On July 1 2020, charging for plastic shopping bags started in Japan. Frankly speaking, I feel it “too late”. There are two reasons.(1) As for a law for charging, Japan falls behind not only advanced countries but other foreign countries also.(2) Amid worldwide corona-virus pandemics now, it became difficult for people to understand the concept of charging shopping bags.Originally, shopping bags shall be charged for the sake of the global environment. However, the COVID-19 is everything for the people now and subject, charging for plastic bags, was digressed from the theme. I personally think that we should think about the environment more seriously putting aside the COVID-19.  In 1993, Denmark levied a tax on plastic shopping bags for the first time in the world and the ratio of using shopping bags decreased by 60%. Ireland has followed the “shopping bags tax” in 2002 and it was the first time that consumers pay a tax on a shopping bag, though it is mainstream now. According to the specialized journal “流通ニュース”（Distribution News), a manager of Recycling Promotion Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said as follows : By EU, in 2015, directed countries in EU to reduce the number of plastic shopping bags to less than forty bags per person by the end of the year 2025. Following this rule, EU countries made rules that plastic bags are prohibited or chargeable in supermarkets. In America, depending on counties or cities, many supermarkets charge for shopping bags (even paper shopping bags). In Canada, as in Japan, they charge on shopping bags independently at retail stores.      In Japan, people have been trying to decrease the number of shopping bags self-independently even before related laws were introduced. At super-markets and drug-stores, people who decline shopping bags were given such benefits as getting points or being discounted ￥２- /bag.  At convenient stores, however, they gave bags at free up to the last moment. On July 1, all the shopping bags became chargeable.  What people concern and pay attention now are: they do not like corona virus or other virus bacillus adhere to their “eco-bags” which they bring in and how long such bacillus will survive. I read web-site news by American Newspaper Company. According to the news, supermarkets in California have changed their rules saying “Do not bring in your eco-bags. We will give you bags (plastic or paper) free”. It is because they worry about adhesion of corona virus to eco-bags which customers bring. Actually, salespeople in supermarkets at Los Angeles and its southern county were infected by coronavirus. In California State, shopping bags have been chargeable since these several years and the culture in which people go shopping bringing their own eco-bags have been penetrated already. So, once the COVID-19 would be converged, people will bring in their eco-bags again.    According to a TV special program of “chargeable shopping bags” in Japan, coronavirus survives for four days on the surface of nylon bags which are glossy and can be wiped off. In case of cloth made, corona virus survives for one day. They did not tell about the influence of shopping bags on environment in this TV picture. They explained how managers and salespeople in supermarkets felt about their touching at eco-bags. In this program, customers, who brought in their own eco-bags and were asked whether they have washed bags, replied that they have never washed their eco-bags.  Plastic do not dissolve and never return to the nature. Once plastic flow into the sea and fish swallow them together with feed, plastic will be accumulated in fish bodies. When people know such tragic situations, we must stop using plastic bags regardless of coronavirus or others. There will be a way that they do not bring in coronavirus paying attention to sanitation. If people are afraid of the adherence of coronavirus on bags, it will be OK for them that they change bags every day. If they have only one bag, they can rotate plastic and paper bags alternately.    Only shopping bags are not everything for plastic wastes. According to the “Distribution News” mentioned above, as a reason why shopping bags became chargeable, eco bags, which are connected to the life of the people directly, can be used as an alternative for shopping bags. And in many countries in the world, they started working on shopping bags. Yes, only eco bags can be substituted for shopping bags at this moment and use of eco bags is the first and small step toward decreasing plastic wastes.  If chargeable shopping bags have started earlier than the COVID-19 in the world, peoples concern toward plastic waste would have been higher.  SGRA Kawaraban 638 in Japanese (Original)  Xie Zhihai / Associate Professor, Kyoai Gakuen University  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala     

