http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 권오신(Oh-Shin Kwon) (검색결과 82 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
권오신 ( Oh Shin Kwon ) 한국아메리카학회 2003 美國學論集 Vol.35 No.1
On the one-hundred-swventieth anniversary of American independence the United States transferred political pover in Manila to the government of the Philippine republic. Philippine pride and joy had reached the highest point in that instance. After the second World War, two fundamental principles informed American thinking about how to prevent a third armed disaster. Each reflected lessons learned from the failure to avert the second. The first principle involved the riotion of collective security. The second basic principle of American planning for the postwar period rested on the conviction that lasting peace demanded widespread prosperity and that prosperity required access to foreign markets. These two principles formed the baskground to American postwar policy toward the Philippines. The first, involving collective security, figured centrally in the formulation of America`s strategic relationship with the independent Philippine republic. Its most prominent focus was the issue of American mulitary bases in the islands .The second principle, of openness to trade and investment, led to negotiations regarding terms on which American investors and exporters would have access to Philippine markets. Discussions involving the issues of bases and trade took place simultaneously, and the two often joinde. Meanwhile, the infant Philippine Republic had emerged from the second World war as one of the most heavily devastated countries in the world. The new government of the Philippines had to established its own economic and commercial relations with the outside world, especially the United States. In this connection, the Philippines accepted two measures enacted by the U.S.Congress on traded and aid. These measures were known ad the Tydings Rehabilitation Act and the Bell Trade Act. In the Bell Trade Act, aside from many restrictions, even more objectionable was known as "parity clause". It was a really typical disparity point. The similar situation happened in the process of the Military Bases Agreement. It expressly provided that its purpose was to promote the mutual security of the Philippines and the United States. But its provisions did not show any role for the Philippines in the operation of bases, beyond its grating the use pf certain land to the U. S. for military purposes. Thus, from the beginning, this agreement also had some disparity points. Briefly speaking, even though it gained political independence, the Philippine Republic was still far from possessing economic sovereignty. The United States, on the other hand, retainded many of the economic and military advantages of a coonial power. The primary reason why the Philippines accepted the Acts and granted enormous rights to Americans was its desire to sucure U. S. assistance and attract American capital in reconstructing its war-damaged economy.
-
권오신(Kwon, Oh-Shin) 강원대학교 인문과학연구소 2018 인문과학연구 Vol.0 No.56
이 글에서는 미국의 필리핀 식민통치 과정 각 시기의 지침과 통치 이념들의 특별한 징후들을 개별적으로 세밀하게 살피고, 나아가 식민통치 전체 시기의 성격을 종합하는 것에 그 목적을 두고자 한다. 즉 각 시기에 특정한 지침이 제시되면서 해당 사안들에 대해 단편적으로 그 성격을 규정해 왔었는데 이번 기회에 이것을 식민통치의 전체 기간으로 확장하여 그 본질을 일별해 보고자 하는 것이다. 미국의 식민통치는 이념과 지침, 그리고 정책 모든 면에서 어느 정당이 집권하느냐에 따라 크게 변화된다. 물론 큰 그림으로 본다면 집권당의 국제관계 및 대외정책의 기본적 성향에 연동되는 것이고, 따라서 집권행정부의 교체에 따라 식민통치의 성격도 확연히 변동되는 특징을 보이는 것이다. 이런 맥락에서 미국 집권당의 변동에 따른 식민통치의 시기별 특징을 규명해 보고자 하는 것이다. 또한 ‘시기별 특성’을 종합해 봄으로써 미국의 식민통치의 구조/형태뿐만 아니라 동시에 그 본질을 보다 확연히 제시할 수 있겠다는 동기가 관통되고 있는 것이다. 미국이 필리핀을 식민통치한 시기를 성격 상 크게 네시기로 나눌 수 있겠다. 그것은 통치의 기구, 조직, 나아가 그 성격이 바뀔 정도의 전환점이 있었기 때문이다. 