There is no question that Germany has emerged in the 21st century as a global “great power” and an acknowledged European leader. Dedicated to multilateralism and international law, Germany is a deeply committed and constructive partner in international organizations and diplomacy. Furthermore, it offers the world a model of democracy, energy efficiency, economic strength, reconciliation, new advances in science and technology, and more. At the same time, the world has flooded into Germany as its global role has expanded, bringing with it profound changes in German society and culture.
Firmly embedded within the EU, Germany's strategic and diplomatic partnership with the United States, Israel, and its NATO allies takes a central place in its foreign policy vision; its economic partnerships with Russia and China as well as its economic ties with the emerging nations of Brazil and India are crucial to its economic strength. These partnerships have been strained in recent years, raising the important question: are they likely to right themselves in the face of those strains? Long the economic hegemon of Europe, Germany is now acknowledged as the leading member of the European Union. But controversy abounds over Germany’s ability and willingness to “lead” Europe. How have Germans greeted this steady accretion of power? What impact has it had on German national identity? Positive and successful manifestations of German power have come to crowd out old fears and to reshape German national identity, but, one might ask, do Germans still see themselves as a “big Switzerland?” Furthermore, is Germany Europe’s Leader or is it simply another self-interested power? Has the growth of economic power been accompanied by the growth of cultural leadership?
Beyond 1989, when Germans rose up against and defeated a totalitarian system to show the world how it could be done, Germany has become a model for the world in such areas as education, the economy, the environment, postwar reconciliation, and constitutional government. A few examples illustrate this point: Germany’s “dual” education system—combining both classroom and on-the-job training-- is being held up as exemplary in creating a highly productive and skilled workforce. Another example is Germany’s social market economy, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel, asserting that it could hold lessons for the U.S. and the UK as well as the struggling members of the Eurozone, has openly called for other nations to adopt. Similarly, Germany’s status as the world’s most energyefficient economy has attracted the attention of U.S. national and state leaders, looking for opportunities to increase energy efficiency and diversify energy resources. In this respect, as the need for a shift from fossil fuels becomes more urgent worldwide, Germany, because of its longstanding and sophisticated public transit system, is able to provide machinery and equipment for the rest of the world.. In the field of foreign policy, too, German precepts have served as a model to the creators of a distinct EU foreign policy. And, finally, Germany’s influence on the formulation of policies can be noted as far afield as China, Japan, and Korea. In its confrontation with the Holocaust, its postwar settlements of border disputes with neighbors, and its successful reunification, Germany has become a model of reconciliation to these East Asian countries. Nonetheless, many observers seriously question whether it is actually possible to emulate the German case in its various manifestations.
Finally, the world itself plays an increasingly important role within Germany. Already since 1945, occupiers, allies, immigrants, sports, and global business have brought the world into Germany, deeply reshaping German society, culture, and national identity. American popular culture was highly influential in “westernizing” German culture, by some labeled as “cultural imperialism,” introducing fast food and dominating the media with a flood of trash, thrills, and violence. Furthermore three generations of Turkish immigrants living in Germany have left their mark on German popular culture. In the economic arena, global competition has undermined the very pillar of German capitalism--the welfare state—damaging collaborative labor relations and dramatically changing society’s relationship to work and job security. Globalization has not only enhanced Germany’s economic strength, as its exports have begun to dominate Asia and Latin America, it has also confronted German society with financial insecurity and challenged Germany's cultural homogenization. How, it must asked, have German society and culture changed through the impact of the worldwide forces on Germany since unification?
This project is funded by a generous grant from the German Academic Exchange Service.
Conference: Germany’s Partnership With New Member States:
Consumer Desire and Modernity in Eastern Europe
April 23-25 2015
Consumption has recently emerged as a prism through which to view the cultural and social history of Central and Eastern Europe from a new angle. Especially in studies of the cold war era, the emphasis on consumer practices has led scholars to rethink familiar themes such as human agency and personal autonomy, the grey zone between official and unofficial cultures and the relationship between Western capitalist modernity and the “shortage economies” of the East. Light has also been shed on the many forms of consumption, such assmoking, drinking, tourism, music, and sport, activities that both reflect and drive political change in the region. Whether following the steps of young jazz fans in East Germany or tracing the routes of hitchhikers across Poland, scholars present consumption as an expression of everyday agency and the creative potential of ordinary people.
