We had the 58th SGRA Forum at the Tokyo International Forum, Glass Tower, in the afternoon, on November 18 (Sat.) 2017, under the title “Geopolitics of ’One Belt, One Road’, Does it tie together Asia ?”Participants in the Forum were well-balanced. Two members each were from Japan, China and Korea. The key-note speaker was Prof. Jianrong ZHU/Toyo Gakuen University. Reporters were Dr. Yanming LI/The University of Tokyo; Prof. Young June PARK/ Korean National Defense University; Dr. June PARK/Seoul University, Asian Research Center; and Prof. Kei KOGA/Singapore Nanyang Technological University.  The panelist/debater was Gouta NISHIMURA/The Chief Editor of “Toyo Keizai” (weekly magazine).  The panelists were mainly researchers in international politics or international politics/economy. We can say that the viewpoints of economics and journalists/practitioners were well-integrated with the involvement of Chairman or moderator Prof. Hitoshi Hirakawa (Kokushikan University) and panelists. At the 19th Chinese Communist Party Convention (October 18 – 24) which was held just before the Forum, “One Belt One Road” became the key-words that China’s General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized repeatedly.  Moreover, these words were written in the Agreement of the Communist party as an explanation of their foreign policy. Accordingly, the forum became very timely and got the interest of a lot of people.At the end of the year 2017, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe also expressed his intention that Japan’s foreign policy would have a close connection with the “One Belt One Road” policy and it is said that political relations between Japan and China would be improved in 2018.  Economic cooperation between Japan and China based on “One Belt One Road” idea would attract people’s attention hereafter. In the key-note address of Prof. ZHU, he analyzed the “One Belt One Road” policy in terms of its concrete idea, background, process, main means, and strategic purpose. At the latter part of the reports, the reaction or response of each country participant were introduced. I think it would be supported by developing countries in Central Asia by reason that “One Belt One Road” would meet with their demand for improving their infrastructure. On the other hand, however, the United States, European countries, Japan. Russia and India may have an anxiety or caution based on geopolitical concerns.  Against such anxiety, the Chinese Government shows their counter measures. They are emphasizing their connections with developing strategies or ideas of developing countries. They put their priority on “land” instead of “sea” in promoting the economies of developing countries. On this point, we discussed that there would be plenty of room for cooperation between Japan and China. At an individual session, a plant (including infrastructure) export strategy, which Japan once promoted in the 1970s, was introduced. Then, the “New Aid Plan” was introduced. It has been promoted by Japan at the latter part of 1980s. It was called “Trinity”, which included direct investment toward Asia from Japan, transferring of technologies and enlargement of trade toward Japan.  Dr. Li (myself) proposed that this plan has a similarity with “One Belt One Road” in the sense that, as an external economic policy, both aim for economic development. Prof. PARK (Young June) reported, from the standpoint of foreign strategies and naval power of China. “One Belt One Road” is one of the strategies on land (not sea) by China to avoid direct confrontation with the United States of America (America) on the sea. Dr. PARK (June) reported about the Middle East, referring to the policy, aid and construction of harbors by China in this area. In this area, however, very complicated relations (domestic or international - especially between America and Russia) are developing. So, China has to increase their political and military presence in the area in order to keep their economic position in the power vacuum. The last reporter, Prof. KOGA discussed about attitude, standpoint and role of Asian countries which are not big countries or we can say “outer” countries. Even in small countries, they have to balance themselves between big powers like America and China in order to keep their interests. On this point, Prof. PARK (Korea) explained that Korea also takes a similar strategy. At the open forum, there were various questions from the floor. However, we can say, as a whole, precaution or fear of “One Belt One Road” is still strong.  It will be almost the same with Japanese society where people have been considering “One Belt One Road” with precaution or fear.In the panel, some people pointed out that “One Belt One Road” is just one of the results or an extension of the Chinese “Go Global” strategy which has already started at the latter part of 1990s. Some people said that “One Belt One Road” is just bundling of strategies which China has encouraged individually between two countries. However, once “One Belt One Road” is shown on a world map, it will be quite natural that geopolitical anxiety would increase. On the other hand, since China declared “One Belt One Road” officially in 2013, China did not fully explain to the world its contents, and we can say that the process of forming this policy is still opaque. But Mr. Nishimura pointed out, in such an opaque situation, we can say that China has