 The year 2020 is a special year. The pandemic of coronavirus caused unprecedented damage and confusion and throw the world into terror. Every country in the world declared an emergency on COVID-19 one after another because it has a high infection and took human lives mercilessly. People have been forced to stay at home. This unexpected situation threatened people physically and mentally. The traditional educational system, based on face-to-face classes, became impossible and educators or students have been facing with a new trial. I, myself, am one of such educators.  Coronavirus has affected educational or studying fields very much even if it was temporary. Amid the COVID-19, the point is not how we overcome coronavirus. We, educators or students, must gaze ourselves newly how we understand our professions, how we cultivate our abilities, and how we adjust ourselves to the COVID-19.    When people formulate management strategy, they analyze circumstances, outside and inside, using “SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threats) analysis”. I think it’s useful for us who are facing with new “online education” system. Through our realization of our strength and weakness, threatening against the COVID-19, and opportunity which we may get, we may be able to secure the way to go hereafter. I would like to write here my impression on my standpoint in educational circumstances.  After application of online classes, employment of new teachers was reduced in universities in many countries including America and elderly teachers retired by reason that they could not cope with online classes. There were many teachers who have worried about the situation that they cannot show their abilities and knowledge which have been cultivated through their long experiences. On the other hand, young teachers, who are superior in advanced technologies like information processing despite they may not equal in their knowledge and experiences to elderly teachers, should challenge for the development of new fields of research. I took charge of scientific technological English this year and could learn the expertise of natural science which I have never touched. I could get scientific “intellect” through online educations.    Due to online classes, teachers who could not stay on the site became possible to give lessons. In science lessons, they already gave online lessons. For example, it becomes possible to give lessons to classes in overseas universities from Japan. Fluidization of knowledge will develop not only internationalization of educators but produce a merit also that brings about close cooperation with foreign countries in educational fields. There may be a demerit, but it will be important to realize it first and try to overcome it.  Since online classes are the first experience of university educators, they may be confused much. In my case also, as there was nothing to be prepared, I bought a microphone and lighting fixtures first in my class. Reconsidering traditional way of face-to-face classes, I adopted various ideas which can give student’s feelings of presence and enjoyment using real-time-video or just video. At first, I felt burdened myself more than face-to-face lessons because it took time for preparation. As I am getting used to be, however, it became efficient gradually and I am keeping my efforts trusting myself that such skills will become my new strength and growth.  Though job markets in educational fields are reducing at this moment, I think it necessary for educators to have such actual business know-how besides their learning abilities. What I can keep overseas lessons from Japan means that overseas educators or students can keep lessons in Japan reversely. In other words, borderless fluidity and competitiveness would become more severe for educational sites hereafter. We must understand such times and consciousness first. I would like to overcome such trials hereafter through such “strength” of myself.  SGRA Kawaraban 637 in Japanese (Original)  CHEN-Lu / 2019 Raccoon, Lecturer of Waseda University, Sophia University, Meisei University      Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala  

 National People's Congress in Beijing brought up The National Security Laws for Hong Kong urgently and suddenly amid the COVID-19 and arguments of “The Revision of Regulation of Fugitives from Justice”. Hong Kong has entered into serious stage all at once. Chinese Governmental policy and strategy of “中南海” (Central Headquarters for the Communist Party) towards Hong Kong and Taiwan has been interlocked, more or less,  in terms of their thinking and strategy “One Country, Two Systems”. The National Security Laws in Hong Kong made clear the relations between Beijing Central Government and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It gave Taiwan a big shock. We (Taiwanese) cannot ignore when we survey the future of the cross-strait relations.     