SGRA Kawaraban (Essay) in English

  • Li Yanming “One Belt One Road” – Search for Chinese Strategies and Implication

    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
  • MITANI, Hiroshi “Re-opening of the Dialogue of Histories in East Asia ― The Mongol Invasions Conference in Kita-Kyushu”

    “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 
  • M. Jakfar Idrus ”Revival of Iitate-mura:the status quo and its problem”

    A weird warning siren, which announced that the ICBM by North Korea has overflown Hokkaido (the most northern part of Japan), blared out in the archipelago in the early morning on September 15 (Fri.) 2017.Listening to this news, we, sixteen SGRA Fukushima Study Tour members left Tokyo Station by Shinkansen for Iitate-village in Fukushima Prefecture. The SGRA Fukushima Tour, sponsored by the Atsumi International Foundation, started in the year 2012 for the purpose of inspection and studying the situation of the revival there after the disaster. Recall that on March 11, 2011, a big “Tsunami” hit Tohoku (North-Eastern)-area in Japan and radioactive contamination by the Fukushima Nuclear Power Accident caused by Tsunami became an extraordinary accident in world history. Our tour has been focusing on Iitate village where people were forced to take refuge and we have made site inspections  every year for these six years. It was the third time for me. Tour members this time came not only Japan but also from Indonesia, South Korea, China, Ghana, Italy, Sweden, Canada, Nepal and the United States. In Iitate, a provision for the evacuation zone was lifted this April and people were returning to build a new village. We, tour members, wanted  to understand how these people are tackling the difficult problem of building a new village. We have been watching the actual change of Iitate through communication with villagers. This was the most important purpose of our tour. I vividly remember a scene of Iitate when I visited last time in 2015.  At that time, the provision for evacuation was not lifted yet and we saw only decontamination workers. It was very miserable to see houses which were left as vacant houses and exposed to the wind and rain. Many houses were still vacant and we saw only a lot of flexible container bags of decontamination soil around houses and on fields. When I entered the village this time, I could see different sceneries. Some crumbling houses which belong to the people who are allowed to return are being newly built and I could see vinyl farming houses here and there. We could see also field of rice (for making Japanese “sake”. Such changes of sceneries made me feel strongly that the people have already started to build their new village. A gloomy image of the disaster-stricken area has already changed. We met Mr. Muneo Kanno, a villager of Iitate and Vice-President of the “Association of Resurrection of Fukushima”, and came to know that building a new village is not simple.He said “though the village was removed from the evacuation area category and the villagers have been allowed to return, we are faced with a lot of difficulties. I like you to see with your own eyes and feel by yourself what problems or difficulties we have. ”It was really our purpose of the SGRA Fukushima Tour. According to the Manager, General Affairs Section, Iitate, “there were about 6,000 villagers before the disaster.  And only 400, out of those 6,000, came back now but almost all are the aged. Many people come on village daytime every day from outside of Iitate. We have to overcome a lot of difficulties to restore to original condition and we have to improve the  present environments for the return of villagers.”We visited many facilities and got the opinions of people who endeavor to build a new village.  I like to report here some of these opinions.. Nursing home for the agedThey can use, even now, a nursing home for the aged which was built before the disaster and was not damaged. However, there are not enough nurses or care workers to maintain or operate such a home. Mega-solar panel:In the western area of Iitate, we saw large-sized mega-solar panels which are manufactured by a big company in Tokyo. The fields were not for farm use. The solar panels may be a trial for building a new village, but I had a feeling that something is out of place and not in harmony with nature. I hope the solar panels would not become another trouble for the life of the people in Iitate. Flower gardening:We visited Mr. Takahashi’s vinyl house. He is a farmer and growing flowers there and got his powerful opinion.  I got a strong feeling that the efforts for their future by the people who returned to the village are the basis for their development. Takahashi-san’s energy or power which try to overcome such difficulties impressed me a lot. Roadside station:”House of MADAY LIFE”:House (station) of “MADAY” Life was built as an overriding policy by the government as a symbol of the revival of Iitate.  As there is no shop in Iitate yet, such shops, convenient shops, direct sales of farm products from farmers and light meal corners in “House of MADAY”, are being completed for the improvement of villagers’ life and interchange of villagers themselves.  I hope people from other area also come to House of MADAY.*Maday :Dialect of Iitate area in Fukushima Flower Garden in Meadow:We visited the flower garden of Mr. Kin-ichi Okubo (aged 76 years) who is called as a “wizard of flower”. It is not the same as Takahashi-san’s flower garden mentioned above. Mr. Okubo has a dream and is trying to build a large scale flower garden for narcissuses or cherry trees utilizing the mountainside or paddy field, both of which are polluted by radioactivity. Young fellows are also working together as volunteers. I was surprised at his energy which does not look his age of 76.I am sure this flower garden would become a famous spot in Iitate  in the near future. Religious facilities:We visited “Yamatumi-shrine”. We met the village chief by chance and we were able to get his opinion about the present situation of the village. I think religion plays a big role in the revival of the village. Especially in Japan, traditional habits or festivals are deeply connected with the local shrines or temples. I am an Indonesian and a Muslim. In Indonesia, religion also plays an important role for the revival from disasters. We could make a heart-warming interchange with the people in Iitate in this SGRA Fukushima tour and learned a lot. We appreciate people who cooperated with us this time. I believe the lifting of the evacuation area would be a starting point for their restoration.And I like to keep my strong interest in Iitate hereafter believing in a brilliant future of Iitate. Photos SGRA Report of The 6th Fukushima Study Tour in Japanese (Original)  (Visiting Researcher of Kokusikan University)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Max Maquito 
  • Letizia Guarini ‟Compassion and Literature after 3.11: Why did Yū Miri move to Minami-Soma City (Fukushima Pref.)? "

          …. Another reason why I moved to Minami-Soma City was the “compassion”. After the Great East Japan Earthquake, the words “kizuna” (bonds), “ganbarou” (let’s struggle together!), or “yorisou” (to get close) were everywhere. Such words were based on pity and goodwill, but those feelings come from the outside. The pain that people who are suffering feel is their own; for the others, like me, it is impossible to feel the same pain. However, I can open myself toward that pain.(Yū Miri, There are Unnecessary Things in our Lives) We can say that after the Great East Japan Earthquake Japanese literature has changed in various ways. After March 21st, 2011 the category “post 3.11” appeared, with many literary works focusing on issues such as the nuclear power plants, the criticism toward the government, the effects of radiation on living creatures, as well as the problems of restoration and reconstruction. A lot of books have analyzed “post 3.11 literature”, and have been translated in many languages. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that modern Japanese literature has moved toward a new direction after the Great East Japan Earthquake.Moreover, we can see such changes in the connections between literature and various actions and groups. I will introduce three examples. In April 2012, Waseda Bungaku (Waseda Literature) was published as an extra issue with the title “Ruptured Fiction(s) of the Earthquake”: it includes short stories written especially for this charity program, as well as essays and roundtable discussions on the place of writing after a disaster like the Tōhoku earthquake. It has been translated into English, Chinese, Korean and Italian, and the proceeds of the book as well as the translations are being donated to the Red Cross. In October 2012, the “Association of writers for a society without nuclear power” was created. This association emphasized the role of fiction after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the necessity to talk about the problems associated with nuclear power. Furthermore, in 2015 Nobel-winner Kenzaburō Ōe spoke at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan, saying that “we have no choice but to achieve a world without nuclear power. Keeping raising my voice: that may be the last job I can do.” His words had a big impact all over the world. There is one more way we can look at the relation between the Great East Japan Earthquake and the “movement” within Japanese literature. That is, writers have “moved”. Evacuation problems after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster arose not only in Fukushima Pref., but also in other regions. Starting with the Akutagawa Prize novelist Hitomi Kanehara, many writers, worried about the radioactive contamination, decided to move from Tokyo to Kansai area. Yū Miri was one of them. In her interview, Yū Miri said that her decision to move from Kamakura to Osaka on March 16, 2011 was based on her feelings as a mother: “I wanted my son to evacuate as far as possible for his own safety”. On the other hand, as a writer she felt the need to go immediately to Fukushima. In April, 2011 she returned to Kamakura, and began to visit Fukushima regularly in order to listen to the stories of people living there. She finally moved to Soma-City in Fukushima Pref. in April, 2015. What are the reasons behind her decision? “We cannot live there, although we want to.” “We have to live there, although we do not want to”. The nuclear disaster, and the problem of radioactive contamination are closely linked to the issue of “living”. Yū Miri has stressed that every person has a different bond with his/her birthplace: in order to understand that pain, we have to listen to each individual story. However, as she was listening to those painful stories while living in another place, Yū Miri felt that something was wrong: she realized that real empathy toward the pain suffered by the local people might be attained only by stepping on the same soil, breathing the same air with them. In her words, “compassion” (that is, “to suffer together”), was necessary. What would be the result of this “compassion”? A lot of “post 3.11” literary works have focused on a subject unable to write, powerless. On the other hand, Yū Miri has tried to narrate Fukushima from a different perspective. Until December, 2016 she has gathered the voices of nearly 450 people through a special FM radio program, “Two persons, one person”, held by Minami-Soma (southern part of Soma-City) special broadcasting station. About those stories she has written as follows: “Those are voices that I have heard from the outside, but they entered my body, and after a few days they suddenly changed to my own voice. His or her pain rises from my body, and the images of what he or she has lived spread through my mind as if they were my own memories.” Although Yū Miri has talked about the life in Soma-City in her essays and interviews, she has not written any fictional work about the people in Fukushima Pref. However, she has chosen to “suffer together” with those people, removing feelings based on pity and goodwill, which come from the outside. We can expect that such a writer would keep writing about the pain of people affected by Fukushima nuclear disaster, as well as about their hopes and smiles, and spread those stories around the world.  SGRA Kawaraban 551 in Japanese (Original)  (PhD candidate in Literature, Ochanomizu University) Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Mac/Max Maquito
  • Peng Hao “Approach to “Common Knowledge” and “Common Wisdom” in East Asia “

    We had the forum “The Mongol Invasions of Japan and the Globalization of the Mongol Empire in the 13th Century” in the city of Kita-Kyushu in the early part of August 2017, sponsored by the Atsumi International Foundation. It was the second forum of the series “Possibilities of Conversations among National Historians”. Historians from Japan, China, Korea and Mongolia got together and discussed about the history of the Mongol Empire, especially about its impact on East Asia.  As, I, a researcher of histories, participated in the planning of this project, I had a lot of impressions which cover various things. Taking this opportunity of writing this essay, I like to briefly organize my impressions. First of all, the forum, this time, was not merely an international conference based on a key topic “The Mongol Invasions of Japan”. I would like to emphasize again the following points. We like to describe a history of mankind, first, from a viewpoint different from the historical description of the nation state. Next, we would like to correct mistaken perceptions of histories, which dominate through the influence of national history view, so as to improve relations among countries or people, which have been hindered by the problem of politicized historical recognitions which come from political confusion of means and objects.  Actually, there have been various recent conversations of histories among those three or two countries, Japan, China and Korea, as several participants of the forum referred.Some conversations were well known being led by government. Or some show high specialties in methods of researches or themes or the way of usage of historical records.Each direction or goal is not always the same. As Prof. Hiroshi Mitani pointed out, if we think of relationship, after the conversations, becoming friendly or unfriendly, we have to say that conversation based on private interaction is easier to proceed. On the other hand, private-based conversations are easy to result in deepening discussion on individual theme or technical knowledge. However, as those researchers have their own “habits” or proceed by force of habit, they are completely absorbed in discussing their interesting theme. As a result, they tend to neglect important points such as how to promote common recognition of histories from their technical discussion without thinking of social meanings of the theme. There are quite a few “conversations” which ended halfway because the participants could not continue their researches due to financial difficulties, though they got subsidy for their researches. Concerning such problems, there is a key concept: “Common Space for Wisdom” or “Platform of Wisdom”, which Prof. Liu Jie proposed as an object of the forum. The meaning of the word “Wisdom” is very broad and we can say it contains the meaning of “Knowledge” also. Through technical researches, it creates reliable historical “Knowledge” and also creates “Wisdom” which benefits to overcome adverse effects of the national historical perspective. .I dare to add this point here because we tend to forget when we proceed with our technical discussion.    I like to add my impression based on the point in dispute. One is an evaluation of the so-called “Impact of Mongolia”. Prof. Yasuhoro Yokkaichi reported an invasion to East Asia by Mongolia in perspective.  A Mongolian element, as part of the impact of the advance of Mongolia, spread to whole of East Asia including China. But, as Mongolia has ruled China and extended their influence throughout China, we can say that some areas have been affected also by Chinese culture. I was very interested in the three-dimensional report about “Mongol Impact”. In the discussion of the history of the Qing Dynasty (1616–1912), we could get a historical image that a ruler of the Dynasty had various faces besides being an emperor of China. He has built various ways of dominance depending on areas or races under his rule. Comparing the history of Qing Dynasty with that of Mongol Empire, historical documents written in Mongolian language were very limited. Especially, the history of East Asia was written mainly by classical Chinese and most of the existing historical documents are written by classical Chinese.Due to this, an image of the Yuan Dynasty, one of the Chinese dynasties, is easy to establish. But, on the contrary, we cannot distinguish an identity or independence of Mongol or plurality of Mongolian Dynasty. Recently, an image of a rich Mongol Empire became distinct by an effort of Prof. Masaaki Sugiyama.  Listening to the reports of this forum, a historical image of Mongol Empire became clearer in my mind and I was very impressed. Having related to the above, there is a problem to be solved. As Prof. Liu Jie pointed out when he summarized the whole discussion, there are double meanings in China under rule of Mongolia and China, a part of Mongol Empire. How to handle this problem when we discuss as “Common Knowledge” or “Common Wisdom”?  There are many opinions. We can take up “Yuan Dynasty” as a part of Chinese history as in the past. But, as  Prof. Ge Zhaogung pointed out, there is a way of multiple layered description, in the context of the histories of East Asia or of Eurasia.  Now, the so-called “Nation-state” has a lot of problems, which have no sign of being solved soon. But, it is not realistic to neglect their historical views about such “Nation-states”. Or rather, through such multi-layered descriptions about histories, if we can integrate various historical images, which we could not see until now, into text books, it would be useful to build “Common Knowledge” and “Common Wisdom” in the long run. I was also interested in how researchers of Mongolian histories made conversations with “the past” despite of the situations that the first historical sources were scarce. Through various reports, this time, I could understand well that reporters have strived for their creative and original studies by criticizing compiled historical books, using an approach that is not based on written datand by inference based on “common sense” in human societies and their historical background. Through the conversations of historians who handle different eras and areas, they stimulated each other in their methodology. But, I thought such conversations, in another sense, make a connection with an approach to “Common Wisdom”. SGRA Kawaraban 550 in Japanese (Original)  ( Associate professor, Graduate School of Economics, Osaka City University )  English: Translated by Kazuo Kawamura Checked by Max Maquito
  • Chang Kuei-E “Global Dynamism of Manga & Animation Research and Its New Possibility”

     Tezuka Osamu, famous cartoonist every Japanese knows, said “Novel is made by letters from pictures. Illustration is made by pictures. Manga is made by pictures from letters. Comment is made by letters.”  It is said that he regarded “Manga” as “the third culture” which exists just between pictorial culture and literal culture. In France, on the other hand, where they have peculiar aesthetic sense and sharp discerning sense for originality of artworks, Manga is regarded as “The 9th Art”.And, Manga became the subject of criticism or research recently.  It is also brought to public attention that the Louvre Museum, the world greatest sanctuary of the art, has opened its door at last in the 21st century to Manga which has both pictorial beauty of visual arts and stylish beauty of linguistic expressions. In the past, Manga has been denigrated as vulgar reading, uncultivated amusement or just sub-culture in“business-first culture”.  However, by the effort of creative Manga writers who pursued originalities and innovativeness, Manga is now owned commonly by the people all over the world as a treasure house of art which represents deep culture or cultural products which depict world view or philosophical principles.Due to this, a boom wherein Manga collections should be enhanced in libraries or museums has broken out in the world, especially in Japan and France. Animation or cinematization of Manga has progressed dramatically by the remarkable evolution of digital image technology.  