The 67th SGRA (Sekiguchi Global Research Association) Forum was held online on 23rd September at the Hall of Atsumi International Foundation under the title “Nobody is left behind and How to head towards materialization of SDGs overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic?” It was planned by SGRA ASIA Initiative Team and it was organized by Atsumi International Foundation and jointly organized by INAF (Institute of Northeast Asian Future). There were around eighty online participants and we had worldwide report about the United Nation’s 2030 Goal on SDGs.   Mya Dwi Rostika (Lecturer of Daito Bunka University and a member of SGRA Asian Designing Team) facilitated the Forum. Ms. Junko Imanishi, Representative of SGRA, made Opening Address and introduced SGRA and INAF and explained their course of joint organization.   LI Kotetsu (myself) played moderator. The first session was a keynote speech. The second session was five reports from the world. And designated debates and panel discussions followed. Professor HIRAKAWA Hitoshi, Director of Atsumi International Foundation and President of INAF summarized the forum.   Keynote speech was made by Dr. SADOTOMO tetsu (Lecturer of Graduate School of Nihon University, Board Member of INAF) at the Hall of Atsumi International Foundation under the title “Awareness reform in the Era of SDGs”. He is specialized in International Relations and held various posts like The Chairman of North-East Asian Academic Conference. He has published “Peace Studies in the Era of SDGs” ( Publisher: Horitsu Bunkasha) in December 2019. In the opening he emphasized that we have to acknowledge the fact that “We are living in the unsustainable world” and the process “acknowledgement → consciousness →  thinking →action” is important. Then, he analyzed the goal of “sustainable development” and the current situation of “unsustainable world” clearly and appealed that in order to achieve Sustainable Development Goals we have to review the present mechanism of the modern civilizations which are in large scaled, centralized and globalized and have to acknowledge that we have to strengthen present circulation-type society.   On  the second session, we had five reports worldwide.   The first report online was made by Dr. Ferdinando C. Maquito, (senior staff member of SGRA) College of Public Affairs and Development, UPLB (The University of the Philippines, Los Banos), under the title “SDGs in the Philippines”. In the Philippines, countermeasure against SDGs were interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. He reported front line voices saying “We will not die from COVID-19. But we may starve to death having no jobs”. But there are hopeful signs. (1) Reviewing domestic agriculture, (2) New perception by domestic dominant companies: social role is important as with the stockholders, (3) Universities are evaluated not only by their academic achievement but also their impact on society. His report was very suggestive.   The second report was made by DU Shixin (Research fellow of INAF and Global International Relations Institute) under the title “SDGs in Hungary”. Achievement for SDGs in Hungary is high ranked in Eastern Europe (25th in the world). He reported that Hungary is playing a leading role in development of sustainability keeping good relationship with China in “development of water resources”.   The third report was made by Mr. Housam Darwisheh (Institution of Developing Economies, JETRO, SGRA Member) under the title “SDGs in Middle East and North Africa”. He reported that growth rate of average life of expectancy in these areas has been the highest in the past fifty years. Three indexes of human development (HDI) such as health, education and income and other various aspects of life has improved. According to the report “Sustainable Development in the Arab” in 2020, there would be no countries which could reach to the achievement of SDGs. He reported present situation and analyzed its reasons.   LI Kotetsu reported about “SDGs in DPRK” as the fourth report. He analyzed present situation of the society and economic development in DPRK which are not known in Japan and other international societies. He emphasized necessities of acknowledgement of their achievement of SDGs after understanding of their characteristics that they keep socialism despite being under developing country. He also reported that DPRK is undertaking toward implementation of SDGs despite of their poverty cooperating with the United Nations.   The fifth report was made by Mr. Mohamed Omer Abdin (SANTEN Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, SGRA member) from Sudan under the title “SDGs in Africa”. Thirty years’ Dictatorial System in Sudan has collapsed in April 2019 and their interim Government started towards democratization. However, six months later, they had to declare the state of emergency including border closure or lock-down by the COVID-19 pandemic. He explained an influence of emergency declaration toward Sudan’s economy and difficulty of execution of infection control measures in a poor country where people’s income is not guaranteed.   Toward those reports, Professor HABA Kumiko (KANAGAWA University and Vice President of INAF) and  MIMURA Mitsuhiro (Board Member of INAF, Chief Researcher of ERINA, Chairman of The Association for Northeast Asia Regional Studies ) extended their comments. Consequential to their comments we had heated panel discussion among keynote speakers and all the reporters. They talked about the present situation and the problem towards achievement of SDGs and countermeasure or difficulties against the pandemic.   Lastly Professor Hirakawa summarized. As to the present situation amid the pandemic, he took up the issue of vaccination of economic disparity between advanced nations and under-developing countries quoting a wealth of data. He winded up the forum introducing appeals by Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations and Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the World Health Organization.     Photos of the Day     SGRA NEWS ( Report of the 67th SGRA Forum) in Japanese (original)     LI Kotetsu /Director of INAF, SGRA Researcher, Member of SGRA Asian Designing Team         Translated by Kazuo Kawamura English checked by Sabina Koirala

September 10, United States President Joe Biden had conversation with Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party over the phone. Immediately after the conversation, United States announced that they are “considering severely” to change the name “Taipei Economic and Culture Representative Office” (Taiwan’s Diplomatic Establishment in America) to “Taiwan Representative Office”. In July, Taiwan established their Representative Office in Vilnius, the Capital of Republic of Lithuania through their discussions. Taiwan proposed EU (European Union) to change the name “European Economic and Trade Office” to “European Union Office in Taiwan” and the bill passed at EU Committee on Foreign Affaires in September. A series of such movement (changing “official name”) is the new wave in Western countries in recent atmosphere that they like to strengthen relations with Taiwan.   Since the foundation of socialism in China and depression of the presence of Taiwan in International community and prevention of Taiwan’s improvement in their International position have been Chinese ‘core’ issue in their diplomatic policy. The People’s Republic of China took place of the Republic of China in the United Nations in 1971. And in 1972, it was a ‘breakthrough’ for Taiwan that United States and Japan, both have been the most important supporting powers began to promote establishment of relations with Beijing in succession. Due to such sudden change of International situation, position of both sides of Taiwan Strait came to the historical ‘irrevocable’ conversion. Afterwards Beijing asked the Countries or Governments which have diplomatic relations with China to comply the agreement which those Governments should maintain ‘informal’ level with Taiwan inevitably. Against the news in Washington mentioned above, Chinese Embassy in United States developed an attitude saying “China oppose official exchanges between the United States and Taiwan in any style” as before.       “Lithuania Model” in Western countries:   Marking the beginning of 21st century the rise of China became apparent and the position of China in the world kept growing. Beijing aggrandized their International “Discourse Power” (power which makes the other side to accept). At the same time, difference of power at both side of Taiwan Strait increased day by day. A lot of companies in Western countries began to make investments in China and concluded trade relationship. It means Chinese international influence increased. But China could not stop Western and other countries to strengthen their relationship with Taiwan.  Recently, we had a series of “changing name” phenomena in Western countries (including Japan). On New Year’s Day 2017, Japan changed the name “Interchange Association” (Headquarter in Tokyo, Office in Taipei and Kaohsiung) to “Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association”. In May 2017, Taiwan side changed the name “Association of East Asia Relations” which handle administration affairs with Japan to “Taiwan-Japan Relations Association”. Taiwan changed the name “Coordination Council for North American Affairs” to “Taiwan Council for North American Affairs” in June 2019. “Netherland Trade and Investment Office” changed its name to “Netherland Office Taipei” in April 2020. And, as the title of this column shows, Lithuania agreed to establish “Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania” this year. They have not decided the name of Lithuanian Office in Taiwan yet, but the name would be “Lithuanian Representative Office in Taiwan”. EU will also change the name “European Economic and Trade Office” to “EU Representative Office in Taiwan”.   Against those phenomena Beijing took actions. Chinese ambassador in Lithuania was called home and Beijing banished Lithuanian ambassador in China who has just arrived at his post. It was a strict and rare measure taken by Beijing to a small country Lithuania which disobeyed. The writer (of this Essay) think that China warned the other Baltic States like Estonia and Latvia not to follow an evil deed as Lithuania and like to avoid the Domino effect in other Middle European countries. However, Beijing has witnessed shocking happenings. EU and America have replaced “Taiwan” as its’ official name. It was clear that Beijing is in a bottleneck that they tried to deter countries which have diplomatic relations from strengthening their relations with Taiwan.   “Lithuanian Model – Taiwan” Supported by U.S. Congress and Whitehouse “Decision”   America was not affected by “Lithuania Model”. Lithuania and other countries were one step ahead of America. They supported Washington’s official naming “Taiwan” thinking of strengthening relationship with Taiwan.   The tendency which American Congress want “Taiwan’s official name” has been nurtured. For example, on December 17, 78 members of the House of Representatives under the Trump Administration made three recommendations about the relations between America and Taiwan by letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In this letter, they recommended to change the name of Taiwanese organization in America to “Taiwanese Representative Office”. In July 2021, United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed the bill “Ensuring American Global Leadership and Engagement (EAGLE) Act”. It was the most noticeable point that they recommended the Government to start discussion about “official name” of Taiwanese representative. The reason why Whitehouse could say “we are considering seriously” is they had support of congress.   When we think about why they put “Taipei” instead of “Taiwan” to the name of overseas representatives is very rational and complicated. It is a result of their thinking that those countries have considered seriously based on their national profit, not from Beijing “pressure”. Taiwanese themselves, in the era of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo, sticked to the principle “Chinese and its Traitor cannot exist together”.   After 1949, especially after 1970s when Taiwan have experienced “labor pains” of “the wave of break-off of diplomatic relations”, Taiwan has groped for establishment of “non-diplomatic relations” with the countries which they had diplomatic relations before. When they discussed about establishment of their representative, the choice which “Taiwan” is the name of their representatives was omitted by reason that they did not want the name “Republic of China” to trivialize to “Taiwan”. And they decided to use “Taipei” because it was very usual to use the name of capital for countries in International diplomatic stages. “Washington” is used for America and “London” for United Kingdom.   The rise of China and higher presence of “Taiwan”    Why did Taiwan change their thinking of using “Taipei” for “Taiwan”? There were influences of “struggle for authority of representation” and a change of their consciousness of “International identity”.   In 1970s Sino-Taiwan relations were reversed in their international position as mentioned above and “the struggle for authority of representation since 1949” who represent China lawfully had ended. It became difficult for Taiwan, who had professed itself to be “Freedom China”, to call “China” in International societies. Perception among International societies including America and Japan, which were the most important friendly nations for Taiwan, began to recognize People’s Republic of China as “China”. In such context of transition of the International situation, people in Taiwan, especially the elite of society, began to establish their position as a separate space from Mainland.   There is another reason. In 1990s, Taiwan proceeded to political democratization and developed dynamic image of “Mainland” consciousness (Taiwan is Mainland). Structure of national identity changed rapidly. People in Taiwan began to recognize themselves as “Taiwanese” and agreed to recognize “Taiwan” as the place where they belong to. It led to the movement of “official name” of overseas representatives. “Formosan Association of Public Affairs (FAPA)” has been making efforts for years to pass “Favorable Bills (for Taiwan)” in United States congress promoted the subject of “official name” of Taiwanese overseas representatives.      Why do Western countries and Japan support “official name” movement of “Taiwan”? There are three factors. 1) They thought highly effects of democratization of Taiwan society and can enjoy together universal values in freedom, democracy, and human right. 2) China expanded “Export of autocratic politics” in Hong Kong. Western countries had a sense of danger against such Chinese intention which might expand to Taiwan. 3) Counter measures against the COVID-19 in Taiwan was thought to be relatively high among democratic societies.   We can say China value an influence of America in their management of international relations in an atmosphere that “New Cold War” is changing rapidly. Especially after the inauguration of President Joe Biden, China is bothered with America which develop its strategy about China to stay together with democratic countries. I think Beijing will not step into “New Cold War” with Washington furthermore as you can understand from telephone conversation between Xi Jinping and Biden. If White House would decide “official name” of “Taiwan Representative in United States”, it will be difficult for Beijing to take actions like “punishment” to Lithuania toward America such as recalling Chinese Ambassador Qin Gang in U.S. or rejecting an Inauguration of U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns in China.   China is rising now. Why cannot China stop such movement “the wave of official naming” like Taiwan’s being supported by Western countries which have leadership in international society? It will be an important issue for persons in China who are in charge foreign and Taiwan policies.     SGRA Kawaraban 682 in Japanese (Original)     LIM John Chuan Tiong / Chief Editor of “Min Pao Daily News” (Hong Kong)   This essay was written in the Chinese language. Chinese to Japanese translation by Arata Hirai  Translated by Kazuo Kawamura English checked by Sabina Koirala

 We had the 6th Meeting online for the “Possibility of Dialogue among National Historians of Japan, South Korea and China” in September. Since 2016, this meeting had been held under the support of Atsumi International Foundation for the purpose of dialogue among historians of National History in East Asia. Students who study international relations or histories of neighboring countries continue to have dialogues with the foreign people who are the subject of their research. In contrast, researchers of “National Histories” cannot have such experiences. In order to solve the historical frictions in East Asia that haunts this area since the 20th century, it is necessary to have dialogues among “National History” scholars who have been living in nationally closed circumstances. This dialogue was advocated by Professor LIU Jie, Waseda University, and were held biennially by historians from Japan, China and South Korea under the support of Atsumi International Foundation. The theme this time was “The Migration of People from the Perspective of Boundary, Political Power and Ethnicity”. After keynote speech by Professor SHIODE Hiroyuki, Kyoto University, two researchers each from Japan, China and South Korea gave response arguments.  Then, ten panelists developed their discussion for three hours and a half. In this meeting, the structure of our program was quite different from before. We asked only one speaker to present an organized discussion and let the discussions ride later. It was an adventurous attempt. Yet, we succeeded in realizing lively chain of discussions owing to the deliberate preparation and teamwork of the executive committee: MURA Kazuaki, Associate Professor of The University of Tokyo, LI Enmin, Professor of J.F. Oberlin University, NAM Kijeon, Professor of Seoul National University, PENG Hao, Associate Professor of Osaka City University, and CHONG Soon-il, Associate Professor of Korea University. In this meeting younger historians from three countries played a major role to show their willingness to step into the discussion beyond their specialized fields and nationalities. I think this was a great achievement that illuminates the future of this project. The original aim of the ‘Dialogue by National Historians’ was to resolve the historical friction among three countries in East Asia, especially between Japan and neighboring countries in order to ease the burden on international relations in this area. When the “historical perceptions” appeared as one of the controversial issues at the beginning of the 20th century, historians in my generation began historical dialogue beyond borders. After our numerous dialogues, we reached the common ground where every party tried to understand the background of the other side’s view when our understandings seemed to conflict. Recently, however, the governments in East Asia dare to confront each other by picking up territorial and other touchy issues. As a result, historical issues retroceded. We have lost the field where we can start historical dialogue on controversial period, the first half of the 20th century. It is unbearable to abandon the achievement of historians in East Asia at the beginning of this century. We would like to keep a table where historians of next generations can communicate and cooperate daily at an academic level. It will be more productive for historians to release themselves from nationally limited academies. On the other hand, we slightly changed the focus of dialogue from political deliberation into academic development. It may suit the generation change in participants. A group of younger scholars began to join this project during the former meeting in Philippines January, 2020. They took an initiative to organize the next meeting in cooperation with ex-scholarship students of Atsumi International Foundation. January this year, they took up a thoroughly new subject “19th century Pandemic and its Social Countermeasures in East Asia” having been conscious of the COVID-19. Despite of its epochal theme, they felt unsatisfactory because of lacking enough time for discussion. This was why they set up a new subject “The Migration of People from the Perspective of Boundary, Political Power and Ethnicity”. By doing so, they started to find historical narratives which exceed “National Histories” common in school textbooks in East Asia. We have to admit that we could not fully elaborate the issues during this meeting Yet, there was a session like “Certificates (Passports) for Crossing the Borders” in which the participants argued the theme from ancient to modern times. I think they can continue and develop their discussion to publish a collection of papers on East Asian experience on this subject. Today, we see the worst relations among three countries in East Asia. At the beginning of this century, we could not foresee such hostile relations. Yet, I have found a quite a different stream of cooperation in this meeting. Also, younger generation proved the capability of leading this stream. We witnessed the fact that there is a sphere not being regulated by politics. I wish this bond generated through academic dialogues would grow steadily. May our meeting contribute to start overcoming not only the COVID19 pandemic but also the hostile relations among East Asian nations. The dialogue this time gave me a happy expectation for future.  SGRA Kawaraban 648 in Japanese (Original)  MITANI Hiroshi / Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala

  2020 was the last year of my academic life abroad amid of COVID-19 pandemic. I have been studying Japanese expression culture in classic literature of the EDO period especially literature by IHARA SAIKAKU (1642-1693) and it was indispensable work for me to read source materials. It was a narrower path for me to reach source materials because of COVID-19. There are a lot of classic literature reprinted and we can see on the web site on databases. However, for my studying purpose, there are a lot of undisclosed manuscripts which are possessed by local libraries. If we can read cursive style of Japanese characters, we would be able to understand materials of history of the EDO culture more easily. But it was not easy to access such materials because there are limitations to enter University libraries under the pandemic. It seems we are far from the end of COVID-19 and re-opening of libraries.   I started to have a sense of mission without realizing which I had to search for Japanese literature and culture in avant-garde way. It was neither my impatience with which I publish result of my study nor intention which I grant privilege to SAIKAKU (a great author in the Genroku era). It originated from one big problem.   When I was studying Japanese literature in Korea University, I had an abstract question “Is it possible to think about ‘now and here’ transcending time?” I thought, in order to reconsider our society how it should be? It was necessary to view them by keeping some distance. In some cases, it will be necessary to have an intellectual attitude positively and reflectively. It may seem conflicting at first glance. But I decided to study Japanese expression culture before the Modern period at Graduate School and took notice of the fact that people in the Edo period have been keen to make a record of gossip and rumor.   It was beyond my imagination that Japanese in the Modern period liked strange topics and gossips. We can find various mysterious incidents and gossips in collection of stories (esp. myths, legends etc.), essays, diaries and memoirs starting from local countries’ talk, desultory gossip stories. Those stories or gossips were self-portrait of the Modern society, and they had a meaning of exchange of information. Therefore, I decided to study on the collection of strange talks named “Saikaku Shokoku-banashi (local countries’ talk)” (issued in 1685) and “Futokoro Suzuri (Inkstone in my bosom)” (issued in 1687). Saikaku tilted his attention to contemporary people and their way of thinking and described them vividly in his books. In his collection of strange talks, Saikaku described affairs of contemporary human customs and behavior using anecdotes, folk tales and legends at that time without retaining original appearance. There were a lot of fakes in his strange talks even though he liked to convey actualities in principle (based on actualities). It means customs and behavior or sentimental routine by contemporary people were written in transformed way. In other words, the problem is that when we are impressed by a particular story, it is not so easy for us to have questions why that expression was possible.   It is difficult whether we can think about ‘now and here’ transcending time as mentioned above. It will be an important opportunity to get answer to the question how we can think about ‘now and here’ transcending time. During this ten year, I have been studying how Saikaku produced his works and re-talking how we can share excitement with people at that time reading strange talks by Saikaku. Against such backdrop of awareness of the problem, I wrote my doctoral dissertation “Study of Strange Talks by Saikaku” examining the Talks precisely. I tried to explain strange portion in the Talks clearly as much as possible and made his performing activities (provoking power of expression) reactively. The method of my study was various, but ‘annotations’ were common.   