〇Chinese views on National Security which do not discriminate Hong Kong/Macao from Taiwan “National Security Laws on Hong Kong” has two big meanings. There is no essential difference in Beijing’s common understanding of “One Country, Two Systems” in the governing Hong Kong/Macao district and Taiwan. What the “National Security Laws on Hong Kong” made clear is, there is no ambiguity or no room for negotiation in Beijing’s idea in the subject of national sovereignty and security. Definitions of “National Sovereignty” and “National Security” are based on “power for power’s sake” of “totalitarianism” and such definitions did not change at all during these seven decades.  All the countries in the world, -western countries like Europe and America, have any national security laws. In the democratic countries, if people would speak or publish about anti-ruling parties or anti-government or make requests for the independence of certain areas, it will not be illegal as far as they will not try to overthrow the government. They can enjoy individual freedom which is compensated by constitutions including civil rights like speech, the press, publication and associations.  As an example, I would like to explain about Okinawa Prefecture in Japan. There are protest gatherings against the Government in a big scale as usual and there are groups and parties which request independence of Okinawa. Some of such members run for the elections but they have never been deprived of their rights for candidature by reason of their political assertions. Furthermore, in bookstores or public libraries, we can see many publications which protest the central government including the American military base and books which insist independence or self-support of Okinawa. Against such insistences or activities, the Japanese Government never say guilty from the viewpoints of national security laws.  Since 1949, China took the Marxism-Leninism political system under one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party. The governing system which the Communist Party took is called “Totalitarianism” and is different from the “Authoritarianism” which Taiwan has taken in“両蒋時代”(two Chiang’s period -Chiang Kai-shek and Chang Chin-kuo). Though there is a big difference, the Nationalist party in Taiwan at that time did not have any ability which controlled the thoughts and actions of citizens and could not manage their economic and social systems. Political systems in new China after 1949 are endowed with such capacities.  At the beginning of the decade of 1980s, the U.K. and China have started their discussions on the transferring of the sovereignty of Hong Kong in future. Hong Kong society was thrown into a panic. Pessimistic people in Hong Kong thought it unavoidable to “大陸化” (apply the system of Mainland China) after 1997 (the year of restoration) . On the other hand, optimistic people thought the discussions would expedite “香港化”(apply the system of Hong Kong) of the Mainland. Behind such controversy, there was a background of the age when Deng Xiaoping has just started his promotion of “Chinese Economic Reform”. Even after the year 1989, Deng Xiaoping had referred that it would take another fifty years to elect leaders by the vote in China even after the “Second Tiananmen Square Incident”. It means the Chinese leaders at that time did not exclude ideas which leaders can be elected by popular elections. Such ideas gave positive ground for judgment by optimists.  Mainland China has experienced processes in Hong Kong for thirty years to some extent through penetration of the market economy and capitalistic factors. However, as a governance model in China, “totalitarianism” which Deng Xiaoping has held, Zhao Ziyang has groped for and Hong Kong people have expected, had never changed to democratic and constitutional politics. China requested Hong Kong to expedite the development of processes of the Mainland together with economic development and strengthening of national power.  In other words, the “National Security Law” this time shows Hong Kong’s milestone to apply Chinese systems and expansion of “totalitarianism”. Accordingly, it will not be difficult to understand that if China, under the Communist Party, would unify Taiwan; “National Security Law” on Taiwan will be applied naturally basing on Beijing’s views of “National Sovereignty” and “National Security”.  〇Beijing’s “total jurisdiction” which applies Taiwan’s “One Country, Two Systems”     What is the other important meaning which the “Hong Kong National Security Law” defined?In the “One Country, Two Systems”, Central Government secured their ability of “total jurisdiction”. And, it will be inevitable that, on the assumption that Central Government will not abandon the systems of “totalitarian” and “power for power’s sake”, Beijing started the mechanism and achieve “total jurisdictions” of the central government in any type of “One Country, Two Systems”, whichever Hong Kong/Macao this time or Taiwan will accept and follow in future.  