I sincerely hope I am wrong | Lee Yee
I know very little about American issues. In the past, I even thought that no matter which party wins the presidential election, there would be no significant difference under the Constitution and the existing system. However, it is different this time. This US presidential election not only involves the interests of the Americans but also concerns the future political situation of the world, especially for China and Hong Kong.
The state of society tearing as a result of this presidential election is far beyond any from the past, almost to the point of a civil war. As far as the domestic situation in the US is concerned, it is not a dispute between supporting Trump or supporting Biden, but a fight between support for Trump and opposition to Trump. The topics of discussion are 1) epidemic prevention and control measures, 2) violence and disorder due to the Black Lives Matter protests, and 3) economy. Arguments from both standpoints are too numerous to detail and many are reasonable with solid judgment. It is very difficult to explain clearly in this short article. I will only discuss the history and current situation of Sino-US relations.
The most important timeline in the history of the modern relations between China and the US is after WWII during the Chinese Civil War between the Kuomintang (KMT)-led government of the Republic of China and the Communist Party of China (CPC). At that time, the 33rd president of the US and leader of the Democratic Party, Harry S. Truman pursued a policy of appeasement to the CPC and actively advocated negotiations between the KMT and the CPC. During the Chinese Civil War, it was apparent that he was pro-communist and made the communist military stronger. The KMT was defeated for internal reasons but the US inclination was key. After the KMT government retreated to Taiwan, in January 1950, President Truman issued a statement that the US would not intervene with the situation in China and declared that the island groups of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some minor islands were not within the scope of the US military. The US Democratic Party allowed mainland China to fall into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Later, Chiang Kai-shek commissioned General Ho Shai-lai to Tokyo to meet with Douglas MacArthur, the American general who administered postwar Japan during the Allied occupation and oversaw the occupation, rebuilding and democratization of Japan. The visit aimed to win the support of General MacArthur and was ultimately able to save Taiwan.
Another important page in the history of the Sino-US relations was the diplomatic breakthrough of Republican US President Richard Nixon in 1971. A military conflict broke out in the previous year at the border of China and the then Soviet Union. The Soviet Union intended to deploy nuclear weapons to perform a so-called “surgical removal operation” on China’s nuclear base. However, it was halted when it probed the US for reactions. The US stated that if the Soviet Union employed nuclear weapons, it would undoubtedly challenge the US nuclear balance policy. After that, when the US collaborated with China to strategically deal with the superpower Soviet Union, the US did not abandon Taiwan. Not until 1979 when Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the US and a democrat, established diplomatic relations with the CCP that the US severed ties with Taiwan. The incident triggered a global trend to set up diplomatic relations with the CCP, which enabled the CCP to steady a firm holding in the international community.
The third important aspect in the history of the Sino-US relations was in 2000, under Bill Clinton’s administration, China was given entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) and granted a most favored nation (MFN) status. Since then, it developed its foothold as an international manufacturer in the global market. Furthermore, its economy took off through intellectual property theft, failure to commit to the promise of its 2001 accession to the WTO and market dominance by means of authoritarian capitalism. As China’s economic development fully penetrates into the Western world, on the one hand, it takes advantage of the multinational companies invested in China to control the capital markets of the US and the West. On the other hand, it invests heavily in its grand propaganda to control overseas Chinese media and even Western mainstream media.
Every election candidate receives donations from multinational companies. Not to mention 90% of the mainstream media in the US are owned or operated by these Democratic Party’s donors. Therefore, they turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room and injudiciously embrace the CCP regime that has infiltrated the American society and continuously infringed on human rights at home. In addition to the interest considerations, the media of course also has the leftist ideology permeated in Western academia and journalism. I will elaborate on this topic at another time.
Finally, there is Trump who is not swayed by the donors of multinational corporations because he himself does not lack money nor is he afraid to offend most of the leftist media. He sometimes speaks without thinking but he never seeks the so-called “political correctness,” and basically does what he says he would. People who stand on the moral high ground with the spirit of great love would shake their heads upon his words and actions. Regardless, only a person like Trump can start to contain the power that infiltrated the US and the Western world, and support the democracy of Taiwan and Hong Kong’s campaign for autonomy.
Currently, anti-China is the general social conscience in the US. Biden’s China policy seems to align with that of Trump’s. Biden even defined the CCP’s handling of Xinjiang as an “ethnic genocide.” However, is there really no difference between the two parties? Recall that when Clinton was running for the presidency, he said that he opposed the Republican government’s annual review of the US MFN status for China. He believed it should not be granted but after he took office, he made China’s MFN status permanent and sent China to the WTO.
As the Democratic Party controls Wall Street and mainstream media, I am not optimistic about Trump in this election. Even so, I really hope from my brain to my heart that I am wrong.
