Sustainable Shared Growth Seminar No. 21"Sustaining the Growth and Gains of Research Development ExtensionJan. 6-7, 2017Benguet (Strawberry Capital of the Philippines) Seminar ReportPresentation 1 SlidesPresentation 2 SlidesPresentation 3 SlidesPresentation 4 Slides 

Many people in Japan understand World War II ended on August 15, 1945. This is because Emperor Hirohito (posthumously known as Showa) announced on radio on this date that the Japanese Government had accepted the Potsdam Declaration by the Allied Powers that demanded unconditional surrender, saying that “we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable…”  In the colonies like Korea, people are said to have given cheers for the Japanese defeat. However, it was on the previous day, the August 14 that Japan had conveyed to the Allied Nations its acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.  In fact it was on August 10, four days before, that Japan conveyed its intention to accept the Declaration through Japanese ministers in Switzerland and Sweden, both neutral nations. Victory over Japan Day in the United States is September 2.  It was the day that Mamoru Shigemitsu, fully empowered foreign minister, had signed the instrument of surrender onboard the USS Missouri. The counterpart was Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers.The New York Times on September 2 wrote by just three big headlines; “JAPAN SURRENDERS TO ALLIES,SIGNS RIGID TERMS ON WARSHIP;TRUMAN SETS TODAY AS V-J DAY” In China, V-J Day is September 3, next day of the signing on the USS Missouri, although the Japanese Army had signed the instrument of surrender in Nanjing on September 9. The Soviet Union followed suit and made its V-J Day September 3.  Only Japan set August 15 as the day for the end of the war.  In Europe, the memorial day of victory in this war is May 8, eight days after Adolf Hitler committed suicide.　All the countries which fought in this War have their own memorial day.  The names of this war are also different among the countries involved, while  recognition of the war is common ---Second World War, World War II, Seconde Guerre mondiale, and ZweiterWeltkrieg. But in the United States, “Pacific War (against Japan)” and “European War (against Germany and Italy)” are well-known.  In the Soviet Union, the war was called the “Great Patriotic War”.  The name was given because it war was more furious than the war against Napoleon (1812) which has been called the “Patriotic War,” and that “Great” was added to distinguish one from the other.  In China, they call the War “Anti-Japanese Revolution” and  “World Anti-Fascism.”  Each country and people perceives the war in different ways. In Japan, the Cabinet of Hideki Tojo officially named the war the Great East Asia War on December 12, four days after the declaration of war against allied nations. Including this one, each name contains various sentiments.  The Pacific War connotes that it was fought against America but feels like ignoring the battle line in China.  The Fifteen Years War, which means the War’s duration of fifteen years, is reasonable considering that the War started from the Manchurian incident in 1931.  Other names include “The Second Sino-Japanese War” and “The Asia-Pacific War.” The reason I am thinking over the name of war and the day when the war ended, although I am not a specialist, is that I was listening at the back row of the forum “Possibilities of Dialogues among National Histories.”  What kind of works will be necessary to talk about history among not only specialists or intellectuals but among ordinary people? The round table discussion was meaningful in that specialists from Japan, China and South Korea searched for the present state of  “intellectual  community” in this region and groped where to go from there. Professor Liu Jie of Waseda University, raised a question that dialogue on history has been stagnant, emphasizing necessity of finding an agenda that would come after studying each other’s academic research situations.  He also said, “The intellectual community in East Asia is the last frontier in the region.  I am worried that dialogue among intellectuals might collapse.”  “That is why we got together to exchange opinions and each other’s knowledge so that we can make national histories in East Asia that can be shared among us.  This forum is important in that we can nurture talented international students, a special group of resources who can understand fellow countries’ material, for the future.” Cho Kwang, professor emeritus at Korea University in South Korea, said experience of the colonial period can be a factor for providing a country’s national history. He said, “One cannot discuss world peace if his political perspective is right.”  I thought it is true, not only for Japan.  I thought it is true, not only for Japan.  He said “Gokuryeo (高句麗)” hold an important position in Korean history but added that it was also part of the regional history of China.  “Things look different depending on perspective -- personal-based or location-based,” Kwang said. One solution to overcome different views and misunderstanding can be to compile a history on Japan-China Korea relations Ming dynasty and Joseon missions to Japan （朝鮮通信使）show in which histories of Japan, of Korea and China intersect. Professor Ge Zaoguang of Fudan University, China, suggested possibilities of compiling  diplomatic history of Japan, China and Korea, taking as examples of Mongol invasions of Japan (1271, 1281), Oei Invasion (1419, known as the Gihae Eastern Expedition in Korea) and Japanese invasions of Korea (1592.) Hirosi Mitani, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, criticized a new high school subject introduced by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, called “comprehensive histories.”  The frame work of the new subject dealing with Japanese modern history is taught in the order of (1) modernization, (2) popularization, and (3) globalization. He said, however, “The order is reverse. Globalization was the start of Japanese modern history.”  He added that the most important thing for the young generation is “to look at their own country from the outside and learn from each other the histories of neighboring countries. If they do not do this, they will miss a chance to know the histories of East Asia forever”.   He urged the participants: “we cannot possibly advance only by dialogue. Let’s collaborate. Let’s create a reference about neighboring countries which can be read in their own countries”. I was told this type of forum will continue for at least five times hereafter. If young researchers would join, this type of works will become more active, even though political, economic and national security influences of each country would affect the outcome of the researches. Let me express my hope as a non-specialist.  I want to know national histories of Japan, China, and Korea. Also, I want to know history of country-to-country relations, not limited to the three countries. For example, the Vietnam War was fought between the United States and North Vietnam. Vietnam had been fighting against France for their independence. It was Japan that ruled Vietnam before France. Historical revisionism, which tends to rewrite its own beautiful version of history, is now spreading over Japan.  I do not think such atmosphere is temporary and even feel some energy in it. The forum on “dialogue among national histories” supported by a development of intellectual community of Japan, China and Korea will become more important and urgent.  SGRA Kawaraban 507 in Japanese (Original)  (Lecturer at Tsuda College, Former staff writer at The Asahi Shimbun)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Mac Maquito

SGRA Report Special issueAFC3 Round TableThe 1st Asian Cultural Dialogue“Religious Responses to Changing Social Environments in Southeast Asia” September 30, 2016 (Fri) 9:00～12:30Venue： Kitakyushu International Conference Center, Conference Room Aim of Forum:Southeast Asia is a mosaic of different ethnicities, religions, and socio-cultural contacts. Following liberation from colonial domination, Southeast Asian countries struggled to integrate their various ethnicities and religious cultures as part of the process of nation-building. Under the increasing influence of globalization since the 1990s, these nation-states are once again confronted with profound social transformations and upheavals.While Southeast Asian countries as a whole have seen rapid economic development due to the effects of the global spread of market economies, they have simultaneously experienced an increase in social inequality, environmental degradation, violations of human rights, and religious and ethnic conflicts. This situation has raised doubts about the sustainability of the current economic, social, and economic systems. Based on their respective religious values and ethics, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and other religious leaders have been at the forefront of voicing powerful critiques of these destructive trends and their underlying causes. However, despite the fact that these religions aim for peace, the wellbeing of society, and the happiness of mankind, many tend to see in religion a main cause of these recent conflicts and frictions.This roundtable seeks to address this one-sided perception of the role of religion. Based on case studies presented by researchers from this region, the roundtable will further engage researchers active in Japan to discuss how religions can contribute to fostering sustainable social, political, and economic development. Click here for report Click here for program                    Sekiguchi Global Research Association (SGRA)Atsumi International Foundation

On December 2, 2016 23:00, Tsai Ing-wen, the President of Taiwan, made a telephone call to Mr. Trump, an elected candidate of American presidential election.  It made China be over sensitive and shook the world. A word “Taiwan” caught the eye of the people and became top news of international media. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China, Wang Yi and spokesman of Taiwan Affairs Office, State Council of the People’s Republic of China, replied simply “it does not affect us at all” against questions from the media and added “it was just cheap tricks played by Taiwan and it is impossible to change our structure of “One China”. However, we can imagine how this twelve minutes “Trump-Tsai telephone call” has  surprised Chinese leadership. The Chinese Communist Government, together with their national security organization and think-tanks, has been trying to find the background of “the telephone case”. The more they investigated, the more “Zhongnanhai”, (central governmental body) was disappointed. If this telephone call was a sudden hit Trump’s mind, it would not be a surprise, considering his character that he has always shuffled unconventional cards.  But, his team was actually preparing a list of heads of government whom Trump should call by telephone immediately after his victory declaration. According to informed sources, the name “Tsai Ing-wen, President of Taiwan” has been included in this list.After fixing the schedule of telephone calls, Mr. Trump’s staff explained to him, and he fully understood the possibilities of a negative reaction of the world. In other words, “Trump-Tsai telephone call” this time was the result of thorough preparation by his team, not a rash decision.  Of course, it was not an one-sided “cheap trick” from the Taiwan side. Thoroughly prepared “Trump-Tsai telephone call”  Next, the most important concern of China is the intention of Mr. Trump.  Does he, by “farcical telephone call” this time, intend to change the “One China” policy which was crafted by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s ? At this moment, personnel revisions of his cabinet is not a opened yet. Strictly speaking, his speeches and behavior before his inauguration may not be the same as the policies of the United States government thereafter. But, “Zhongnanhai” cannot be “careful but optimistic” any longer about the Chinese policies of Mr. Trump whenever they get information which they have to worry about. After calming down from such surprise and shock, one influential organization which has taken issue to the “Trump-Tsai telephone call” has attracted attentions. This is “The Heritage Foundation” in the United States which is considered as a leader of conservative influence.  