We cannot find any wordings about concept of “central total jurisdiction” in the “Basic Law” of Hong Kong. But, in the white paper for “Practice of One Country, Two System in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” which was promulgated by State Council in June 2014 when universal suffrage was discussed, we can find the mechanism for “the central total jurisdiction”. In the “Basic Law”, its interpretation rights belong to “Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress” (Chapter 8 Article 9).  The Central Government is authorized also to enforce nationwide laws in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The “National Security Laws on Hong Kong” this time is one of the nationwide laws and based on the Article 18 of “The Basic Law” and attached to its supplementary provision 3.    In principle, in the “One Country, Two Systems”, Hong Kong can keep, in the stage of system planning, their rights to have their own laws, money and privilege of custom duties and can keep freedom, on certain extent, of speech and press. However, the Central Government of Beijing is also guaranteed to have maximum power.  Beijing, this time, has established “The National Security Law on Hong Kong” directly (not through Hong Kong legislative organ). Once Beijing opens the way like this, they can establish laws directly for Hong Kong and fulfill “Total Jurisdictions by the Central Government”.  Since General Secretary Xi Jinping announced his important talk toward Taiwan on January 2, 2019, the Department of Taiwan in Beijing expedited a draft of “One Country, Two Systems – Taiwan version”. Framework, especially how to stipulate the position of Taiwan after unity, is unknown yet. But once we learn a lesson of Hong Kong, it will be clear undoubtedly that Beijing like to secure “Total Jurisdictions by the Central Government” including a mechanism of “National Security Law on Taiwan” in “One Country, Two Systems – Taiwan version”. It is an important point to be cleared for Taiwan when we learn and interpret Beijing’s “One Country, Two Systems -Taiwan version”.  “One Country, Two Systems – Taiwan version” is Beijing’s “wishful thinking stage” yet. “National Security Law for Hong Kong”, which surprised Hong Kong and the world, will make Taiwan’s understanding of the core of “One Country, Two Systems” deepen. In this paper, I argued over the suggestive meaning of the essence of “One Country, Two Systems” including its “Taiwan version” regarding “National Security Law for Hong Kong”.  I would like to put off my argument as to the impact which Taiwan people have got from “National Security Law for Hong Kong” or analysis of influence to Taiwan government, including the Cross-Strait relations, by both Democratic Progressive Party and Chinese Nationalist Party.  SGRA Kawaraban 636 in Japanese (Original)  John_Chuan-Tiong_Lim / Researcher of General Research Center of Japan (in Taiwan)     This essay was written in the Chinese language.Chinese to Japanese translation by Arata Hirai Japanese to English translation by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala

 ◇At the beginning : No countries have excellent plans against COVID-19 at this moment. In Sweden, they did “cluster immunities”.  In Italy and U.K., there were a lot of dead because of the delay of measures at the beginning. We have a few effective measures through which we check suspected persons quickly and if they are proved to be infected, proper measures (grasping the numbers of patients and their isolations by administrations) would be taken and other people will keep “social distances”. It is an actuality now.  In such circumstances, we can say that the measures which Korea took are evaluated highly in the world. They are trying to follow the model of Korea, so-called “K-epidemic prevention”. For example, the world is taking notice of “drive through”, “walk through” and “diagnosis kits”. I am glad that Korea, which follows Japan as the member of the council of the WHO, can contribute to the world in the prevention of COVID-19.  It is true that “K-epidemic prevention” has succeeded. However, it is true also that there are opinions about problems behind Korean successes. I like to introduce such issues which exist in the back of Korean success. It is not my purpose to find fault with Korean way of preventions. I would be happy if you understand my real intention of bringing up the issues here the counter measures against the secondary wave of COVID-19 more perfectly than the first wave.  I would like to explain here about the most important issues like “medical blank” and “human rights” referring to two actual incidents. One is “the fatal accident of Mr. Chong　Yuyob (17)” and “spread of COVID-19 at a night club at Itae-won in Seoul”.  ◇Medical Blank in the fatal accident of Mr. Chong Yuyob(17) Mr. Chong run high fever and went to a general hospital which is one in the area around seven o’clock in the evening. But he was refused any medical care before PCR checked and was asked to visit next day. He had to return home without any medical care as the PCR clinic had already closed at six o’clock.    He suffered from high fever all through the night. He visited the clinic to get PCR checked in the next morning and was X-rayed. However again, he had to return home because he had to wait for the result of PCR before hospitalization. In his home, he kept running high fever and had difficulties in breathing and his parent got touch with the Disease Headquarters (an organization under the Ministry of Health and Welfare) immediately.  The headquarters got touch with the health center in the area, but the center needed PCR report from general hospital for further action. Meanwhile, time passed in vain. It was only after 4:30 PM when Mr. Chong went to the general hospital. His parent heard the result of X-ray and his condition was not good and was told to go to the Yong Nam University Hospital. Mr. Chong could not get proper medical care and passed away after two days.  Many people say that the death of Mr. Chong was unavoidable in such circumstances of the pandemic of COVID-19.  If we get away with such case this time, it means we leave the similar cases which would have few hundred victims hereafter as “unavoidable accident”. Moreover, Mr. Chong had no basis diseases actually. During the time when we verify this accident seriously, we found many points which we cannot leave unavoidable.  It was the basic policy of general hospital, which is one in the area, that we cannot get any measures without results of PCR. It has revealed to be big faults of measures against COVID-19  If private hospitals had to follow Governmental regulations, they should have advised other facilities which can do PCR at earlier stage. There was a clinic within only five- minute walk actually which can check PCR that evening. In spite -of doctor’s view about Mr. Chong’s pneumonia next day, general hospital instructed him to wait at home before PCR. General hospital missed early chance of treatment and we can say it was the fault of hospital clearly. The Disease HQ and clinic both has just instructed parent to get touch with private hospitals. They did not mediate properly during the time when he waited for the result at home. It was a cause of accident this time that there was no control tower which know medical systems in the area accurately.   People can be hospitalized in Yong Nam University Hospital any time actually without the result of PCR. It means the accident could be prevented if either Disease Headquarter, health center or general hospital would have referred to Yong Nam Hospital. We cannot say Yong Nam Hospital had no fault. When they were informed from general hospital that the result of PCR is negative, they kept doubting of pneumonia by coronavirus and had checks thirteen times. Moreover, oxygen mask was off for thirty seconds. The reasons are under investigation now.  But it may of medical staffs for infection treatment.   Some people say that it is the specialty of North Gyeonsang Province where big epidemics. 0ccures. But I think it is same with any other provinces. Korean societies should reconsider many points:・We do not have any control tower which grasp the whole medical systems in the area.・Where we can get instant PCR report quickly in the pandemic of COVID-19?・Where do we get medical treatment in emergency before PCR check ? Many people agree that the Medical Control Head Quarter will be promoted to the Medical Control Agency. And, some people say that “Public Medical Agency” should be established in the circumstances which present Korean medical systems depend on private medical facilities.  Korea is the lowest among OECD Member Countries in terms of specific gravity of public health services. A specific gravity rate in terms of the number of sick beds is 10% and in terms of medical organizations is 5.7%. In North Gyeonsang Province where conservative political party is controlling, public medical service organizations were closed one after another and the gravity of public health services became lower than other provinces.  It is impossible to say that Mr. Chong’s death has no relations with unfortunate conjunction circumstances. We like bethink medical “blank” again.  ◇Human Rights which can be seen through ”Spread of COVID-19 from Itaewon” When the number of infected patients doubled digits gradually in early May, infection spread rapidly among visitors in Itaewon club. Dislike and discrimination against minority became serious after rapid spread of COVID-19. Human rights issue is big in Korea now.  The shadows of the issues on dislike and discrimination have been cast actually since the early stage of prevention of epidemics. Following to dislike and discrimination against Chinese, there was an attack on the specific religion “The New World” by the whole societies. The government has focused on measures for prevention of epidemics too much and has overlooked the issues. As a result, dislike and discrimination against minorities have occurred. As discrimination against specific groups is an obstacle for prevention of epidemics and connect to spread of coronavirus, everybody in the society have to work on and improve such phenomena.   According to report, many gay or (male) homosexual visited the club in Itaewon where there were clusters of infected people in early May. Media had attacked visitors in the club excessively as immodest sexual group and such dislike of feeling in the society was exaggerated. Moreover, the number of infected people has increased because some visitors to Itaewon did not get PCR. And dislike and discrimination against gay became more serious accordingly. In this case, complicated issue of discrimination is involved and we cannot debate simply saying they lack in ethical values. Some self-governing body check anonymously. But if people visit Itaewon, they are considered as gay and discriminated. This is question which will not be solved simply.  Once people get PCR check, they have to wait for result for one or two days at least even if they do not contact closely with infected person. They have to explain to their friends or workplaces for the reasons being stayed at home. In the atmosphere where media stirred up such dislike, it will be almost impossible for the people, who visited Itaewon, to inform work places about the report.  In the Korean society where there remains negative understanding against minority and such dislike and discrimination, it would affect the life. In case of a lecturer of “juku” (private-tutoring school) who goes to a university in Inchon area, he hid his actual occupation and what he hid his occupation caused to the situation that his colleagues and students were infected. Under such circumstances, Inchon city government filed criminal charge against him. He confessed afterward that he was afraid that his studies would affect and feared for further aspect of job. Would it be possible to say that he is responsible for spreading coronavirus? I think Korean society, media and politicians were responsible for the second and the third spread of infections. Korean society has discriminated minority. Media kept sending stereotyped messages that visitors to Itewon were minority and minority should be excluded from society. Politicians left also such messages unchecked and made ordinary people to be “liars”  Public health doctors (who work at health center not as military services) who worked at selected health centers and knew the importance of receiving checked quickly, had visited clubs at Itewon. But they hid such visits for four days and examined patients.  Even doctors who work at selected health center were afraid of discrimination rather than coronavirus.  As mentioned above, dislike and discrimination of the weak socially are big obstacles for prevention of epidemics. All world is prepared now for prolonged war against coronavirus. It will be simple to win the war. In case of suspicion of infections, it will be the only way for victory that we arrange everything in the circumstances to be able to get PCR check quickly. In order to improve present circumstances where we cannot receive PCR check voluntarily in discrimination, it is necessary to have positive intervention at national level.  ◇In conclusion: It is true that infectious diseases are misfortunes which threatens humans. But we cannot say necessarily that there are only negative side in infectious diseases. The diseases have made us notice social issues which we could not find. When we can solve the problems properly, we can step up to more matured society. There are some who understand in wrong way. However, a lot of enterprises and politicians are trying to introduce desperately paid holiday systems (they can take holidays without losing salaries), remote medical treatment and biotechnologies. (Be ashamed to say, Korea is the only country among OECD member nations that has neither paid holiday systems nor allowance for sick and wounded.)  The discussion mentioned above are based on evaluation on success of “K-epidemic preventions”. I can say it is better than other countries where they cannot practice any measures for prevention and cannot foresee how they should discuss.  Frankly speaking, I am worried about missing my both lesson which we learn from epidemics of coronavirus and chances which we can develop to better societies.  SGRA Kawaraban 635 in Japanese (Original)  Choi_Kyu-jin / Professor Inha Medical University (Medical History and Medical Ethics),    This essay was written in the Korean language.Korean to Japanese translation by Saori Hasegawa Japanese to English translation by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala

 In the year 2020, COVID-19 shook the world and threw the world systems into confusion  We are facing with the issue “the Post-COVID19”. In the process of solving the issue, the most important point for the world block or countries is how to adjust the relations with China. In this paper, I would like to focus on the relations between Japan and China in the age of “post-corona”.  In America, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the President in 2017 and took the national strategy “China containment”. Through the trade war and technological race, America has been pressing China and their relations deteriorated gradually. On the contrary, Japan and China have stepped, strangely enough, to the opposite direction “all-out restoration”. However, such “quasi-honeymoon” for two years came to the end by structural shock of the coronavirus pandemic.  ◇From ”Honeymoon period” to “Quasi-honeymoon period” When we look back the relations between Japan and China for half-century since the normalization of diplomatic relations in 1972, “honeymoon period” was only in the decade of the 1980s. In the decade of the 1990s, the relations was “sometimes good and sometimes bad” due to “historical issues”. In the decade of the 2010s, especially in 2012, Japan has nationalized “Senkaku Islands” (Diaoyutai Islands in Chinese) and the relations fell into inescapable and hair-trigger situations.   In November, 2014, Japan-China relations came to the turning point “A Thaw” narrowly. Two countries got the “essential common understanding on four points” and reopened their exchanges partly. However, China did not start the mechanism of mutual visits of their heads. In the year 2018, Japan conceded to soften their attitude toward Chinese policy “One Belt, One Road”. Afterward, China got the policy “getting back the Japan-China relations to the original orbit”.  The visit of the Premier Li Keqian in May 2018 shows that both countries have started their relations toward total recovery. Afterward, Prime Minister Abe visited China in October. However, Prime Minister Abe understood at that time that we can say “complete recovery of the relations between both countries” only when the heads of two countries visit each other after the President of the People’s Republic of China (CRC) Xi Jinping visits Japan as a national guest. In CRC, they regarded President Xi’s visit to Japan in April 2020 as important and expected to declare the coming of “new era of Japan-China relations” jointly. At the same time, China side have expected to announce “the 5th political document” which symbolize the new era of both countries at summit talks. The “Quasi-honeymoon period” which China took initiative reached to the climax.  ◇The latent vulnerability in the friendly relationship between Japan and China Improvement of the relations depend on the interests and strategic thinking of both countries. The reason why they could keep “quasi-honeymoon period” for these two years is the Chinese new strategy mainly. Actually, Japan did not cancel nationalization of the Senkaku islands and kept their defense capacity strengthening, including setting up of the National Self-Defense Force, in the area of “Nansei Shoto (the south-west islands)”  Amid such situation which Japan did not compromise in important issues, China like to restore the relations with Japan. As background of such Chinese attitude, there is no other reasons than a shock of the “New Cold-War between China and America”. By dividing the power of Japan and America which aim at shutting up China, China wanted to cut down American controlling power toward China.  In short, during these two years which we can call the “quasi-honeymoon period” after the decade of 1980s, both countries established their basic standpoints, “positive policy” in China and “wait-and-see policy” in Japan. However, there was a latent vulnerability in the “friendship between Japan and China” which came from the characteristics of “one-sided (not each other) direction”.  We can find such vulnerability in the public opinion polls on the relations of both countries. Japanese NPO “Japanese Public Opinions“ and Chinese International Publication carried out together public opinion poll on the relations between Japan and China jointly in 2005. The poll of last October (before coronavirus epidemics) shows that 45.9% of Chinese have good impressions on Japan. This figure was the highest since 2005 when they started the poll. However, Japanese impression on China was “just returned to normal orbit” and we cannot say we reached “improvement”. The ratio which Japanese have “no-good” impression toward China was 84.7% and it was considerably high.  Actually, atmosphere of welcoming President Xi’s visit to Japan is not warmed up yet in Japan despite President Abe urged Xi’s visit as a national guest eagerly. It is important that unexpected pandemic of COVID-19 this year made China confused completely about their strategy toward Japan. At the same time, the base of “friendship between Japan and China”, which was vulnerable from the beginning, was shook in Japan.    ◇Unrest of the base of “Friendship between Japan and China” due to the pandemic of COVID-19 First of all, Prime Minister Abe proposed “friendship between Japan and China” together with China in spite of America’s urging to promote the “suppressing China strategy” which was severe and speedy. Prime Minister Abe considered first friendly relations in economy between Japan and China beside his historical evaluation as a prime minister.  However, the Abe Government reconsidered economic relations with China because the pandemic of COVID-19 has started from China. On April 7, the Abe Government announced “Declaration of Emergency” and passed the budget for “Emergency economic measures”. And they appealed reorganization of supply chains which is on the verge of emergency due to COVID-19. They allocated 240 billion Yen, at the first clause of the budget, for shifting production lines from China to Japan or diversification of production basis to South-East Asia. Such movements are based on decentralization of risks.  Public opinions in Japan foresee Chinese economy after COVID-19 pessimistically and it will be impossible to have “V-shaped recovery” in China. In this point, it is different from Chinese public opinions which foresee the Chinese economy optimistically. Japanese economic circles, including “keidanren” (the Federation of Economic Organization) foresee the Chinese economy cautiously and Japanese public opinions are “adverse wind” apparently to Japanese economic circles which like to maintain close connections with China in foreign trades.     As to Chinese measures toward epidemics, Japanese views have been getting worse because of questions about “concealment of infectious diseases” and their “omissions” at initial stage or punishment of Dr. Li Weiliang. China invoked “big propaganda” to the world since March. However, such propaganda was interpreted by the mass media in Japan as recoveries of initial fiasco in epidemics. Japanese antipathy toward China has increased.  Furthermore, COVID-19 spread in Europe and the United States after March and the pandemic shock hit the United States.  The government in Washington is trying to establish new policy “China bashing” which accuse China of responsibility of “concealment of infection diseases” and claimed compensation. It is not difficult to imagine the relations between America and China in the “post-corona period” would become slyer. Under such circumstances which “anti-China” steps by America are being accelerated, it will be inevitable that America would pressure Japanese “pro-China” policy and Washington may trigger toward Japan.  ◇Japan-China relations in the Post-COVID-19 – “cool-Japan and hot-China”??? Under such new changes of the world in pandemic, Prime Minister Abe realized that it would be difficult to keep good friendships with China which he has tried to maintain keeping pace with China and has stopped to control carefully his ideological position and did not try to maintain Japan-China relations which have been vulnerable from the beginning. Being a contrast with expansion of antipathy to China, prevention of epidemics in Taiwan were highly evaluated in Japanese society. PM Abe, who has been the most “pro-Taiwan” since the decade of 1960, did not hide his dissatisfaction toward China. And he expressed his support to Taiwan which like to take part in the general meeting of the WHO as an observer.  Chinese Government began to take strong measures against Japan without any hesitation perceiving Japanese changes in its determinations which have been heading for improvement of Japan-China relations. On May 8, four vessels of China Coastal Guard Corps invaded Japanese sea area and pursued two Japanese fishing boats and Japan protested. Japanese Government announced that Chinese public vessels appeared around the Senkaku islands 41days continuously after May 24.     Summing up the above, “quasi-honeymoon period” which has been vulnerable from the beginning will end soon by pandemic of COVID-19. I personally think that President Xi’s visit to Japan during this autumn will not be possible in friendly circumstances after coronavirus.  However, if the relations between America and China would become severe, Chinese side may not abandon soon the strategy that they check the United States by winning over Japan. Therefore, even if Japanese feeling of friendship toward China would fall by COVID-19, Chinese side will not withdraw their Japanese policy, in a short period, which they regard it is getting back to normal orbit. Accordingly, Japan-China relations in the “post-corona period” which have a characteristic of “cool-Japan and hot-China” will continue in considerable long period.  SGRA Kawaraban 633 in Japanese (Original)  John_Chuan-Tiong_Kim / Researcher of Japan General Research Center in Taiwan, Head of Japan Research Center in Wuhan University  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala