Book review: Masahiro Wakabayashi, — (The ‘Republic of China’ and the politics of Taiwanization: The changing identity of Taiwan in post-war East Asia), University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, 2008; xvi + 488 pp., with index: 978413030146, ¥6,800

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-114
Author(s):  
Naoki Ishigaki
Author(s):  
Scott Pacey

The KMT sought to foster one value in particular—that of patriotism, or loyalty to the Republic of China. In this context, the elite Buddhists covered in this chapter presented Buddhism as patriotic, and aligned with the “modern” Chinese values promoted in the post-war context. On the other hand, they presented Christianity as antithetical to these. Such a stance painted Christianity as inherently unpatriotic, and therefore discordant with the KMT’s socio-political vision. Interfaith competition thus allowed these Buddhists to craft, and express, a politically acceptable identity. The chapter examines these issues through the writings of two Buddhist figures: Zhuyun and Shengyan (then writing as “The General who Awakens the World”), and a Christian pastor, Wu Enpu.


2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tehyun Ma

This article explores planning for reconstruction in the Republic of China by focusing especially on the response to the British government-commissioned 1942 Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social Insurance and Allied Services, better known as the Beveridge Plan, a blueprint for the post-war welfare state. The Beveridge Report was translated into Chinese in 1943, and its ideas were widely discussed among cosmopolitan social policy experts in the Republic of China’s Ministry of Social Affairs. Chinese delegates returned from the International Labour Organisation conference in Philadelphia in 1944 persuaded that social security was the spirit of the age, and began to draw up plans for what one policymaker called China’s own Beveridge Plan. After 1945 some of these ideas were incorporated into policy. I argue that while the debate over social welfare in the Republic of China (ROC) hinged on indigenous traditions of benevolence, labour unrest and the relative weakness of the ROC state, it was also shaped by the nation’s alliance with Britain and the US in particular, and the role of social policy experts in multinational organisations and networks.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 252-271
Author(s):  
Madoka Fukuda

AbstractThis article examines the substance and modification of the “One-China” principle, which the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) pursued in the mid 1960s. Under this principle, a country wishing to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC was required first to break off such relations with the Republic of China (ROC). In 1964 the PRC established diplomatic relations with France. This was its first ambassadorial exchange with a Western government. The PRC, in the negotiations over the establishment of diplomatic relations, attempted to achieve some consensus with France on the matter of “One-China”. The PRC, nevertheless, had to abandon these attempts, even though it demanded fewer conditions of France than of the United States (USA), Japan and other Western countries in the 1970s. The PRC had demanded adherence to the “One-China” principle since 1949. France, however, refused to accept this condition. Nevertheless, the PRC established diplomatic relations with France before the latter broke off relations with the ROC. Subsequently, the PRC abandoned the same condition in negotiations with the African governments of the Republic of Congo, Central Africa, Dahomey and Mauritania. After the negotiations with France, the PRC began to insist that the joint communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations should clearly state that “the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China”. However, France refused to insert these words into the communiqué. Afterwards, the PRC nevertheless insisted on putting such a statement into the joint communiqués or exchanges of notes on the establishment of diplomatic relations with the African countries mentioned above. This was done in order to set precedents for making countries accede to the “One-China” principle. The “One-China” principle was, thus, gradually formed in the process of the negotiation and bargaining between the PRC and other governments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document