of outcome – what it is supposed to lead to if it is not based particularly from our point of view, or on recognition of our national rights as a people? Because so far, we have gotten none of that.”

He added, “I, like many Palestinians, would find it reasonable to engage in a process that could take us there in agreement and through negotiation.”

Fayyad said that if Palestinians' interests and those of all countries in the region are ultimately to live in peace and sustainable harmony, then the process must be recalibrated. “It has to be more principled.”

Asymmetry and Conflict History

Fayyad said that asymmetry exists between Palestinians and Israelis. “You see this everywhere, in terms of power relations, you see it everywhere, all facets of life. You see it on college campuses; you see it everywhere.”

For example, he said that Israel, over 75 years, has built a strong, vibrant economy with a strong military. “So, to deny people (Palestinians) the right to self-determination, which is a right that is absolute for us under international law, just like any other people anywhere in the world,” is asymmetrical.

He noted, “It is equally important, if not more important, for us Palestinians to understand that just because we are the weaker party in this balance of power … that we must actively assume full agency in the act of our liberation. We must.”

During the conversation, Diamond told Fayyad, “Everything you've talked about was challenging enough on Oct. 6.” But, he asked, how have the last seven months after a devastating terrorist attack affected everything, including the war in Gaza that has leveled much of the physical infrastructure of the country? “Where do we go from here?”

Fayyad described Oct. 7 as a “major shock” that has made a solution more difficult and distant than it already was. He added that Israel’s response to eliminate Hamas is likely impossible to extremely unlikely.

A Sisyphean Task

Our freedom is an inalienable right, Fayyad said about the Palestinian people, and it's an inseparable component of them as human beings. 

“As human beings and members of the human race, like everyone, we have that to share with everyone else. You have to have that kind of recalibration.”

Future conversations between Palestinians and Israelis have to begin from the recognition that two equal parties exist to this disagreement, he said. “Not the oppressor, not the oppressed, not the master and the slave. Not the master and the surrogate.”

Fayyad compared the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to a Sisyphean task of sorts. 

“But I never really understood Sisyphus to be an exercise in futility myself,” he said. “You learn something every time that boulder rolls back on. It's really about empowerment. That’s why it is most inspiring to try it. Even if you fail, even if you know you’re going to fail, you learn from it, you learn from it, and you keep pushing that boulder up the hill. There will come a point in time when the stars align for that which is just.”

The Program on Arab Reform and Democracy at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University examines the different social and political dynamics within Arab countries and the evolution of their political systems, focusing on the prospects, conditions, and possible pathways for democratic reform in the region.

Indonesia’s “New Order,” the authoritarian military regime led by General Suharto from 1966-1998, originated following the kidnapping and killing of six Army generals on September 30th-October 1, 1965. The conventional narrative often depicts this regime change as a sudden event, but historian Norman Joshua, APARC's 2023-24 Shorenstein postdoctoral fellow on contemporary Asia, challenges this view.  Joshua’s research explains why the civil-military relationships and social militarization that emerged in Indonesia from the period under Dutch colonial rule in the preceding decade allowed the New Order to solidify power in 1965.

In a recent seminar hosted by APARC’s Southeast Asia Program, “Militarization Overlooked: Rethinking the Origins of Indonesia’s New Order, 1950-1965,” Joshua shared his insights into the complex phenomenon of militarization within Indonesian society, spanning from the tumultuous post-independence era to the present day. Through a historian's lens, he traces the origins of militarization and its far-reaching impacts on political, social, and cultural dynamics in Indonesia.

An Environment Conducive to Militarization

At the heart of this narrative lies the period following Indonesia's revolutionary struggle and independence from Dutch colonial rule. Scholars have portrayed the 1950s favorably as a time when Indonesia embarked on an experiment with liberal and constitutional democracy. Joshua, however, argues that, instead of heralding an era of stability and democratic governance, “the post-revolutionary landscape was fraught with underdevelopment, persistent conflict, and political instability.” This environment provided fertile ground for the gradual militarization of Indonesian society, as the military sought to quell armed groups and revolutionary violence.

"In essence, my current project is an endeavor to write a social and cultural history of Indonesian authoritarianism," Joshua explains. He frames this process as militarization, wherein civil society organizes itself for the production of violence.

Joshua's scholarly curiosity about Indonesian authoritarianism stems from his deep-seated interest in the country's post-revolutionary period. He is particularly drawn to the oft-overlooked years of the 1950s and 1960s, which he deems pivotal in comprehending Indonesia's authoritarian trajectory. He was also drawn to the topic by a family member’s involvement in the revolutionary and Communist movements, leading to their exile from Indonesia after the 1965 massacres, “which sparked my interest in studying ‘those who were on the wrong side of history,' so to speak.”

