《推薦閲讀:Thomas Friedman 專欄——反恐之戰後是什麼?對中國的戰爭?》New York Time 2021 年 9 月 7 日
(What Comes After the War on Terrorism? War on China)
過去五年來,美國和中國一直在走上脫離一體化的道路,甚至可能走向徹底對抗。
在Thomas Friedman 看來,這是中國在國內外越來越強勢的領導風格,它的國家領導人、雙方的貿易政策。
而不斷變化的經濟結構,是造成這種逆轉的主要原因。”
“在與中國打交道時,說話要輕聲細語,但美國總是帶著高額關稅(和一艘航空母艦)。”
Thomas Friedman, "What Comes After the War on Terrorism? War on China?" New York Times, September 7, 2021
"For the past five years, though, the United States and China have been stumbling down a path of de-integration and maybe toward outright confrontation. In my view, it is China’s increasingly bullying leadership style at home and abroad, its heads-we-win-tails-you-lose trade policies and the changing makeup of its economy that are largely responsible for this reversal."
"When dealing with China, speak softly but always carry a big tariff (and an aircraft carrier)."
https://nyti.ms/3l3Zy3b
* 紐約時報知名專欄作家佛里曼(Thomas Friedman)在911恐怖攻擊事件20周年前夕,呼籲全球應「多合作、少對抗」。
他並表示,如果美國增加在教育和基礎設施的投資,而非把錢浪費在阿富汗和伊拉克戰爭上,如今就能更有效與中國競爭。
1999 年Thomas Friedman出版「了解全球化─Lexus與橄欖樹」(The Lexus and the Olive Tree)一書中,點出在全球化新時代「超強憤怒者」正在崛起的危險。
他曾經是紐約時報駐中東的記者:早在911之前,他已經聞到了憤怒組織的味道。他只是不知道他們的名字。
「超強憤怒者」的原型是賓拉登:但他們可以一直源源不絕,來自不同的中東非洲地區,而且不斷的產生新組織,新領導人。
因為這些地區和西方的仇恨史太長、太深、而且他們的自我宗教意識愈來愈強。他們要西方人,包括英、法、美、義⋯⋯滾出阿拉伯人的聖地。他們不能接受以色列對巴勒斯坦領土的不斷吞噬,而美國毫無條件支持。他們感覺自己正在失去耶路撒冷聖城,因為經由西方的強勢語言,耶路撒冷正等同於耶穌的名稱。穆罕默德的聖山、土地、歷史被「消失斬首」了。
早在911之前,1998年夏天,蓋達組織已經轟炸了美國駐坦尚尼亞和肯亞大使館,當時的美國總統柯林頓政府向阿富汗發射了70多枚巡航飛彈進行報復。
這是美國這個超級強權有史以來,首次以個別組織為目標,發射飛彈。
當時Thomas Friedman 警告:除非我們解決了造就賓拉登這類超強憤怒者的社會經濟背景和宗教環境,否則他們將對美國的威脅只會越來越大。
這個隱憂,三年後的以9 月11日的恐攻,化為現實。
隨著冷戰結束,對之後國際秩序預測出現不少爭論。 例如,法蘭西斯.福山(Francis Fukuyama)預測自由市場將獲勝,而且和平即將到來。
但他顯然錯了,衝突並未消失。
Thomas Friedman 曾預測廿一世紀會出現一個古老和新穎事物並存的世界:種族認同和全球化併存,貿易競爭和生產鏈的世界。
在這樣的新世界裡,部族、宗教、民族主義的衝動和全球秩序保持平衡,偶爾會激烈爭鬥。
二十年過去,Thomas Friedman 認為,這個預測是正確的。
儘管俄羅斯總統普丁在2014年吞併克里米亞半島,但他並沒有派軍隊入侵烏克蘭首都基輔。
雖然中國收緊對香港的管控,但並未入侵台灣。
他認為那是因為全球秩序及互相依存,已成功遏制民族主義的衝動。
Thomas Friedman 認為美國於 2001年入侵阿富汗追捕賓拉登,然後在 2003 年攻入伊拉克,錯誤聲稱該國擁有大規模毀滅性武器。
美國浪費了很多時間和金錢。
在過去的 40 年裡,世界本來大致保持和平。
他認為,這種和平的核心是以美國和中國共存為特徵的全球經濟體系。
但這種平衡,現在可能即將改變。因為中國已成為一個更具實力及侵略性的強權 。
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過83萬的網紅serpentza,也在其Youtube影片中提到,The World has helped China immensely in the past, saving China from outright domination from Japan, saving China's economy through investment and trad...
「what is a trade war」的推薦目錄:
- 關於what is a trade war 在 文茜的世界周報 Sisy's World News Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於what is a trade war 在 Lee Hsien Loong Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於what is a trade war 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於what is a trade war 在 serpentza Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於what is a trade war 在 serpentza Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於what is a trade war 在 Trade wars, explained - YouTube 的評價
what is a trade war 在 Lee Hsien Loong Facebook 的精選貼文
After I posted on my leave plans on Sunday, a few of you asked what was on my reading list, so I am sharing some books I have read / am reading / or hope to read. Three of the books are available from the National Library Singapore. Do check out the NLB app (iOS: https://go.gov.sg/moiqhc | Android: https://go.gov.sg/hu17bc). It is a marvellous resource, and you will definitely be able to discover many books to suit your interests.
[ Nuclear Folly, a History of the Cuban Missile Crisis
by Serhii Plokhy ]
The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. I had read "13 Days", the short memoir by Robert Kennedy about it as a teenager, and later Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision", a seminal study using the Crisis to analyse decision making from different perspectives. Both were mainly based on US records. Plokhy's book draws on Soviet archives, to present events from both the US and Soviet points of view. Many mistakes were made on both sides. The saving grace was that both President John Kennedy and General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev desperately wanted to avoid a nuclear war. But even then the two sides avoided a nuclear exchange only by a hair’s breadth, and only by chance, because events once set in motion were no longer entirely within the two leaders' control. A gripping read.
[ The Bilingual Brain, and what it tells us about the science of language
by Albert Costa ]
Having learnt several languages myself, and grappled with our bilingualism policy in schools, this book was a natural choice. I am still reading it. Did you know that a newborn infant already recognises and prefers the language (or languages) which their mother spoke while they were in her womb, and within hours of birth can also distinguish between two different languages that they have never heard before? Infants pick up a language (or two) naturally in their first years, but learning a second or third language later in life is much harder. This book explains why.
[ Capturing Light, the Heart of Photography
by Michael Freeman ]
A book about the different sorts of light, how they influence the photo you take, and how to use them to create the effect and mood that you want. Photographers know about the golden hour and blue hour, hard light and soft light, direct and indirect lighting, front and back lighting, haze, mist and fog, and so many more variations. The book includes lots of the author’s photos illustrating his points, taken over many years. Hope to pick up something from reading it. But the key in photography (as in so many other skills) is to practise and practise, if you want to improve.
[ Bettering Humanomics, A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science
by Deidre Nansen McCloskey ]
The author, a distinguished economist, argues that economics is not just about incentives and institutions, mathematical models and observed behaviour. It should take a broader, more humanistic approach, paying attention to ethics and values, “what people believe, and the stories they tell one another”, as one reviewer put it. Certainly in government we must think about these broader factors all the time, while making sure we get the economics right. Not just in trade and industry or finance, but also in national development, education, health, manpower, sustainability and the environment, social and family development, and so much of public policy. I haven't read this book yet, but saw an enthusiastic book review, and look forward to reading the book itself.
Happy reading! – LHL
what is a trade war 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Jenna Cody :
Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.
This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.
So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.
Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).
Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.
Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.
Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.
What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.
So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.
It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.
This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.
In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.
After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.
Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.
In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).
In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.
Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.
It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.
Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.
This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.
*
Now, as I said, none of this matters.
What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.
Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.
Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.
Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.
So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.
And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.
The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.
A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.
There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…
…well, that’s already settled.
The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.
Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.
If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.
what is a trade war 在 serpentza Youtube 的最讚貼文
The World has helped China immensely in the past, saving China from outright domination from Japan, saving China's economy through investment and trade but what does China do in return???
For a deeper dive into China's Propaganda influence and soft power, watch our liveshow ADVPodcasts: https://www.youtube.com/advpodcasts
DOCUMENTARY LINKS:
Conquering Southern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringsouthernchina
Conquering Northern China:
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/conqueringnorthernchina
Stay Awesome China (my new documentary): https://vimeo.com/ondemand/stayawesomechina
For Motorcycle adventures around the world, and a talk-show on two wheels go to ADVChina every Monday 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/advchina
For a realistic perspective on China and world travel from an American father and a Chinese mother with two half-Chinese daughters go to Laowhy86 every Wednesday 1pm EST
https://youtu.be/mErixa-YIJE
For a no-nonsense on the street look at Chinese culture and beyond from China's original YouTuber, join SerpentZA on Friday at 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/serpentza
Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za
moving to china adv china
us china australia china china economy
what is a trade war 在 serpentza Youtube 的最讚貼文
The best way to keep China together is to have a common enemy, come and find out what I mean..
Stay Awesome China (my new documentary): https://vimeo.com/ondemand/stayawesomechina
Discount code: STAYAWESOME
For Motorcycle adventures around the world, and a talk-show on two wheels go to ADVChina every Monday 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/advchina
We found White People in China!
https://youtu.be/fbJ7VM46QVs
For a realistic perspective on China and world travel from an American father and a Chinese mother with two half-Chinese daughters go to Laowhy86 every Wednesday 1pm EST
https://youtu.be/mErixa-YIJE
Chinese Peeps won't speak to me! (Wahh)
https://youtu.be/IqpWBOtgTRI
For a no-nonsense on the street look at Chinese culture and beyond from China's original YouTuber, join SerpentZA on Friday at 1pm EST
https://www.youtube.com/serpentza
Layman's guide to the China trade war!
https://youtu.be/c1BLtYGyffc
Support Sasha and I on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/serpentza
Join me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/winstoninchina
Twitter: @serpentza
Instagram: serpent_za
what is a trade war 在 Trade wars, explained - YouTube 的推薦與評價
But President Trump's bluster and threats of imposing tariffs on foreign imports to the US have raised the specter of a trade war with China ... ... <看更多>