And it became the latest culture which dominated the world immediately. Globalized Manga and animation culture have built a wonderland like fascinating cosmos which seems to have reached the summit of visual art. It captivated the young in the world.  Readers or viewers of Manga are invited to the unusual daily-life and are enchanted.  Manga and animation are now media to understand themselves or understand others and the world. The Manga-animation culture, which has become a sub-culture of comic magazines or books through paper medium, or animations, goods relating to popular characters and cosplay (dressing up the costume of a character), has now made birth “content industries” of global scale. It caused changes to the main culture of a country, affecting their economic development. We can say that it is the source of our soft-power which changed our life-style dynamically affecting the behavior of people today.  In 2001, the “Japan Society for Studies in Cartoons and Comics” was established and it became possible to academically and internationally approach the profound world of Manga from an academic viewpoint.  In 2006, a faculty of Manga was established for the first time in a university where they educate and study Manga there In the same year 2006, the Kyoto International Manga Museum was also established as the world-first “new style institution which has both the functions of a museum and a library. It attracts attention of the world as a sacred place of contents-tourism for enthusiastic Manga-fans who shall visit there once in their life time. In Taiwan also, a lot of cultural courses in universities which are being opened one after another so that they can deepen their understanding of culture and society of foreign countries through Manga.  Soochow University enhanced their collection of books on comics and set up the “Area for Reading Manga” in their library in 2014. They conducted academic symposia, also searching for possibilities of Manga-Animation culture; and cooperated with a faculty of Japanese language. Ahead of other universities, Soochow University is at the front of Manga-Animation culture which has already spread and has become established globally, and is trying to create its new possibilities looking steadily at the future of their academic researches. In May, 2018, we will have “The 8th Japan-Taiwan Asia Future Forum” in Taipei to be co-sponsored by Atsumi International Foundation and Soochow University.  We will discuss there about the “New Possibility of Global Dynamism of Manga-Animation Research” aiming at promoting academic “Media-Contents Studies”.  We paid attention to an appeal of “Manga-Animation Culture” which has spread on a world-wide level, based on an essay on “screen image culture” which can be owned jointly or felt sympathy as communication tools.In other words, we would like to set up a creative stage for considering processes of progress of “Contents Industry” which can be created together by global citizens of the next generation, as well as a stage for considering so-called “theory of emergence” of  Manga-animation, which we can emotionally support and own jointly as our communication tool for disseminating our culture. In our sessions, we would like to discuss on following themes: collection, preservation and utilization of Manga; translation of Manga-Animation and its communication among different cultures; theory and practice of formation of Manga literacy; Manga-animation and a theory of tales; visual arts theory; theory of pictures; mixing of Manga-animation and media and their multi-use; cultural economy of Manga-animation, Manga-animation culture and sociology etc. In this forum, we aim at finding new possibilities by researchers and participants who decipher “Dynamism of Manga-Animation Research”, which has become global now, from their own standpoints and academic approach.  We hope we can contribute to promoting our mutual understanding and exchange of ideas between Japan-Taiwan and among the East Asian countries.  *”Japan-Taiwan Asia Future Forum” is an international conference sponsored by Atsumi International Foundation Sekiguchi Global Research Association (SGRA), Japanese Interest Incorporated Foundation, and operated by an executive committee run by ex-scholarship students, living in Taiwan (members of Taiwan Raccoon-kai).This Forum is in line with the objective of SGRA of promoting academic exchange between Japan and Taiwan, deepening of Japan study and studying a future of Asia. At the Forum, we take up many subjects like language, culture, literature, education, law, history, society and regional exchange, etc. as Taiwan is very liberal and respects freedom of speech, thought and creed.  At the 8th Forum in 2018, we will have an international symposium on Manga-Animation culture co-sponsored by Japanese language faculty and Library of Soochow University. SGRA Kawaraban 544 in Japanese (Original) (Associate Professor, Soochow University)  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by MacMaquito
