Материал: JP-NOVA-XXI_era_vek_2020

ЯПОНИЯ XXI NOVA: эраи век

«интернационализация» (кокусайка) все прочнее входит в обиход в Японии, что показывает, что современные японцы, особенно в городских конгломератах, привыкли к новой реальности: иностранные работники стали привычной частью повседневной жизни. Их труд востребован на малых и средних предприятиях, в сфере обслуживания и многихдругихсекторахэкономики.

В ноябре 2018 г., в то время, когда нехватка трудовых ресурсов стала ощущаться особенно остро в связи приближающими Олимпийскими Играми в Токио, парламент страны одобрил закон о разрешении въезда в Японии для работы 340 тысяч работников по новому типу «специальной визы для квалифицированных кадров» (токутэй гино биза), формально требующей подтверждения определенной квалификации, но не требующей диплома о среднемили высшем образовании.

Заключение. Второе десятилетие XXI в. стало переломным моментом в дискурсе о роли иностранной рабочей силы в двух восточноазиатских государствах. Сначала в Республике Корея в 2006 г., а затем и в Японии в 2018 г. рамки приема иностранных специалистов самой разной квалификации были существенно расширены, что позволяет говорить о появлении и развитии концепции иммиграционной политики в обеих странах. Изменилась и политика социальной интеграции внутри обоих государств. Концепция «многонациональной семьи» (multicultural family) в Республике Корея и региональная политика по «межкультурному сосуществованию» (табунка кёсэй сэйсаку) в Японии прошли испытание временем в течение двух первых десятилетий нового века и стали платформой для дальнейшей более детальной разработки концепций мультикультурного общества в обеихгосударствах.

400

«ISSUES OF JAPANOLOGY, vol. 8» St-Petersburg State Univ 2020

Список использованной литературы

1.Carvalho, Daniela de. Migration and Identity in Japan and Brazil: the Nikkeijin. London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 2003.

2.Sonya Ryang & John Lie (eds.) Diaspora without Homeland: Being Korean in Japan. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009.

3.Tsuda, Takeyuki and Cornelius, Wayne A. Japan: Government Policy, Immigrant Reality, Controlling Immigration: a Global Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004, pp. 439-478.

4.Tsuda, Takeyuki. The Permanence of «Temporary Migration”: the “Structural embeddedness” of Japanese-Brazilian immigrant workers in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 58, no. 3, August 1999, pp. 687-722.

5.Xiang, Biao. “Transplanting Labor in East Asia”, Yamashita et al., eds. Transnational Migration in East Asia, Senri Ethnological Reports 77 (2008), pp .175-186.

401

ЯПОНИЯ XXI NOVA: эраи век

The Main Issues of Japan-India political relations in the 1960s: Diverging Visions on Mutual Cooperation

In the early 1960s, the Cold War realities started to influence much the international relations in every part of the world. In the context of growing tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States the key countries of the Asian region were also supposed to take a distinct position in their foreign policy that would correspond to their national priorities. It is obvious that such “key players” as India and Japan continued to follow the basic concepts of their foreign policies that led to the divergence between the two countries.

It was India that turned to be one of the main organizers of the Belgrade Conference in September 1961, when the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was established. In broader meaning, the major issues of the Conference were the impact of decolonization, the problem of racial inequality, the countries contribution to peace and disarmament, which meant following a non-alignment policy in the Cold War conflicts1. In fact, India had taken the leading role in the NonAligned Movement among the Asian countries. Consequently, the Jawaharlal Nehru’s government stood for the political cooperation between various countries of the region in the matter of maintaining peace and security, regardless of their pro-American or pro-Soviet orientation.

As for Japan, it continued to adhere to the policy of strengthening and expanding the Japan-US military and political alliance that was officially established after the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed in 1960. According to the terms of the Treaty the national security of Japan was maintained by the US military presence in Japan. The Japanese government, in its turn, was virtually obliged to

1 Iurlov F.N., Iurlova E.S. Istoriia Indii. XX vek [The history of India. XX century]. Moscow, IV RAN, 2010, p.577.

402

«ISSUES OF JAPANOLOGY, vol. 8» St-Petersburg State Univ 2020

follow and support the foreign policy principles of the United States.

However, the "Security Treaty" conclusion caused a large-scale protest, which led to a deep political crisis in Japan. As the result, the Kishi government2 was forced to resign in late June 1960, and the next Prime Minister Ikeda Hayato ( ) formed a new government3. It is noteworthy, that mass demonstration’s participants, opposing the adoption of the Japan-US Treaty, called also to follow the principles of the Bandung Conference4 5.

On the other hand, Japanese officials continued to express skepticism about the idea of non-alignment. Even the Prime-Minister Ikeda once remarked in the context of SinoJapanese tensions over the border territories, that “only weak and small countries chose the middle course of noncommitment where important issues were concerned”6 . Possibly, the true meaning of the remark might be that such a powerful country as India was able to protect its national interests in other ways rather than following the nonalignment policy.

One should also take into account the both countries relationship with the superpowers, i.e. the USA and the USSR. Japan, as mentioned above, was involved in the strategic

2Kishi Nobusuke ( ) was a Japanese politician and the Prime Minister of Japan from 1957 to 1960.

3Iurlov F.N., Iurlova E.S. Ibid., pp. 320, 322.

4The Bandung Conference was the first large-scale Asian-African Conference, held in 1955, with the participation of the 29 newly independent countries. The Conference aimed at promoting Afro-Asian economic and cultural cooperation and became an important step towards the creation of Non-Aligned Movement.

5Okatachi Kohei. Nichiin kankei sho:shi (The history of Japan-India relations in brief). . .Tokyo, «Asia Economy», 1969,

p. 91.

6 Narasimha Murthy P.A. India and Japan. Dimensions of their relations (historical and political). New Delhi, ABC Publishing House, 1986, p. 359.

403

ЯПОНИЯ XXI NOVA: эраи век

program of the US Asian policy. The government of India, in turn, could not but realize that the United States possessed large economic and military resources, and also supported India in its democratic development policies. However, from Indian perspective the “Western world” was directly connected with colonialism and imperialism, which contradicted the basic ideas of the Bandung Conference. For this reason, for the Indian Premier Nehru it was more preferable to intensify relationship with the Soviet Union. Moreover, the USSR could probably act as a counterweight to China in regards to the Sino-Indian tensions7. Thus, India preferred political rapprochement with the USSR rather than with the United States.

In general, in the beginning of the 1960s, both India and Japan officials’ attention was mostly paid to their internal problems. Since Japan was concerned about its rapid economic development the international relations issues, including deepening relations with the Asian countries, were not among the priorities of the Japanese government policy. India, on the contrary, had a poorly developed economic system that required significant modernization. Moreover, India had been facing the problem of territorial disputes with its neighbouring countries for several decades.

In this context, the second official visit of the Japanese Premier Ikeda to India, made in November 1961, had played far less important role than the visit of his predecessor Kishi in 1957.

During the summit meeting, Pandit Nehru expressed his hope to his Japanese counterpart that "convergence between Japan and India would not be limited only to the economic aspect, but would also expand to mutual cooperation in regard to contributing toward peaceful settlement of disputes, focusing especially on the Asian region” 8 . In addition, he pointed to the tendency for

7Iurlov F.N., Iurlova E.S. Ibid., p. 576.

8Okatachi Kohei. Ibid., p. 93.

404