Home Blog Page 806

抖音和Zoom用户戏耍特朗普?这是极其危险游戏!

作者:程墨  来源:跨界见闻

今天(6月22日)下午,各大门户网站转发了“观察者网”的一篇文章《特朗普被TikTok用户戏耍,遭遇“集体放鸽子”》。

文章称,特朗普自疫情暴发后的首场竞选集会的上座率“有点难看”。会前,特朗普吹嘘超百万人预定了演讲门票,竞选团队还在场外也搭台,准备让他连讲两场。结果,20日当天不仅馆内二层平台人迹寥寥,场外也几乎空空如也,二场演讲自然也告吹了。

据美国各大媒体报道,中国抖音的国际平台TikTok用户、中国知名的在线视频会议平台Zoom用户和韩流粉丝使用大量虚假的订票,干扰了特朗普这次竞选集会。现在,这些人在网络上为成功戏耍了特朗普公开大肆庆祝,并表示为现场数千张空座位负责。

我在今天上午所写的《特朗普竞选集会无人喝彩?真相会令许多人失望!》一文中,分析了造成这次特朗普竞选集会上座率不如预期的三大原因:

1、当地疫情肆虐,美国主流媒体和当地官员们强烈批评特朗普举行这样的集会,认为这会导致疫情扩散的风险,肯定会许多人打消了参加集会的念头。鉴于新冠病毒主要对老年人构成巨大威胁,根据特朗普指令,将不给60岁以上的老年人入场券,这大大减少了实际能参加现场集会的支持者人数。

2、特朗普竞选团队要求参加者签署一份书面声明,一旦感染病毒,不能追究集会组织者的责任,这不但增加了获得入场券的难度,而且进一步打击了部分支持者参加集会的热情。

3、美国各地漫延的黑人骚乱,令许多民众担心这种集会存在安全风险。
""

显然,现在认定TikTok用户、Zoom用户和韩流粉丝们导致这场集会上座率不高,下结论还为时过早。不过,正如观察网这篇文章介绍的,TikTok用户、Zoom用户和韩流粉丝们确实制造了大量虚假订票者。“无论TikTok和韩流粉丝是否拉低了周六的上座率,他们实际影响了特朗普竞选团队对于竞选活动到场人数的判断。”

当我们的媒体——官方背景的观察者网和各大门户网站大肆宣扬这一规模巨大的恶作剧取得辉煌胜利时,可能不知道,外国政府、企业、个人包括外国背景的网络平台干扰美国大选,在美国是非常严重的刑事犯罪。美国两党、司法部门和美国舆论对此始终抱持高度警惕,因为这样的行为会动摇美国的政治根基。

在当前中美关系极其敏感时刻,中资背景的TikTok、Zoom平台用户发动的这次严重干扰美国大选的举动,在美国和中国媒体铺天盖地的报道之后,必定会引起美国司法部门、情报部门的高度关注,很可能很快就会展开刑事调查。

在上次美国大选中,因美国6大情报部门一致认定俄罗斯干扰了美国大选,结果特朗普两次签署对俄罗斯制裁的总统令,包括关闭了俄罗斯多个外交机构,以及驱逐了大批俄罗斯外交官。
""

像这次TikTok、Zoom平台用户的虚假订票行为,如果只是美国年轻人参与,且两大平台本身并未故意放纵用户进行虚假订票,就没有任何法律责任。但是,即使不涉及犯罪,也会引起美国情报部门的高度重视,并成为美国政客攻击中资机构威胁美国国家安全的理由。

假如参与虚假刷票的人之中,存在大量虚假用户或者外国用户,且这两家中资平台纵容了这种行为,那不但TikTok、Zoom平台以及两个平台的高管面临极其严重的刑事处罚,有可能被逐出美国,甚至可能对中美关系带来重大冲击。

实际上,TikTok、Zoom平台在美国用户数的迅速增长,已经引起美国情报部门和美国国会一些议员的高度关注,甚至已经有美国议员提出要警惕TikTok对美国人带来的影响,要求美国情报和司法部门采取行动。这次事件,只会让TikTok、Zoom在美国的发展面临更多的不确定性。

我不知道为何TikTok、Zoom平台和大量报道此事的国内媒体,没有意识到这个巨大的法律风险。

就像三年前美国对华为发起刑事调查的消息公开之后,我建议华为低调处理,在没有与美国达成认罪和解协议之前,华为高管绝对不要去美国以及跟美国有引渡条约的国家一样,别自顾煽动国内民粹主义喊着爽,一定要小心避免引火烧身,带来灾难性的后果。

我对此事提出两点建议:第一,抖音和Zoom平台必须坚决否认参与此事,且声称已经采取技术措施,禁止此类干扰美国大选的行为再次发生;第二,国内媒体千万不要明示或暗示这与中国人有关,还沾沾自喜,大肆庆祝。

我相信,就像当初我对华为提出建议那样,许多人会对我围攻谩骂。事实上,正是这些国人的无知无畏,给美帝提供了打压华为、TikTok、Zoom这样企业的借口,使他们陷于非常危险的境地。

我必须告诉这些人:想颠覆美帝的邪恶制度,你得慢慢来,悄悄地干,千万不要大喊大叫。

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/22

旧文章ID:22120

习近平视频会见欧盟领导人:中欧没有根本利害冲突

0

作者:  来源:中美创新时报

据新华社报道,中国国家主席习近平22日晚在北京以视频方式会见欧洲理事会主席米歇尔和欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩。

习近平指出,新冠肺炎疫情发生以来,中国和欧盟相互支持、相互帮助。中方愿同欧方携手努力,推动“后疫情时代”中欧关系更加稳健成熟,迈向更高水平。

习近平强调,中国既是拥有悠久历史的古老国度,又是充满活力的发展中国家。中国要和平不要霸权。我们一切政策和工作的出发点就是让中国人民过上幸福生活。我们将沿着和平发展道路坚定不移走下去。中国是机遇不是威胁。中国将继续深化改革、扩大开放,这将为欧洲提供新一轮合作机遇和发展空间。中国是伙伴不是对手。中欧没有根本利害冲突,合作远大于竞争,共识远大于分歧。双方要相互尊重、求同存异、和而不同,不断增进彼此理解和信任,在合作中扩大共同利益,在发展中破解难题,打造更具世界影响力的中欧全面战略伙伴关系。

习近平强调,疫情冲击下的世界正在深刻变化,面临更多不稳定不确定因素。我曾提出,要努力在危机中育新机,于变局中开新局。这一点也适用于中欧关系。中欧作为世界两大力量、两大市场、两大文明,主张什么、反对什么、合作什么,具有世界意义。

中欧要做维护全球和平稳定的两大力量。中方愿同欧方就重大问题进行交流,相信欧盟将朝着团结、稳定、开放、繁荣的方向不断前进,乐见欧方为国际和平稳定作出建设性贡献,愿同欧方加强战略合作,共同应对全球性挑战。

中欧要做推动全球发展繁荣的两大市场。中欧两大经济体应该发挥世界经济“双引擎”作用,拉动世界经济复苏,共同支持科学有序复工复产,加强宏观经济政策协调,维护全球产业链供应链稳定通畅。双方要保持相互市场开放,加快推进中欧投资协定谈判,加强中欧绿色和数字领域合作,构建绿色发展伙伴。双方要加强对非三方合作。

中欧要做坚持多边主义、完善全球治理的两大文明。无论国际形势如何变化,中国都将站在多边主义一边,坚持共商共建共享的全球治理观。中方赞赏欧盟坚定维护多边主义,参与国际抗疫合作,并加大对世卫组织等国际机构投入,愿同欧方就重大国际和地区问题加强协调合作,加强全球公共卫生治理对话合作,推动构建人类卫生健康共同体。

习近平强调,我愿同两位主席保持密切沟通,推进中欧一系列重大政治议程,推动中欧关系迈上新台阶。

""

6月22日晚,国家主席习近平在北京以视频方式会见欧洲理事会主席米歇尔和欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩。新华社记者 燕雁 摄

米歇尔和冯德莱恩表示,欧中作为世界两大经济体,双方关系充满活力。当前世界面临很大不确定性,只有国际合作才能应对全球性挑战,只有对话协商才能解决矛盾冲突,消除地区不稳定。欧方愿本着坦诚的态度,同中方开展战略对话,扩大共识。欧方愿同中方就疫苗研发、复工复产加强合作,扩大双边贸易规模,推动绿色低碳、数字经济等广泛领域合作取得更多进展,尽快达成欧中投资协定,为尽早克服疫情影响、促进世界经济复苏作出努力。欧方坚持多边主义,愿同中方在联合国、世界贸易组织、二十国集团等框架内就公共卫生安全、气候变化、可持续发展、对非三方合作等重大问题加强协调合作。欧方愿同中方共同努力,推动欧中商定的重大政治议程取得成功。

王毅、何立峰等参加会见。

相关报道:

李克强:希望欧方保持贸易和投资市场开放 放宽对华出口限制

另据中国央视报道,中国总理李克强22日同欧洲理事会主席米歇尔、欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩通过视频方式共同主持第二十二次中国—欧盟领导人会晤。

李克强表示,中国和欧盟互为全面战略伙伴,双方合作远大于竞争,共识远多于分歧。中方高度重视对欧关系,习近平主席将同你们举行视频会见。建交45年来,中欧关系保持了合作主基调,增进了双方人民的福祉,也为世界注入了更多稳定性。双方应当从长远的角度看待中欧关系,坚持中欧全面战略伙伴定位,通过加强对话增进理解,通过深化合作实现互惠共赢,共同为维护世界和平稳定与发展繁荣作出贡献。

""

6月22日,国务院总理李克强在北京人民大会堂同欧洲理事会主席米歇尔、欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩共同主持第二十二次中国-欧盟领导人会晤(拼版照片)。会晤通过视频方式举行。新华社记者 庞兴雷 摄

李克强指出,中欧同为世界主要经济体。面对新冠肺炎疫情冲击,双方应当加强宏观经济政策协调,维护产业链供应链稳定,为世界经济复苏提供动力。争取年内完成中欧投资协定谈判,早日签署中欧地理标志协定。中国坚定不移扩大开放,致力于为各国企业创造市场化、法治化、国际化的营商环境。希望欧方同样保持贸易和投资市场开放,放宽对华出口限制。中欧扩大双向开放可以更好实现互利共赢。我们愿同欧方在世界贸易组织改革等问题上保持沟通,建设性参与应对气候变化多边进程,深化疫苗和药物研发等合作,共同努力早日战胜疫情。

米歇尔和冯德莱恩表示,在抗击疫情过程中,欧中相互支持,团结抗疫。疫情对各国带来冲击,但欧中合作的意愿并没有减弱。欧方愿同中方加强经济复苏合作,共同维护产业链供应链安全,进一步扩大市场开放,深化在世贸组织改革、气候变化问题上的合作,共同维护多边主义和自由贸易。

王毅、何立峰等出席会晤。(完)

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/23

旧文章ID:22119

奥巴马总统的30分钟父亲节演讲:生个孩子并非男人的实力,把孩子养大才是真正的本事

0

作者:  来源:精彩英语演讲

这个周末就是一年一度的父亲节了,这个节日提醒我们,在我们缔造生活所依赖的基石中,最为重要的是家庭。我们必须认识并且肯定每一位父亲在基石中起到的关键作用。父亲既循循善诱,又训练指导,既指明方向,又言传身教。父亲是成功的榜样,又是不断推动我们走向成功的人。

但如果我们开诚布公,就会承认还有太多的父亲不在其位——在太多孩子的生活里,在太多的家庭里,父亲的这一角色是缺失的。他们置责任于不顾,表现得像小男孩,而不是男子汉。我们许许多多的家庭的基础也因此变得薄弱。

在讲这些话时,我心里明白,我不是一个完美的父亲——我知道我犯过错,而且未来还会犯错;我希望能有比现在更多的时间待在家里,陪伴妻子儿女,可是无法做到。所有这些我都明白,却仍然要这样讲。是因为纵然我们不完美,纵然我们面临重重困难,却依然有一些经验教训,是我们身为人父必须努力经历、努力总结的——不管我们是黑人或白人,富人或穷人,来自贫穷的南区或来自富裕的郊区。

""

President Obama spoke as a dad — and as a son who grew up without one — as he marked Father’s Day during his weekly radio address.

在这个演讲中,奥巴马从一个父亲和一个没有父亲的儿子这两个身份阐述了父亲的重要性。

“I know how important it is to have a dad in your life, because I grew up without my father around,” Obama said of his father, Barack Obama Sr., who divorced his mother when he was 2. “I felt the weight of the absence.”

“我深知你们一生中有个父亲是何等重要,因为我从小到大没有父亲。”奥巴马谈起了他的父亲,在奥巴马两岁时,他父亲与母亲离婚。“那感觉就像天塌了一样。”

He added that he tries to be supportive of his wife, Michelle, and his two daughters, Sasha, 13. and Malia, 15. “For Michelle and my girls, I try every day to be the husband and father my family didn’t have when I was young,” he said.

他说他一直努力做好贤夫良妇,尽量努力让家人们感受到他小时候没有感受过的温暖。

The President encouraged dads around the country to get more involved in their kids’ lives, and said real courage comes from not just having children, but raising them.

总统鼓励全国的父亲多陪陪孩子,他说,生恩不及养恩,真正的勇气在于抚养孩子。

“What makes you a man isn’t the ability to have a child, it’s the courage to raise one,” he said.

生个孩子不是一个男人的实力,把它好好养大才是真正的本事。他说。

“While there’s nothing that can replace a parent, any one of us can do our part to be a mentor, a sounding board, a role model for a kid who needs one.”

没有一个政府项目可以取代父母的爱。还有,作为一个国家,我们有很多方式帮助父亲们和母亲们做出这个选择。

奥巴马2009年父亲节演讲

Thank you so much. And let me, first of all, thank John and Joe and Juan Carlos and Etan and Mike for sharing their remarkable stories with us. And let me thank Mike Strautmanis for helping to guide us through this — where did Mike go? There he is, over there.

A couple other people that I want to acknowledge — first of all, our terrific Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is here in the house. A dear friend of mine, former colleague in the Senate, Senator Evan Bayh is here. Chicago’s own, Congressman Danny Davis, from the West Side. Where’s Danny? He was here a second ago. Give him a round of applause anyway.

And I want to thank kids from "Life Pieces to Master Pieces," and Foundry United Methodist Church. Thank you very much for your participation. I want to thank members of the Faith-Based Advisory Council’s Subcommittee on Fatherhood that has helped us to organize these events today.

Good afternoon, everybody. It is wonderful to see you. I see some familiar faces in the house. Rev, how are you doing? It is great to have all of you here today as we gear up to celebrate Father’s Day and to recognize the vital role that fathers play in our communities and obviously in our families.

This town hall marks the beginning of a national conversation that we hope to start about fatherhood and personal responsibility — about how fathers across America are meeting the challenges in their families and communities, and what government can do to support those who are having a difficult time. Today, you’ve had a chance to hear from five of those fathers, men who are doing an outstanding job of meeting their obligations in their own lives.

We all know the difference that a responsible, committed father like those five gentlemen can make in the life of a child. Fathers are our first teachers and coaches. They’re our mentors and they’re our role models. They set an example of success and they push us to succeed; encourage us when we’re struggling; and they love us even when we disappoint them, and they stand by us when nobody else will.

And when fathers are absent — when they abandon their responsibilities to their children — we know the damage that that does to our families. Some of you know the statistics: Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to drop out of school and wind up in prison. They’re more likely to have substance abuse problems, run away from home, and become teenage parents themselves.

And I say this as someone who grew up without a father in my own life. I had a heroic mom and wonderful grandparents who helped raise me and my sister, and it’s because of them that I’m able to stand here today. But despite all their extraordinary love and attention, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t feel my father’s absence. That’s something that leaves a hole in a child’s heart that a government can’t fill.

Our government can build the best schools with the best teachers on Earth, but we still need fathers to ensure that the kids are coming home and doing their homework, and having a book instead of the TV remote every once in a while. Government can put more cops on the streets, but only fathers can make sure that those kids aren’t on the streets in the first place. Government can create good jobs, but we need fathers to train for these jobs and hold down these jobs and provide for their families.

If we want our children to succeed in life, we need fathers to step up. We need fathers to understand that their work doesn’t end with conception — that what truly makes a man a father is the ability to raise a child and invest in that child.

We need fathers to be involved in their kids’ lives not just when it’s easy — not just during the afternoons in the park or at the zoo, when it’s all fun and games — but when it’s hard, when young people are struggling, and there aren’t any quick fixes or easy answers, and that’s when young people need compassion and patience, as well as a little bit of tough love.

Now, this is a challenge even in good times. And it can be especially tough during times like these, when parents have a lot on their minds — they’re worrying about keeping their jobs, or keeping their homes or their health care, paying their bills, trying to give their children the same opportunities that they had. And so it’s understandable that parents get concerned, some fathers who feel they can’t support their families, get distracted. And even those who are more fortunate may be physically present, but emotionally absent.

I know that some of the young men who are here today might have their own concerns one day about being a dad. Some of you might be worried that if you didn’t have a father, then you don’t know how to be one when your turn comes. Some of you might even use that as an excuse, and say, "Well, if my dad wasn’t around, why should I be?"

Let’s be clear: Just because your own father wasn’t there for you, that’s not an excuse for you to be absent also — it’s all the more reason for you to be present. There’s no rule that says that you have to repeat your father’s mistakes. Just the opposite — you have an obligation to break the cycle and to learn from those mistakes, and to rise up where your own fathers fell short and to do better than they did with your own children.

That’s what I’ve tried to do in my life. When my daughters were born, I made a pledge to them, and to myself, that I would do everything I could to give them some things I didn’t have. And I decided that if I could be one thing in life, it would be to be a good father.

I haven’t always known exactly how to do that. I’ve made my share of mistakes; I’ve had to ask a lot of questions. But I’ve also learned from men that I admire. And one good example is Michelle’s father, Frasier Robinson, who was a shining example of loving, responsible fatherhood. Here is a man who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when he was 30 years old, but he still got up every day, went to a blue-collar job. By the time I knew him he was using two crutches to get around, but he always was able to get to every dance recital, every ballgame of Michelle’s brother. He was there constantly, and helped to shape extraordinary success for his children.

And that’s the standard that I strive for, though I don’t always meet it. And as I’ve said before, I’ve made mistakes as a parent, and I’m sure I will make plenty more. There have been days when the demands of work have taken me from my duties as a father and I’ve missed some moments in my daughters’ lives that I’ll never get back. So I’ve been far from perfect.

But in the end, it’s not about being perfect. It’s not always about succeeding; but it’s about always trying. And that’s something everybody can do. It’s about showing up and sticking with it; and going back at it when you mess up; and letting your kids know — not just with words, but with deeds — that you love them and that you’re always — they’re always your first priority.

And we need dads — but also men who aren’t dads — to make this kind of commitment not just in their own homes to their own families, but to the many young people out there who aren’t lucky enough to have responsible adults in their lives. We need committed, compassionate men to serve as mentors and tutors, and big brothers and foster parents. Even if it’s just for a couple hours a week of shooting hoops, or helping with homework, or just talking about what’s going on in that young person’s life. Even the smallest moments can end up having an enormous impact, a lasting impact on a child’s life.

So I am grateful to many of the organizations that are here, that are working on these issues. Some are faith-based; some are not. Some are government funded; some are privately funded. But all of you have those same commitments to making sure that we are lifting up the importance of fatherhood in our communities.

This is not the end, this is the beginning, of what I hope is going to be a national dialogue. And we’re going to have regional town hall meetings, as Mike may have mentioned, to make sure that participants all across the country are starting to have that positive effect in their communities.

And I especially want to thank the young people who are here today, because you’re the ones who are going to have to carry — (applause) — this forward.

So with that — I know we’ve already had some discussion, and what I want to do is to see if we can expand the conversation. We should have some microphones in the audience so that everybody can be heard. Am I correct? Mike, are you going to be like Oprah?

MR. STRAUTMANIS: I’m not going to be like Oprah.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. So what I want to do is just call on some folks. They can ask a question. They can share a story. Organizations that are doing great work on fatherhood, please tell us a little bit about the work that you are doing. And I want to especially hear from some of the young people who somehow ended up sitting in the back. I don’t know how that happened. I’m going to start with this young man right here.

Go ahead. Introduce yourself. Stand up, please.

Q Yes. My name is Roland Warren. I’m president of an organization called National Fatherhood Initiative. And first, just thank you for what you’re doing on this issue. And a lot of folks have been sort of toiling on this issue for a number of years, and to have you come forward and step up and make this a national priority is really important.

And one of the things I just want to say to you, that your message, in terms of the fact that even though you’ve had obviously tremendous success without your dad, the fact that you really needed him and that kids have a hole in their souls essentially in the shape of their dad I think is pretty important, because we really need to focus on that issue; that we got to change the legacy and help our kids pass on the legacy — have our dads pass on a different legacy than maybe they inherited.

I grew up without my dad, as well, and went to Princeton and things of that nature, but still needed him. That’s one of the reasons I do the work that I do. So I really am delighted that you’re doing the great work that you’re doing around this issue.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. Yes, I really want to emphasize this point about how just small moments and gestures can make a huge difference. A lot of folks know I love playing basketball. But it was my father who gave me my first basketball. Even though he wasn’t a part of my life, in the few weeks that I was with him, he gave me a basketball.

A lot of folks know I love jazz. It turns out he took me to my first jazz concert. I didn’t remember this until later on in life, but just that imprint is powerful. And imagine if that’s sustained every day. And especially, young men, when they hit the teenage years, to have somebody there who is there to steady them and to provide them with some guidance, that makes all the difference in the world.

And again, this is not to take away from the heroic work that moms are doing. It’s to emphasize moms need some help — because if you’re a single mom like mine was, and maybe they’re going to school or working — the pressures are enormous. And having somebody else there who’s able to carry on that child-rearing responsibility is absolutely critical.

Anybody else? Let me get one of these young people here. Go ahead.

Q Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Larry Holmes. I attend St. Albans School for Boys. And I would like to ask you a question.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead.

Q Traveling from state to state, country to country, being the President, which one is funner — being a father or being a President?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well — well, I mean this: Nothing is more fun than being a father. Now, my kids aren’t teenagers yet so I don’t know I don’t know whether that will maintain itself. But right now the greatest joy I get is just hanging out with the girls and talking to them and watching them grow and succeed.

Probably the most fun that I’ve had since I’ve been President was actually at a parent-teachers conference where the teachers were bragging on my children. And I just sat there and I just basked in the glory of — And now nothing is more important than that. And I think a lot of fathers can relate to that.

But here’s the important point, is that, with as many responsibilities as I have — and I’ve got a huge support structure and staff and whatnot — it turns out that you can still carve out time to make sure that you’re having a conversation with your kid.

And what it does mean is, is that fathers sometimes have to give up stuff that they’d like to do instead, like just sit there and watch Sportscenter. And I know we got D. Wade here — I like watching the highlights — but sometimes instead of watching the third, fourth fifth time Sportscenter, I just watch it once so that I can then spend time with the girls — because they don’t like watching basketball that much. But being President is pretty fun, too, no doubt about it.

All right. Great question. Next. Yes, sir — right here.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Here, you got a microphone.

