scholarly journals Vietnamese Universities and Regional Accreditation in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Lankford

Vietnamese and other Southeast Asian universities view the importance of national accreditation secondary to international recognition. As a result, Southeast Asian regional accreditors are expanding their university networks and forming international standard education in Southeast Asia. However, the link between Asian and American accreditation has yet to be formed, even though America is the number one education destination for international students. Theresearchpaperthatthisproposalintends to put forth will evaluate the differences in Asian and American regional accreditation; it will highlight potential academic, institutional, and cultural issues that may arise when a Vietnamese university seeks American regional accreditation.

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-613

On September 8, 1954, representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand signed the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, a protocol designating the areas to which the treaty was to apply, and the Pacific Charter, a declaration setting forth the aims of the eight countries in southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific. Negotiations leading up to the actual signature of the treaty had been underway throughout the summer of 1954 and had culminated in an eight-power conference in Manila which opened on September 6.


Author(s):  
Carl L. Bankston

Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia have historically been nations with large Buddhist populations. While Mahāyāna Buddhism predominates in Vietnam, most people in Cambodia and Laos have been dedicated to Theravāda Buddhism. In 1975, these three countries came under the domination of Communist governments, which had earlier been in conflict with factions militarily supported by the United States. This led to the beginnings of the massive movement of refugees from Southeast Asia to North America. An especially radical regime had taken power in Cambodia, and after war broke out between Cambodia and Vietnam the flow of refugees became a flood. All of the new governments of these countries were hostile to independent religious organizations and practices. The Khmer Rouge in power in Cambodia took its antagonism to religion to an extreme, attempting to violently eradicate traditional Buddhist practices and institutions. As refugees settled in ever-greater numbers in North America and other locations, they established Buddhist temples and other organizations in the new homelands. In consequence, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Lao communities in the United States and Canada have also become sites for the rapid growth of North American Buddhism. Southeast Asian Buddhism has become a part of a pluralistic religious environment, adding new rites, celebrations, and cultural activities to American society. Buddhism has also played a central part in maintaining ethnic identity among refugee populations and their descendants, as well as in helping Buddhists adapt to life under changing circumstances.


Author(s):  
Chia Youyee Vang

In geopolitical terms, the Asian sub-region Southeast Asia consists of ten countries that are organized under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Current member nations include Brunei Darussalam, Kingdom of Cambodia, Republic of Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos), Malaysia, Republic of the Union of Myanmar (formerly Burma), Republic of the Philippines, Singapore, Kingdom of Thailand, and Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The term Southeast Asian Americans has been shaped largely by the flow of refugees from the American War in Vietnam’ however, Americans with origins in Southeast Asia have much more diverse migration and settlement experiences that are intricately tied to the complex histories of colonialism, imperialism, and war from the late 19th through the end of the 20th century. A commonality across Southeast Asian American groups today is that their immigration history resulted primarily from the political and military involvement of the United States in the region, aimed at building the United States as a global power. From Filipinos during the Spanish-American War in 1898 to Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, and Hmong refugees from the American War in Vietnam, military interventions generated migration flows that, once begun, became difficult to stop. Complicating this history is its role in supporting the international humanitarian apparatus by creating the possibility for displaced people to seek refuge in the United States. Additionally, the relationships between the United States, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore are different from those of other SEA countries involved in the Vietnam War. Consequently, today’s Southeast Asian Americans are heterogeneous with varying levels of acculturation to U.S. society.


