Search

This article examines the ways in which national identity was articulated by intellectuals in Japan, China and Taiwan in the first half of the twentieth century as a first step to reviewing the standard western-centric and diffusionist account of nationalism. Conventional accounts of nationalism regard nationalism as intrinsically European, rooted in developments such as the Enlightenment and the Westphalian system of states, and consider non-western cases as examples of diffusion from the “centre” to the “periphery”. Even though the discourse of the nation and national identity produced by East Asian intellectuals in the early twentieth century was shaped by social and political theories developed in the West, their frequent use of civilisational referents suggests that they were subjectively engaged with a project of self-definition that drew on their own sources, which undermines diffusionist assumptions. The article briefly examines the discourse of national identity articulated by the Kyoto School of philosophy, Sun Yat-sen and Tsai Pei-huo as the first step in exploring the possibility of multiple origins of nationalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China's rise has been accompanied by a rise in nationalism. But what are the characteristics of this nationalism now being witnessed? Does it support China's constructive engagement with the international order, or does it seek to assert China's supremacy? These questions lie at the hub of a rapidly expanding secondary literature on the emergence of nationalism in China and its impact on China's foreign relations. What is, however, absent from the academic discourse is the voice of the Chinese people themselves. What are their perceptions of the nation-state, and how do these beliefs shape their views of China's relationship with East Asia? To address this gap, we conducted a series of large-scale surveys in Beijing between 2011 and 2013 on the twinned topics of domestic nationalism and international relations. Our findings, as reported below, represent an initial attempt to answer this final and, arguably, most critical set of questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

East Asian countries apply lower tariffs on their neighbors’ products than they are required to under the various trade agreements to which they belong, a concession they grant only rarely to countries outside the region. The result is a de facto preferential trade area in East Asia in which applied tariff rates significantly undercut the legally bound rates. This gap, termed binding overhang, is an under-studied aspect of international political economy, but provides information about the nature of East Asian regionalism. To wit, the regional bias in applied tariffs is driven by transnational production networks that must move components across borders, not geopolitics or state preferences for increased regional integration. This finding supports a ‘bottom up’ interpretation of East Asian regionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper offers a critical analysis of the current political trajectory of the anti-neoliberal globalization movement (ANGM) in South Korea. Drawing on framing theory, it analyzes the ways in which the Korean ANGM interpreted a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. This article postulates that national sovereignty was the master frame of the Korean ANGM and that the movement has projected the nation-state as the ethical guardian of 'national interests' without specifying an alternative trading or economic model that can better serve the interests of the people. Thus, through pointing out the shortcomings of a nationalist framing that ignores the class relations and conflicting interests that ultimately shape the contents of any trade or economic development model, this article seeks to bring attention to the limitations of the ANGM as well as the need to develop alternatives to the existing global trading system. Este articulo ofrece una vision critica de la trayectoria politica del movimiento de globalizacion antineoliberal (ANGM, por sus siglas en ingles) en Corea del Sur. Extrayendo de una teoria enmarcada, el articulo analiza las maneras como el movimiento de globalizacion antineoliberal enmarco un tratado de libre comercio (FTA, por sus siglas en ingles) con los Estados Unidos y luego discute las limitaciones y las deficiencias de la enmarcacion del movimiento del tratado de libre comercio. Sostiene que la soberania nacional fue la enmarcacion principal del movimiento coreano y que la enmarcacion nacionalista del tratado de libre comercio, no era fundamentalmente diferente del discurso hegemonico de la elite coreana, sobre el tratado de libre comercio. Tambien asume que dado que los principales prognosticos de los marcos del movimiento se enfocaron al proteccionismo selectivo y capitalismo de bienestar, tendieron a limitar el rango de alternativas a la globalizacion neoliberal. [image omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]