From April 23 to April 25, 2015, European and American scholars from a variety of disciplines met at U.C. Berkeley to discuss the place of consumption, entertainment and leisure in Central and Eastern Europe and to explore the implications of the latest consumer studies for the region’s wider history. The event began with a keynote address by Prof. Mary Neuburger (History, U of Texas-Austin) titled “To the ‘West’ and Back: Pleasure, Restraint and ‘Civilization’ in Eastern Europe.” A response was provided by Prof. Alexei Yurchak (Anthropology, U.C. Berkeley). The following two days featured seven panels on topics ranging from leisure districts in interwar Belgrade to pedagogical board games in post-communist Poland. Mark Keck-Szajbel (Center for Interdisciplinary Polish Studies, European University-Viadrina) reported on a source-book project, “From Stalinism to Coca-Cola,” and invited collaboration. A special colloquium with Prof. Andrew Janos (Sociology, U.C. Berkeley), who presented an article titled “The Paradox of Progress: The Politics of Backwardness from Pre- to Postmodernity,” took place on the evening of April 24.
The keynote address, panels, and special colloquium were all well attended by members of the U.C. Berkeley and Stanford community as well as the general public. The larger topics of perceived backwardness, notions of development, and the role of consumer desire in shaping power relations were addressed in the keynote address and again in the special colloquium. Following Neuburger’s address, Yurchak criticized the notion of backwardness for its evolutionist implications and cautioned against employing categories developed in one context—“consumption” as understood in the capitalist West, for example—in analyses of a radically different environment such as state socialism. Almost inevitably, such an approach finds the latter falling behind the former. In his paper, Janos discussed the perennial challenge of economic development in Europe’s semi-periphery and reflected on the “postmodern” turn in the politics of backwardness—the decoupling of destructive capacity from the development of complex economies and the radical rejection of technological modernization by actors such as the Islamic State. The majority of speakers, however, concentrated on consumer practices in state socialism. The fact that only two of the nearly 80 submissions to the conference addressed the period before 1948 reveals the continuing preoccupation among scholars in the social sciences with questions of power and legitimacy in state socialism. Speakers at the conference contributed to an ongoing revisionist trend emphasizing understandings of consumption and “the good life” unique to socialism, understandings that afforded a degree of legitimacy to these regimes and account in part for the relative stability of the postwar system. Many of the innovative contributions abandoned the case-study approach in favor of comparison or transnational analysis, or explored politics of memory and post-communist nostalgia, in order to provide broad new insight into a topic of ongoing debate.
Feb. 28-March 1, 2015
As the world has flooded into Germany—through media, music, and migrants-- this conference addressed the question: what are the barriers in German society to the changes they portend? In the historical German context, the barrier often evoked images of institutionalized violence against the foreigner and the neighbor: from the trenches of the First World War to the concentration camps of World War Two. Later, the image invoked the Iron Curtain which divided the German nation. In the current period, barriers are more than products of reactionary politics, nationality, or ideology; they represent a deep human resistance to change. As German society changes as a result of globalization, the barriers to those changes need not remain impregnable but may function as a semi-permeable membrane, shaping the change in ways not envisioned in the literature on globalization and migration. How do we define barriers and what are their many purposes? How does the synergy of the barrier and its subjects shape our perception of barriers and their functions?
This Graduate Student Conference invited the submission of interdisciplinary papers, encompassing a wide variety of related research subjects, including linguistics, history, film and new media studies, comparative literature, sociology, anthropology, language pedagogy, and psychology. Presentations included topics on political and linguistic barriers, such as the construction or removal of barriers to the languages of migrants; literary and media representations of barriers and their significance in their social, institutional, economic and political contexts; and barriers to social integration and education.
October 19-20, 2015
On October 19 and 20, The Center for German and European Studies held its 25th Anniversary Conference. The first evening started off with a three-person panel, which consisted of Founding Director Richard Buxbaum, Current CGES Director Beverly Crawford, and current IES Director Jeroen Dewulf. During their discussion, the panel participants covered the history of CGES and IES and the challenges they face.. Director Jeroen Dewulf elucidated his goals for IES aimed at increasing awareness of the institute on campus. To conclude the evening, Beverly Crawford, IES Manager Gia White, Stanford Professor of History James Sheehan, and Berkeley Professor of History John Connelly took the opportunity to honor Gerald Feldman, former Professor of History at Berkeley and long-time director of IES. Speakers paid tribute to his path breaking scholarship, his decisive influence on the creation of CGES as a premier internationally recognized institution of research in the field German and European studies, and his deep and abiding humanity.
On the second day, Chris Ansell, Professor of Political Science at UC-Berkeley moderated morning panels titled “Looking Back on 25 Years of CGES and 25 Years of German Unity: Where Have We Been? How Far Have We Come?” The first panel focused on economic developments in Germany over the past twenty-five years. Participants included Jeffrey Anderson, Professor of Government and Director of the BMW Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University, and Mark Vail, Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University. Professor Anderson focused on transatlantic relations, while Professor Vail discussed German liberal ideas and the social market economy. In the next panel, the discussion took up issues relating to multiculturalism. Beverly Crawford, Chair of the Center for German and European Studies at Berkeley, examined the European Union’s response to the current refugee crisis, concluding her talk with proposals for EU policy reform. Damani Partridge, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and Afro-American and African Studies at the University of Michigan, considered the ways in which “blackness” has become a way of approaching memories of the Holocaust in unified Germany. He described his own experience of working with German youth theater groups on projects relating to the concept of black power and its relation to the idea of multiculturalism.
The two afternoon panels explored the topic: “Looking Forward: Germany and the Future and the Future of German and European Studies.” Both panels were moderated by Andrea Sinn, Visiting DAAD Professor of History at Berkeley. The first panel began with a talk by Thorsten Benner, Director of the Global Public Policy Institute in Germany. He focused on the concept of the “hegemon” and analyzed the different roles Germany has played in the three main crises currently facing Europe, namely, the Russian, the euro, and the refugee crises. Susanne Lohmann, Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles, analyzed the importance of the German university system in the creation of the modern world. The final panel of the day was introduced by IES’s Associate Director, Akasemi Newsome. Her presentation centered on the mobilization of immigrants in German labor unions and on the different ways in which these unions support immigrants’ rights and concerns. Concluding the day’s panel discussions, Tobias Schulze-Cleven, Assistant Professor in the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University, highlighted the ways in which the labor market and labor relations have changed over the years. To wrap up the two days of thought provoking presentations, Jeroen Dewulf and Deniz Göktürk, Chair of the Department of German at Berkeley, commented on the future of German and European studies.
November 6-7, 2015
Divided nations foster potential international instability and domestic discontent. Korea and China are divided nations, experiencing uneasy relationships with some of their neighbors. Indeed, the Korean DMZ and Taiwan Strait remain two of the most critical global hot spots. Germany, after World War II was a divided nation, surrounded by hostile and wary neighbors. Germany has now united and made peace with France, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Furthermore, the inevitable wariness in Germany’s relationship with Israel after the Holocaust has been transformed into a durable and mutually dependent relationship. Although the process was a prolonged one, Germany achieved both reconciliation with its neighbors and unification of the country. How was this feat accomplished?
Some observers have suggested that the German model could be a source of inspiration for the unification of divided states in Asia and for reconciliation with their neighbors. But there is no consensus on unification as a desirable outcome, or even as a norm. Reconciliation/co-existence within divided states might be the next best alternative, but it does not necessarily mean peace, harmony, or friendship. And it can be a long and messy process, sometimes ending in an agreement to disagree.
Can the German case can be generalized? Or are the historical, political, and cultural conditions in Asia simply too different? Is reconciliation possible in the absence of unification? Is there a viable counterpart to Germany’s Ostpolitik in northeast Asia? What role do political leaders, non-governmental institutions and governmental institutions play in knitting together divided nations and reconciling their conflicting interests? What role do domestic politics and culture play in helping or hindering reunification and reconciliation?
These were some of the questions considered by the conference participants. The conference was distinctive in two ways. First, it examined the viability of a comparative perspective for the understanding of present and future trajectories. Second, it encouraged fruitful, frank, and wide-ranging discussion. It was hosted by the Institute for East Asian Studies, the Center for Korean Studies, and the Center for German and European Studies at UC Berkeley.
DIVIDED NATIONS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS
Paths to Reconciliation?
Friday, November 6, 2015
All conference activities will take place at Doe Library 180
8:45-9:00 Welcoming remarks
Beverly Crawford, UC Berkeley
Laura Nelson, UC Berkeley
9:00-11:00 The Divided Nations and Regional Stability/Instability
Fania Oz-Salzberger, University of Haifa
“Post- Holocaust Israelis and Germans: The First 70 years”
Eric Langenbacher, Georgetown University
“Collective Memory and German Foreign Policy”
Shaocheng Tang, National Chengchi University
“Reference of Inner German Relations to Cross-Strait Relations”
Sung-Min Kim, Konkuk University
“Overcoming the Division System on the Korean Peninsula and Peaceful Co-existence in East Asia”
Discussants: Stephan Haggard, Beverly Crawford
Crawford, Tang, Langendorfer, Oz-Salzberger, Haggard, and Kim
11:00-1:00 The Domestic Politics of Division and Reconciliation
Jean Yhee, Freie Universität Berlin
“Divided Memories: The Constitutive Character of Public Memory in Conflict”
Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, University of Richmond
“Whither Cross-Strait Relations? Convergence, Collision, or Reconciliation?”
Kyung Hyo Chun, Konkuk University
“Representations of the Divided Minjok: The Presence and Absence of North Korea at the National Museum of Korea”
Discussants: Tom Gold, John Lie
1:00-2:00 Lunch with Keynote Address
Lily Gardner Feldman, Johns Hopkins University
“Germany as Promising Lesson and Cautionary Tale: Division, Unification, and Reconciliation”
2:00-4:00 The Political Economy of Division and Reconciliation
Hans Kundnani, German Marshall Fund
“Economic Interdependence and Collective Memory in International Relations: Lessons from Germany for Asia?”
Yung-hsiang Frank Ying, National Taiwan Normal University, “The Entangled Issue of Social Justice and Globalization: A Case of Integrated or Divided Taiwan”
Birgit Geipel, UC Riverside
“North Korea’s Unification with(out) the South: Ideological Survival Strategies in the Post-Socialist Era”
Discussants: Tun-jen Cheng, Laura Nelson
4:00-5:00 Roundtable Discussion with Practitioners, Diplomats, & Academics
Tun-jen Cheng, College of William and Mary
Beverly Crawford, UC Berkeley
Lily Gardner Feldman, Johns Hopkins University
Stephan Haggard, UC San Diego
John Lie, UC Berkeley
Wolfgang Petritsch, President, Austrian Marshallplan Foundation
5:00-6:00 Keynote Address
Stephan Haggard, UC San Diego
“Engaging North Korea”
This paper charts the long and complex process of German-Israeli conciliation from the “stunned silence” of the 1950s, though pioneering scientific cooperations, the setting of diplomatic ties, literary and artistic exchanges, and, more recently, the unprecedented surge of human interactions, travel, dialog, and cultural affinities. While dwelling also on the geopolitical and regional aspects of this historical coming-together and singling out political dissonances, the main thrust of this paper concerns the uniqueness and deep historical contexts of today’s astonishing people-to-people encounter, harking back to the German-Jewish past.
Fania Oz-Salzberger is Professor of History at the University of Haifa’s Faculty of Law and Center for Jewish and European Studies. She previously held professorships at Monash University and Princeton University. Her books include Translating the Enlightenment (Oxford, 1995), Israelis in Berlin (Tel Aviv, 2001 and Frankfurt am Main, 2001), and Jews and Words, co-authored with Amos Oz (Yale, 2012). She has published numerous essays on the history of political thought, inter-cultural translations, and Israeli-German relations. Her opinion articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and numerous other periodicals.