been keeping their open attitude, judging from the operation circumstances of AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) which has been supporting “One Belt One Road”. He said also that if Japan fears that China would lead in the establishment of global standard by themselves, Japan should join positively and take initiative, neither taking a wait-and-see attitude nor keeping at a distance. Many panelists agreed with him. When we look this issue from a long viewpoint like global history of economy or anthropology, various points in dispute like a shift of the center of the world would be brought up. It will be necessary to realize another big meaning of “One Belt One Road”, not only power balance of geopolitics. Due to the limited space of this paper, I cannot fully write about individual points in dispute. But, I believe that that the main purpose of this forum has been achieved. We could give a place where we learn and think of “One Belt One Road” from various train of thought.All the report about the forum will be issued as the SGRA Report by autumn, 2018.So, I appreciate you would read it then..When we planned this forum, “One Belt One Road” was not yet talked about in Japan.Of course, there have been study or lecture meeting for limited audiences like specialists or in economic fields. But, I think there have been few occasions for ordinary people or scholars who keep their distance from the government authorities. .    I, as a planner of this forum, have an impression that we are given another research assignment. We have to find out a process of forming “One Belt One Road”.  Namely, who did work out an idea and how?  How did he get to such results through power relationship of each of the actors? Lastly, I like to express my thanks to all the SGRA staff members who supported us in every detail approving our program and all panelists who agreed to present and discuss their reports. I thank all audiences also who kindly came and participated in the forum and gave us many questions and the people who showed their interests individually in subject of the forum. Photos SGRA NEWS ( Report of  the 58th SGRA Forum) in Japanese (original)  (Special Lecturer, The University of Tokyo, College of Arts and Sciences)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Max Maquito

SGRA Sustainable Shared Growth Seminar 25 ReportTheme: Community Currencies and Sustainable Shared GrowthDate: March 21, 2018 (Wednesday)Venue: College of Public Affairs and Development (CPAf), University of the PhilippinesLos Baños (UPLB), Laguna, PhilippinesSeminar ReportPresentation 1Presentation 2Presentation 3 

“The Dialogue of National Histories of East Asia” started. This was the second time, but we had met for preparations last year, this conference was the first real dialogue. Each country in East Asia has its own “National History” and there is a gap which cannot be overcome among the countries. Can we build a bridge to have something in common? This is a meaning of “Dialogue of National Histories” which Ms. Junko Imanishi, SGRA Representative, has named.Hereafter four times, we will have discussions on historical issues relating to international relations in East Asia, inviting historians from each country. The theme, this year, was so-called “The Mongol Invasions of East Asia (in the 13th century)” and we will take up other issues of more recent centuries in the next conferences. When we take up subjects, which should relate to all the concerned countries in East Asia, i.e. Japan, China and Korea, participants are mainly historians who are specialized in international relations. Specialists of domestic histories from Japan and Korea were also invited this time and we set up important points such as：How do they, who usually show no interest in histories of international relations nor political meaning behind, respond?  Do they recognize the aim of the conference?To solve these points, we had simultaneous interpretation between Japanese-Chinese, Japanese-Korean and Chinese-Korean. Interpreters were awfully busy because there were a lot of technical terms about the remote past, but I believe they did their work very well. I deeply appreciated their work. Our theme “The Mongol Invasions and the Globalization of the Mongol Empire in the 13th Century” was set up purposely to let people who come from East Asian countries sit down at the same table. At the beginning of the 21st century, many people in East Asia tried to have joint studies on histories of East Asia. But, if they take up issues of the modern period, Japan had to sit at the defendant’s seat. It was impossible to have dialogue on an equal footing. As territorial issues became radicalized, there was no Japanese who would like to participate in such conversations. Whereas, “The Mongol Invasions in East Asia” was easy to deal with psychologically as the events happened in the remote past. Also, all the people from those three East Asian countries were victims of the Mongolian Empire. The Goryeo Dynasty (of Korea) was set under the severe rule of Mongolia. In China, the Mongol Dynasty was established. Japan had to offer a lot of sacrifices for defenses against Mongolia, though Japan escaped from Mongolian invasion.The parties could have calm dialogue on an equal footing because all of them were victims. Although we invited three Mongol historians, we did not treat them as the descendants of wrongdoers. Japan has