Joshua sheds light on the role of armed revolutionary factions like the Gerombolan, whose lingering presence posed a challenge to the nascent Indonesian government's efforts to establish control and maintain order, even bearing responsibility for the murder of Yale professor Raymond Kennedy and Time-Life reporter Robert Doyle.

"Militarization produced a militarized society that was regimented and conditioned towards the use of violence," Joshua asserts. His analysis reveals how militarization permeated various facets of Indonesian society, from the adoption of military symbolism to the normalization of violence in everyday life.

An Enduring Legacy of Militarization

Joshua cites the continuing role of the military and police in post-1998 Indonesian society. The Army—and the Police, which is in many ways a constabulary force—have retained their territorial organization, and former and active-duty military and police often participate in non-security affairs. He also highlights the important role of security forces in facing domestic challenges such as the ongoing insurgency in Papua.

Joshua considers militarization from a cultural standpoint, including the fetishization of uniforms, marches, and militia-like organizations. Militarization, he notes, is often manifested in slogans, songs, ceremonies, and indoctrination programs. For example, the slogan "Ganyang Malaysia," originating from Sukarno's call to "crush" Malaysia, became emblematic of Indonesian nationalism and militarism.

Challenges for Democracy

Despite the downfall of the New Order regime, Joshua underscores the implications of the enduring legacy of militarization in contemporary Indonesia. Just two months ago, Indonesian voters elected Prabowo Subianto, a former special forces commander with a controversial history, as their next president. Expressing apprehensions about the potential for further militarization, Joshua points to the ascendancy of leaders like Prabowo. "Militarization under Prabowo would be evident in two ways," he cautions, citing increased military budgets and an expanded role for the military in non-security affairs. “While we have yet to hear about the shape of Prabowo’s cabinet, I believe that we will see an increasing role for the military and police—whether active-duty or retired—in non-military affairs,” he said.

“This trend started during the Jokowi administration and will continue under Prabowo, and has invited concerns from civil rights organizations and human rights groups. Ultimately, I think Prabowo’s election is a test for Indonesia’s democratic values and how resilient the civil society is.”

Assessing the health of Indonesian democracy, Joshua notes fluctuations that warrant concern. "Indonesian democracy is still working well, especially compared to neighboring countries," he observes. “I think the election of Prabowo shows the robustness of Indonesian democratic procedures, as the 2024 Presidential Election was conducted peacefully and with relatively minor complaints of voting fraud or irregularities.” However, he highlights potential challenges ahead. “It appears that Indonesian democracy will face a great challenge in the next four years, and we will see if the guardrails of democratic procedure will hold or not.”

An Interdisciplinary Scholar Community

As a Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow, Joshua connected with APARC scholars to further his research. “I work mostly with Southeast Asia Program Director Don Emmerson and am glad to be connected with APARC faculty Stephen Kotkin, who I found as an inspiration for my work,” he notes. Engaging with Lee Kong Chian Fellow on Southeast Asia Soksamphoas Im, who works on authoritarian politics in Cambodia, with fellow scholar Yuya Ouchi, and Visiting Scholar Gita Wirjawan, who is an expert practitioner of Indonesian politics, has also been an enriching experience, Joshua says. conversations with .”

Delving into the Hoover Institution archives, Joshua examined the papers of Guy Pauker, an Indonesianist and “Cold Warrior” in the 1960s, and his engagement with Indonesian poet, writer, and scholar Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, who was a fellow at Stanford’s Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

“I am grateful to have spent my postdoctoral fellowship at APARC, as it allows me to spend more time working on my dissertation toward transforming it into a monograph,” said Joshua.

“The interdisciplinary nature of APARC is particularly helpful for a young scholar like me and helped the process of refining my arguments, especially in terms of engaging with people outside of my field and academic discipline."

After his time at APARC, Joshua will serve as the Hoover History Lab’s Research and Teaching Fellow at the Hoover Institution under Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Kotkin.

Joshua’s research provides a comprehensive exploration of the nature of civil-military relations within Indonesian society. By tracing its historical roots and examining its contemporary manifestations, he provides valuable insights into how militarization has shaped Indonesia's political, social, and cultural milieu.

His analysis of the militarizing process offers scholars insights into an understudied period in Indonesian history and helps us better understand the origins of authoritarian military regimes worldwide. As Indonesia continues to navigate its path forward, grappling with the legacies of its militarized past will undoubtedly remain a complex and pressing challenge.

“I believe that history serves as more than just a chronicle of the past,” Joshua reflects. “It serves as a vital lens through which we can comprehend and contextualize the events that are still unfolding in our contemporary world.”
 

‘Unwavering commitment’

Matviichuk was a visiting scholar at CDDRL in the Ukrainian Emerging Leaders Program, a predecessor to the Center’s current Strengthening Ukrainian Democracy and Development Program, during the 2017-18 academic year. 

