.

ascjball01.gif (226 bytes)

ASIAN STUDIES CONFERENCE JAPAN

Index

last update 06/20

ASCJ Executive Committee

Contact the organizers: Asian Studies Conference (ASCJ) c/o Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, International Christian University 3-10-2 Osawa, Mitaka-shi, Tokyo 181





Conferences
Inaugural conference
1998 conference
1999 conference
2000 conference
2001 conference



Conference venue
Nearby hotels
.
.
.

Summer 2000 ASCJ Conference Details

19.  Individual Paper Session:  International Relations

Co-Chairs: Keiko Sueuchi, Meiji Gakuin University and Wenran Jiang, University of Alberta

Paper 1:   Zha Daojiong, International University of Japan. "Economic Security:  Comparing Japanese and Chinese Conceptualizations"

     The end of the Cold War has led to a renewed interest in using the notion of "economic security" to study international political economy (IPE). In Western IPE research, just what "economic security" consists of remains a matter of debate. This contrasts with IPE research in East Asia.  First in Japan (since the 1970s) and now China (since the early 1990s), the idea of "economic security" is far less problematic and a popular research agenda.    

     This paper first reviews a seeming extension of security studies into the economic sphere in the Western academia.  It then goes over salient points in Japanese and Chinese notions of "economic security", compares and contrasts them to identify areas of convergence and divergence. Finally the paper reviews Japanese and Chinese reactions to the IMF/World Bankfs handling of the Asian Economic Crisis as an illustration of the contrast in Western, Japanese, and Chinese approaches to managing the global political economy at the turn of the century.         

Paper 2:  Takeuchi Hiroki, University of California, Los Angeles.  "Domestic Factors in the Taiwan Strait Crisis:  Taiwanese Democracy and Chinese Capitalism"

    As Robert D. Putnam points out in "Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The  Logic of Two-Level Games" (International Organization, 42, 3, Summer 1988),  domestic politics and international relations are often entangled.  Putnam offers a stimulating theoretical approach to this issue.  An interesting question is how domestic politics and international relations interact with each other.  This paper attempts to deepen our understanding of how they interact with each other by a case study of the Taiwan Strait crisis of 1996.      In 1996, China fired missile at the Taiwan Strait when the presidential election took place in Taiwan.  While this crisis, fortunately, ended with avoiding any real armed conflict between them, the event drew much attention all over the world.  Although the crisis should be examined within the framework of Sino-Taiwan relations, it is necessary to take two other factors into consideration: such as, (1) domestic politics of both China and Taiwan, and (2) their relations with the US.

   According to Thomas C. Schelling (1980) in The Strategy of Conflict, a strategic move "induces the other to choose in one's favor.  It constrains the other's choice by affecting his expectations" (p. 122).  How do states influence the other's expectations?  How do players in domestic politics influence decision-makers in international negotiations, and the reverse?  I consider these questions, focusing on the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1996.     First I discuss the Sino-Taiwan relations in the domain of international relations.  Second, I examine the impacts of Taiwan's domestic politics on Sino-Taiwan relations and vice-versa.  Third, I discuss the impacts of China's domestic politics on Sino-Taiwan relations and the reverse.  Fourth, I focus on the impacts of U.S. policies toward China and Taiwan.

Paper 3:  Lee Seokwoo,  University of Oxford. "The Legacy of Japanese Colonialism and the Resolution of Territorial Disputes in East Asia"

    Since the conclusion of World War II, over half a century ago, the legacy of  Japanese militarism and colonialism in East Asia has produced many  unresolved conflicts that have divided parts of the region. There are three ongoing territorial disputes in East Asia in which Japan is a disputant:  Against Russia, Japan continues to claim sovereignty over the Kurile Islands/Northern Territories, against China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands/Diao-yu-tai/Tiao-yu-tai, and against Korea, mainly South Korea, over Liancourt Rocks/Tokdo/Takeshima. Deep-rooted historical and emotional animosity between Japan and the other disputants is most certainly an impediment to the resolution of the territorial disputes in East Asia.

   Although the claimants for ownership of the three Islands in dispute often attempt to marshal support from ancient historical sources, it cannot be denied that much of the uncertainty surrounding territorial demarcations is a by-product of the post-World War II boundary decisions and territorial dispositions. All the three controversies in East Asia are not isolated territorial disputes between East Asian countries, but a reflection of the uncertain legacies of post-war decision making.

   Since the final disposition of territories in East Asia following the conclusion of World War II was effected by the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan of 1951, it should be placed in a pivotal position as one approaches territorial disputes in East Asia. Careful interpretation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and its implementation can clarify the nature of the disputes. It is equally important to reckon with subsequent events and the behaviour of interested countries.

Paper 4:   Robert Eldridge, Suntory Foundation.  "The Amami Reversion Movement:  Its Origins, Meaning, and Impact"

At one minute after midnight on December 25, 1953, the Amami Islands  (formerly a part of Kagoshima Prefecture) in southwestern Japan were returned to Japanese administration after being under U.S. military control for eight years.   Literally a "Christmas Present," the return of the islands was welcomed by the Japanese government and in by particular the 219,000 islanders and almost 200,000 Amami residents on the Japanese mainland.  Despite being an important event in postwar U.S.-Japan relations and having a great impact on America's Okinawa policy, the return of the Amami Islands remains for the most part unexamined.  Likewise little research exists on the Amami reversion movement itself, despite its clearly having had an impact on the policy-making decisions of both the Japanese and U.S. Governments.  Fortunately, however, original documents from the reversion movement are preserved in the Amami Islands and several volumes of memoirs and remembrances, written by participants in the movement, also exist shedding light on the activities of the various reversion groups.  Moreover, adding to the different and sometimes colorful viewpoints, these accounts were written by individuals in groups in Amami as well as support groups on the Japanese mainland, by those of conservative as well as Communist political persuasion, and leader and follower alike.

   The purpose of this presentation, which will combine the fields of political and diplomatic history, Japanese history, Japan studies, Okinawa studies, and studies on social movements, is to introduce in the time allowed the origins and activities of the Amami reversion movement, clarifying where necessary the different trains of thought in the movement, and suggesting what the meaning, significance, and impact of the movement was. The presentation is based on fieldwork done in the Amami Islands, as well as research trips to Kagoshima, Tokyo, and Washington.  It is to form a chapter or two in a future book in Japanese on the return of the Amami Islands and U.S.-Japan relations, and perhaps an individual article as well.

top