|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
172806
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
FOR MOST OF THE NINETEENTH AND MUCH OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, CHINA was called, "the sick man of Asia (东亚病夫, dong ya bing fu)."1 But those days are over. As President Xi Jinping observed, "China has bid farewell to the problems that plagued its people for thousands of years, including hunger, shortages and poverty" (Yu 2019, 19). As described below, China is now one of the world's top economic, political and military powers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
172799
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This special issue contributes to the study of decolonization and the Cold War by tackling their interactions and framing them into comparable topics. Collectively, we explore how decolonization has proceeded during the Cold War—discovering the impacts of the Cold War, tracing the agency at post-colonial sites for adaptation under the impacts of the Cold War, and acknowledging the uneven consequences the Cold War engendered for decolonization. Theoretically, decolonization in East Asia takes place in three different spheres of relations—international, interethnic, and subaltern. 1) International relations: This sphere involves complex role relations between former colonies as security allies, economic entities, colonial rivals, historical neighbors, and cultural acquaintances. 2) Interethnic relations: This sphere attends to mutual respect and equality between territorially internal groups that have been divided since colonial times. 3) Subaltern relations: The third sphere involves the peculiar relations wherein former colonies find inspiration from each other or support one another to attain political and economic autonomy. In terms of theoretical approaches, the authors adopt historical, discursive, narrative, political economics, postcolonial, and international relations perspectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
172802
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study uses a postcolonial approach to focus on the relations between the dominator/colonizer and the subordinated/colonized to reveal how the imperial legacy continues to influence the current relations between Japan and South Korea. The sources of current tensions between Japan and South Korea are threefold: First, the continuity of Japan's worldview inherited from the imperial era still influences Japan's interpretation of historical disputes with its former colonies. Second, decolonization has not been achieved between Japan and South Korea due to the Cold War and pressure from the United States to shelve historical disputes amid the normalizing of relations between Japan and South Korea. Third, as a subaltern state, South Korea was caught between pursuing complete independence and autonomy and collaboration with its past colonizer in the state-building process. This approach sheds new light on the multiplicity of the disputes between the two countries and explains why negative colonial legacies still haunt Japan and its relations with South Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
172804
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The disappearance of references to "Yadong," Asia's East or Asiatic East, as opposed to East Asia, in Taiwan's post-World War II (WWII) political history presaged the impracticality of decolonization in Taiwan. The Cold War, pertaining especially to the American intellectual intervention in the conceptualization of the world through the fault line of its containment policy, contributed greatly to the substitution of East Asia for Yadong. I argue that Yadong is a geocultural lens, while East Asia connotes strategic purposes of various kinds. The latter concept echoed the discourse of the "Great East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere," which colonial Japan relied on before and during WWII to justify colonialism as well as expansion. The familiar discourse of decolonization embedded in "strategic essentialism," i.e. deliberate use of some fundamentalism for the occasion of resistance, reproduces the colonizing/colonized binary. I re-theorize decolonization as a relational project. Empirically the intellectual demise of Yadong as a relational discourse accompanied the evolution of the Cold War. Yadong's disappearance indirectly testifies to the fate of decolonization in Taiwan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
172800
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While local Marxist and neo-Marxist parties attempted to synchronize their revolutionary struggles with the centers of world communism during the period 1945–1991, political currents on the ground in Malaysia and Singapore were pushing for the establishment of postcolonial authority, social peace, and economic prosperity. The Cold War struggle between 'communism' and 'democratic capitalism' was highly refracted, even distorted, on the ground in these two Southeast Asian countries. This refraction was largely manifested in the struggles by nationalists of all ideological stripes to achieve a multiracial society through interethnic decolonization under the banner of waging 'class warfare' against colonial authority. For many anti-colonial political parties, siding with or joining leftist movements was a façade for revolutionary agendas that were not necessarily Marxist-Leninist in orientation. Secondly, the biographies and civil society narratives of contending political figures of the time suggest that they were less inclined to define their thinking about development along Cold War ideological orthodoxy than to defy the latter to make things work for prosperity. Finally, the successor elites who took the place of the colonial rulers were consistently obsessed with burnishing sovereignty in spite of the international Cold War. This can be seen in their slippery practice of nonalignment in foreign policy. The Malaysian and Singaporean cases strongly present the thesis of indigenization of the Cold War for local purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
172805
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article considers how Korean historical drama can enrich the discourse of development and change. The study interrogates Cold War legacies in development thinking in the Philippines entrenched by US education and pop culture and contextualizes Korean drama, a representation of counter-dominant cultural flows, within cultural flows in Asia, the reception of the dramas in Asia, and patronage and influence in the Philippines. Focusing on the historical genre of Korean drama in particular, a cultural negotiation of Cold War influenced-development perspectives in the Philippines is problematized. Unpacking the complex content in Korean historical drama through intertextual analysis provokes a critical elucidation of notions of development and change and underscores interdiscursive utility for the development discourse in the Philippines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
172803
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article considers the 1950s postcolonial period in Korea after Japanese colonialism and the international context of the Cold War from the standpoint of the ROK and examines how the subaltern South Korean state (re)appropriated and (re)formulated the Cold War discourse of anti-communism in Asia. During that period, South Korea, along with other East Asian states, formed an international association called the Asian Peoples' Anti-Communist League (APACL). During the 1950s, the subaltern ROK thus joined a new, nuanced, Western-centric (if not colonial) structure—the Cold War—and proactively and strategically appropriated anti-communism to ensure its national survival. Carving out a place at the bottom of the Western-centric Cold War hierarchy became part of state building for non-Western South Korea. Moreover, the Cold War was a context in which ideology (anti-communism) mixed with blood (war and violence) on a daily basis. Subaltern South Korea was constitutive of the Cold War in Asia and beyond. Indeed, this article illustrates that the Cold War itself was a co-construction between the hegemonic powers and subalterns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
172801
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article investigates the connection between the process of decolonization in Indonesia and the Cold War by proposing two main arguments. First, that the complex process of postcolonial nation-and-state building in Indonesia led to the establishment of "bebas-aktif" ("independent and active") foreign policy despite the efforts of the Great Powers to take Indonesia into their sphere of influence. This position came from the need to maintain the unity of the newly established state in the context of fierce competition between ideological groups in Indonesia. These included secular nationalists, Islamic nationalists, and communists, which began with the rise of nationalist movements in the Dutch East Indies and continued after independence in 1945. The second main argument of this article is that the Cold War shaped the trajectory of Indonesia's nation-and-state building process enormously. The Cold War calculation helped Indonesia to gain international recognition despite the Dutch ambition to keep its colonial possession. The narrative of Indonesia as a leader of Asian and African countries amidst the menacing domination of the great powers also lent credibility to the new state in the eyes of its people, as well as setting the normative limits of ideological competition inside the country. The Cold War also created disturbances in the nation-and-state building project, which manifested in several incidents that threatened the unity and even the very existence of the new nation. This culminated in the exclusion of communist groups from the national compromise required for nation-and-state building
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|