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過76萬的網紅memehongkong,也在其Youtube影片中提到,中共應借鑑蘇共倒台敎訓/和平演變難在中國出現〈Dream Bear天下〉2015-12-08 e 即時聊天室:http://goo.gl/ToDqof 謎米香港 www.memehk.com Facebook:www.facebook.com/memehkdotcom...
「soviet communist party」的推薦目錄:
soviet communist party 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
The biggest danger that can befall us | Lee Yee
The debate around the pan-democrats’ leaving or staying is heated. What I am concerned about is the thinking during this debate. Perhaps the process is more important than the result.
I quoted from Mao in last week’s article: “We must support whatever the enemy opposes, and we must oppose whatever the enemy supports.” This is a common way of thinking, whether among the Chinese and Hong Kong Communists, Hong Kong pro-democracy camps, young protesters, and even certain political commentators. They often use this line of thinking to judge and justify their words and actions.
My article sparked discussion on LIHKG, with the focus on whether we should act in the opposite direction as the “enemy”. Some think that I was mainly targeting and reprimanding the LIHKG community, because many of them oppose certain words and actions based very simply on whether “the CCP is the happiest”. Others pointed out that YouTube KOLs mention “the CCP is the happiest” like a broken record.
Days ago, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “Some U.S. politicians suppress China because they are afraid of China’s development. The harder they suppress, the more it proves China’s success, and the more it shows that China did it right.”
Luo Huining, director of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, said in response to the sanctions imposed by the United States, “This shows exactly how I did all the right things for my country, for Hong Kong.”
Alvin Yeung said in an interview a few days ago, “The Civic Party was the DQ (disqualification) champion, four out of six of our candidates were disqualified, and three out of our four incumbent lawmakers were disqualified. This proves that the regime does not like what we have done.”
A commentator said, “The CCP and Hong Kong Communists wish to see that we split, therefore we must do the opposite, avoid splitting.”
Why is it that whatever the enemy opposes must be right, and whenever the enemy is happy it must be wrong? What is the logic behind right and wrong? The pro-Communists have discussed both options for the pan-democrats, does it mean neither should be done?
To do the opposite, the opposite must be justified. Only a lazy person with dependent thinking will oppose for the sake of opposing.
Whatever we do should be backed by our own principles and considerations, and not to base it on whether it makes the enemy happy or not to choose and judge words and actions. If being DQ’d means it was right, then does not being DQ’d mean it was wrong? Should there be a split between political parties, it should be one on the issues of principle. “Harmony” that reconciles but disregards principles is not desirable.
The CCP’s usual propaganda: China’s 1.4 billion people, including Hong Kong’s compatriots, support the “return”; 1.4 billion people, including Taiwan compatriots, oppose Taiwan’s independence. The thing is, the future of Hong Kong or Taiwan hugely impact Hongkongers and Taiwanese, but have very little to do with the interest of the 1.4 billion people. The Québec independence referendum only asked the Québec people to vote, and not all Canadians; the Scotland independence referendum only sought votes in Scotland. By the same logic, whether the pan-democrats accept the appointment to extend their tenures or not, only the opinions of the pro-democracy voters should be considered. Including the pro-Beijing voters is the equivalent of including 1.4 billion people into deciding for the future of Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Before the implementation of the national security law, Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (PORI) conducted a public opinion survey on June 15-18 regarding the law. The results showed that the majority of Hongkongers opposed the law. However, a survey conducted by Hong Kong Research Association on July 2-5 showed that 66% of Hongkongers supported the implementation of the law, because the question asked was not whether to support the national security law, but whether it should be included in Annex III of the Basic Law. Clearly, the latter survey had a stance around which the question was designed. This sort of guiding survey is skewed.
Regarding the survey about the extension of the Legislative Council, it should first be asked whether the decision to extend for no less than a year is accepted, then within the forced extension of the Legislative Council, the options of staying or leaving en masse. In addition, the option of a small number to accept the appointment while the majority does not. If there is first the stance, then it is no different from a pro-Communist survey.
In 1946, American diplomat George Kennan sent a long telegram from Moscow, which launched the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The renowned diplomat offered a word of caution to the American policymakers: “After all, the greatest danger that can befall us in coping with this problem of Soviet communism, is that we shall allow ourselves to become like those with whom we are copying.”
The various aforementioned thinking has just entered the realm where “biggest danger that can befall us”, as warned by Kennan.
soviet communist party 在 李怡 Facebook 的精選貼文
The prophecies of Xu Zhimo | Lee Yee
Carrie Lam took the initiative to cancel her US visa, and now she has taken another action to renounce her honorary fellowship from Wolfson College of the University of Cambridge. That Facebook post of hers indeed gave us a bit of joy in sorrows. Some proposed, “Please renounce the British citizenship of your husband and two sons as well, in order to demonstrate your loyalty to the country.” There, we could tell where public opinion lies and where the public’s heart is.