식민통치의 그런 성격 변화는 해당 시기에 필요한 지침을 제시하는 입법화 과정을 통해 특징지을 수 있다.1902년 쿠퍼법(The Philippine Bill of 1902, or Cooper Act), 1916년의 존스법(The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, or Jones Law), 그리고 1934년의 타이딩스-맥더피법(The Philippine Commonwealth and Independence Act of 1934, or The Tydings –McDuffie Act)의 제정 등을 대표적 기제로 제시할 수 있겠다. 즉 필리핀 독립문제와 관련된 내용, 특히 통치구조와 골격을 구성하는 대표적 내용을 보면 확연히 구분됨을 읽을 수 있다. 미국은 식민통치를 진행하면서 가능하면 식민지인들의 저항을 약화시키기 위해 지속적으로 당근을 제시했었다. 가장 매혹적인 제시는 정치적 조건이 성숙되면 독립인정을 고려하겠다는 것이었다. 그러나 여기엔 늘 조건제시가 부가되었었다. 무엇보다도 집권당 변화에 따라 그 가능성에 대한 성취도 평가가 달라지기 때문에 독립조건을 달성하기란 실제로는 처음부터 불가능한 것으로 시작되었다고 판단된다. 본질적으로는 식민지 지배권을 연장해 나가려는 저의의 실행이며, 또한 편리한 이론적 무기로 작동시킨 것이다. 대체로 민주당 집권시 유화정책과 독립가능성 제시를, 또 공화당 집권시 탄압정책과 독립가능성 불가를 운용해 나가는 일반적 경향성을 발견할 수 있다. 다만 대공황이라는 대내적 국가위기 국면에 이르면 각종 이익단체들이 필리핀독립을 강권하는 상황이 연출되었으며 현실정치 세력들은 초당파적으로 식민지 독립에 공감하였다. 결과적으로는 ‘10년 과도정부 후 독립’을 확약하였고, 그 후 국제환경에 복잡한 상황변화가 나타났지만 10년 후인 1946년 완전독립이라는 그 확약은 실행되었다. The purpose of this paper is to closely examine the governing principles and ideologies of each period of American colonial rule in the Philippines, and to identify the general nature of the entire colonization period. All aspects of American colonial rule had changed, including ideology, principle, and policy, according to the nature of the American ruling party. Broadly, it was closely associated with the fundamental nature of the American ruling party’s international relations and foreign policy. Therefore, changes in the nature of colonization were characterized by the changing ruling administrations. In this context, this paper attempts to elucidate the characteristics of American colonial rule in the Philippines according to chronological periods divided by the changing ruling party. Deriving the general characteristics of American rule based on the characteristics of each period will enable identifying the organization and structure of American colonial rule and concretize its essence. American colonial rule in the Philippines can be divided into four periods. These periods are marked by several impactful turning points that brought tangible changes to the organization, structure, and nature of American rule. Changes in the nature of colonial rule materialized through the American legislation process, which recommended the principles required in each period. The major turning points were the enactments of the Philippine Bill of 1902 (Cooper Act), Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 (Jones Law), and Philippine Commonwealth and Independence Act of 1934 (the Tydings–McDuffie Act). The US regularly “offered carrots” to weaken the resistance of Filipinos while continuing their colonial rule. The most attractive offer to the colonized was that the US would consider recognizing the independence of the Philippines once the political condition had sufficiently matured. However, additional conditions were always attached to these offers. Essentially, the hidden aim was to extend American colonial rule, which also operated as a theoretical weapon. The general trends of the American ruling parties are summarized as follows. The Democratic Party executed appeasement policies and suggested the possibility of independence when it rose to power. In contrast, the Republican Party oppressed the Philippines and dismissed the possibility of independence when it seized power. When the US was struck by a national domestic crisis—the Great Depression—, various American interest groups demanded the independence of the Philippines. A supra-partisan agreement in favor of Filipino independence was formed among the real political stakeholders in the US. In conclusion, the US promised the “independence of the Philippines after a decade of rule by a Commonwealth government.” While a series of complex changes occurred in international politics, the promise of the complete independence of the Philippines was realized 10 years later in 1946.
-
-
-
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