  • Kim Yullee ”Korean Presidential Election – People selected “burying the past abuse””

    Mr. Moon Jae-in was elected the 19thKorean president on May 9, 2017. The election, this time, was held for the presidency, which has been vacant after the impeachment of his predecessor, Park Geun-hye. The former president Park should have been the “symbol of obedience to the constitution and laws” to the Korean people. But, she was impeached at the Constitutional Court because she violated seriously the constitution and the law. She is imprisoned now in the detention house. As everybody knows, she is a daughter of ex-President Park Chung-hee, who   was president from 1963 to 1979. He seized power by a military coup and adopted a strong policy toward the economic development of Korea. The evaluation on his presidency, however, is divided into two.  One is that he was “a great leader” who built the foundation of the present Korean economy having guided Korea to economic miracle from the poor Korea, which had been suffering from the Korean War following after the colonial rule.  It may be an extreme example that there are people who deify and worship him celebrating his birthday as a festival.  On the other hand, he is considered a dictator who kept his post for a long time and having removed his opponents cruelly.  People should review that era and move on, because the present issues in Korean politics, economy and society, to a certain degree, come from the faults of the dictatorship of Park Chung-hee. It is said that a view for Park Chung-hee is a standard for distinguishing between reformists and conservatives.  Park Geun-hye, despite her little success as a politician, won her presidency by the overwhelming support of the conservatives due largely to her father’s prestige. In addition to this, in the slowdown of the Korean economy these several years, people felt a longing for the time of Park Chung-hee when the Korean economy made a great quantitative progress. Such feelings might have affected Park Geun-hye, who claimed the rebuilding of Korean economy during her presidency. On the contrary, during the time of Park Geun-hye, people had a difficult time.Especially, the so-called “Sampo Generation” (three generations of giving-up courtship, marriage and children) became miserable in their life. University students could not indulge in courtship as they had to study for finding jobs. And, even after getting jobs, they could not get married, which cost much and their salaries are not enough for this purpose.  Even if they get married, the couple have to work together for a living (double harness) and have to give up having children because child rearing and education cost much. The words “Sampo generation” appeared around the year 2011, the time of President Lee Myung-bak. The situation of the young, which this new words represent, was getting worse. The minimum wage by the hour in 2017 is Won 6,470 (about Yen 650).  The average lunch price is about Won 6,500. This means that the young worker barely ekes out lunch by working for one hour at convenience stores, etc.. Not only the young but also the most people were disappointed with the government of Park Geun-hye, which showed incapability to guard the lives of the Korean people, as in the case of the “Sinking of MV Sewol” or the outbreak of MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) in addition to the seriousness of difficulties of living. And, the political scandal of “the Choi Soon-sil–Gate” proved to be the trigger of the impeachment of the president. The Korean people who endured their hardships (not only the people who have never supported Park Geun-hye before, but also those who regret having supported Park) voted this time for Moon Jae-in, who appealed for “burying the past abuse”. Moon’s victory this time signifies a lot.  It is not a simple regime change.It is more a voice of reform against dictatorial presidency which became clear by the impeachment of the former president Park Geun-hye; against the prosecution who pander to the authority; and against collusion between the government and the big businesses. It is also a voice for easing the present economic inequality and consideration for the weak.  SGRA Kawaraban 535 in Japanese (original) Kim Yullee (2015 Raccoon) /Ewha Womans University (Korea), Finished Ph. D program without a Ph. D degree, Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, The University of Tokyo in 2015  Translated by Kazuo KawamuraEnglish checked by Mac Maquito
  • Frank Feltens “Flower Country”

