Chinese, Japanese, and Western scholars who have done research on the 1905 Anti-American movement have primarily focused on the boycott campaigns in China proper. Scholars have neglected the involvement of the Chinese who lived overseas in the movement.

     This article first discusses why and how the Chinese overseas, especially those in America, British Malaya, and Australia, were involved in the boycott, which was first initiated in Shanghai, China. Second, it compares the different motives, participants, and characteristics of the movements in different Overseas Chinese communities. And third, it examines why the boycott movement was closely related to the anti-Manchu revolutionary movement and the collapse of the Qing dynasty. This article contends that the socio-political movements in modern China and among Overseas Chinese were closely interrelated. Nevertheless, the development and the characteristics of the boycotts in China differed from those in Overseas Chinese communities. Furthermore, each Overseas Chinese community had its own motive and style in its anti-American campaign, based on self-interest and local socio-political constraints. This article is based extensively on local source materials available in Overseas Chinese communities. Revisiting the 1905 boycott movement through the perspectives of Overseas Chinese raises new questions and issues in regard to the interpretation of the history of modern China in which Overseas Chinese were involved.

     This article analyses a complicated episode in Sino-French relations during the first phase of the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). By using as-yet unexploited documents in China and France, it explains how China imported military materiel via Vietnam, the reactions of France in the face of the protests of Japan, and the negotiations about the imposition an embargo between China and France.

     After the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, Japan soon controlled all the coastal areas of Vietnam in an attempt to cut off the supplies of any provisions to China, as the National Government had used Vietnam as transit for obtaining military materiel. Under the pressure of Japan and fearing threats to its suzerainty over the colony, the French authorities in Vietnam sometimes had to interdict the passage of such goods. But France also tried to make a military cooperation deal with China, to which Chiang Kai-shek responded by sending his commissionaires to Paris to try to resolve three main issues: the provision of military goods, their transit via Vietnam, and a military mission of French consultants to China. In January 1939 France agreed to dispatch a military mission but had to revoke it in September due to the downturn of the situation in Europe.

     The armistice of June 1940 in France subjected the Vichy government to the Japanese pressure, resulting in the interdiction of goods from Vietnam to China. Moreover, France also signed a military accord with Japan in September enabling Japanese forces to station troops in Tonkin (North Vietnam). By July 1941, the Japanese Army had entered into South Vietnam. In fact, French Indochina became a base of Japan's Southward policy.

     Sino-French diplomatic relations during the war progressed through three phases: first, China tried hard to maintain its vital supply lines; then, France wanted to keep its suzerainty in Vietnam in the face of Japanese pressures; and finally, Japan overruled the previous two unstable situations. The compromise forced on the Vichy government by Tokyo became a major reason why France lost its all colonies in Indo-China after the War.

     During the 1950s, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted the "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" dual recognition policy toward the two sides of the Taiwan Straits in terms of their formal names. But due to the cultural value insisting on indivisible claims to legitimacy as shown in the idiom "the sky has only one sun and the earth only one ruler," both sides were firmly against the ambiguity of the IOC's policy. Therefore, with the accession of both sides to the IOC a tug of war inevitably erupted, resulting in the PRC's withdrawal from the IOC in August 1958.

     In 1959, the Soviet Union argued that both the accession of members and IOC member recruitment needed to be approved by the IOC's annual meeting, thus challenging IOC President Brundage's right to decide the question alone. About 1960, the United Kingdom and the Communist group led by the Soviet Union strongly challenged the IOC policy and the legitimacy of the R. O. C. to represent China in the IOC; consequently, the IOC was forced to review the question of China's representation.

     The IOC decided to clarify the problem of China's representation through an attempt to identify the status of the parties. It convened four meetings to tackle this problem: 1. The Munich meeting proposed the principle of "de facto control of athletic areas" for deciding the named of National Olympic Committees, which resulted in the creation of the "Taiwan Olympic Committee." 2. The Paris meeting confirmed that even though each country could name its own national committee, the IOC reserved the right to assign names to Olympic delegations according to the de facto control of athletic areas. 3. The San Francisco meeting reconfirmed that the committee in Taiwan must change its title, but also resolved that athletes from Taiwan might participate in the Rome Olympic Games. 4. The Rome meeting recognized the membership of the "R. O. C. Olympic Committee" but also indicated that its athletes should participate in the games under the rubric of its de facto controlled athletic area, "Taiwan."

     The R. O. C. firmly opposed the suggested title of "Taiwan Olympic Committee," holding that this not only gave the impression of its being downgraded in status or relegated to the level of a local government, but also maintaining that its "sole legitimate" status in the international arena must be upheld. After fierce bilateral struggle, the IOC reconsidered the situation and made some concessions. It allowed the Olympic committee in Taiwan to use the name "Republic of China Olympic Committee" to attend Olympic Games, but all uniforms, badges, and documents were to use "Taiwan," as the de facto controlled athletic area. This provoked a fierce response from the R. O. C.; its Olympic delegation marched with an "under protest" banner in the opening ceremonies. From the viewpoint of propriety (or the match between title and role), the problem of membership has persisted to the present-day and may become fiercer if no settlement satisfies both sides of the Taiwan Straits.