Q Hi, Mr. President. My name is Chris Maples. I founded an organization in Indianapolis called Dads, Inc. — four years ago today, actually. And I hope that these dialogues continue to let everybody know that this isn’t a rich or poor, a North or South, a black or white; this is — this affects everybody from the upper class to the lower class. And that’s who we work with, that broad range. And over these four years, I’ve heard dramatic stories of — just so appreciative that we have a service in Indianapolis for all fathers, and that everybody is appreciative of that. And I hope we can keep that up on a national level, too.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. Absolutely. I think this is really important to emphasize — 23 percent of young people are growing up without fathers. Now, in the African American community, it’s close to 50 percent, maybe a little over, depending on the statistics that you look at. So there is a real crisis going on the African American community on this issue, but it is a more pervasive issue.

And I just went to a wonderful organization called Year Up that has young people who are getting trained after high school, most of them, on specific job-training skills, computer skills, but also how to conduct themselves in an office and write an email, et cetera. And it was wonderful talking to these young people. But one of the things I said specifically to the young men is that you can’t use anything as an excuse not to be involved with your children. Because kids — they won’t judge you based on whether you’re wealthy or poor. They will judge you if you are abusive to their mother. They will judge you in terms of you not showing up when they need you. That’s what makes a difference.

And kids will respect their fathers if their fathers are showing kindness and are modeling — that they’re working hard and trying to do what’s right for their families. And kids will understand that sometimes families fall on hard times. They get that. Joe Biden is here — and, Joe, actually, I want to talk to you, because you had a terrific relationship with your dad, but there was a time where your dad fell on some hard times, and yet you still talk about him all the time as the most important guiding role model in your life.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. President, I think it’s great what you’re doing, by the way. This is a big deal. Folks, you know, the President said sometimes fathers make mistakes, and I’ve made my share. But one thing my father told me — there’s a mistake a father should never make, and that is communicating to his child there’s anything other than total unconditional love. If there’s total unconditional love — that includes discipline — but if there’s total unconditional love, it doesn’t matter whether you’re rich or poor, whether or not you’re a real smart dad or you’re not such a smart dad, whether you’re handsome or you’re not so — it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Kids need love.

And as a single parent, Mr. President — I did that for a while, having two sons, as Evan knows. And what I can say to you is — my mom has an expression. He’s always kidding me, I’m always saying my mom and dad’s expressions. But my mom has an expression. And she said — I could hear her when she was a kid — when I was a kid, saying it to her peers. She said, "Be careful how you treat your children, you may need them some day."

And I want to tell you, the President knows my sons and my daughter. It doesn’t change — the happiest thing in the world is being a father. This day my 40-year-old son is attorney general of the state of Delaware. The President sees it in my 39-year-old son and my 27-year-old daughter. If my son, Attorney General, Captain Biden walked in the door from Iraq today, the first thing he’d do is walk up and give me a kiss. I mean it. And this is not — a kid who knows how to handle himself.

But the point is it gives me more joy, and I think it gives every father in this room more joy than any other thing that happens in your life, whether your son or daughter does that.

So, Mr. President, you’re a great President. You’re a great dad. And you’re really good to be doing this. It’s a big deal.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody back here want to comment on some of the things they heard or saw? Go ahead.

Q I’d like to ask you a question, Mr. President. At one point you had to decide you wanted to run for President, with two young daughters. Can you share with us how you had to wrestle with that decision?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s a great question and I think I’ve said this publicly before — the first question, the threshold question that I had to ask in conjunction with Michelle — because this was a joint decision — was could our family handle it? And frankly, if it hadn’t been for Michelle’s extraordinary strength and commitment, I could not have done it and would not have done it. And she was able to handle, for big chunks of time, being like a single mom.

Now, I want to emphasize we are luckier than most; we’ve got more resources than most. And so I don’t want to diminish how tough it is if you’re working two shifts, you’re coming home beat, and then suddenly you’re also expected to help on the homework and do all these things. It’s a big challenge for a lot of families. And we had more resources than most, but it was still a very difficult decision.

Frankly, I don’t think we would have made the same decision if our kids were a little older. Part of the reason it was okay was because when I started running, Sasha was five, Malia was eight, and they were still in Chicago; they had my mother-in-law, and they had a whole network and a community and a family that could help and support them. And so as a consequence we figured out they would thrive.

The person who suffered the most was me, because I would be calling from God knows where and they’d be having fun and laughing and and kids don’t talk on the phone that well. So I’d be, "Sasha, how was your day?" "Fine." "What did you do?" "Nothing." You guys have had those conversations.

And so there were times where just physically I wanted to just be with them, and just couldn’t. And so it was the hardest part of deciding to run for President.

The best thing about being President, by the way, is having a home office, because that means that — (applause) — that means that I get home for dinner and — even if I have to go back to work, and then that makes all the difference in the world.

So, okay. Ed, got one right behind you. No, no, got one — right back.

Q I’m used to you throwing my questions away.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I wouldn’t do that. Go ahead.

Q I’m kidding. Listen, I just wanted to thank you very much. We started an initiative with Al Dotson and a hundred black men called "Daddy’s Promise," which really takes a look at fathers involving themselves in their daughters’ lives, and you’ve been a great image for that. And what I just wanted to tell everybody is the service that you’ve given us, just with the image of you and your family and your daughters, has gone and made tenfold in terms of it being easier to tell men to involve themselves, because as we know, the media and the image is so powerful. And A, I’d like to thank you very much —

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that.

Q — for that, and being upfront on that — and encourage everyone to do so in your neighborhoods, because as much as we look to this man and others in the media, it is those of you who are there on an everyday basis. And when you see parents with children, it goes a long, long way. So we thank you for that.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. But I think you made the right point, Ed, which is it’s one thing seeing people on TV; it’s another thing seeing that young father down the street who’s just like you, except he’s holding his baby in his arms, or taking that toddler to the park, or participating in the Little League. That’s where young people get sort of their images, what it means to be a man, more than they do from whatever is on the screen. But I very much appreciate what you said.

Okay, I’m going to call on a token mom here just so that she can comment on these things.

Q I’m Reverend Dr. Barbara Williams Skinner.

THE PRESIDENT: It’s great to see you.

Q Good to see you. I want to say for women — I’m a mother and a grandmother — this is a day of celebration for us. We just felt our shoulders lifted. Not having had a father, but I — thank you for Bill Cowher and Mr. McDaniels from Run DMC, coming over to Ballou. The only time you hear about Ballou High School is when someone is shot or killed. Today the kids asked us — they said, "They’re coming to see us?" So I want to thank you on their behalf, that you cared enough about children who are on the other side of the river.

And now, my question is, how do we keep lifting up the stories of the kid who’s not in trouble, who goes past the drug dealers, who decides to stay in school, as opposed to all the — we spend so much emphasis on what’s not working. How do we talk about what is working?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I think you make a great point. First of all, I do want to thank all these wonderful men who took the time to go out and — Coach Cowher, this is the first time that you’ve seen Redskins fans cheer for you that doesn’t happen that often — but these extraordinary men for taking the time to do this. Please give them a big round of applause.

But I think you’re absolutely right, Reverend, that sometime we’ve got to lift up success instead of just remarking on failure, because — the young men that I met at the trip that I took to Year Up, these were extraordinary young people. They were poised and they were polished and they were — and these are all kids from the neighborhood, but they had — somebody had reached out to show that they care.

And it turns out that young people are incredibly resilient. It doesn’t take that much. All it takes is somebody to put a hand on them and say, "You know what? You’re important. And I’m listening to you." And if it’s the wrong person who’s putting that hand on them, if it’s the gang-banger that’s putting that hand on them, then they’ll respond to that. And if it’s a person in the community who is working hard, they’ll respond to that.

And so we do need to affirm positive behavior and not just condemn negative behavior, because a lot of times young people just — they just need to be told that if you — one of the neat things about this program that I was looking at was they had a whole code: The first thing that they trained young people on was how do you interact with others. So everybody that you met, they were shaking your hand and looking at you in the eye and they weren’t mumbling. And there were certain words that they had banned from usage — not just curse words, either. They were saying, you know, don’t go around saying, "Shorty" and "What’s up, G?" and — because that’s not professional. And all that was important to them, and they absorbed it very quickly. But it requires spending a little time and then lifting up some role models.

MR. STRAUTMANIS: Last question.

THE PRESIDENT: All right. This is always tough, the last-question thing. I’m going to call on one of these young people again. Here you go. Go ahead. This young man right here, he had his hand up.

Q I was wondering —

THE PRESIDENT: What’s your name?

Q I’m Nick, and I’m also from St. Albans.

THE PRESIDENT: Hey, Nick. Yes, you’re with this crew here.

Q And, Mr. President, I was wondering how you felt when you first became a father.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me tell you the story of me — first of all, Malia was born on the Fourth of July. And every first father has this memory of you’re waiting and you’re waiting, and then suddenly Michelle woke me up at around 3:00- 4:00 a.m., and I was sleepy, and she says, "Hey, buster, I think this may be happening." And you jump out — it was like a movie. I was jumping out of my bed and looking for my shoes and the bag.

And things went fairly smoothly. But the first time you see that child, and bringing her home, driving really slow in that little car seat — and then that night, knowing that there was this new life inside your house in a little bassinet, and remembering to check on them every five minutes to make sure they’re still breathing and then feeling them lying on your chest when you’ve fed them and they’re falling asleep — and you knew at that moment something had — if you’re not a father yet, people say and you don’t believe, which is, at that moment, you realize you will do anything for that child. There’s nothing you wouldn’t do for them — in a heartbeat.

And that bond between a parent and a child is something that is precious. It’s sacred. And it’s a true blessing.

And sometimes I think in the hustle of life you forget what a blessing that is, and that ultimately, after all this stuff is done, after Joe and I are retired and nobody knows our name the one thing that we’ll remember is — are those moments when you were holding your kid, and watching them grow, and the first time they walked. And that’s the stuff that will stay with you.

And that’s why, if there’s one last thing I want to communicate to those fathers who maybe haven’t been involved in their child’s life, it’s to emphasize that this isn’t an obligation. This is a privilege to be a father. And that’s something that all of us should take on for themselves.

So, thank you, everybody, for participating. I appreciate you. Thank you.

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/19

旧文章ID:22118

抗击新冠状病毒疫情:中美互动大事记 (6月21日-6月30日)

0

作者:张金峰  来源:中美印象

《中美印象》第250期

抗击新冠状病毒疫情:中美互动大事记(19)

(6月11日—6月20日)

过去几个月,新冠疫情在中国大部分城市基本受控的情况下,北京受到第二波疫情困扰。 自6月11日起,全市已经累计报告新冠病例200多宗。 此轮新出现的疫情中,北京南郊的一个大型农贸批发市场新发地市场是聚集性感染的发生地,几乎所有病例都与之相关,但病毒究竟如何出现在市场上依然是未解之谜。

美国疫情再度升温。约翰霍普金斯大学表示,美国新冠肺炎新增病例19、20日都各超过3万例,为5月1日以来单日新高纪录,其中南部、西部与中西部疫情最为惨重。密苏里、内华达、蒙大拿、亚利桑纳与犹他州等12州单日新增病例均创纪录,佛州与南卡州则连续三天打破单日新高纪录。
""

中印爆发45年以来第一次严重的肢体冲突,印度称有20名士兵在冲突中丧生,这让中印关系蒙上了一层阴影。

中国人大公布香港国安法草案,英国发布《香港问题半年报告》,G7与欧盟外交首长就香港局势发表联合声明。

美国表示第一阶段美中贸易协议没有减弱迹象,中国已经积极采购美国大豆,美国运通获准在中国大陆开展银行卡清算业务。

虽然蓬佩奥与杨洁篪在夏威夷会面,但中美摩擦未见减弱。美国总统特朗普签署了《2020年维吾尔人权政策法案》,他还称美国保留着与中国“完全脱钩”的政策选项。蓬佩奥出席“哥本哈根民主高峰会”在一系列问题上继续指责中国。

