Comparison Research of the New Southbound Policy of the Republic of China and the New Southern Policy of the Republic of Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 97-138
Author(s):  
Kwon-Ho Lee ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Comparison Research ◽  
The Republic Of China ◽  
The Republic

Asian And Pacific Council

1966 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 845-845 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
South Korea ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
External Threats ◽  
South Vietnam ◽  
The Republic Of China ◽  
The Republic

Meeting in Seoul on June 14–16, 1966, nine non-Communist Asian and Pacific nations declared dieir common determination to preserve their integrity and sovereignty in die face of external threats and invited other free countries in the region to join the newly formed Asian and Pacific Council (ASPAC). Participating in the conference were Australia, the Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Malaysia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Thailand, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). Laos attended as an observer.

“The Issue of Overseas Chinese in Korea” in the Signing of the “Treaty of Amity between the Republic of China and the Republic of Korea” (1952–1964) (「中韓友好條約」簽訂過程中的「韓國華僑問題」(1952–1964))

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wang En-Mei (王恩美)
Keyword(s):  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
East Asian ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Overseas Chinese ◽  
Mutual Cooperation ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Korean Government ◽  
Military Alliance ◽  
The Republic Of China ◽  
The Republic

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 ofrocandrokdid 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.rokhad rejected several times suggestions made byrocto 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。

The Normalization of Sino-French Diplomatic Relations in 1964 and the Formation of the “One-China” Principle: Negotiations over Breaking French Diplomatic Relations with the Republic of China Government and the Recognition of the People’s Republic of China as the Sole Legitimate Government

2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 252-271
Author(s):  
Madoka Fukuda
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Republic Of China ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
The One

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.

Negotiating the Cold War: The United States and the Two Koreas

2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 85-105
Author(s):  
Steven Hugh Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Korea ◽  
The United States ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
South Korean ◽  
Agreed Framework ◽  
Peace Settlement ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractSince December 1997, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States have met in a series of talks aimed at promoting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region. According to a November 1998 U.S. Department of Defense report, the discussions have created a “diplomatic venue for reducing tensions and ultimately replacing the Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace settlement.”1 Amidst the tragic human suffering which has occurred in North Korea, there have been some encouraging developments on the peninsula. The 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea placed international controls on North Korea’s atomic energy program and cautiously anticipated the normalization of U.S.-DPRK relations. Since assuming power in early 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has vigorously pursued a policy of engagement with P’yo¨ngyang, known as the “sunshine policy.” Over the past decade, North Korea has also reoriented its foreign policy. In the early 1990s, the regime’s social and economic crisis led to a rethinking of its autarkic economic system. By early 1994, the state had created new free trade zones and relatively open foreign investment laws.2 By complying with the Agreed Framework, the DPRK has also shown a willingness to work with the international community on sensitive issues affecting its internal sovereignty and ability to project power beyond its borders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document