To conclude her post, she wrote, “Despite this unpleasant incident, Cambridge University is still a world-renowned university that many aspire to, and Cambridge, under the pen of Mr. Xu Zhimo, still leaves many beautiful memories for my family and me!” As she bids farewell to Cambridge, one can’t help but recall Xu Zhimo’s “Taking Leave of Cambridge Again”.
Xu Zhimo’s Cambridge era was in 1920-21, but I think the most noteworthy moment of his was his tenure as the editor-in-chief of the Morning Supplement from 1925 to 1926. During this period, he discovered great writers such as Shen Congwen, and predicted how the next century would unfold.
The predecessor of Morning News [Shen Bao] was Morning Bell Daily [Shen Zhong Bao], founded by Liang Qichao and Tang Hualong. Morning Bell Daily published novels, poems, essays, and academic speeches in the seventh edition, so Morning News Supplement was initially referred to as the “Seventh Edition of Morning Bell”. Many articles and works of the New Culture Movement, including Lu Xun’s episodic novella, “The True Story of Ah Q”, was published in here. It was one of the three major publications during the May Fourth Cultural Enlightenment Movement. The Chief of Morning News was Chen Bosheng, and the seventh edition was led by Sun Fuyuan, who gave it the name Morning Bell Daily. Until 1924, when Sun Fuyuan left, it was the “golden age” of the propagation of the new culture. During this period, there was the October Revolution of the Soviet Union, which led to the establishment of the first socialist country, and China’s May Fourth Movement, which developed from enlightenment that promoted liberal and democratic ideas to socialism and salvation that catered to the global trend. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was established, and the Kuomintang (KMT) was transformed into a Lenin-style party. Joining forces, the two parties set up the Republic of China Military Academy (ROCMA), to which the Soviet Union sent representatives to participate in preparation for the Northern Expedition to overthrow the most civilized Beiyang regime (aka the Republic of China) in the early days of the establishment of the Republic of China.
At the insistent invitation of Chen Bosheng, the editor-in-chief of the Morning News, Xu Zhimo agreed to serve as the editor-in-chief of the Morning Supplement in early 1925 after his Europe tour. He started to travel by train to Soviet Russia in March, and then off to Europe. At the time, he was carrying the yearning of most Chinese intellectuals, including Hu Shi, for the realization of the ideal of human equality in the Soviet Union, but he had sensitively noticed the gloomy expressions on the faces of Soviet Russians, the sense that they “had no idea what the smile of natural joy” was. He visited Tolstoy’s daughter in Moscow and learned that Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky’s books were no longer available. Xu Zhimo then wrote a sharp, honest, literary note, “They believe that Heaven is available and achievable, but between the secular world and Heaven there is a body of water, a sea of blood, and humans must survive crossing this sea before they could reach the other shore. They decided first to realize that sea of blood.”
That was the early years of the establishment of the Soviet Union, when the new regime was praised by intellectuals around the world, and inspired Chinese ideologies. The poet’s keen observation foresaw that this regime under the dictatorship of the proletariat would realize a sea of blood.
After returning to China and took over the Morning News Supplement on October 1, 1925, the first thing Xu Zhimo did was to start a series of discussions around the Soviet-Russian issue in the paper. More than 50 fiercely controversial articles on whether to introduce “friendship” or “hatred” towards Russia. At around 5 p.m. on November 29, the Morning News building in Beijing was set on fire by the protestors, which also burned the discussions to ashes.
Why did Xu Zhimo try so hard to discuss Soviet Russia? He said, “China’s problem with Soviet Russia…to date, it has always been a gangrene that has never been removed nor punctured. The pus inside has gathered to a point where it can no longer be silted, and the hidden chaos is so obvious that we can no longer simply ignore.” Therefore, “the problem this time,…to exaggerate a little, is a problem of China’s national fortune, including all possible perversions in the livelihoods of its countrymen.”
The prophecies of the creation of a sea of blood by the Soviet Union, as well as the Chinese people living in perversions, have all came true. Today, we are not only commemorating Cambridge under the pen of this renowned poet, but we should also remember how the Chinese ignored this prophet’s words, and brought about a disaster that is still continuing a hundred years later.
She bid farewell to Cambridge. But Cambridge would never have tolerated the smearing of these hands, which created a sea of blood anyway.
soviet communist party 在 memehongkong Youtube 的最讚貼文
中共應借鑑蘇共倒台敎訓/和平演變難在中國出現〈Dream Bear天下〉2015-12-08 e
即時聊天室:http://goo.gl/ToDqof
謎米香港 www.memehk.com
Facebook:www.facebook.com/memehkdotcom
soviet communist party 在 21st Congress Of Soviet Communist Party (1959) - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>