Kathryn Stoner, the Mosbacher Director of CDDRL, said, “For her unwavering commitment to her work, Matviichuk has received international recognition for her work on issues such as democratic reforms, improved public control, and oversight of law enforcement agencies and the judiciary in the wake of the 2004 Orange Revolution.” Matviichuk received the Democracy Defender Award in 2016.

During the question-and-answer session, Michael McFaul, director of FSI and former ambassador to Russia, said that while he totally agreed with aid to Ukraine, it was important to explain to skeptical Americans how U.S. support will favorably change the situation on the ground for Ukraine and what this means overall for democracy on a global scale.

Matviichuk said, “It’s very simple. We will survive. Because when the United States and other countries start to provide Ukraine with weapons, it gives us a chance to push Russian troops out.”

As the head of the Center for Civil Liberties, which received the Nobel Peace Prize under her leadership, and a human rights lawyer focused on issues within Ukraine and the OSCE region, Matviichuk now leads initiatives aimed at fostering democracy and safeguarding human rights. Her organization supports legislative reforms, monitors law enforcement and the judiciary, conducts wide education programs, and leads international solidarity efforts. 

Global Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

Law and order represent critical distinctions between Russian authoritarianism and global democracy, said Matviichuk, who tearfully noted at one point that she recently lost a close friend in a Russian attack.

“As a human rights lawyer, I found myself in a situation where the law doesn’t work. Russian troops are destroying residential buildings, schools, churches, museums, and hospitals. They’re attacking evacuation corridors; they’re torturing people, infiltration camps. They’ve forcibly taken Ukrainian children to Russia. They ban Ukrainian language and culture,” she said.

In response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Matviichuk co-founded the “Tribunal for Putin” initiative, documenting war crimes across affected Ukrainian regions. 

“We have an ambitious goal to document every criminal episode that has been committed in the smallest settlement in Ukraine. Working together, we have already recorded and contributed over 68,000 episodes of war crimes to our database. We are documenting more than just violations of the Geneva Conventions. We are documenting human pain,” she said.

She said the Russian-Ukraine War demonstrates that the West is now dealing with the formation of an entire authoritarian bloc. “They all feature a crucial commonality. All these regimes have the same idea of what a human being is. Authoritarian leaders consider people as objects of control and deny them rights and freedoms. Democracies consider people's rights and freedoms to be their highest value, and there is no way to negotiate this because it only exists in the free world.”

The conflict has increased an axis of authoritarianism between Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. “I live in Kyiv, and my native city, like thousands of other Ukrainian cities, are constantly being shelled not just by Russian rockets but also Iranian rockets and Chinese,” she said.

Russia has never been punished for a long list of attacks in recent years. “They believe they can do whatever they want. I‘ve talked to hundreds of people who survived Russian captivity. They told me how they were beaten, raped, smashed into wooden boxes, and electrically shocked. They were compelled to write something with their own blood. There is no legitimate reason for doing this. There is also no military necessity in it. Russians did these horrific things only because they could,” Matviichuk said.

Putin and NATO

Matviichuk said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not as afraid of NATO as he is of the idea of freedom. “The people in Ukraine want peace much more than anyone else. But peace doesn't come when the country which was invaded stops fighting. That's not peace. That’s occupation.”

She added, “If we don’t stop Putin in Ukraine, he will go further. And we have no time.”

Matviichuk said Putin governs his country not just through repression and censorship but also through a special social contract between the Kremlin elite and the Russian people. “This social contract is based on Russian glory—the problem is that, unfortunately, the majority of Russian people still see their glory in the forcible restoration of the Russian Empire.”

War Crimes, Accountability

Matviichuk urged establishing a special tribunal on Russian aggression in Ukraine to hold Putin, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenka, and other alleged war criminals accountable. 

“The scale of work grows so fast that it becomes impossible to recognize all these stories, but I will tell you one,” she said. “The story of Svetlana, who lost her entire family when the Russian missile hit her building. I heard them dying. My husband was breathing heavily, straining as if he was trying to throw the rubble off of himself, but he couldn’t. At some point, he just went still. My grandmother and Jania died instantly. I heard my daughter crying … My mother told me that he called for me several times and then nothing. People are not numbers. We must ensure justice for all people affected by this war, regardless of who they are.”

She said the calls of some for Ukraine to stop defending itself and to satisfy Russia’s imperial appetites are immoral. 

The world has entered a period of turbulence, and “now fires will occur more and more often in different parts of the world because the international wiring is faulty and the sparks are everywhere,” Matviichuk said.

The S.T. Lee Lectureship is named for Seng Tee Lee, a business executive and noted philanthropist. Dr. Lee is the director of the Lee group of companies in Singapore and of the Lee Foundation. He endowed the annual lectureship at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies in order to raise public understanding of the complex policy issues facing the global community today and to increase support for informed international cooperation.

