Trade of Heilongjiang Province (China) with Russia

Local trade between the Far East region of the USSR and the Northeast region of the People’s Republic of China started in 1957, arranged by the public trade organizations in the respective borderlands. Heilongjiang Province of China has been the main actor in trade with the Far East region of the USSR, and more recently, Russia. After 1957, Heilongjiang Province’s trade with the Russian Far East developed rapidly until 1993, except a period of interruption (1967-1982). Thereafter, the Heilongjiang Province’s trade with the Russian Far East underwent a stagnation period (1994-1998), a recovery period (1999-2001), a rapid development period (2002-2007) and a period of change of tendencies and radical decrease (2008-2009). Heilongjiang Province’s trade with the Russian Far East consists of three main forms: general trade, Chinese-style border trade (Bianjing Trade which includes Bianjing Small Trade and trade between private persons (Hushi Trade)) and Travel Trade. The rapid increase of Heilongjiang Province’s trade with the Russian Far East from 2002 to 2007 is mainly attributable to the increase in the export of ordinary consumer goods, especially textile clothing and footwear, and to Bianjing Small Trade.

The gap between recognition and the 'compensation business' : the claim against Britain for compensation by Kenya's former Mau Mau fighters

During the first Kibaki administration (2002-2007), a movement by the former Mau Mau fighters demanded recognition for the role that they had played in the achievement of independence. They began to demand, also, monetary compensation for past injustices. Why had it taken over 40 years (from independence in 1963) for the former Mau Mau fighters to initiate this movement? What can be observed as the outcome of their movement? To answer these questions, three different historical currents need to be taken into account. These were, respectively, changing trends in the government of Kenya, progress in historical research into the actual circumstances of colonial control, and a realization, based on mounting experience, that launching a legal action against Britain could turn out to be a lucrative initiative. This paper concludes that, regardless of the actual purpose of the legal case, neither of their objectives was certain to be achieved. Two inescapable realities remain: the doubts cast on the reputation of the government by its decision to lift the Mau Mau‟s outlaw status – a decision that was widely seen as a latter-day example of the „Kikuyu favouritism‟ policy followed by the first Kibaki administration – and the popular interpretation of the involvement of Leigh Day, well known in Kenya ever since the unexploded bombs case for its success in obtaining substantial compensation payments, as a vehicle for squeezing large amounts of money from the British government for the benefit of the Kikuyu people.

トルコにおける国家中心的公共圏認識の定着 -- 言説分析

トルコ社会において過去10年近くの間に，国家中心的な公共圏の認識が広まったのはなぜか。本稿はその主因を，2002～2007年に起きた「公共圏」論争が，イスラーム的スカーフの着用をめぐる論争に従属して展開したことに求め，新聞データベースを材料にした言説分析から，以下の答えを導く。第1に，2002年の論争開始にともない「公共圏」という表現が初めて広く一般の目に触れるようになったという点で，この論争による「公共圏」の宣伝効果は大きかった。しかしスカーフ着用問題が政治状況の変化により論争議題でなくなると，公共圏がどうあるべきかは，現状維持派の世俗派のみならず，挑戦者であるイスラーム派にとっても重要性がなくなったため，「公共圏」論争は失速した。第2に，現状維持派である世俗派エリートが用いた言説フレームは，国家が「公共圏」の中立性を守るためにスカーフ着用を禁止するというものだった。この支配的フレームに対し，イスラーム派は当初，ハーバマス的公共圏理論を援用してスカーフ着用を擁護する代替的対抗フレームを使っていた。しかし世俗派の強硬な抵抗に遭うと，国家的公共圏の抑圧性を強調する否定的対抗フレームをより頻繁に用いるようになった。これは世俗派批判としては妥当だったものの，イスラーム派が国家的公共圏定義を追認することにつながった。ちょうどその頃，「公共圏」論争は上述の理由で失速していた。そのため「公共圏」についてのトルコ社会のおおよその認識は，国家的定義が支配的なまま凍結されたのである。