中国召开中非团结抗疫特别峰会和“一带一路” 国际合作高级别会议。

6月11日

——美国农业部(USDA)证实美国向中国出口72万吨大豆。当天农业部发布的每周报告还显示,美国在6月4日结束的一周出口了1百万吨大豆,其中有33.7万吨销往中国。此外,中国还购买了64.4万吨新作物。美国农业部的数据显示,至少自2019年2月以来,上述大豆总销量创下最大的单周记录。这意味着作为全球最大大豆进口国的中国已连续两周积极采购美国大豆。

——英国政府发表了最新一份《香港问题半年报告》。自 1997 年香港主权移交后,英国每半年发布一次《香港问题半年报告》。这份报告提及港版国安法,指英方对此深切关注,又称现时中国仍有时间去重新考虑,悬崖勒马,并尊重香港的自治及中国自身的国际义务。中国外交部发言人华春莹6月12日在外交部例行记者会上表示干涉香港事务的错误做法表示强烈不满。

——遭到美国制裁的哈工大统一购买的美国商业软件MATLAB被取消激活,已经无法使用。MATLAB软件在做仿真、控制模型时处于无法替代的地位。MATLAB软件由美国Math Works公司研发,是一种高技术计算语言和交互式环境集成软件,广泛用于算法开发、数据分析、数据可视化、仿真建模和数值计算等方面研究。

6月12日

——推特公司宣布,已关闭数以万计的与中国政府有关联、旨在宣传北京以及专门制造假信息的账号。中国外交部发言人华春莹说,中国才是假信息的最大受害国。她还说许多平台对中国都存有误解,人们需要带有客观意见的中国声音。

——美国在洛杉矶国际机场逮捕了一名解放军军官,原因是他在申请赴美签证时刻意隐瞒其现役军官身份,被控签证欺诈罪。中国外交部6月12日回应说,美国的做法是政治迫害。

6月13日

——美国运通(American Express,AmEx)官方宣布:美国运通获准在中国大陆开展银行卡清算业务,这是现在为止唯一一家获得银行卡清算资格的外卡组织。

——美国司法部建议,由Google和Facebook斥资兴建的高容量海底光纤电缆,基于国家安全考量,联邦传播委员会建议否决太平洋光缆的美国与香港间海底电缆启用计划,并建议改连接台湾、菲律宾。

""

6月15日

——中印两国在克什米尔地区的拉达克边界争议地区发生45年以来第一次严重的肢体冲突。印度称有20名士兵在冲突中丧生,其中包括一名上校。中国方面尚未有官方公布具体伤亡数字。中国西部战区发言人张水利大校发表声明:印军违背承诺,越过实控线非法活动,蓄意发动挑衅攻击,引发双方激烈肢体冲突,造成人员伤亡。据纽约时报报导,引发此轮冲突的直接原因可能是印度在中印边境正修建一条连结一空军基地至加尔万山谷山口的公路。

6月16日

——韩国官方称,朝鲜炸毁了位于边境小镇开城的朝韩联络办公室所在大楼。该联络办公室位于朝鲜领土一侧,在朝鲜领导人金正恩和韩国总统文在寅会面后设立,于2018年开始用于朝韩之间的沟通联络。今年1月新冠疫情爆发后,该办公室处于空置状态。

——美国商务部宣布,美国公司将更全面地与中国通讯业巨头华为合作,共同制定5G等技术标准。根据新规定,美国公司可以向华为分享用于制定行业标准的技术。美国商务部部长韦伯·罗斯(Wilbur Ross)称其目的是为了 “确保美国业界更全面参与通讯领域的标准制定活动” , “美国的参与和领导将影响未来5G、自动驾驶、人工智能和其他领先技术。”

6月17日

——美国国务卿蓬佩奥和中共中央政治局委员、中央外事工作委员会办公室主任杨洁篪在美国夏威夷会面。美国国务院官员透露,两人会面持续了约7个小时。这是中美高层在新冠疫情爆发以来的首次面对面接触。新华社称,双方充分阐明各自的立场,认为这是一次建设性的对话。双方同意采取行动,认真落实两国元首达成的共识,同意将继续保持接触和沟通。
""

——美国贸易代表莱特希泽在众议院筹款委员会(House Ways And Means Committee)的听证会上表示,尽管美中两国在新冠病毒大流行、中国打击香港自治以及中国采购美国商品步伐迟缓等方面发生冲突,但美中贸易协议并没有减弱迹象。“所有迹象都表明,尽管暴发新冠疫情,中国还是会信守承诺。”

——美国前国家安全顾问博尔顿在新书《事发之室:白宫回忆录》中披露,美国总统特朗普与中国国家主席习近平的互动,称特朗普曾请求对方帮助其连任总统。特朗普则在社交媒体推特上抨击博尔顿是“疯子” ,该书由 “谎言与虚构故事” 组成,目的是抹黑他的形象。 “许多他(博尔顿)引述我的荒谬言论,从来就没发生过,纯属虚构。”

""

——美国总统特朗普签署了《2020年维吾尔人权政策法案》,使这一法案正式成为法律。这一法律旨在授权美国各方资源应对中国政府在新疆违反和侵犯人权的活动,其中包括大规模监视、拘押等。中国人大迅速发表声明,批评美国粗暴干涉中国内政,“强烈谴责,坚决反对”。

——G7与欧盟外交首长就香港局势发表联合声明,促请中国停止制定 “港版《国家安全法》” 。这份声明说, “港版《国安法》将严重削弱香港自治,与英国1997年将香港主权归还中国时中方所作出之承诺。中国要求七国“客观、公正看待香港国家安全立法,停止以任何形式干预香港内部事务” 。中国全国人民代表大会随后证实, “港版《国家安全法》” 草案已送交星期四召开的全国人大常委会会议审议。

——中国国家主席习近平在北京主持中非团结抗疫特别峰会并发表题为《团结抗疫、共克时艰》的主旨讲话。 本次峰会由中国和非洲联盟轮值主席国南非、中非合作论坛共同主席国塞内加尔共同发起,以视频方式举行。中方宣布,中国将在“中非合作论坛”架构下,免除对有关非洲国家截至今年底到期的无息贷款债务。

""

6月18日

——美国总统特朗普通过推特表示,在各种情况之下,美国绝对保留着与中国“完全脱钩”的政策选项。特朗普当天在推文中写道,“这不是莱特希泽大使的错(昨天在委员会),因为也许我没有说清楚,但在各种情况下,美国绝对都保留了与中国完全脱钩的政策选项。谢谢你!”

""

——“一带一路” 国际合作高级别视频会议在北京举行。中国国家主席习近平向会议发表书面致辞。本次会议主题为 “加强 ‘一带一路’国际合作、携手抗击新冠肺炎疫情” ,25个国家的外长或部长级官员及世卫组织总干事谭德塞、联合国副秘书长兼联合国开发计划署署长施泰纳与会,会议发表了联合声明。
  6月19日

——美国国务卿蓬佩奥视频连线出席“哥本哈根民主高峰会”视频会议,发表涉华演讲并回答主办方提问,在一系列涉华问题上指责中国。外交部发言人赵立坚表示中国人民对此早已看穿,他在国际社会也没有市场。

——国际原子能机构的决策机构理事会今天通过一项决议,呼吁伊朗与原子能机构充分合作,执行《不扩散条约保障监督协定》和《附加议定书》,并不再拖延地满足原子能机构的要求。该决议由法国、德国和英国提交,以25票赞成、2票反对、7票弃权的结果获得通过。中、俄投了反对票。

6月20日

——中国国务委员兼外交部长王毅2019年9月在第74届联合国大会上宣布,中国已启动加入《武器贸易条约》的国内法律程序。6月20日,十三届全国人大常委会表决通过关于加入《武器贸易条约》的决定,标志着基本完成国内法律程序。《武器贸易条约》宗旨在规范常规武器贸易,打击非法转让,减缓武器泛滥引发的国际地区不稳定及人道主义问题。2013年加入这一条约的美国,2019年4月由总统特朗普宣布退出,理由是对该条约有不同看法及国内政治等因素。

——中国人大常委会会议闭幕,议程包括审议备受关注的香港《国安法》草案。中国官媒新华社下午公布草案主要内容,其中规定北京将在香港特别行政区设立维护国家安全公署,“收集分析国家安全情报信息;依法办理危害国家安全犯罪案件”。
延伸阅读
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(1
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(2
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(3
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(4
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(5
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(6)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(7)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(8)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(9)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(10)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(11)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(12)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(13)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(14)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(15)

抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(16)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(17)

抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(18)
抗击新型冠状病毒:中美互动大事记(19)

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/23

旧文章ID:22115

林 冈 周文星:美国国会涉台立法的规律与发展趋势研究

0

作者:林 冈 周文星  来源:《美国研究》 2020 年第 3 期

〔内容提要〕通过对第 93~116 届国会期间涉台议案和决议案的实证分 析可以发现,中美关系和两岸关系的同步良性发展是限制国会干涉台湾问 题的关键外因,白宫在推行对华政策时能否摆脱国会的牵制则是重要内因。 后者不但取决于总统所属的政党能在多大程度上掌控参众两院,也有赖于 总统个人因素。此外,台湾政治游说对涉台立法也有较高的相关性。2016 年以来中美关系和两岸关系同步下滑,增加了国会加强涉台立法的诱因。 遭到众议院弹劾案打击的特朗普可能屈服于国会的压力,国会势将推出更 多的“友台”议案和决议案。美台勾连的强化对两岸关系和平发展的前景 构成了严峻的挑战。展望未来,唯有中美关系和两岸关系都朝良性方向发 展,台湾问题才有和平解决的可能。
    关键词:美国军事与外交 中美关系 美台关系 国会 涉台立法
点击这里查看文章pdf版。
""

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/23

旧文章ID:22114

周文星 王伟男:台湾当局对美巨资游说与美台关系

0

作者:周文星 王伟男  来源:中美印象

近年来,美国知识界在台湾问题上逐渐形成共识,绝大多数智库专家和高校学者都主张维持和提升紧密的美台关系。近日,由华府智库昆西尽责经纶研究所(Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft)的在线出版物《尽责经纶》(Responsible Statecraft)和美国政策杂志《美国展望》(The American Prospect)共同刊登的一篇报告[1],为我们理解这种共识和美台关系提供了一个重要视角。
""


昆西研究所报告截图

这篇名为《台湾金援智库:无所不在但极少被揭露》(Taiwan Funding of Think Tanks: Omnipresent and Rarely Disclosed)的报告指称,台湾当局近年来向布鲁金斯学会(Brookings Institution)、美国进步中心(Center for American Progress, CAP)、新美国安全中心(Center for a New American Security,CNAS)、战略与国际研究中心(Center for Strategic & International Studies, CSIS)以及哈德逊研究所(Hudson Institute)等五家主流智库提供金钱资助,促使这些智库专家向美国政策制定者积极献策,推动有利于蔡英文当局政策的出台。然而,这些智库对接受台湾当局资助一事轻描淡写,将资助金额放入智库年报或网站极不起眼的地方,试图遮掩这些利益关系。报告认为智库的这种做法可能损害公众的知情权,从而加剧公众对华府政治的不信任感。

报告作者伊莱·克利夫顿(Eli Clifton)系昆西研究所民主化外交项目研究主任和共同创始人,是自由派智库美国进步中心的前雇员,克利夫顿这一“内部知情人”的身份无疑增加了报告的可信度。因此,报告一经刊出便在华府引起了一定的反响。知名智库新闻信息网“智库观察”(Think Tank Watch)迅速转发了上述报告。[2] CSIS亚洲资深顾问、知名台湾问题专家葛莱仪(Bonnie Glaser)等相关智库专家在社交媒体推特上与克利夫顿来回“交手”,辩称后者的报告“明显有误”。

""

笔者根据美国司法部历年数据整理自制(单位:美元)