A word ‘annotation’ seems stiff or formal feeling. But I examined each word which predecessors have used and investigated its’ meaning and sources. Annotation is the base of my examination for example of the past and construe or understand works turning back to the time. Every works was bound by institutional thought and sensibility which current people cannot be aware of. Annotation is a procedure which invites us to rich interpretation keeping time and space. At the same time, annotation is positive and reflective attitude against modern expression culture. Attractiveness of classic literatures is a tool for re-talking about our current world newly and give us a chance to enrich our social imagination.     However, classic literature may be forgotten someday unless it would be accepted. Saikaku wrote in his Strange Talks emotion and living behavior by Samurai and town people vividly which have not been appeared in the limelight of the history. It raised the question what was humanity of the people in Edo period? I have been sharing my new knowledge about history of expression culture in Japan through my study of his Strange Talks. The works of Saikaku were good objects of reconsideration in our way of life and how our society should be having a function of ‘reflecting mirror’. It will be my main subject to show to ordinary people and to spin old experiences of people who lived before modern era to new experience. I like to continue my study together with Atsumi International Foundation.     SGRA Kawaraban 681 in Japanese (Original)     YANG Sung-Yun / 2020 Raccoon, Lecturer of Korean University, Faculty of Japanese Language and Literature   Translated by Kazuo Kawamura English checked by Sabina Koirala     

 Last year I wrote an essay about “Charging for shopping bags at supermarkets in Japan” and lifestyle where people go shopping with “eco bag” (reusable shopping bag). As Gunma Prefecture where I live is motorized society, people go shopping with both shopping basket and eco bags. It means that it is necessary for them to use shopping basket or eco bags. Situation has changed.However, is it true that the amount of household garbage has decreased by charging shopping bags? We cannot see any change in the amount of garbage a week. I found an article “Contradiction! Buying garbage bags refuging shopping bags” in AERA (weekly magazine issued on June 14, 2021). People, who used to utilize shopping bags as garbage bags or compost bags changed to bring eco bags and buy garbage bags on a chargeable basis. Plastic bags which are used in supermarkets or convenient shops in Japan can be used as garbage bags and a lot of people utilize plastic bags as garbage bags. There was a comment written that people began to utilize their small transparent plastic bags (free) very often not to make their eco bags dirty. I think many people feel disagreement in their daily life for having eco bags. I am annoyed at whether it could decrease the amount of garbage. According to AERA, Ministry of the Environment（England）reported in 2011 that, in order to achieve “Possibility of Global Warming”, it would be necessary to use eco bags 131 times to decrease shopping bags. It is appreciated to have such concrete figure and people may think that they should get rid plastic bags. It is said that a lot of people keep many eco bags now and I realized there are a variety of eco bags in my house too. Reason why we feel denial is we cannot solve our own question whether we are “eco” or not?In other words, we cannot decide whether we should buy chargeable eco bags or bring plastic   bags. Yes, there are a lot of goods beside shopping bags which are made by plastic. AERA raised a question on this point and gave a clear answer finally saying that “it is important for us to be conscious of “eco” in total (not only by shopping bags)”. If people go to shopping by bicycle despite bringing shopping bags, they are considered as “eco”. I had strange feeling when a friend of mine received disposable chopsticks and spoon as a matter of course. He bought lunchbox and yogurt and declined to receive shopping bag. If he was conscious of eco, he should have denied receiving both chopsticks and spoon. If chopsticks and spoon were not free, he might bring them both. I think it’s OK as far as shopping bags would trigger for reduction of garbage. Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan) are putting together their new ideas of charging for waste disposal into materialization and are aiming for its introduction in April 2022. It is said that twelve items not only the items for eating but hangers of dry-cleaner’s, toothbrushes and hairbrushes of hotels would be also added. I expect consciousness for disposable would be raised when the new idea is implemented.When people would take care progressively what they can do in their daily life, and which means they participate in “eco” activity.  SGRA Kawaraban 680 in Japanese (Original)  XIE Zhihai / Assortiate Professor, Kyoai Gakuen University      Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Sabina Koirala