Sunday, July 26, 2015

Monday in Washington, July 27, 2015

9:00am - Undersecretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Sarah Sewall briefing for the release of the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report

10:00am - Secretary of State John Kerry hosts a launch ceremony to release and discuss the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report, which assesses government efforts around the world to combat modern slavery.

11:15am - Korean War Veterans Association events for the International Korean War Armistice ceremony to include South Korean Ambassador to the United States Ahn Ho-young remarks and the ringing of the Freedom Bell to honor the end of the Korean War at the Korean War Veterans Memorial, National Mall, 10 Daniel French Drive SW, Washington, DC.

EUROPE AT SEA: MEDITERRANEAN AND BALTIC SECURITY CHALLENGES. 7/27, 9:00-10:30am. Sponsor: Hudson Institute. Speakers: Retired British Royal Navy Rear Adm. Chris Parry and Seth Cropsey, director of the Center for American Seapower at Hudson.

click to order
RUSSIAN MILITARY FORUM: THE INTERMEDIATE NUCLEAR FORCES (INF) TREATY AT A CROSSROADS. 7/27, 10:00-11:30am. Sponsor: CSIS, Russia and Eurasia Program. Speakers: Steven Pifer, Director, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, Brookings; Amy Woolf, Specialist, Nuclear Weapons Policy, Congressional Research Service; Paul Schwartz, Senior Associate, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS.

KAZAKHSTAN'S ACCESSION TO THE WTO. 7/27, 2:00-3:30pm. Sponsor: CSIS. Speakers: Ambassador William H. Courtney, President, U.S.-Kazakhstan Business Association; Former U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan; Cecilia Leahy Klein, Senior Director for WTO Accessions, Office of the United States Trade Representative; Aitolkyn Kourmanova, Visiting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, CSIS; Michael Lally, Executive Deputy Assistant Secretary for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, Global Markets, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

UNDERSTANDING ISIS AND THE NEW GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: A PRIMER. 7/27, 6:30 pm. Sponsor: Busboys & Poets. Speaker: Author Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

Japanese deniers distort the Comfort Women narrative they support

Comfort Women at US Congress
Rightists distort author Park Yu-ha’s views on ‘comfort women’

BY Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies, Temple University Japan.


Park Yu-ha, an academic at Sejong University in Seoul, is the darling of the Japanese right because of her alleged stance on the “comfort women” system. But their cherry-picking of her writings distorts her views and twists them into support for the revisionists’ vindicating and exonerating narrative.

Park presents a nuanced analysis of the comfort women system, one that challenges the prevailing consensus in South Korea, but she is also quite critical of the role Japan played.

Regarding the controversial issue of whether women were recruited through coercion, Park notes in an essay she sent to me that there is no evidence that this was official policy, but maintains that there was “structural coercion” due to colonial subjugation.

Via an additional email exchange in Korean, she adds that she wants Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to deliver an apology to the comfort women in his Aug. 15 speech on the 70th anniversary of Japan’s defeat in World War II and Korea’s liberation. She is pessimistic that he will do so, however, and says this is partly Seoul’s fault.

Park agrees that Japanese reactionaries are invoking her name unscrupulously in conveying partial truths. For example, a recent article in The Japan Times suggested she believes that Japanese colonialism in Korea was moderate, but she says this is a misleading reading of her book “Teikoku no Ianfu” (“Comfort Women of the Empire”).

“If ‘moderate’ is used to imply colonization was not bad, I disagree,” she says, noting that during the colonial era “those who opposed Japan’s modern system and national policies — including the emperor system — were tortured and jailed.”

The history of the comfort women issue has become intensely politicized in South Korea, making it difficult for scholars to publish objective analysis that doesn’t conform to the master narrative of victimization. Park had her book pulled from the shelves by court order and was required to redact passages deemed unacceptable. Public discourse in South Korea elides the role of Korean collaborators who served as recruiters and focuses exclusively on Japanese responsibility. Park is vilified in South Korea as an apologist for Japan, even though she argues that the system was cruel and inhumane and has refused to exonerate Japan.

“Japan is not exempt from its responsibility for the comfort women, who were taken to ‘comfort stations’ against their will and experienced pain,” she noted in an interview with the Asahi Shimbun earlier this year.

In the unpublished essay we received (written in English), Park says there was no monolithic system and distinguishes between what she calls “comfort women” — meaning only Koreans and Japanese — and other Asian “women who were provided on battlefields and were forced to work in the form of semi-constant rape” and victims of one-time rape on the battlefields” that she says should not be referred to as comfort women.

“The foremost premise in discussing the comfort women issue,” she adds, “is to recognize that women made to engage in sex work were always the socially weak, that most of them were susceptible to disease and that they found themselves in a miserable plight in which they faced a constant risk of death.”

Park asserts that most Korean comfort women were from the lower classes and were not recruited under Japan’s school-level national mobilization program, known as teishintai, a point that has caused some confusion. The fact that they have insisted they were recruited through this program has been cited by Japanese revisionists to accuse them of lying and dismiss the comfort women’s testimony entirely. Park disagrees and says there are good reasons for this misunderstanding, stressing she doesn’t believe the comfort women were lying.

Koreans, she says, believed they were forcibly recruited because “recruiters in military uniforms (who acted as civilian employees of the military) deceived them into becoming comfort women by telling them that they were being taken to serve in the teishintai (forcibly, albeit as part of the national mobilization facilitated by the creation of laws, but ‘voluntary’ in form).”

Thus, she concludes that “women with such experiences perceived them as forcible recruitment. In other words, rather than former comfort women telling lies, it is highly likely that recruiters … had lied.”

And for Japanese deniers, she inconveniently points out that “it appears that recruiters were often pairs of Japanese and Korean men.”

Overall, Park blames these recruiters most for the misery endured by the women they treated like sex slaves, but she does not absolve the Japanese military.

“Some Korean comfort women, while traveling with troops on the front lines, underwent the inhumane experiences of being subjected to the insatiable carnal appetite of Japanese soldiers in the line of fire on battlefields and falling victim to gunfire and shelling,” she writes in the essay.

Based on Korean comfort women’s testimony, Park believes that recruitment was largely based on deception rather than coercion, but she believes the consequences for all these women were horrific; none were free to leave once recruited and all were subject to military discipline. The comfort stations were closely monitored by the Japanese military and the comfort women “had no freedom of movement, no freedom to get out of the business and no freedom even to defend their lives.”

In contrast, she writes that “for Dutch and Chinese women, the military was directly involved in the grouping and segregation of them for sexual labor, and the military’s actions literally represented forcible recruitment (for) the purpose of continuous rape of enemy women who were conquered.”

Park also takes issue with recent efforts by politicians in the Liberal Democratic Party to discredit the 1993 Kono statement, which acknowledges Japan’s responsibility for the comfort women system.

“The Kono statement noted that the process of being transferred was against their will and that sexual labor at comfort stations was not of their own choice, thus acknowledging the nature of structural coercion,” she writes. Thus, it “accurately acknowledged that the existence of Korean comfort women was the result of Japan’s colonial occupation, since the ‘involvement of the military authorities of the day’ in the establishment and management of comfort stations is a fact.” Therefore, she concludes, “there should be no need to review the Kono statement.”

In Park’s view, the Diet should go further and adopt a resolution of apology, but in the context of “Abenesia” and the self-righteous nationalism prevailing in the LDP today, such a mea culpa is unthinkable.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Japan's first public corporate apology to its slave laborers

Former POW of Japan James Murphy who was a slave laborer in Mitsubishi Material's (MMC) Osarizawa Copper Mine in Sendai is sitting before this group of bowing MMC officials who had just delivered to him the company's apology for the inhumane treatment he received during World War II.

Among the officials bowing was MMC board member and fluent English-speaker Yukio Okamoto, a well-known Japanese foreign policy consultant. He has been involved behind the scenes in a number of important Japanese apology initiatives. These include the Kono Statement, the Asian Women's Fund, the 1995 Okinawa Rape incident, and Koizumi's 2005 War Anniversary statement. He is on the current prime minister's committee to help draft a statement to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II.