事实胜于雄辩。美国司法部长根据1938年《外国代理人登记法》向国会提交的年度报告(Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938,下文简称“美国司法部报告”)[3],较为全面地记载了台湾当局1977年以后对美游说的年度金额(1992-1994年三年因未公布年度报告而导致数据缺失),上表呈现了台湾当局1977-2018年针对美国国会(部分针对行政当局)先升后降的年度游说金额趋势。就游说总额而言,蒋经国时期(1977-1988年)为1000万美元左右,李登辉主政时期(1988-2000年)为3700万至4000万美元(按照1988-1991年游说总额和1995-2000年游说总额的年均值计算1992-1994年三年缺失值),陈水扁时期(2000-2008年)约3000万美元,马英九时期(2008-2016年)为1680万美元,蔡英文上台后对美游说力度与马英九后期相比略有回升(2018年数据仅包含上半年游说金额)。

中美关系和两岸关系的亲疏好坏是影响台湾对美游说力度强弱的关键变量。李登辉在九十年代之后加大游说力度,与中美关系因1989年北京政治风波生变密切相关;陈水扁在2001年空前增加游说预算,与紧张的两岸关系亦有难解之缘。比较来看,当两岸关系在2008-2016年和平发展、中美关系整体稳定可控之时,台湾问题在中美关系中的紧迫性快速下降,国民党当局相应降低了对美游说力度。按上述数据计算,台湾当局在过去42年(1977-2018年)里对美年均游说费用为230万至240万美元。但这笔巨额开支尚未计入台湾对美国公众、媒体、学术以及智库等机构的间接游说费用。如果加上全部游说费用(笔者尚未计入美国司法部报告中许多没有明确列出费用支出目的的项目金额),台湾对美年均游说费用或高达400万美元。

美国司法部报告披露,李登辉当局从80年代开始委托台湾综合研究院和国际关系研究中心(Institute of International Relations)雇佣美国顶尖游说公司在美展开学术活动,与美国的大学、智库建立联系,组织专题讲座和研讨会,尤其支持和推广以东亚和两岸主题的学术研究,从文化舆论层面影响和改善美国决策者和公众对台湾的印象。报告显示,1988-1991年四年期间台湾共向康奈尔大学支付近120万美元,这项“学术资助”为李登辉1995年6月访问康奈尔大学并发表具有“台独”意味的演讲起到了关键作用。此后台湾当局加强了对美国智库和大学的年度“资助”预算。据笔者粗略统计,1995年台湾对美智库和大学资助4.5万美元,1996年迅速上升至7.5万美元,1997年再次提升到9.2万美元,1998年居然增加到15万美元以上,相比上一年度涨幅高达63%。

陈水扁当局则主要委托台湾远景基金会作为“资助”美方智库和大学的“白手套”。例如,台湾当局在2004-2008年委托该基金会每年向美国哈尔彭咨询公司(Halpern & Associates)支付40万美元,委托后者维持台美学者之间的密切关系。尽管报告没有透露具体的智库和大学名单,但据笔者对美国智库和大学涉台项目的长期观察,接受民进党当局资助的智库不仅包括传统基金会(Heritage Foundation)、美国企业研究所(American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, AEI)、2049计划研究所(2049 Project Institute)、哈德逊研究所等“挺台”的保守派智库,布鲁金斯学会、CSIS等自由派和中间派智库同样从中获益。

由于蔡英文当局不承认“九二共识”,两岸关系自2016年至今陷入冷对抗状态,而中美关系自特朗普2017年初上台以来正持续恶化,这为台湾当局游说美国国会、行政部门、智库、大学和媒体等相关部门提供了诱因与便利。近期美国联邦政府和智库频频出台“挺台”的政策法案和研究报告,与蔡英文当局对美游说密不可分。
""
图片说明:美国战略与国际研究中心高级研究院葛莱仪(Bonnie Glase)与克利夫顿(Eli Clifton)就《台湾金援智库:无所不在但极少被揭露》(Taiwan Funding of Think Tanks: Omnipresent and Rarely Disclosed)的报告在社交媒体上的“你来我往”。–网络截屏

美国精英阶层常常以拥有世界上最为科学的政治体系和多元的社会文化而自傲,但在台湾问题上却只允许台湾当局游说和介入华府政治过程,而对中国政府极为抵触和反感,更谈不上允许大陆官方介入美国的政治过程了。如果这一趋势继续发展下去,无疑将进一步增加中美关系“由阴转晴”的难度。

克利夫顿的报告仅仅揭开了台湾对美游说的冰山一角,却给我们带来一个重要启示:美国对台承诺的背后与台湾当局对美国知识界的常年巨额金援和游说密不可分。我们需要进一步挖掘和研究华府那些标榜独立、超党派、非营利的智库在美国决策过程中的真实角色。

作者简介:

周文星为上海交通大学-哈佛大学联合培养博士生、尚道社会研究所研究员,王伟男为上海交通大学台湾研究中心常务副主任

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/23

旧文章ID:22113

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Says Trump May Consider ‘Decoupling’ With China

0

作者:DANIEL VILLARREA  来源:Newsweek

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested that the Trump Administration may consider "decoupling" itself from China. Decoupling, the process of separating two countries’ economies and supply chains, would represent a major change in U.S.-China relations.
""

"There may be a time when we have decoupling, that’s something that the president may consider," Mnuchin said, responding to President Donald Trump’s June 18 tweet in which Trump wrote, "The U.S. certainly does maintain a policy option, under various conditions, of a complete decoupling from China."

Trump’s tweet contradicted U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee on June 17. During his testimony, Lighthizer said he favored strengthening supply chains in the U.S. but didn’t think the U.S. could completely decouple with China.

"Do I think that you can sit down and decouple the United States economy from the Chinese economy? No," Lighthizer said at the time. "I think that was a policy option years ago. I don’t think it’s a policy, a reasonable policy option at this point."

Mnuchin’s comment in Monday’s Fox News interview continues the Trump administration’s onging 19-month trade war with China that has so far culminated in each country placing billions of dollars worth of tariffs on each other’s imported goods.

In early January, the U.S. signed a trade deal with China, but the South China Morning Post noted, "We must bear in mind that the trade war is not over yet—the U.S. hasn’t revoked all its tariffs on China and China is still implementing its retaliatory measures."

"There are still many uncertainties down the road," it noted, including whether each country actually honors the deal. Such uncertainties have only increased because of the coronavirus epidemic.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifies before the House Financial Services Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill July 12, 2018 in Washington, DC. Mnuchin answered questions about the "the State of the International Financial System."

Tariffs still remain on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese products. Trump has also threatened new tariffs and even "to cut off the whole deal" with China as a way to punish the country for allegedly allowing the COVID-19 pandemic to spread.

In retaliation, Chinese officials and state-owned media accused the U.S. of blaming China to deflect its own mishandling of the epidemic.

During the interview, Mnuchin was asked about a quote from the recent book of Former National Security Adviser John Bolton in which Bolton called Mnuchin "a big business Democrat" and accusing him of wanting to "go light" on financial sanctions against China and other countries like Iran.

Calling Bolton’s book "full of inaccuracies," Mnuchin claimed the Trump Administration has placed more sanctions than numerous past administrations combined.

Mnuchin is scheduled to testify to House Financial Services Committee on June 30 at 12:30 p.m..

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/22

旧文章ID:22112

余智:中美关系进入第四阶段

0

作者:余智  来源:联合早报

【文章2020年6月23日首发于《联合早报》。点击这里查看作者对美国外交政策的理想主义与现实主义成分更进一步的认识。点击这里查看《美国对中华人民共和国的战略方针》(英文)。
      美国政府于5月20日发布题为《美国对中华人民共和国的战略方针》的对华战略报告,宣布将以“有原则的现实主义”的战略思想为指导,与中国展开战略竞争。这既是特朗普政府过去几年来对华战略的总结,也是其竞选连任的对华政策宣示,引起了中美各界的高度重视。

笔者认为:美国的最新对华战略报告,标志着1949年之后的美国对华战略,在经历了遏制与围堵、拉拢与分化、融合与同化的三个阶段后,正式进入重新遏制与围堵的第四阶段;这一新战略将同时具备遏制围堵与保持接触的特点,并将对中美双边关系与国际整体格局产生重大深远影响。
""

一、四个阶段的发展

美国最新对华战略报告中提到的“有原则的现实主义”,本质上就是美国总体外交与对华外交中长期坚持的“理想主义(价值观)指导下的现实主义”。其中的“原则”、“理想”与“价值观”,主要是指美国宣称的以“自由、民主、人权”等为核心内容的政治理念;而“现实主义”则是指其实现这些政治理念的务实策略。

美国长期以这些理念为基础,对价值观(意识形态)与体制(价值观的外化形式)不同的国家采取不同外交战略:联合与宽容价值观与体制“同质性”国家,而对价值观与体制“异质性”国家,则根据现实主义需要,分别采取遏制与围堵、拉拢与分化、融合与同化等不同战略。

1949年中国大陆新政权成立后,美国将中国视为价值观与体制“异质性”国家,其对华战略就分别经历了遏制与围堵、拉拢与分化、融合与同化这三个阶段,现在则是重新回归遏制与围堵阶段。

第一阶段是1950-1960年代的对华遏制与围堵阶段。这一战略的根源,是由于1949年成立的中国大陆新政权,在价值观与体制上与美国完全是“异质性”的,而且选择了向苏联等“异质性”国家“一边倒”的外交方针。因此,美国联合其盟友,对中国实行了长达20余年的遏制与围堵战略,从政治、经济、军事、外交等各方面全面封锁中国。期间两者还在朝鲜发生直接战争,并在越南与其它一些亚洲国家通过代理人产生了间接军事冲突。

第二阶段是1970年代的对华拉拢与分化阶段。这一战略的根源在于,中国与前苏联之间的巨大矛盾,导致美国拉拢中国这一异质性国家,对抗前苏联这一更大的异质性国家,分化其阵营,而这也符合中国自身对抗前苏联的战略需求。其代表性事件是1971基辛格的秘密访华,与1972年尼克松的公开访华。这一阶段两者的关系属于策略上的互相利用。

第三阶段是1980年代至今的融合与同化阶段。这一战略的根源在于,中国1970年代末结束“文化大革命”后,在邓小平领导下开始实行改革开放战略,主动向西方靠拢,美国基于引导中国从异质性国家走向同质性国家的考虑,采取这一战略促进中国的和平演变。

这一阶段的中美关系以1979年中美建交与邓小平访美为起点,总体发展态势良好,曾因1989年天安门事件而一度受阻,但在1992年邓小平南巡、重启经济市场化改革后逐步恢复,中间虽经历了1996年台湾大选风波、1999年中国驻南联盟大使馆被炸、2001年中美南海撞机等事件的小幅负面影响,但总体发展平稳,并在2001年美国911事件后双方加强反恐合作、2001年底美国协助中国加入世界贸易组织后升温,一直延续到最近几年,持续大约40年。

第四阶段就是最近几年开始的重新遏制与围堵阶段。这一阶段从2017年特朗普上任调整对华战略开始,标志性事件包括:2017年底美国国防报告将中国确定为战略竞争对手,2018年启动对华贸易战与对中国高新技术产业的战略打压,并联合其盟国在经贸、政治、军事、外交等方面全面遏制围堵中国,2019年香港修例风波、2020年新冠疫情加剧美国与中国的紧张关系。此次美国公布的最新对华战略方针,则标志着其战略转型的完成。

美国最新对华战略报告的开头,开宗明义地点出了这一战略转变的基点:美国认为过去四十年的对华接触战略(融合与同化战略)已经失败,美国期待的中国经济、政治方面的转变并未发生,反而却在近些年有逆转趋势,并利用过去四十年积累的实力,在经济、价值观与国家安全方面,威胁了美国与西方的安全。因此,美国将选择同中国进行战略竞争。

因此,美国对华战略的这一转变,是基于两个方面的考量做出的:一是美国认为中国的发展方向与其原有期待相悖,二是美国认为中国的实力已经足够强大。前者是基础与核心。如果没有前者,那么中国的实力不会威胁美国与西方安全,美国对华战略即使会有防范成分(类似于盟友之间的矛盾),也不会是全面遏制与围堵。