For many years, it has been a given that various influences, lessons, and fears generated by German elites' collective memory of the Nazi period deeply conditioned the Federal Republic's foreign policy. Policy-makers eschewed the use of hard power and the conventional pursuit of national interests. Instead, almost all resources were devoted to fostering forms of soft power and embedding the country in a deep web of binding multilateral commitments. Reconciliation with former victims and adversaries was a core objective. This article will examine whether memory still impacts the formulation and pursuit of German foreign policy in a meaningful way. On the one hand, there is evidence that the influence of this memory is rapidly waning and that Germany increasingly acts like a “normal” medium-sized power, as revealed especially in the course of the Euro crisis. On the other hand, historical sensitivities and memory-related concerns continue to surface, greatly affecting relations with countries as diverse as Poland, Greece, and the United States.
Eric Langenbacher is Associate Teaching Professor and Director of Honors and Special Programs in the Department of Government, Georgetown University. Langenbacher studied in Canada before completing his Ph.D. in Georgetown’s Government Department in 2002. His recent publications include Dynamics of Memory and Identity in Contemporary Europe (co-edited with Ruth Wittlinger and Bill Niven, 2013, paperback 2015), The German Polity, 10th edition (co-authored with David Conradt, 2013), and The Merkel Republic: An Appraisal (2015). He is also Managing Editor of German Politics and Society, which is housed in Georgetown’s BMW Center for German and European Studies.
This paper explores the references of the inner-German relations, especially FRG’s policy towards GDR in the early 1970s to the current cross-Strait relations. Despite all the differences and similarities between the two cases, there are references for Taiwan and China in terms of agreeing to disagree on identity questions, relations between nation and state, renouncing the use of force, exclusive mandate and diplomatic tug-of-war, reunification issues, etc. Current cross-Strait relations are moving toward the German model, though they are only in a preliminary stage.
Shaocheng Tang is Research Fellow and Professor in the Institute of International Relations at National Cheng-chi University in Taiwan. Tang received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Bonn, and was also a member of the ROC National Assembly from 1996 to 2000.
Among Korean intellectuals, members of the so-called the ‘Changbi Group’, notably Paik Nak-Chung, Choi Won-Shik and Baik Young-Seo, basing themselves on Paik Nak-Chung’s theory of the ‘division system’, have pioneered the idea during the early days of the post Cold War era, that overcoming the division system and attaining peace and solidarity in East Asia are both parts of one virtuous cycle. Against this backdrop, this article will, first and foremost, raise the need to review and discuss the East Asia theory developed by the Changbi Group intellectuals. Their East Asia theory provides an opportunity to rethink contemporary Korean reality not just from the perspective of an individual state but from the context of East Asia as a region.
Sung-Min Kim is Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Institute of Humanities for Unification, and Dean of the College of Humanities and Liberal Arts at Konkuk University in South Korea. He also serves as President of the Korean Association for the Studies of Philosophical Thought.
A division of a nation state can leave lasting consequences in the cultural memories even after its reunification – in forms of documented history, arts, and memorial sites. In the first part of my contribution, I will discuss the significance of documenting the process of German Reunification in my current project at the FU Berlin. In the second part, I will discuss the cultural memory in the forms of the Arts and the exhibitions of the Arts, dealing with the case of the “Bilderstreit” – a series of intensive discussions until now about the Arts in the East Germany and about the manners of exhibiting them after the German Reunification. In the third and last part, I will discuss the relation of the reconciliation and the reunification with an example of a refugee camp memorial.
Jean Yhee is a Senior Researcher for the Institut of Korea Studies at the Freie Universität Berlin. He received his Ph.D. in 2014 at Humboldt University Berlin. His research areas include reunification, conflict theory, multiculturalism, and philosophical exchange between Western Europe and East Asia.
This paper distills several observations from the historical evolution of cross-strait relations, compares the ROC-PRC ties with inter-Korean and formerly inter-German relationships, conceptualizes the state of the cross-strait relationship, and conjectures likely scenarios of development. The cross-strait relationship has gone through four phases: military confrontation, peaceful interaction, tension-ridden stalemate, and uncertain (or open-ended) future. The paper argues that size asymmetry and regime asymmetry make the cross-strait relationship more intractable and less interconnected than the relationships between the two Koreas and between the two Germanys. Finally, this essay predicts that the cross-strait relationship is heading toward some sort of modus vivendi that neither “convergence” nor “collision” can totally capture.