Artificial Intelligence promises to transform Public Defenders in Brazil, as seen throughout our fieldwork trip in Rio de Janeiro. Our team spent the week discussing the integration of AI in legal practices with defenders from 13 states and experts from Instituto de Tecnologia e Sociedade (ITS Rio) and COPPE / UFRJ. We focused on developing AI tools tailored to reduce administrative burdens, enabling defenders to concentrate on advocacy. With nearly 80% of Brazilians entitled to free legal aid, AI can automate routine tasks like document categorization and grammatical corrections.

Significant challenges relate to privacy and potential biases in algorithms, underscoring the need for collaborative governance to ethically implement these solutions. Thus, a unified technological strategy is crucial. We hope that through our work, we can create a collaborative governance framework that will facilitate the development of digital and AI tools, ultimately helping citizens at large. We appreciated the opportunity to learn from incredibly dedicated professionals who are excited to find new ways to jointly develop tools.

We met with government agencies, legislators, military and national security officials, private sector actors, and civil society figures within Taiwan's vibrant ecosystem for countering Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI). On the ground, the team found that China’s FIMI operations are evolving and increasingly subtle and complex. As generative AI empowers malign actors, our team assessed that the battle against sophisticated, state-sponsored influence campaigns requires a more integrated and strategic approach that spans legal, technological, and societal responses.

During their time in Ghana, Skylar and Maya met with various stakeholders in the Ghanaian transportation field, including government agencies, ride-share apps, freight businesses, academics, and paratransit operators. Presently, paratransit operators, known locally as "tro tros," dominate the public transportation space and with a variety of meetings with their union officials and drivers in terminals around Accra they were able to learn about the nature of the tro tro business and their relationships — and lack thereof — with the government.

In D.C., Rosie met with development organizations and transport officials and attended the World Bank’s Transforming Transportation Conference and their paratransit and finance roundtable. Collectively, they learned about the issues facing the transport industry primarily related to problems surrounding bankability, infrastructure and vehicle financing, and lack of government collaboration with stakeholders. Insights from the trip spurred their team away from conventional physical interventions and toward solutions that will bridge stakeholder gaps and improve transport governance and policy implementation.

Our team had the opportunity to go to Mongolia and Washington DC where we conducted over twenty structured interviews with a variety of stakeholders. We spoke with people including local and central government officials, officials of international organizations, representatives from mining and cashmere industries, community organizations, academic researchers, herder households, NGOs and Mongolian politicians. Though we knew the practice of nomadic herding is core to Mongolia’s national identity, we didn’t fully realize just how integrated this practice, and the problem of grassland degradation, are in the economy, society and politics of Mongolia.

In the run-up to Mongolia’s election in June, this issue was especially top of mind to those we interviewed. Everyone we spoke with had some form of direct connection with herding, mostly through their own families. Our interviews, as well as being in Ulaanbaatar and the surrounding provinces, helped us to deepen our understanding of the context in which possible interventions operate. Most especially we observed all the extensive work that is being done to tackle grassland degradation and that institutionalizing and supporting these existing approaches could help tackle this issue.

While on the ground, our team met with members from Chinese student organizations and professional associations to gather primary evidence on the online harms they face. We also met with Tom Udall, the U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand, his team, and university faculty to brainstorm solutions to tackle this problem. We learned about the prevalent use of “super-apps” beyond WeChat in crowdsourcing solutions and support, and were able to better grasp the complexities of the relationships between public safety organizations and the focus demographic. In retrospect, it was insightful to hear from actors across the public, private, and civic sectors about the prevalence of online harms and how invested major stakeholders are in finding common solutions through a joint, holistic approach.

Our team met with private sector mini grid developers, government officials from the public utilities commission and energy ministry, and rural communities benefiting from mini grid electrification. While we saw first-hand the significant impact that solar mini grids can have on communities living in energy poverty, we also developed a deeper understanding of the macroeconomic, market, and policy conditions preventing the industry from reaching its full potential of providing energy access to millions of Sierra Leoneans. Moving forward, we will explore innovative climate finance solutions and leverage our policy experience to develop feasible recommendations specific to the local environment.

During our travels around Taiwan and our many meetings, we were surprised with the lack of consensus among local decision-makers regarding which potential solution pathways were likely to yield the most timely and effective results. These discrepancies often reflected the presence of information asymmetries and divergent institutional interests across stakeholders—both of which run counter to Taiwan’s most urgent strategic priorities. Revising existing bureaucratic authorities and facilitating the spread of technical expertise would enable—and enrich—investment in future resilience.

While we anticipated that structural inefficiencies would impede change to some degree, our onsite interviews gave us a clearer picture of where policy interventions will likely have the most positive effect for Taiwan's defense. With the insights from our fieldwork, we intend to spend the remainder of the quarter exploring new leads, delving into theory of change, and designing a set of meaningful policy recommendations.