| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
102179
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
092147
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Compared with the strained relationship during the Koizumi era, Japanese-Chinese relations today seem to prove that despite many bilateral problems, a solution can always be found. This attitude is too complacent as a closer examination of the three main disputes shows: the history-related issues, the territorial disputes in the East China Sea, and Taiwan. Bilateral agreements, understandings, or protracted negotiations may provide temporary relief but may turn out to be very costly in the long run to Japan's national interests and to regional stability while time is not on Japan's side in view of the shifting comprehensive power relationship between the two countries. Instead, Japan should clarify its position in the Japan-US-China triangle, reform its economy, strengthen its Asian policy and sort out its priorities concerning the three main problems by striking a grand bargain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
107061
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
From 1931 to 1941, when China and Japan were at undeclared war, China's propaganda was fairly well-circulated in America through her American friends who played a leading role in shaping American opinions on the Far Eastern crisis. But the United States State Department maintained a neutral stance toward the Sino-Japanese conflict until after 1939 and considered the pro-Chinese opinion not so much a national consensus for policy consideration as a partisan view propped up by propaganda groups. Thus, the State Department guarded its Asian policy from the pressure of propaganda activities and partisan opinions on the Asian conflict, whilst utilising them occasionally as tools of diplomacy toward China and Japan. This article examines the State Department's attitude toward public opinion and propaganda on the Far Eastern conflict from 1931 to 1941 to illustrate how American officials handled partisan opinions on a foreign crisis when most of the information on foreign policy was privately initiated and circulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
125018
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
CHAIRMANSHIP of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in 2012 and the APEC summit in Vladivostok have opened a new phase in the Asian policy of Russia. The point at issue is to cement the recognition by the international community of the weighty role of our country as a Eurasian power, not only in Euro-Atlantic but also in Asia-Pacific affairs.
Today, the significance of the AP region has increased dramatically - both for the world in general, and Russia in particular, which is logical. For it is there that the center of world economic and political life is shifting from the Euro-Atlantic area. There are located the most powerful economies of the world - American, Chinese, and Japanese. The geographical proximity of the burgeoning South Asian giant India is being increasingly felt in the affairs of the region.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|