Vincent Wei-cheng Wang is Professor of Political Science and Associate Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Richmond. Wang received his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. His research interests include Asian governments and politics, international relations, and comparative politics.
“Representations of the Divided Minjok: The Presence and Absence of North Korea at the National Museum of Korea” Kyung Hyo Chun
Despite its common usage in both everyday life and public institutions in South Korea, the definition and the conceptual boundary of Han minjok (Korean ethnicity or Korean People) remain obscure. This paper illustrates the inconsistency and arbitrariness found at the National Museum of Korea (NMK) in addressing and depicting Han minjok. Han minjok refers to a Korean ethnic group that is believed to have originated from the common ancestor, Tan’gun. Based on this definition, North Korea is perfectly qualified for membership in Han minjok. However, the boundary of Han minjok in the real world is less clear than in the definitional value. Proclaiming itself as the only legitimate government within the Korean Peninsula, South Korea refuses to acknowledge the North Korean government as a rightful polity. This official stance complicates the way in which North Koreans are recognized by South Koreans in the context of Han minjok: can we (South Koreans) embrace the political adversary (North Koreans) in the name of minjok, despite an apparent gap in social values and political intentions?
Kyung Hyo Chun completed her doctoral degree in anthropology at the University of British Columbia, Canada. She is currently an HK Research Professor at the Institute of Humanities for Unification at Konkuk University. Her areas of research interest include postcoloniality, nationalist discourse, commemorations, museum representations, material culture, cultural properties, and media politics.
In the seven decades since the end of World War II, Germany experienced first the stark reality of division and then the multiple challenges of unification. (West) Germany confronted its Nazi past via complex and non-linear strategies of reconciliation: internally through commemoration, education, trials, legislation, and a modus vivendi between East and West Germany; and externally through societal and governmental institutions of friendship with former victim countries and nations. The differing contexts and domestic constellations before and after 1989 shaped the choices of German governments and German societal actors about with whom to reconcile and with what means, as well as the nature of contestation and opposition that accompanied the reconciliation processes. From the German perspective, unification essentially completed Germany’s active strategies of reconciliation that began 70 years ago, but the triple crises of the last few years (Eurozone; Ukraine; refugees) have demonstrated new reconciliation challenges both externally (with Greece and with Russia) and internally (integration of immigrants). The richness and varieties of the German reconciliation experience in times of division and of unification have led both South Korea and China to seek concrete lessons for their own region: expectations for and deficiencies in Japanese behavior; prospects for unification with North Korea.
Lily Gardner Feldman is currently the Harry & Helen Gray Senior Fellow at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University. She also directs the Institute’s Society, Culture & Politics Program. She has a Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT, and has published widely in the U.S. and Europe on German foreign policy, German-Jewish relations, international reconciliation, non-state entities as foreign policy players, and the EU as an international actor. Recent works includes Germany’s Foreign Policy of Reconciliation: From Enmity to Amity (2014); “German-Polish Ties: Special Relationship, Friendship, or Reconciliation?” in Friendship and International Relations (2014); “Reconciliation Means Having To Say You’re Sorry,” Foreign Policy (2014); “Germany’s Foreign Policy of Reconciliation as a Reflection of Various Faces of Power,” in A World in Flux. German-American Relations and a Changing Global Order (2014); “Die Bedeutung zivilgesellschaftlicher und staatlicher Institutionen: Zur Vielfalt und Komplexität von Versöhnung,” inVerständigung und Versöhnung (forthcoming, 2016).
Post-war European history suggests a symbiotic relationship between economic interdependence and reconciliation—embodied in the European Union, which is both a “political” and economic project. In other words, it seems to confirm liberal ideas about economic interdependence and international relations. Increasing economic interdependence, in particular between France and Germany, seemed to create the conditions for reconciliation. But Asia may be different. In particular, increasing economic interdependence between China and Japan does not seem to be reducing conflicts over memory, and great power war remains a possibility. Thus it seems that realism—according to which economic interdependence can increase the chances of war—is more helpful in understanding Asia today than liberal theory. The most useful lesson for Asia from Germany could therefore be from the nineteenth century.
Hans Kundnani is a senior transatlantic fellow with the German Marshall Fund’s Europe program, based in Berlin. He previously worked as the research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations for five years. He is also an associate fellow at the Institute for German Studies at Birmingham University. His research focuses on German and European foreign policy. He is the author of two books, Utopia or Auschwitz. Germany’s 1968 Generation and the Holocaust (2009); and The Paradox of German Power (2014). His articles and papers have been published in journals such as Foreign Affairs, The Washington Quarterly, and Internationale Politik; and newspapers such as The Financial Times, Le Monde, and Die Zeit. Kundnani studied German and philosophy at Oxford University and journalism at Columbia University, where he was a Fulbright scholar.
Taiwan has been separated from China since 1949. The impact of “structural immigration” of Kuomintang (Nationalists) to Taiwanese was strikingly substantial in economic, political, and societal perspectives. Kuomintang had applied patron-client relationship to dichotomize political participants, mainland immigrants, and local Taiwanese. Therefore, the facts of division not only exist between the Taiwan Strait, but also exist and have evolved within Taiwan. Furthermore, the reasons that led to division within the island may attribute to Taiwan’s outstanding economic development between 1950 and 2000 (average of 6.21 percent annual growth). However, recently, economic nationalism has become a new type of division within Taiwan. Other than the traditionally political ideologies between pan-blue (Kuomintang, KMT) and pan-green (Democratic Progressive Party, DPP), economic nationalism is a more powerful ideology to aggregate people who suffer from stagnant real wages and the feeling of worsening income inequality. In this paper, I investigate total factor productivity (TFP) of Taiwan over 20 years and find a clear trend of decrease in TFP, which is the main reason for stagnant wages. Hence, facing greater competition from neighboring countries, to be a member of TPP (Transit Pacific Partnership) or of RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) will make Taiwan either more integrated or divided within regional economies.
Yung-hsiang (Frank) Ying is Professor in the School of Management and Dean of International Affairs at National Taiwan Normal University. He also serves as Director for International Affairs in the Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association. Ying received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Kentucky. He has also published numerous journal articles in macroeconomics, international finance, and political economy.
A quarter century ago the Cold War ended worldwide, except for in Korea, which remains officially still at war and still divided. South Korea initially saw potential in emulating the German case and implemented its Sunshine Policy, while North Korea perceived this as a threat to its own integrity. This paper analyzes North Korean propagandistic reactions to the historic changes in the global post-socialist era. In literature, cinema, and performative self-representation through tourism, North Korea shows its ambitions to counteract the new visibility and influence of the capitalist and the foreign. I argue that North Korea has established a sophisticated, multi-layered unification discourse. In tying together the concepts of ethnic nation (minjok) and self-reliance (juche), it only seemingly moves towards a possible unification. At the same time, it rejects and capitalizes on South Korean policies of rapprochement. As a result, the North Korean unification discourse stabilizes its own closed ideological system, while continuously reinforcing the division of the Korean peninsula.
Birgit Geipel is a Ph.D. candidate in the Comparative Literature Department of the University of California, Riverside. Her research interests include the study of Modern Korean, and German and Asian American literature and film.
Tun-jen Cheng is Professor of Government at the College of William and Mary.
Beverly Crawford is Professor of International and Area Studies and Associate Director of the Center for German and European Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
Lily Gardner Feldman is currently the Harry & Helen Gray Senior Fellow at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University. She also directs the Institute’s Society, Culture & Politics Program.
Stephan Haggard is the Krause Distinguished Professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy (formerly the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies) at the University of California, San Diego.
John Lie is C.K. Cho Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.
Wolfgang Petritsch was the EU's Special Envoy for Kosovo (1998-1999), EU chief negotiator at the Kosovo peace talks in Rambouillet and Paris (1999), and then High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (1999-2002). He served as the Austrian ambassador to the UN in Geneva (2002-2008) and to the OECD in Paris (2008-2013), and is currently President of the Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation and the Joseph A. Schumpeter Fellow at Harvard University.
Despite South Korea’s renewed interest in unification—and the possibility of unexpected contingencies--the conditions under which it would occur appear to be receding rather than getting closer. As a result, the debate continues to center on the question of whether and how North Korea should be engaged. Does engagement increase or reduce the prospects of ultimate unification?
Stephan Haggard is the Krause Distinguished Professor at the School of Global Policy and Strategy (formerly the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies) at the University of California, San Diego. He has written widely on the political economy and international relations of East Asia. His work on North Korea with Marcus Noland includes Famine in North Korea (2007), Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea (2011), and a manuscript entitled Hard Target: Engaging North Korea(forthcoming, 2016). Haggard runs the Witness to Transformation blog at http://www.piie.com/blogs/nk/ with Marcus Noland and writes a regular column at Joongang Ilbo.
Der Kreis Lecture Series
Der Kreis is an interdisciplinary community of graduate students interested in the history of Germany and the German-speaking realm. Aiming to support the interdisciplinary approaches to German studies based in the social sciences and cultural studies as well as to foster the engagement of students, faculty and members of the UC Berkeley community with topics of German history, the 2015-16 series includes experts from DAAD Centers and from Germany, targeting an audience of faculty and graduate students.
4 September 2015
Konrad Jarausch (University of North Carolina, History), Contemporary History as Transatlantic Project: A Roundtable Discussion
ROOM: 3205 Dwinelle
9 September 2015: Graduate Student Research
Peggy O’Donnell (Berkeley, Ph.D. Candidate, History), “Is the Angel of Death really dead? Identifying Mengele’s Bones in Brazil”
ROOM: 3401 Dwinelle
14 September 2015: Faculty
Michael Schuering (University of Florida, DAAD Visiting Professor), Roundtable
ROOM: 3401 Dwinelle
23 September 2015: Graduate Student Research
Florian Wagner (European University Institute Florence, Ph.D. Researcher),
“German Colonialists Between Pan-German Aggression and International
ROOM: 201 Moses
6 October 2015: DAAD Lecture USA
Eugene Sheppard (Brandeis University, History), “German-Jewish Intellectuals and the Question of Loyalty, 1920s-1950s.”
ROOM: 2119 Dwinelle
12 October 2015: Visiting Speaker
Ronald Leopold (Anne-Frank House, Executive Director), Roundtable Discussion
ROOM: 201 Moses
19 October 2015
Matthias Zimmer, a member of the German Bundestag since 2009 (Christian Democratic Union) and former professor in political science at the University of Alberta and the University of Cologne
3-5 The Challenges Germany is facing: The Euro Crisis and the Refugee Crisis
21 October: DAAD Lecture CANADA
Rebecca Wittmann (University of Toronto, History), “Nazism and Terrorism: The
Madjanek and Stammheim Trials in 1975 West Germany”
4 November 2015: Graduate Student Research
Sheer Ganor (Berkeley, Ph.D. Student, History), “’If one is attacked as a Jew, one must defend oneself as a Jew.’ Hannah Arendt and the appeal of Jewish combativeness.”* [co-sponsored with the Intellectual History and Theory Working Group]
ROOM: 201 Moses
2 December 2015: Graduate Student Research
Julia Wambach (Berkeley, Ph.D. Candidate, History), “’Occupations Croisées’ –
French Occupations of Germany after the World Wars.”
ROOM: 201 Moses
In 2016 CGES at Berkeley is pleased to invite Center Directors from North America to Berkeley who are recognized experts in each of the three sub-themes (Germany as Model, Germany as Partner, and the World in Germany) to present a lecture. This series provides a unique opportunity for Berkeley scholars to enrich their own scholarship and the public at large to learn about the most recent developments in Germany and Germany’s current and historical global relationships.
Upcoming Lectures: Date and Time TBA
Professor Jeffrey Anderson, Georgetown University
Professor Randall Hansen, University of Toronto
Professor Sabine von Mering, Brandeis University
Professor Laurence McFalls, University of Montreal
Professor Heather MacRae, York University
Professor Pamela Potter, University of Wisconsin
Professor James Parente, University of Minnesota