The words 窶徭tudying abroad窶・or 窶彿nternational student窶・have unique historical overtones in Japanese. First, studying abroad means that the student has made a strong commitment to broaden his/her horizons: to surrender oneself to an extraordinary system of education unavailable in one窶冱 home country. And, on top of this, in most cases the student must also shoulder the expectations of his/her nation and community, or family and supporting organizations. Thus this is not just about the fate of one individual, but involves the inseparable bonds between the student and the home nation.

During the Meiji era, the Japanese students who went to study in western countries as part of Japan窶冱 move to modernization were, at times, highly encouraged by the magnitude of their responsibilities, while at other times, were almost crushed by the weight of this burden. The same sentiments were probably felt by international students from other Asian nations as well. Now in the 21st century, circumstances have most certainly changed with lighter burdens on the students, but the expectations on international students and their sense of responsibility still linger on.

There is also another circumstance present: the stance of the country accepting international students. The host countries have generally been developed nations, giving support in the form of providing international students with the opportunity to learn from their country窶冱 accomplishments in the disciplines. But there was also another aim: to maintain and build upon the close relations between their country and the students窶・home countries. By having these students master their language, customs, and culture in general, the host country anticipated that their status and influence on the students窶・home countries would heighten. In this way, the acceptance of international students could perhaps be defined as a form of diplomatic strategy. Though this is not blatantly expressed by any country now, it cannot be denied that this is perceived as a barometer of a country窶冱 diplomatic strength.

In this way, it could be said that the 窶彡ircumstances of international students窶・are complex and subtle expressions in the formation of a modern state. Japan has embodied both of these aspects concerning international students within its modern history. Of course, Japan is not the only country to have had such experiences, but it is in a valuable position to offer suitable advice on how to operate systems for overseas study based on this experience. It could also safely be said that Japan has already explored the questions of what would be beneficial for the students themselves and what would be most appropriate for both the sending and the accepting countries.

I would like to touch briefly upon my own experience studying abroad. For a rather short period of time, I was able to study at a graduate school in France. As a country which boasts a frontline position in studies in the humanities disciplines, France had an excellent system for education in French, philosophy, and history. But what I actually learned there came more from the dialogue with, and stimulation received from the many students I came in contact with around the school, rather than guidance in seminars and lectures in the classroom. There were of course many French students in the area, but there were also throngs of international students of my age who had come from all corners of the globe including Japan. While retaining our own cultural identities, we together came face-to-face with the French culture. And while often speaking to each other in an odd version of French, we learned how to pursue our learning.

Intrinsically, the purpose of the host country (France) in accepting international students should be to emanate French studies to a broad spectrum of students from around the world. The countries sending out the students would also want their students to be the vehicles for fast and direct import of leading technologies and knowledge. However, the most striking result of this study abroad was the creation of networks between students from across the globe. Were these networks, created from outside of the classroom, an efficient learning method for the students themselves and their home countries? Was it a method producing results worth the costs for the French government? Doubts may exist.

But for the students themselves, I believe this experience and its lingering effects after returning home, had irreplaceable and important consequences. And, it can truly be said that the marks of remarkable change are now about to appear on the systems and realities of oversea studies.

We Japanese are now set to welcome large numbers of international students, particularly from the countries of Asia. It would not be acceptable to make the purpose of this effort the emanation of Japan窶冱 academic accomplishments to a broad spectrum of students. We should also not force the students to be a means of directly importing Japan窶冱 culture and their Japanese experience to their respective home countries, or expect them to do this. It would instead be far more beneficial to give support toward the creation of networks between Asian students in Tokyo and elsewhere in Japan and their vast number of colleagues including the Japanese. With the progress of globalization today, we must reject old-fashioned notions of winning the race for high global profile, and must instead be a major player in building new networks. This is where we could discover new, special challenges to address based on our experience in world history of a unique culture taking the form of international studies. I mostly sincerely hope for the understanding of this by our students from Asia.

This training program was held for the purpose of enhancing the policy formulating ability relating to earthquake measures for administrative staff in charge of city planning for disaster reduction and building regulations. Nine trainees from four cities—Singapore, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Seoul—participated in this training program from November 12 to 14, 2008.

Lectures on the Tokyo Metropolitan Government窶冱 earthquake-resistance policies were held on the first day. In addition to explanations on Tokyo窶冱 strict earthquake-resistance standards and building construction, explanations were given on the assessment of damage levels and vulnerability checks, using photos depicting the disaster situations of past earthquakes. Explanations were also given on how, in the case that earthquake-resistance standards are revised, subsidies are granted to aid seismic retrofitting to promote the retrofitting of houses that do not meet the new standards, as well as on measures to strengthen inspection structures to prevent poor construction and measures to increase the fine on standard violations.

On the second day, the trainees visited the newly retrofitted main store of Mitsukoshi department store as part of their practical training. This building was constructed over 40 years ago and has seven floors above ground and three floors below ground. Learning from the experience of the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake in 1995, Japan has frequently reviewed its earthquake-resistance standards. Seismic retrofitting of this department was conducted over a period of 33 months, while continuing business, in order to improve earthquake-resistance as well as to make the building barrier free. During the tour, trainees inspected the retrofitted areas underground and the staff from the construction company gave an explanation on the earthquake-resistance structure and the process of the construction.

As an aside to this event, on December 16, a month after the training, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government granted a plate to Mitsukoshi Department Store bearing a mark which shows that the building has completed seismic retrofitting. This is the first application of the Seismic Diagnosis and Seismic Retrofit Mark System.

On the last day, the trainees gave presentations on their earthquake disaster reduction measures activities in each city. Information on the earthquake-resistance situation in each city and questions were actively exchanged throughout these presentations.

Climate changes are causing localized heavy rainfall and rising of the sea levels, while advancing deforestation and urbanization are reducing the water-holding capacity of soil. Against this backdrop, metropolitan areas are exposed to the threat of flooding disasters. At the Seventh Plenary Meeting of the ANMC21 held in Kuala Lumpur in November 2008, the chief executives of the member cities discussed flood control measures. This issue of the newsletter presents some specific measures in Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur.