Search Results

Wang En-Mei (王恩美)

After 1949, the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea sought mutual cooperation and amity on the basis of anti-communism. The two nations used terms such as “brotherly nations” and “strong alliance” to refer to the relation between them. Despite the continuous publicizing both within the nations and internationally, the anti-communist alliance of roc and rok did not run as smoothly as it seemed. In fact, the two nations have never entered into a treaty of military alliance. “Treaty of Amity between the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea”, a treaty representing their amity, was not even signed until 1964. rok had rejected several times suggestions made by roc to sign a treaty of amity, mainly due to “the issue of overseas Chinese in Korea”. In other words, “the issue of overseas Chinese in Korea” was the crucial obstacle to the signing of “Treaty of Amity between the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea”. This article investigates the influences of the issue of overseas Chinese in Korea on the signing of “Treaty of Amity between the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea” and analyzes the reasons behind the focus of the Korean government on “the issue of overseas Chinese in Korea” and the contradiction of interests during the signing process. Through the signing of “Treaty of Amity between the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea”, conflicts of interest between the two seemingly harmonious nations are revealed, indicating the complexity and pluralism aspect of the East Asian anti-communist allegiance. (This article is in Chinese.)

1949年後,中華民國與大韓民國以反共為基礎,追求相互的合作與友好關係,彼此稱呼兩國關係為「兄弟之邦」、「堅強盟友」,不斷對內外宣傳兩國的反共同盟關係。然而,兩國的反共同盟關係並沒有如表面般順利進行,實際上兩國不僅沒有簽訂軍事同盟,連象徵友好關係的「中韓友好條約」也遲至1964年才簽訂。中華民國曾數次提出簽訂友好條約的要求,都遭韓國政府拒絕。韓國拒絕的最重要原因在於「韓國華僑問題」。換言之,「韓國華僑問題」是「中韓友好條約」的最大障礙因素。因此本文將探討韓國華僑問題對「中韓友好條約」簽訂過程所產生的影響,並分析韓國政府何以如此重視「韓國華僑問題」與「中韓友好條約」簽訂過程中的雙方利益衝突。透過「中韓友好條約」的簽訂過程,我們可以了解表面看來毫無衝突的兩者間,其實隱含著各自利益之衝突,可以顯現出東亞反共同盟隱藏的多元且複雜的面貌。

New Perspectives on Yenching University, 1916-1952

A Liberal Education for a New China

Edited by Arthur Lewis Rosenbaum

Essays in New Perspectives on Yenching University, 1916·1952 reevaluate the experience of China's preeminent Christian university in an era of nationalism and revolution. Although the university was denounced by the Chinese Communists and critics as an elitist and imperialist enterprise irrelevant to China's real needs, the essays demonstrate that Yenching's emphasis on biculturalism, cultural exchange, and a broad liberal education combined with professional expertise ultimately are compatible with nation-building and a modern Chinese identity. They show that the university fostered transnational exchanges of knowledge, changed the lives of students and faculty, and responded to the pressures of nationalism, war, and revolution. Topics include efforts to make Christianity relevant to China's needs; promotion of professional expertise, gender relationships and coeducation; the liberal arts; Sino-American cultural interactions; and Yenching's ambiguous response to Chinese nationalism, Japanese invasion, and revolution.

Arif Dirlik

historians retained their influence in Japanese academia well into the 1970s. 11 Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, Marxist Communism also emerged as a competitor with Anarchism in radical politics in Japan. Government repression throughout this period prevented the emergence of a serious radical

Zaoxia Cheng

The U.S. policy toward Tibet has always changed in accordance with the U.S. international strategy and the U.S. foreign policy toward China. Before the foundation of the People’s Republic of China, the U.S. admitted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. During the Cold War, due to its anti-communism strategy, the U.S. began to consider recognizing the independence claim of Tibetan separatists, especially after 1959, when the Dalai Lama was exiled abroad. However, the U.S. government has not openly admitted Tibet is an independent country, because, in the light of the historical development of Tibet within China, claims of independence cannot be substantiated and therefore Tibetan separatism cannot win the recognition or support of the majority of countries in the world.