already accepted many Mongolian “Yokozuna” champions of Japanese Sumo wrestling and never associate Yokozuna with the Mongol Invasions. Korean researchers also never used accusatory words this time. Nevertheless, I do not say that our historical dialogues were made without touching on political backgrounds. There were hot discussions among historians who came from three different origins: one from the Mongolian People’s Republic, and the other from Inner Mongolia in China. They argued whether the Yuan Dynasty is a part of the Mongol Ulus or one of the Chinese Dynasties. I could not catch clearly what they discussed, but it seems, as Dr. Ge Zhaoguang pointed out, there are a few specialists who think of both of the interpretations are simultaneously possible. In the historians’ societies around the world, anachronism (understand the past based on the present national political framework) is criticized. But, governments or public opinions in East Asia sometimes conduct themselves in the way of anachronism. Is it clever for ourselves to be ridiculed by the world? A few presentations were impressive for me. One was by Mr. Yasuhiro Yokkaichi. According to him, Kublai Khan has prepared the third invasion to Japan, but he could not execute his plan because of his death. Vietnam and Java sent tributary envoys toward Yuan dynasty immediately after having succeeded in repelling Kubilai’s invasion. This diplomatic turn is very interesting because Japan made no efforts to prevent another invasion after having repelled the Mongols, although it reopened trade with them. I think Japan has been unaccustomed to international relations and there had been an isolationism background. On the other hand, the Kogryo Dynasty under Mongolian occupation was also interesting. If Japan had surrendered to the Mongol like Kogryo, what would have happened? The Emperor system of Japan might have become extinct. Or, as Dr. Lee Myung-Mihas narrated about the Kogryo Dynasty, a part of the Emperor family of Japan might have been subordinated to the Yuan Dynasty and might have engaged a princess of the Yuan Dynasty as an empress. Such a “thought experiment” was useful for me when we try to understand the Japanese Emperor System, which is one of the most difficult questions in the Japanese history. I was interested in a change of food cultures, which Dr. Cho Won took up. In the Kogryo Dynasty, meat eating had been prohibited by Buddhism, but under the Mongol rule, meat eating was practiced and maintained after the end of invasion. This means that life styles can be changed into durable culture beyond political changes. When we look at histories on a long-term basis, the history of a life style would become more important than a political history. Would structure of families or relations between male and female, both are one of the pillars of social structures, be changed by conquests? In the case of the Korean history, children were brought up in the mothers’ house until the beginning of the 19th century. If so, where were the children of the Mongol royal families brought up? In the Imperial court, or out of the court? Where were children of Mongolian empress in Kogryo brought up, in the house of wife or of husband? Such questions came into my mind one after another. When we notice such changes of the whole Asia, the reports at the conference showed us a key to understand not only international relations but also nations or societies themselves. How did the historians of national histories from Japan and South Korea feel? I am sure they have listened carefully, but if they had questioned without reserve, the conference would have become more exciting. I urged them to speak up, quoting a saying of certain doctor: “it will be a penalty, if you do not ask any question when attending international conferences”.I should have told them of the above saying at the beginning of this conference. I regret that I forgot to tell them. But once they spoke, their indications were meaningful and interesting. I hope they will speak up from the beginning at the next conferences. The conference continued for three days. On the second day, presentations continued very tightly from morning to evening. I was exhausted in the following morning when discussions for the summaries started. I appreciate Professor Liu Jie, a chairman of the wrapping up discussions, who showed a framework for putting various opinions in order. My thanks also go to Professor Cho Kwan, a representative of Korean delegation, who showed us a starting point of our discussion by summing up each presentation precisely and simply. He kindly came over to the conference from his busy schedules of official duties. I believe the next conference in Seoul would be more enjoyable and stimulating.  SGRA Kawaraban 547 in Japanese  (Original)  （Emeritus Professor, Doctor of Literature, The University of Tokyo）  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Max Maquito 

SGRA Sustainable Shared Growth Seminar 25 ReportCommunity CurrenciesMarch 21, 2018College of Public Affairs and DevelopmentUniversity of the Philippines Los BañosSeminar ReportPresentation 1Presentation 2Presentation 3

SGRA Sustainable Shared Growth Seminar No. 24"Progress without Poverty of People and Nature: The Role of Land Value Taxation"September 23, 2017 Sydney Mechanics School of Arts, Australia Seminar ReportPresentation 1Presentation 2Presentation 3Presentation 4Presentation 5