The apology was delivered in Japanese. Although the formal apology word shazai was not used and the POWs were described as being "forced to work" as opposed to "forced" or "slave" labor, the apology was accepted and appreciated. As Mr. Murphy said, "it was a glorious day."

Mitsubishi Material's ambiguous apology, constrained by an impenitent political climate, will be strengthened over time by the truth. The apology is a beginning and an opening. It will allow the POW history to be told and believed. The telling of this history will make it clear that it was Mitsubishi that purchased the men, that forced them to work in horrific conditions, and that allowed them to be beaten and maimed for the war effort. Mitsubishi was not merely a collaborator.

Here is the statement released in Los Angeles, California at the Museum of Tolerance by Mitsubishi Materials Corporation on July 19, 2015. We will post the Japanese as soon as we can obtain it.

Statement by Mitsubishi Materials Corporation 
Senior Executive Officer Hikaru Kimura in the Meeting With 
a Former American POW and Families of Former POWs

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, speaking on behalf of Mitsubishi Materials, thank you very much for this opportunity to meet with you today at the Museum of Tolerance.

Mitsubishi Mining Company Limited, the predecessor of Mitsubishi Materials, was engaged in coal and metal mining during World War II. As the war intensified, prisoners of war were placed in a wide range of industries to offset labor shortages. As part of this, close to 900 American POWs were allocated to four mines operated by Mitsubishi Mining in Japan.

I joined Mitsubishi Materials as a postwar baby-boomer and have worked in the company for 34 years. I have read the memoirs of Mr. James Murphy, who is present here at this ceremony, and those of other former POWs, as well as records of court trials. Through these accounts, I have learned about the terrible pain that POWs experienced in the mines of Mitsubishi Mining.

The POWs, many of whom were suffering from disease and injury, were subjected to hard labor, including during freezing winters, working without sufficient food, water, medical treatment or sanitation. When we think of their harsh lives in the mines, we cannot help feeling deep remorse.

I would like to express our deepest sense of ethical responsibility for the tragic experiences of all U.S. POWs, including Mr. James Murphy, who were forced to work under harsh conditions in the mines of the former Mitsubishi Mining.

On behalf of Mitsubishi Materials, I offer our sincerest apology.

I also extend our deepest condolence to their fellow U.S. POWs who worked alongside them but have since passed away.

To the bereaved families who are present at this ceremony, I also offer our most remorseful apology.

This cannot happen again, and of course, Mitsubishi Materials intends to never let this happen again.

We now have a clear corporate mission of working for the benefit of all people, all societies and indeed the entire globe. Respecting the basic human rights of all people is a core principle of Mitsubishi Materials, and we will continue to strongly adhere to this principle.

Our management team wishes for the health and happiness of our employees every day, and we ask that all of them work not only diligently, but also with a sense of ethics.
Mitsubishi Materials supplies general materials that enrich people’s lives, from cement to cellphone components and auto parts, all of which are closely related to people’s lives. We also place a strong emphasis on recycling for more sustainable societies, such as recovering valuable metals from used electrical appliances and other scrapped materials.

Here in the United States, we have plants for cement and ready-mixed concrete, and a sales headquarters for our advanced materials and tools business, all in California, as well as a polysilicon plant in Alabama. We believe that our company provides fulfilling jobs for local employees and contributes to host communities through its business.

The American Defenders of Bataan & Corregidor Museum in Wellsburg, West Virginia archives extensive records and memorabilia of POWs. These records and memorabilia will be handed down to future generations for educational purposes.

I will visit the museum the day after tomorrow to view the exhibits and visualize how POWs were forced to work under harsh conditions. For now, however, I am pleased to announce that Mitsubishi Materials has donated 50,000US dollars to the museum to support its activities.

Finally, I sincerely thank Ms. Kinue Tokudome and the members of the American Defenders of Bataan & Corregidor Memorial Society for creating this opportunity to meet with you today. I also express my sincere thanks to Rabbi Abraham Cooper for offering the Museum of Tolerance as a venue for the ceremony. And I express my deep gratitude to all others involved in arranging this gathering.

I would also like to thank the family members of a non-U.S. POW who have come from very far away to attend this ceremony.

I truly hope that this gathering marks the starting point of a new relationship between former POWs and Mitsubishi Materials.
Thank you very much.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Monday in Washington, July 20, 2015


THE NEW SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDG) FRAMEWORK: SECURING THE FUTURE THJROUGH INCLUSIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH. 7/20, 2:00pm, Washington, DC. Sponsor: Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE). Speakers: Trevor Davies, Global Head of International Development Assistance at KPMG; Christopher Jurgens, Chief of USAID’s Global Partnerships Division; Louise Kantrow, Permanent Representative to the UN at the International Chamber of Commerce; Kamran Khan, Vice President of the Department of Compact Operations at the Millennium Change Corporation; Sarah Thorn, Senior Director of International Reade at Walmart; John Sullivan, Executive Director of CIPE. 

GLOBAL DIGITAL POLICY: VIEWS FROM THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA. 7/20, 3:00pm. Sponsor: CEAPS, Brookings Institution. Speakers: Ambassador Ahn Ho-Young, Ambassador of the Republic of Korea to the United States; Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda, Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Min Wonki, Assistant Minister, ICT and Future Planning, Ministry of Science, Republic of Korea; Chairman, 2014 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference; Moderator: Darrell West, Douglas Dillon Chair; Vice President and Director, Governance Studies; Founding Director, Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE 2016 ELECTION. 7/20, 3:00-5:00pm. Sponsor: Center for Global Development. Speakers: Nancy Birdsall, President, Center for Global Development; Michael Elliott, President and CEO, ONE Campaign; Steve Hadley, former National Security Advisor, President George W. Bush, 2005–2009; Tom Nides, Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley, Deputy Secretary of State, 2011–2013.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Monday in Washington, July 13, 2015

THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.-INDIA PARTNERSHIP: TEN YEARS AFTER THE CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION INITIATIVE. 7/13, 8:15am-4:30pm. Sponsor: Carnegie. Speakers: William J. Burns, Chandrajit Banerjee, Arun Singh, Nisha Biswal, R. Nicholas Burns, Shyam Saran, Ronen Sen, Philip Zelikow, Stephen Biegun, Sumit Mazumder, Rajiv Modi, Deep Kapuria, Kaushik Basu, Edward Luce, Stephen Hadley, M.K. Narayanan, Shivshankar Menon, Thomas Donilon, Robert Scher, Eliot Cohen, Vikram Singh, David Sanger.

US-CHINA COOPERATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST. 7/13, 10:00-11:30am. Sponsor: Center for American Progress (CAP). Speakers: Yang Jiemian, Chairman of Academic Affairs, Shanghai Institute for International Studies; Wu Chunsi, Deputy Director for Department of American Studies, Shanghai Institute for International Studies; Alan Wong, Executive Director of the China-US Exchange Foundation; Vikram Singh, Vice President for National Security and International Policy, CAP; Rudy deLeon and Brian Katulis, CAP Senior Fellows. 

WHY HUMAN RIGHTS MATTER IN POLICY TOWARD NORTH KOREA. 7/13, Noon-2:00pm, Lunch. Sponsors: International Forum for Democratic Studies, National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Speakers: Yoshihiro Makino, Visiting Fellow, International Forum for Democratic Studies, Senior International Correspondent, Asahi Shimbun; Bruce Klingner, Heritage Foundation.

HOW TO AVOID A FROZEN CONFLICT: TRANSATLANTIC APPROACHES TO THE UKRAINE AND RUSSIA. 7/13, 12:30pm. Sponsor: The Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Speakers: Niels Annen, member of the German Parliament; Matthew Rojansky, Director of the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute; John Hudson, Senior Reporter at Foreign Policy. 

DEFENSE POLICY PRIORITIES IN AN AGE OF RAPID CHANGE. 7/13, 1:30-2:30pm. Sponsor: CSIS, International Security Program. Speaker: Christine E. Wormuth, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE ARCTIC. 7/13, 3:00pm, Washington, DC. Sponsors: State Department and the Polar Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Speakers: Karen Florini, State Department Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change; Stephanie Pfirman, Co-chair of the Department of Environmental Science, Columbia University. 

WOMEN IN COMBAT: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CULTURAL SUPPORT TEAMS. 7/13, 3:30-5:00pm. Sponsor: Women in International Security (WIIS). Speakers: Former Members, U.S. Department of Defense’s cultural support teams (CSTs).

Abe's apologies: a boneless corpse

click to order
The politics and pitfalls of war memory and apology

BY Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies, Temple University Japan
THE JAPAN TIMES, July 11, 2015

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s handling of history issues during this 70th anniversary of Japan’s World War II defeat came under critical scrutiny at the recent Japanese Studies Association of Australia conference hosted by La Trobe University in Melbourne.

Arthur Stockwin, the University of Oxford’s eminent political scientist on Japanese politics, assessed the arc of apology from 1995 to 2015, highlighting the counterproductive backsliding that has occurred during Abe’s tenure.

Although there has been no shortage of Japanese apologies for wartime misdeeds, an unwarranted apology fatigue has taken hold. Unwarranted because, as Stockwin argues, every official apology has been undermined by countervailing comments aimed at repudiating or dismissing the contrition expressed. This undermines any potential goodwill because Japan looks like it is wriggling out of its war responsibility and downplaying the horrors that it inflicted on Asia.

Stockwin also believes that Abe has been duplicitous in his “handling of war apology issues that combines apparent agreement with official apologies made in the past, while at the same time by various means throwing doubt on their veracity.”

Abe’s misgivings about the Murayama statement are well-known so when he says that he accepts it in general he underscores that in certain specifics he doesn’t. Stockwin related that in February 2009 Abe gave an interview in the journal Will, saying, “It is a big mistake to teach the Murayama statement as historical understanding.”

That same month, in the right-wing journal Seiron, Abe commented: “Japan is not bound forever by the personal historical understanding of Mr. Murayama. The Murayama statement was too one-sided, and I should like to come up with something more balanced.”

In April, Abe said there was no point in repeating the Murayama and Koizumi war apologies, saying he inherited them and wants to leave it at that. Shinichi Kitaoka, a well-known academic who is one of Abe’s foremost advisers and apologists, maintains that Abe can inherit past statements without repeating them.

“It is natural that what is said 50 years after the war and what is said 70 years after the war should differ to some extent,” Kitaoka says. Stockwin’s rejoinder is withering: “Kitaoka’s analysis sounds confused, and appears to imply that it is acceptable to repeat earlier war apologies so long as their content is removed. It is surprisingly difficult to see that this could carry serious intellectual conviction.”

Stockwin senses a strategy, saying that Abe pays lip service to war apologies that have stood the test of time and served Japan well while at the same time slagging them. Instead of outright repudiation of the 1993 Kono statement on “comfort women,” Abe has gutted it, something Stockwin refers to as honenuki ni suru (taking the bones out, while leaving the outward shape).

In Stockwin’s view, Abe’s maneuvering on war apology has been counterproductive and worsened relations with China and South Korea, thereby irking the United States.

Akiko Hashimoto, a professor of sociology at the University of Pittsburgh, recently published an excellent book titled, The Long Defeat: Cultural Trauma, Memory, and Identity in Japan, which explores the contentious politics of divisive war memories. She draws our gaze to intertwined narratives of nationalism, pacifism and reconciliation, and the long shadow of defeat that animates the politics of national identity. She calls on Japan to relinquish the “comfort zone of ambiguity in the amorphous middle ground between guilt and innocence in WWII” and to embrace “imaginative concessions and innovative compromise to break the logjam of historical grievances.” Forgetting, denying or downplaying, she says, is no longer an option in a “globalizing culture of memory.”

“Japan’s moral recovery cannot be complete without constructing a new collective self, and a political identity that extends beyond the alliance with the U.S.,” she argues.

Hashimoto points out that apology is “an ennobling act” and Abe can do much to enhance Japan’s dignity and moral stature if he takes the measure of Japan’s wartime history. A forthright apology is a “pathway to transcend stigma,” but Japanese revisionists lack the courage to admit wartime “evildoing” and therefore close off possibilities of rapprochement and achieving a shared sense of justice with its victims. Nationalism in East Asia has turned “war memory into a contest of national interests and identity, and a stew of national resentments” that fuel mistrust and suspicion. It is up to Japan to show the way forward, but Abe’s vision is focused on the past in ways that jeopardize the future.

Hashimoto notes that Abe is unlikely to repeat Murayama’s condemnation of Japanese colonial and wartime aggression as a “mistaken national policy” because it would mean condemning the wartime record of his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi and, thereby, dishonoring his family. Kishi was indicted as a Class-A war criminal by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East due to his role in mobilizing labor in Manchuria and as wartime munitions minister for Prime Minister Hideki Tojo.

Hashimoto also believes Abe’s efforts to expand Japan’s security role are misguided and ignore public sentiments that draw on grass-roots wartime memories. Expecting that the forthcoming Abe statement will shirk the burdens of history, Hashimoto wants to remind Japan’s victims, and the world, that most Japanese don’t support his exonerating and valorizing narrative of Japan’s wartime record.

click to order
Akiko Takenaka, a professor of history at the University of Kentucky, her astute insights on historical controversies in her new book, Yasukuni Shrine: History, Memory, and Japan’s Unending Postwar. She focuses on Yasukuni Shrine’s role in terms of national identity and war memory and the dilemma of how to remember those who died in Japan’s attempt to subjugate Asia.

“(Abe’s) record on historical issues in 2015 has been dismal,” Takenaka says. “I believe he’s managed to reach a new low as far as Japanese prime ministers’ records on the issues.”

In his much-anticipated statement on Aug. 15, she says Abe “should most certainly declare support of the Kono statement, apologize for the violence inflicted on others, and also acknowledge the wrongs of the past.”

She adds that acknowledging past wrongdoings is just the first step in reconciliation.

“But mere acknowledgment won’t change the past. Nor will it speak to the growing number of Japanese who embrace the revisionist myths,” she says.

To address this trend, Takenaka calls for the inclusion of peace education in the school curriculum, but Team Abe is busy white-washing textbooks and promoting patriotic education.

As perpetrator’s fatigue gains momentum among Japanese amid a heightened sense of victimization, she wonders, “Who is going to take action to improve Japan’s strained relations with China and South Korea, which are deeply rooted in the wartime past?”

None of these experts thinks Abe is the man for the job.

Sunday, July 5, 2015

Monday in Washington, July 6, 2015

STATE OF U.S. PATENT REFORM. 7/6, 1:00-2:30pm. Sponsor: CSIS, Strategic TechnologiesProgram. Speakers: Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary, Commerce for Intellectual Property, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); Victoria A. Espinel, President and CEO, BSA, Software Alliance; Michael A. Waring, Executive Director, Federal Relations, University of Michigan.

REFORMING THE MANAGEMENT OF INDONESIA’S ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES SECTOR: AN UPDATE. 7/6, 2:30-4:00pm. Sponsor: The United States-Indonesia Society (USINDO). Speaker: H.E. Sudirman Said, Indonesia’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources. 

COMBATING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION AND POVERTY IN WESTERN CHINA. 7/6, 3:00-4:30pm. Sponsor: Woodrow Wilson Center (WWC). Speakers: Jin Jiaman, Executive Director of the Global Environment Institute; Boahua Zheng, Director or Rural Development Institute; Ling Du, Director of the Chengdu Shuguang Community Capacity-Building Center. 

PUTTING AMERICA BACK ON THE FAST TRACK: TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY PASSES THE HOUSE AND SENATE. 7/6, 4:00-5:00pm. Sponsor: Association of Women in International Trade (WIIT). Speakers: Eva Hampl, Director of Investment Trade and Financial Services, United States Council for International Business; Adeline Hinderer Sayers, Trade Counselor and Deputy Head of Section, Delegation of the European Union to the US.