    The Nobel Prize-winning Japanese writer Yasunari Kawabata began his novel Snow Country with the the famous sentence “The train came out of the long tunnel into the snow country.” The word “Snow Country“ (yukiguni) is located in Niigata Prefecture, facing the Sea of Japan. Kawabata wrote poetically about a part of Japan that is covered by snow every winter.  But for me, rather than being a “Snow Country,” Japan is a “Flower Country.” Japanese people often try to enlighten me by saying that “there are four seasons in Japan.” Needless to say, there are four seasons in countries everywhere in the northern hemisphere like Germany and the United States. That being said, the four seasons in Japan are special and somewhat strange. Flowers bloom everywhere in the world, of course. But in flower-country Japan flowers play a surprisingly important role. Flowers bloom in every season, like plum trees in winter, cherry blossoms in spring, balloon flowers in autumn and chrysanthemums in winter. People can salvage the beauty of nature all year round.  In Japan, the change of seasons or differences in temperature are not as clear-cut compared to Germany, where I was born, and the United States, where I studied. In Canada, where I have spent my high school days, I cherished the change of seasons. In Canada, you could feel the difference between seasons very clearly.  When winter ends and the snow melts, people leave their houses and rub their eyes like bears coming out of hibernation. It is the time they shout with joy “how nice and warm!” But Japan triggers a similar feeling although the difference in seasons is less distinct. Every Vernal Equinox Day during the four years that I have lived in Japan, I was filled with this incredible and irrepressible joy. I wondered to myself “why?”. I found the answer in the beginning of this year: It is “flowers.” I found my joyfulness in flowers, not in temperature or in sunshine. This revelation was my most important discovering this year. I realized that seeing the flowers blossom around myself made me incredibly happy. In the flower country, Japan, flowers start blossoming shortly after it becomes warm. Flower buds are waiting on withered branches to blossom in spring and they start greeting us during the first days of warm sunshine. In Japan, flowers are cerebrated more than fresh leaves which are synonym for the arrival of the warm season in other countries. The color of the Japanese spring is pink, not green. Plum flowers blossom right in between winter and spring; their flowers are mysterious and have a unique beauty. Plum flowers blossom on knotty branches, which seem to be hundreds of years old.  When thinking of plum flowers, I remember the Kitano Tenmangu Shrine in Kyoto, which I visited while studying in Japan for the first time. More than the flowers itself, however, I recall their fragrance. When I visited the shrine in February 2007, I was unexpectedly engulfed by the sweet and gentle scent of the plum blossoms, giving me the feeling that I was reborn in paradise. The wind carried the fragrance of the plum blossoms to my nose.I recalled also a Waka (Japanese poetry – 31 syllable (letter) Japanese poem) by the poet Fujiwara no Teika (1162–1241). Among his poems, we find a verse saying “umeno-hana kozuewo – naete, hukukazeni, sorasae-niou, haruno- akebono”. (meaning: the plum blossoms, in the wind which is blowing to wither treetops, is fragrant in the air of daybreak on a spring morning)At this instant, Japan changed, in my feeling, to plum-blossom-country. When I was waiting for the train sometime this February, the wind once again carried the plum blossom fragrance to my nose. Although I could not spot a plum tree nearby, the wind had brought me a present.       Generally speaking, people think spring in Japan arrives together with the cherry blossoms. But, for me plum blossoms, which connect spring with winter embody spring. Cherry blossoms which have come to represent Japan are different from plum blossoms. Plum blossoms herald spring, but cherry blossoms, which fall like a snowstorm, reiterate the winter of Kawabata’s snow country and translate it into spring.  It is strange, for me, that Japanese people change their feeling of seasons by snowfall of cherry blossom from winter to spring. Another strange thing in Japan is the timing of the seasons. Spring arrives every year around the same time and the forecast of the cherry blossoms is usually very accurate. Plum blossoms, on the other hand, give us their beauty silently and without much commotion. I believe that plum blossoms represent Japan. However, as cherry blossom supersede everything in Japan, the value of each seasons may be overshadowed.  In Japan, the word “flower” (hana) is synonymous with “cherry blossoms” since the Heian period (794–1185). But, I think the most appealing aspect of Japan, “the flower country,” is the abundance of flowers that blossom in each and every season. Due to global warming, the climate of Japan is also changing, But what will not change are the flowers in the minds of the Japanese. SGRA Kawaraban 526 in Japanese (Original) Frank Feltens / Anne van Biema Fellow in Japanese Art, Freer|Sackler Galleries, Smithsonian Institution (Washington, D.C.) Translated by Kazuo Kawamura
  • Takeshi Kawasaki “Name of the War and Possibility of Dialogue among National Histories” (Report No.2 of the 3rd Asia Future Conference “Environment and Coexistence”)

    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
  • John Chuan- Tiong Lim “Trump- Tsai Telephone Call”: The beginning of new rivalry between America and China

    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