This organization was established in 1973 and developed to its present size with a budget exceeding 80 million dollars through the effort mainly by its founder, Edwin Feulner, for more than 40 years.  It is considered one of the biggest think tanks which have influential power in Washington DC. Many high governmental officials of the Republican Party went into politics from this foundation and Elaine Chao is one of them. She is selected to be transportation secretary by Trump. The Heritage Foundation has also prepared a policy white paper for Mr. Trump and many members of the Foundation participated in the election as cheering party. This foundation has maintained a very close relation with Taiwan since these several decades, and it has been considered as headquarters of pro-Taiwan activities in the United States. So, the Taiwan side also has been lobbying and maintaining interchange relations through this foundation.  “The Heritage Foundation” who has big influential power    It was Mr. Edwin J. Feulner who drove forward directly “Trump-Tsai Telephone Call”.Mr. Feulner has been the President of the Foundation for a long time and has been keeping a good relationship with Taiwan. He has visited Taiwan more than twenty times and also attended inauguration ceremonies of Taiwan President many times. He has met seventeen times with successive President of Taiwan, such as Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, Ma Ying-jeon and Tsai Ing-wen. Mr. Feulner, who graduated from the London School of Business, same as Tsai Ing-wen, joined the cheering party of Mr. Trump last August and became one of the most important brains of President Trump for his national security and foreign policy. He visited Taipei, Taiwan last October together with his staff and on October 13, he had a meeting with Tsai Ing-wen at the Office of President. Another person in the foundation, who is in important position as a researcher and has influential power toward America-Taiwan relationship is Mr. Stephen Yates. He is head of the Republican Party of Idaho States and concurrently holds the office of advisor for Mr. Trump’s transition team . Mr. Yates has worked as Vice Presidential aide of national security for Vice President Dick Cheney. He drafted “The Taiwan Relevant Law” and “The Six Assurances”, both of which are in the General Plan of the Republican Party. In “The Six Assurances”, there are words “America does not approve Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan” which angered China. Mr. Yates has been closely connected with Taiwan. He had been a Mormon missionary in Kaohsiung, Taiwan from 1987 to 1989. He speaks fluent Mandarin, though with a Taiwan accent, and is keeping broad personal relations in politics and social life.  In this sense, no one surpasses him. Four days after the “Trump-Tsai telephone call”, Mr. Yates visited Taipei and made a courtesy visit to President Tsai Ing-wen to convey an intention of Mr. Trump. Reaction in American politics on “Trump-Tsai telephone call” was polarized. As President Obama has expressed repeatedly “One China” policy during his time, this telephone call gave American policy against China a great shock and we can easily guess that people do not like to disrupt the cooperative relationship between America and China, two economic giants. Against the “One China policy” by the Democratic Party and American-media, not only Mr. Trump himself counterattacked in his twitter or face-book, but the personnel necessary of Trump camps and influential politicians of the Republican Party also expressed their appraisal for “Trump-Tsai telephone call”. This faction questioned the rigid way of thinking of the Whitehouse. An ex-government official of the Department of State mentioned that “Mr. Trump will not always follow the same position which the heads of Republican and Democratic parties have taken. For him, typical Washington rule is not always the best option” although people who were involved in the “Trump-Tsai telephone call” fully understand “One China policy” which America has held for a long time. New rivalry between America and China by using the “Taiwan” card Chinese uneasiness toward American policy about China by President Trump will not be limited to the “Trump-Tsai telephone call”. On exactly the same day when Mr. Trump received the telephone call from Tsai, Lower House passed the “National Defense Authority Act” by an overwhelming majority. This bill lifted many military restrictions between America and Taiwan which have lasted for more than twenty years and made full of future of America/Taiwan with “infinite possibility”. Actually, the Taiwan side has started their study and discussion immediately after passing this Act in the Upper and Lower House. They look forward that their Ministry of National Defense can step in the Pentagon fair and square. They also look forward to joining the Trans Pacific Joint Exercise under the American initiative. It means that they hope to actualize military cooperation among Taiwan, America and Japan. Under the organization of Xi Jinping the “Taiwan issue” is one of the “Core issues” which cannot be easily compromise. The “Trump-Tsai telephone call” might be critical for China and Taiwan. But, it may be also a turning point. At least, I presume China has already changed from their “careful but optimistic” conception of the Trump era. Beijing will study the weak points of Trump without looking on idly and look for personal connections with him. They will try to access any personnel who has influential power to prevent President Trump from adopting a policy that would distort the “One China policy” which America has kept for forty years.  A rivalry between America and China using the “Taiwan” card was newly opened.  SGRA Kawaraban 517 in Japanese (original)  ( Assistant Professor, National Taiwan University/Assistant Researcher, Modern History Research Center, Taiwan Central Institute )  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Mac Maquito

SGRA Sustainable Shared Growth Seminar #22 Program