Author(s):  
Kenton Clymer

The U.S. relationship with Southeast Asia has always reflected the state of U.S. interactions with the three major powers that surround the region: Japan, China, and, to a lesser extent, India. Initially, Americans looked at Southeast Asia as an avenue to the rich markets that China and India seemed to offer, while also finding trading opportunities in the region itself. Later, American missionaries sought to save Southeast Asian souls, while U.S. officials often viewed Southeast Asia as a region that could tip the overall balance of power in East Asia if its enormous resources fell under the control of a hostile power. American interest expanded enormously with the annexation of the Philippines in 1899, an outgrowth of the Spanish-American War. That acquisition resulted in a nearly half-century of American colonial rule, while American investors increased their involvement in exploiting the region’s raw materials, notably tin, rubber, and petroleum, and missionaries expanded into areas previously closed to them. American occupation of the Philippines heightened tensions with Japan, which sought the resources of Southeast Asia, particularly in French Indochina, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia). Eventually, clashing ambitions and perceptions brought the United States into World War II. Peeling those territories away from Japan during the war was a key American objective. Americans resisted the Japanese in the Philippines and in Burma, but after Japan quickly subdued Southeast Asia, there was little contact in the region until the reconquest began in 1944. American forces participated in the liberation of Burma and also fought in the Dutch Indies and the Philippines before the war ended in 1945. After the war, the United States had to face the independence struggles in several Southeast Asian countries, even as the Grand Alliance fell apart and the Cold War emerged, which for the next several decades overshadowed almost everything. American efforts to prevent communist expansion in the region inhibited American support for decolonization and led to war in Vietnam and Laos and covert interventions elsewhere. With the end of the Cold War in 1991, relations with most of Southeast Asia have generally been normal, except for Burma/Myanmar, where a brutal military junta ruled. The opposition, led by the charismatic Aung San Suu Kyi, found support in the United States. More recently American concerns with China’s new assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea, have resulted in even closer U.S. relations with Southeast Asian countries.


2019 ◽  
pp. 177-182
Author(s):  
Wen-Qing Ngoei

This coda concludes the book by examining how the United States and its Southeast Asian allies responded to the fall of Saigon to communist forces in 1975. It shows that the regimes of the arc of containment did not proceed to topple like dominoes to communist factions at home, or bow to Chinese or Soviet power, but instead elected to reinforce their ties with Washington. Equally, U.S. policymakers discerned this “reverse domino effect” across Asia (or so they termed it) and unreservedly renewed American economic, political and military commitments to their allies in the region. Given that the arc of containment underpinned imperial transition and the rise of U.S. empire in Southeast Asia, the coda contends that reversals of the domino theory, not its fulfilment, were the true prevailing motif of American interference in the region’s fraught decolonization after the Pacific War.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Wen-Qing Ngoei

This introduction presents an overview of the book’s study of imperial transition in Southeast Asia from the colonial order through Anglo-American predominance to U.S. empire. It explains that the book examines two Southeast Asian countries—Malaya and Singapore—marginalized by major studies of U.S. policy to illuminate regional developments in U.S.-Southeast Asian relations otherwise overlooked by the predominant focus of historians on U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Using this wide-angle view of Southeast Asia, the book reveals how the bases of U.S. Cold War policy draw from longstanding Euro-American anxieties about race, specifically the perceived threat of China and its diaspora to western power. From this insight, the book is able to reveal that Britain, the United States and their indigenous anticommunist allies crafted a pro-West nationalism underpinned by region-wide anti-Chinese prejudice, a process that ensconced most Southeast Asian regimes within the American orbit even as U.S. policy failed in Vietnam.


2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 113-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Goh

The small and medium-sized states in Southeast Asia have faced significant geostrategic changes with the end of the Cold War and the rise of China. Over the last decade, scholars have debated how these countries would cope with growing Chinese power, and how their relations with the other major powers in the region would change. Some analysts have suggested that the region is shifting toward a more China-centered order, but this view is premature. Eschewing the simple dichotomy of balancing versus bandwagoning, Southeast Asian countries do not want to choose between the two major powers, the United States and China. This avoidance strategy is not merely tactical or time-buying; instead, Southeast Asian states have actively tried to influence the shape of the new regional order. Key Southeast Asian states are pursuing two main pathways to order in the region: the “omni-enmeshment” of major powers and complex balance of influence. They have helped to produce an interim power distribution outcome, which is a hierarchical regional order that retains the United States' dominant superpower position while incorporating China in a regional great power position just below that of the United States.


2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-298
Author(s):  
Neete Saha

International students and scholars in the United States: Coming from abroad is a well-written, well-researched, and well-timed monograph. In pursuit of higher education, international students have continued to attend colleges and universities in the United States of America in spite of the educational, emotional, and cultural issues. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), 723, 277 international students and more than 115,000 international scholars matriculated in American colleges and universities in 2010/2011 (pp. 4-9). The editors, Heike Alberts and Helen Hazen, have not only provided readers with an opportunity to learn about international students and scholars from Asia, Africa, and Europe but have also addressed critical issues faced by the international students and scholars in the United States. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document