美国这一对华新战略,尽管是特朗普政府制定的,而特朗普政府的连任尚存不确定性,但从最近几年的美国国内舆论看,这一战略体现了美国两党对华关系认识的一致性,在美国战略界有广泛共识。未来一段时间,只要中国继续目前的内政外交方针,美国这一对华关系定位、对华战略总体思路都不会有实质性变化,最多只是在具体策略与政策上会有调整。

美国这一对华新战略与前三个阶段的对华战略,在指导思想上是一脉相承的,都是“理想主义(价值观、原则)指导下的现实主义”,是这一思想针对价值观与体制的“异质性”国家在不同阶段、不同情境下的具体体现。这种指导思想的连续性表明:美国对华战略从来没有放弃其价值观指导。认为美国总体外交与对华外交战略只是受“现实主义”与“利益”驱动、没有理想主义与价值观指导的观点,是一种认识误区。

二、第四阶段的特点与影响

美国第四阶段对华战略,将兼具其第一、第三阶段对华战略的特点,又与这两者不同,是介于这两者之间的一种战略:

一方面,它将重新采取第一阶段的对华遏制与围堵政策,联合其盟友,在经济、政治、军事、外交等方面对中国进行全方面压制,而不是像第三阶段那样对中国那么友善。所谓的“战略竞争”,实际上只是一种外交措辞的软化表示,其本质将是遏制与围堵。

另一方面,它将继续第三阶段的对华保持接触政策,包括经济、政治、军事等各方面的接触,有效管控双方的冲突,使之不发展到失控,而不是像第一阶段那样对华完全隔离。毕竟,双方已经有了外交关系与紧密经济联系,而中国的综合实力也已经位居世界第二,今非昔比。

美国第四阶段对华战略的实施,将对中美双边关系与世界整体格局带来重大而深远的影响。

首先,中美“蜜月期”正式结束,双边关系将动荡不安,中国对美外交的战略弹性将显著缩小。

一是双方在经济、政治、军事方面的摩擦与对抗将更加激烈。双方第一阶段经贸协议虽已达成,但落实方面还有不确定性。第二阶段谈判将围绕中国经济体制的深层问题展开,包括产业政策、国有企业、信息开放等,谈判将异常艰巨,经贸摩擦会持续不断。美方对中方高新技术产业(特别是军民两用技术)的全面与定点打压,以及双方在贸易、投资方面的脱钩都将加剧。双方围绕中国内部管治方式与“人权”问题、香港与台湾问题的政治对抗,以及围绕台湾、南海问题的军事对抗,将成为家常便饭,此起彼伏。

二是中国对美外交战略的弹性将显著缩小。一方面,双方的经贸冲突涉及中国经济基本制度,双方在中国内部管治、香港、台湾、南海问题上的争端也都是中国宣称的“国家核心利益”问题。另一方面,美方的战略已经公开化、明朗化,而且宣称不会受中方的“蒙蔽”,要追求明确、可核实的短期“结果”,并要为此持续向中国施压,愿意付出必要成本与代价。这两方面都会大大压缩中国的对美战略弹性空间。

其次,中美双方在国际上的争斗将加剧,都会积极争取盟友支持,但旧冷战时期的阵营化对垒格局将不会重现。

一是双方国际争斗加剧,积极争取盟友支持。美方将会进一步拉拢其传统盟友(欧洲、澳洲、日本等)遏制中国,并利用新冠疫情,拉拢原先相对中立的发展中大国如印度、巴西,甚至分化中国的传统亚非拉盟友,共同对付中国。中国也会在“人类命运共同体”的旗帜下,加强与“一带一路”国家的经贸联络与对外援助,对抗美方的打压与围堵。

二是旧冷战时期的阵营化对垒将不会重现。一方面,过去四十年形成的美国及其西方盟友与中方的经济联系不可能被完全切断、脱钩,那样对双方都太大。另一方面,中方已不太可能像前苏联那样组建一个价值观与体制与自己高度一致的国家集团;中方所能联合的盟友,绝大部分尽管可以加强与中方经贸往来,但不会为此牺牲与美国和西方的往来,甚至与其对抗。

(作者为中国大陆经济学教授)

来源时间:2020/6/23   发布时间:2020/6/23

旧文章ID:22111

共和党员:击败特朗普是共和党重组和重生的必经之路

0

作者:谢鸿雁 张月如  来源:中美印象

《美中关系快报》第55期

 今天的美中关系快报我们聚焦共和党内反对特朗普连任的努力。上周六,特朗普在俄克拉荷马州塔尔萨市举行了疫情爆发后的首场大型集会。集会之前,特朗普竞选班子曾对媒体表示求票人数超过百万。然而,本来有1.9万个座位的体育场在集会时有大片的空位。纽约时报6月21日的一篇文章称,特朗普造势集会没有“人满为患”显示人们对新冠病毒的担忧,以及特朗普的支持率的大幅下滑。特朗普对此的解释是,反他的人利用抖音混淆视听,还有民主党人以暴力示威相威胁,抑制了自己支持者的参与。集会之前,给特朗普集会打前站的工作人员里有六人感染新冠病毒;集会之后,又有两个工作人员核酸测试阳性。特朗普周六在长达100分钟的演讲中曾提到,美国新冠病毒感染人多是因为测试太多,他应该下令减少测试。他今天告诉记者,他是在开玩笑。
""
来源:纽约邮报;图为特朗普最近的竞选集会。

共和党内的倒戈运动:  

目前,共和党内有两个比较显著的反对特朗普连任的政治行动委员会(Political Action Committee,简称PAC),一个是成立与2019年12月的林肯计划(The Lincoln Project),另一个是几个特朗普政府的前官员,以及包括小布什政府内的前官员正在发起成立的一个政治行动委员会,名叫“正义之边政治行动委员会”( Right Side PAC)

什么是政治行动委员会?

在美国,政治行动委员会属于美国税法内527类组织。主要目的是汇集成员的竞选捐款,并将这些资金捐赠给竞选活动,以支持或反对某位候选人,或致力于投票方面的倡议或某项立法。PAC的法律用语是为了在美国进行竞选财务改革而创建的。这个术语一般特指美国竞选活动中的所有捐款活动。

在美国联邦一级,根据修订的《联邦竞选法》,任何组织收到或花费超过1,000美元以影响联邦选举的便成为PAC,需要在联邦选举委员会注册。

林肯项目:

林肯项目的主要目标是阻止特朗普在2020年总统大选选连任。2020年4月,在前任民主党总统候选人桑德斯宣布中止竞选活动不久,林肯项目宣布支持拜登竞选总统的诉求。

林肯计划在去年12月的成立宣言中指出,“2020年大选的关键将是说服,投票率预计将创下历史新高。我们的行动意在说服足够多心怀不满的保守派、共和党人以及摇摆州和地区倾向共和党的独立派,以确保获得选举团胜利,拿下国会多数席位,不再允许或助长特朗普的违宪行为,即使这意味着让民主党控制参议院,并扩大民主党在众议院的多数席位。”
""

截止2020年3月,林肯计划共筹集了250万美元的资金,他们的主要工作模式是播放反对特朗普的电视广告和大范围的信息传播。这个组织最著名的代表人物是乔治·康威(George Conway)。他是特朗普政府内现任高级顾问凯莉安·康威(Kellyanne Conway)的丈夫,凯莉安·康威是特朗普非常器重的一位顾问,她为他特朗普2016年的当选立下了汉马功劳。

“正义之边”政治行动委员会:

Axios报道,消息人士透露称,包括特朗普政府退下来的官员以及小布什政府前官员在内的共和党知名人士,正在发起一个超级政治行动委员会,为拜登在11月的选举中争取共和党选民。

代表人物:被特朗普罢免的俄亥俄州共和党前主席伯格(Matt Borges),以及担任了10天就被解雇的白宫前新闻发言人斯卡拉穆奇(Anthony Scaramucci)。

如何运作(据Axios报道):

“正义之边”政治行动委员会最初的目标是针对密歇根州、威斯康星州、宾夕法尼亚州、亚利桑那州、北卡罗莱纳州和佛罗里达州等摇摆州的选民。

·      他们将运用数据、邮箱和电话来联系选民,暂无投放电视广告的计划。他们鼓励选民缺席投票。

·      “正义之边”的行动获得了几十个知名人士的帮助,包括前总统小布什政府内的官员和已故参议员麦凯恩的总统竞选团队。

·      他们将公布拜登在自由贸易、州权、联邦开支以及尊重美国外交和军事盟友上的行为记录,以及强调他的天主教信仰,以证明大多数反特朗普的共和党人可以放心支持拜登。

·      “正义之边”团队打算依赖于主要捐助者。

·      更多关于支持者的信息将会在七月中旬首次提交联邦选举委员会的文件之中公布。

·      “正义之边”更关注数据和个性化的投票结果。伯格说,“我们要深入研究数据,找出这些选民,并努力说服他们投票支持拜登。”

共和党这些人为什么倒戈

伯格说,“我们并不是想成为民主党人。我打算把选票投给其他所有的共和党人。我希望其他像我一样不想离开共和党的人也做此选择。”

斯卡拉穆奇说,他“非常有信心,我们可以说服一大群共和党选民投票支持拜登。如果他们想要忠于自己的原则和保护共和党的遗产,那么拜登则是合适的总统人选。”“打败特朗普”是共和党重组和重生的必经之路。斯卡拉穆奇担忧,“如果特朗普连任,他可能使共和党成为一代人的少数党。”

""

以下为2019年12月18日林肯计划在《纽约时报》上发表的开篇宣言。
      我们是共和党人,我们决心击败特朗普

面对唐纳德·特朗普的罪行、腐败和侵蚀本质,爱国主义和国家存亡是超越了普通政治的重大使命。作为美国人,我们必须阻止他和他的追随者对法治、宪法和美国精神的伤害。

这是我们发起“林肯计划”的原因,此举志在强调我们国家的事迹和价值,以及国民的牺牲与责任。这项工作超越了党派之争,致力于维护无数人在远离家乡的战场上、在自己生活的社区内为之奋斗的原则。

这项工作要求在所有地方有不同信仰和生活方式的美国人参与我们这一代的重大使命:恢复尊重法制的国家领导和治理,承认所有人的尊严,在国内外捍卫宪法和美国价值观。

在未来11个月里,我们将致力于在选举中击败特朗普总统和特朗普主义,选举那些将坚守底线的爱国者。我们不会轻率地对待这一责任,也不会站在意识形态偏好的立场之上。在政治和观点上,我们一直是、并将继续是明确的保守派(或古典自由派)。我们与全国民主党人仍有很多政策上的分歧,但我们对宪法的共同忠诚要求我们通力合作。

各种迹象表明,2020年大选的关键将是说服,投票率预计将创下历史新高。我们的行动意在说服足够多心怀不满的保守派、共和党人以及摇摆州和地区倾向共和党的独立派,以确保获得选举团胜利,拿下国会多数席位,不再允许或助长特朗普的违宪行为,即使这意味着让民主党控制参议院,并扩大民主党在众议院的多数席位。

美国总统之位是高于占据椭圆形办公室的个人的。他们的个性会成为我们民族个性的一部分。他们的行动会变成我们的行动,因而我们大家都肩负责任。而他们是否愿意遵循法律和传统,也决定了现任和未来的领导人将如何行事。他们对秩序、文明和正派的承诺都会映射于美国社会之中。

特朗普未能达到这一承诺的要求。他既没有道德原则,也没有服务于民的性情。他的视野局限于眼前所见,即他长期以来给自己制造的问题和风险,最终却由其他人——从无数承包商和企业到美国人民——承受最重的负担。
""

但是,只有在国会共和党人怯懦的默许下,这位总统才能如此行事。他们的所作所为无异于放弃了宪法第一条的责任。

事实上,全国共和党人所做的事,远甚于只是紧跟特朗普的步调。他们对他的维护充满丑陋和卑鄙,甘愿攻击和诽谤那些为我们国家流血、把自己的生命和事业奉献给国防和安全,并致力于保持这个国家希望灯塔地位的人。

国会共和党人接受并模仿着特朗普的残酷,保护甚至取用他的腐败行径。特朗普和他的支持者已经抛弃了保守主义和长期存在的共和党守则,取而代之的是特朗普主义,一种由伪先知领导的空洞信仰。在最近一次调查中,大多数共和党选民表示,他们认为特朗普是一个比林肯更好的总统。

特朗普和他的同路人每天都在破坏这样一种主张,即我们作为一个民族有责任和义务使历史的弧线不断向正义的方向弯曲。我们坚信美国的意义远不只是地图上的一些线条,这一信念遭到了他们的嘲弄。

我们的危机远超过过去的任何分歧:它已经来到了我们所有人的门前,而我们认为再没有其他选择了。我们真诚希望,但并不感到乐观的是,那些在可能的参议院弹劾审判中担任陪审的共和党人也会这样想。

那么多美国的男人和女人都随时准备在全球保卫我们和我们的生活方式。我们必须为这些人行正义之事,确保他们每天为之身披军装的国家值得他们的保护和牺牲。

这让我们想起了无能的19世纪纽约政客丹·西克尔斯(Dan Sickles)。1863年7月2日,他的蠢行几乎断送合众国的未来。

(西克尔斯此前最大的成就是在白宫对面枪杀了妻子的情人后,还能成功当选国会议员。即便是他最狂热的崇拜者也难以想象,在遥远的将来,会有另一个无能的纽约政客,一名总统,声称自己可以在第五大道射杀某人,然后逍遥法外。)

在宾夕法尼亚州的那一天,西克尔斯是联邦军第三军团在葛底斯堡战役中的指挥官,他的无能制造了混乱和危险。同盟军抓住机会冲破了联邦军的阵线。如果叛军成功突破,整个大陆都可能陷入分裂:自由与奴役,民主与专制泾渭分明。

另一位联邦将军温菲尔德·斯科特·汉考克(Winfield Scott Hancock)需要在几分钟里加固防线。美利坚之国和它的理想岌岌可危。在激烈的战斗中,他找到了明尼苏达州第一志愿步兵团。

他们冲锋陷阵,许多人倒下了,伤亡率高得惊人。他们守住了阵线。他们拯救了联邦军。四个月后,林肯站在这场血战的战场说,“毋宁说,倒是我们这些还活着的人,应该把自己奉献于在这里战斗过的勇士们如此崇高地向前推进但尚未完成的事业。”

我们把林肯当作向导和启示。他明白不仅必须拯救联邦军,还要在精神和政治上把国家重新团结起来。但这些创伤只有在威胁被击退后才能愈合。那么,在克服特朗普主义的苦难后,我们的国家还能重新团结起来吗?
""
     最新消息:
    1)美国联邦法院的一名法官已经做出裁决,前特朗普国家安全委员会顾问博尔顿的书《事发之室:白宫回忆录》(The Room Where It Happened)周二可以出版。位于华盛顿特区的联邦地区法院法官兰伯斯(Judge Royce C. Lamberth)周六指出,该书印数几十万,遍布全国和美国各大媒体,阻止其出版已经没有任何意义。他同时还说,博尔顿在写书和出书过程中违反了相关政府审查的程序,可能会面临刑事和民事诉讼。尽管博尔顿将来可能要面对各种官司,特朗普试图通过法律程序阻止此书出版的企图以失败告终。
  博尔顿告诉采访他的一家英国媒体,他将在2020年的大选中投拜登的票。
  2) 拜登竞选班子负责人写信告知美国总统辩论委员会,同意跟特朗普在选前辩论三次。这三次辩论的时间分别为9月29日、10月15日和10月22日。副总统候选人的辩论在10月7日举行。
  中美印象快评
  1)美国两党垄断政坛的局面从建国到今天一直没有改变,共和党和民主党内部因对治国方针和候选人取舍发生分歧的事司空见惯,但党内持不同政见的势力公开“反党”的事还不多见,这是本次大选的一个新的看点。正如如林肯项目所指出的那样,这次选举的结果最后取决于在六个摇摆州的选情。拜登要在这六个州获胜,需要做大量的“说服”工作,而这个“说服”工作的进行主要靠钱。特朗普手头的竞选经费超过2亿美元,超过拜登竞选经费的10倍,共和党“反党”势力的相助可谓雪中送碳,极为重要。2)博尔顿的书对世界各国了解特朗普本人的决策风格和政府的国安及外交政策制定的程序是不可多得的好资料,但对改变选民投票决定不一定有太大的成效。目前选民对特朗普的支持与反对已经基本固化,最后两个候选人要拼的是怎么让更多自己的支持者去投票。3)凭心而论,支持拜登的选民一定在接下来的几场辩论中为他捏一把汗,特朗普的口才不一定比拜登好,但是更会煽情和蛊惑。拜登讲话冗长,太文质彬彬,还常常“信口开河”,而更可怕的是在辩论的时候突然失忆或者“张冠李戴”。

来源时间:2020/6/22   发布时间:2020/6/22

旧文章ID:22110

What Happened in the Galwan Valley?

0

作者:Shiv Aroor  来源:India Today

3 separate brawls, ‘outsider’ Chinese troops & more: Most detailed account of the brutal June 15 Galwan battle
     Plenty has been written so far about the clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley. But India Today brings you the most detailed account of the brutal June 15 Galwan battle.
""

Twenty Indian soldiers were killed in a violent face-off with Chinese troops in Galwan Valley.

Three separate brawls divided by time and space. Chinese troops who aren’t normally deployed at Patrol Point 14. And, a young Indian Army team that took a decision to cross the Line of Actual Control (LAC) to square things up with the Chinese Army. The contours of the June 15 bloodletting have become cleared.

Plenty has been written so far about the clash between Indian and Chinese troops in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley. But contradictory claims, and gaps in the narrative have so far left the story bereft of cohesiveness. Several questions have remained unanswered, with individual aspects lending themselves to speculation and guesswork. Now with a series of conversations with Army personnel in the Galwan Valley, Thangtse and Leh, India Today TV pieces together the most detailed account so far of how things played out.

The context is well known. Ten days prior, Lieutenant General-level talks had taken place and disengagement between both sides had begun at Patrol Point 14, since both had mobilised very close to the Line of Actual Control.
""

A Chinese observation post, which had been set up at the vertex of the bend in the Galwan River was proven, during talks, to be on the Indian side of the LAC, and an agreement had been reached to remove it. A few days after talks the post was dismantled by the Chinese. Commanding Officer of the 16 Bihar infantry battalion controlling the area Colonel B Santosh Babu even held talks with a counterpart Chinese officer on the day after the Chinese dismantled the camp. But on June 14, the camp unexpectedly re-emerged overnight.

At around 5pm on June 15, while the sun was still very much up, Colonel Babu decided to personally lead a team to the camp. Having spoken just a few days prior with the other side, the Commanding Officer is said to have wondered whether there had been a mistake. While young officers and jawans were raring to remove the Chinese post themselves, Colonel Babu, known to be a highly sober, cool-headed officer who had in a previous stint also served as a company commander in the area, decided to personally go.

In normal course, a Company Commander (Major rank) would probably have been sent to check. But Colonel Babu decided not to leave it to ’youngsters’ in the unit. It is important to remember here that tempers were not up.

The young officers and jawans were simply motivated by the prospect of a task in a narrow river valley that has seen nearly no tactical disputes of any kind — and where troops on either side have actually been quite friendly.

SHAPE * MERGEFORMAT

Col Santosh Babu, Commanding Officer of the 16 Bihar infantry battalion. (File photo)

At 7pm, Colonel Babu along with a team of about 35 men, including two Majors, proceeded on foot to the post. The mood in the team was not one of belligerence, but rather of inquiry. When they reached the Chinese camp, the first thing the Indian team noticed was that the Chinese troops didn’t seem familiar — they weren’t the PLA troops normally deployed in the area.

The men of 16 Bihar had built familiarity with the Chinese unit, and had expected to run into troops and officers they already knew. The fresh faces was the first surprise. It has been assessed during a debrief that the ’new’ Chinese troops at the offending post were from a pool freshly diverted from a PLA exercise in Tibet in the second half of May.

ALSO READ | After bloodshed, Army engineers toil 72 hours to finish Galwan bridge that triggered China

The men of 16 Bihar had received word at the time about the arrival of the ‘new’ PLA troops, but it was clear they were restricted to the ’depth’ areas deep on their side of the LAC.
""

These ‘new’ Chinese troops were immediately belligerent once the Indian team arrived. When Colonel Babu opened the conversation, asking why the post had been re-erected, a Chinese soldier stepped up and pushed the Indian Colonel backwards hard, with expletives in the Chinese language.

In an Army unit, as several voices have since articulated, seeing your Commanding Officer disrespected and assaulted thus is equivalent to seeing your parents physically abused. The reaction was instant. The Indian team pounced on the Chinese. The fight strictly was a proper fist-fight with no melee weapons of any kind. This was the first brawl and ended about 30 minutes later with injuries on both sides, but the Indian team prevailing.

They rounded off the sparring by smashing and then burning the Chinese post to ashes. The pushing of their Commanding Officer had already crossed a very dangerous red line.

Once this was done, Colonel Babu, earlier an instructor at the National Defence Academy, is said to have figured that the presence of these ’new’ Chinese troops and the totally unexpected ‘first punch’ by a young Chinese soldier pointed to something bigger possibly afoot. Therefore, he sent the injured men back to the Indian post and asked them to send back more men. Tempers were understandably high at this time, but Colonel Babu is said to have still calmed his men.

The ‘new’ Chinese troops who had been overpowered, were forcibly taken by Colonel Babu back across the LAC. The Indian team not only wanted to deposit the encroachers back on their side, but also inspect whether there was more coming.

ALSO READ | Exclusive: First images from Galwan show Chinese build-up intact after Ladakh carnage, India holding ground

The events of the previous few hours had set tactical alarm bells ringing and didn’t seem like a stray occurrence. It is also possible that they witnessed some movement on the Chinese side. Either way, the crossing of the Indian team into the Chinese side would spark the second phase of the fight a full hour later.

It was in this second brawl that most of the casualties would be inflicted.

"The boys were angry and aggressive. You can imagine how much they wanted to teach a lesson to the aggressors," an Army officer deployed near the Shyok-Galwan confluence a few kilometres from the brawl point told India Today TV.

It was dark by this time, and visibility had plummeted. What Colonel Babu suspected was correct. More Chinese troops, of the ‘new’ kind, were waiting in positions both on the banks of the Galwan as well as in positions up on a ridge to the right. Almost as soon as they arrived, large stones began to land.

At about 9pm, Colonel Babu was struck on the head by a large stone, and he fell into the Galwan River. The assessment is that it may not have been a targeted attack on the Colonel, but in the flurry, he was struck.
""

This second brawl lasted nearly 45 minutes, and it is during this fearsome exchange that the bodies piled up. A crucial aspect of brawl No. 2 is that the fighting spread into several different pockets across the LAC. While some have imagined it to be one big crowd of men fighting each other like a mob, the brawl actually separated into different groups, with nearly 300 men fighting each other. When the fighting stopped, several bodies of both Indian and Chinese troops were in the river, including the Indian Commanding Officer.

With energy fully spent by nearly an hour of vicious hand-to-hand fighting, including the use of metal spiked clubs by the Chinese and barbed-wire wrapped rods, the two sides disengaged and things fell quiet. Things quietened down for an hour till about 11pm giving troops on both sides time to recover bodies.

Colonel Babu’s body and those of some of the other jawans were carried back to the Indian side, while the rest of the Indian team remained on the Chinese side taking stock of the situation. It had been brutally established that their Commanding Officer’s suspicions had been proven correct. And with him killed in front of them, things were at an emotional peak.

During the recovery of bodies, and amidst the groan of injured personnel in the darkness, the Indian side heard the unmistakable hum of a quadcopter drone, something infantrymen are very attuned to in today’s battlefield. This was an immediate trigger for what would lead to the third brawl. The drone was slowly moving through the valley, possibly using night vision or infrared cameras to map the damage and mount another assault on survivors.

Backup requested arrived in large numbers, including Ghatak platoons from both the 16 Bihar as well as 3 Punjab Regiment. Every infantry battalion has Ghatak platoons that lead attacks and function as ‘shock troops’.
As suspected, the Chinese side had done the same. While the Indian reinforcements arrived, the Indian team stepped deeper into the Chinese side, wanting to ensure they didn’t let large numbers of aggressive Chinese troops get close to the LAC.

ALSO READ | Bloodiest India-China clash in 40 years leaves 20 jawans dead, Chinese casualties in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley

The third phase of the brawl began shortly after 11pm and would continue with sporadic intensity till well past midnight fully on the Chinese side. Troop groups would continue fighting along the ridgelines moving up towards the right, with the intensity of the fisticuffs leading to many men on both sides plunging into the narrow Galwan river, some injuring themselves on rocks while falling. Earthworks by the Chinese on the banks of the Galwan and adjoining flanks of earth is said to have played a part in this.

With energy completely spent after five hours of fighting since the incident began, things finally fell silent. Indian and Chinese combat medics arrived to move their dead and injured. The remains of soldiers on both sides were exchanged in the darkness. The physical separation of the fighting groups finally led to 10 Indian men — 2 Majors, 2 Captains and 6 jawans – being held back the Chinese side even after the disengagement. And it is here that the sequence begins to blur.

Former Army chief and current minister General VK Singh has come in record in media interviews to suggest that the Chinese casualties were more than double the 20 that the Indian Army suffered. India Today TV has learnt that the tactical debrief on the ground — a kind of First Information Report on the incident — records 16 Chinese Army bodies handed back to the Chinese side after brawl No.3, including 5 officers. The debrief report does not specify if the Chinese Commanding Officer of the unit was among these five.
""

The 16 were Chinese Army men confirmed dead on the battlefield. It is speculated that many more of the injured Chinese — as with the 17 Indian men who perished the following day — may have died of their injuries later, though there remains no categorical confirmation of this, nor is there likely to be.

General Singh has also hinted at an exchange of men after the incident. This too has been borne out from ground reports, with top Army sources clarifying to India Today TV that it wasn’t a ‘prisoner exchange’.

In the chaotic melee that was brawl No.3, the disengagement in the darkness led to several injured men from both sides remaining with the other.

By dawn on June 16, the Indian troops withdrew back across the LAC, after judging that many were still missing. Men on the ground say this wasn’t a ‘captivity’ or ‘prisoner’ situation, since these were all injured men. When the sun rose, the situation was handed over to Major Generals on both sides, and talks hinged on the modalities of the exchange.

ALSO READ | How China channelled Galwan river to claim territory

It is testament to the shock of the incident still sinking in that it would take a further three days for the troops on both sides to be sent back to their respective sides.
"It was not a captivity situation. We were providing medical treatment to their men. And they were treating our men," a top Army official tells India Today TV.

The tactical debrief report also records the 16 Bihar’s assessment that the Chinese troops involved in the brawl were not the regular unit deployed on the frontlines of the LAC and involved in multiple rounds of talks previously. The assessment is that this was by design, possibly a use of more ’aggressive’, less situationally acclimatised troops to spearhead an aggressive action at the Galwan Valley, with a possible larger intent to capture Indian crossover points, culverts and bridges on the Galwan on the track leading up to the Shyok River to the west.

16 Bihar has been no stranger to the Chinese. During the 2017 Doklam standoff, the unit was in reserve in depth areas, even conducing reconnaissance operations for forward deployed troops.

In the Galwan Valley, the unit had been fully acclimatised for a couple of years and had developed a well-rounded rapport with men on the Chinese side. The shock of the Chinese aggression and sequence of events therefore went beyond the immediate tactical comprehension of troops on the ground.

The loss of Colonel Babu was a blow to the unit. A unit officer cleared for promotion previously has now taken over as Commanding Officer of 16 Bihar. The situation is markedly calmer now at Patrol Poing 14, with the disengagement process at Galwan hopefully expected to make progress.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/3-separate-brawls-outsider-chinese-troops-more-most-detailed-account-of-the-brutal-june-15-galwan-battle-1691185-2020-06-21

来源时间:2020/6/22   发布时间:2020/6/21

旧文章ID:22109

国会大厦“破四旧”,佩洛西撤四位前议长肖像闹笑话被网友群嘲……

0

作者:Jason  来源:圣地呀GO

轰轰烈烈的美国文化大X命,如今掀开了新的一页。造反派头子众议院议长民主党人南希·佩洛西(Nancy Pelosi)开始带头在美国国会大楼内“破四旧”了。

""

6月18日,佩洛西表示,她已经下令从国会大厦撤下来自南方联邦的四位前众议院议长肖像。

""

这四位众议长分别是来自弗吉尼亚州的罗伯特·亨特(Robert Hunter),南卡罗来纳州的詹姆斯·奥尔(James Orr)和乔治亚州的霍威尔·科布(Howell Cobb)和查尔斯·克里斯普(Charles Crisp)。

"国会大厦“破四旧”,佩洛西撤四位前议长肖像闹笑话被网友群嘲……"

"国会大厦“破四旧”,佩洛西撤四位前议长肖像闹笑话被网友群嘲……"

佩洛西称国会大厅是“我们民主的心脏”,“在具有崇高精神的国会大厅或任何荣誉场所中,不应该留出地方来纪念那些南部联邦暴力偏执和怪异种族主义的人。”她还说,“这些人的肖像是使我们国家对抗偏见的工作倒退的象征”,“美国人民把领导我们的国家的重任托付给国会,让我们以身作则,从人民的国会中删除这些肖像”。

佩洛西指出,1865年6月19日德克萨斯州宣布废除奴隶制,6月19日是非裔美国人纪念美国奴隶制终结日,她称这为“一个美丽而自豪的非裔美国人自由庆祝的活动”,并指出,今年的庆祝活动是“在一个国家极度痛苦的时刻举行的,因为我们为数百名因种族不公和警察暴行而丧生的美国黑人感到悲痛, Floyd,Breonna Taylor,Ahmaud Arbery等等。

但是有意思的是佩洛西要撤下的这四个历史人物都是民主党人。

""

詹姆斯·奥尔(James Orr)1849年至1859年在南卡罗来纳州担任民主党国会议员,1857年至1859年,他担任众议院议长。他的画像创作于1911年,是国会内重要的历史藏品之一。

罗伯特·亨特(Robert Hunter)曾在联邦的多个部门任职,包括国务卿等,他在1839-41年间担任众议院议长。1842年亨特改变党派,从辉格党加入民主党。

霍威尔·科布(Howell Cobb)民主党人,从1849年至1851年曾是美国众议院的五届议员和众议院议长。他还曾担任佐治亚州第40任州长(1851-1853年)和美国财政部部长。

查尔斯·克里斯普(Charles Crisp),于1882年当选为乔治亚州民主党国会议员,一直任职至1896年去世。从1890年直到去世,他一直是众议院民主党的领袖,1891年至1895年担任众议院议长。

这也引来了众多网友的嘲笑,纷纷在各大新闻下发表评论:

""

“这四个人都是民主党人”

""

“你进入国会30多年了,直到2020年才意识到?”

""

“你在清除历史,而我们将清除你”

""

“她(佩洛西)清除了民主党的历史。”

""

“民主党想抹掉他们种族歧视的历史”

""

“民主党清除历史的时候,我们将不再是一个国家。”

""

“接下来我们应该将民主党清除,他们的前身是开始建立联邦并拥有奴隶的人。”

""

“我真的很厌倦这些抹去美国的历史的人,好或坏,都是我们的历史。”

本月早些时候,佩洛西还敦促从国会大厦撤下南方同盟国历史人物的雕像,这几尊雕像包括前总统杰弗逊·戴维斯(Jefferson Davis)、南北战争时期南方联军总司令罗伯特·李(Robert Lee)将军等。

佩洛西在国会记者会上表示,国会雕像应展现美国人最高理念并代表美国人与其期盼,但“这些雕像人物提倡透过残暴野蛮行为,来达到类似种族歧视的目的,这显得突兀而且有辱我国理念。”

美国的抗议活动,在各地引发了拆毁被认为是种族主义历史人物雕像的风潮。

在一些城市,发现美洲新大陆的航海家哥伦布的雕像也被斩首或推倒,他被指促使美洲原住民种族灭绝。

""

而”破四旧“之风,现在也烧到了美国的开国先贤们身上。

据俄勒冈州当地媒体15日报道,部分反种族歧视示威者在该州波特兰的抗议活动中,推倒了当地杰斐逊高中的托马斯·杰斐逊雕像,其底座也被画上涂鸦,上面写着“杰斐逊是奴隶主”,以及“乔治·弗洛伊德”的字样。

""

托马斯·杰斐逊出生于1743年,于1826年去世,他是美国第三任总统,同时也是《美国独立宣言》主要起草人,及美国开国元勋中最具影响力的人之一。

在《独立宣言》中,杰斐逊曾写下“人皆生而平等”,他也曾公开谴责奴隶制,认为这一制度将“绝迹”,但在他的一生中,曾拥有超过600名奴隶,并且从强迫劳动中获利。

不仅倡导众生平等的杰斐逊被推倒,连解放黑奴的林肯现在都面临万人批斗。

6月16日《国会山报》报道的,近万名美国民众签署请愿书,要求移除波士顿公园广场上的一座林肯纪念雕像。这座雕像已经在波士顿矗立了100多年,为华盛顿林肯公园的解放纪念碑的复制品。

""

雕像上林肯一只手按着《解放黑人奴隶宣言》,一只手举过一位奴隶的头顶,这位奴隶则单膝跪地抬起头,手上的镣铐被打破。底座上写着“一个种族得到解放,这个国家得到和平。林肯得以从工作中获得休息。”

反对者们认为这座雕像反映的是黑人向白人卑躬屈膝,可这雕像的真正意义不是在于黑人从此可以不用再卑躬屈膝了吗?连林肯都要打倒,这是要”反对解放黑奴“吗?估计下一个就是“国父”华盛顿了,毕竟也是个大奴隶主。

其实就像很多网友说的,抛开当时的环境来评价一个历史人物的所作所为,用现代人的道德去批判古人,是完全不合理的。何况他们还是对国家有过贡献的人。历史是不可能因为一个雕像被推掉,一个肖像被撤走就抹掉的,于其做这些表面功夫,还不如想想怎么教育人们如何正确的去看待这一问题,去想想怎么从根本上解决这一问题。

抗议的人们瞎胡闹,当权的人也跟着瞎搞,唯恐天下还不够乱。建议佩洛西下一步带着抗议者们去烧美元吧,那上面印了杰斐逊,林肯,华盛顿这些“种族歧视者”的头像。

来源时间:2020/6/21   发布时间:2020/6/20

旧文章ID:22108

谷歌前总裁作客BBC节目 纵论华为“威胁”和中美科技脱钩是非

0

作者:戈登·克雷拉  来源:BBC中文网

"Schmidt

图片版权GETTY IMAGES

美国高科技巨头谷歌前总裁、现任五角大楼国防创新委员会主任的埃里克·施密特(Eric Schmidt)在接受BBC广播四台专题节目《新科技冷战》访问时指称,华为从事了“令人无法接受的行为”,对西方国家构成“国家安全挑战”。

不过,施密特在作出以上表述同时也明确指出,西方国家应该与中国在科技领域展开竞争,而不是简单化地脱钩或脱离关系。

英国当下正在重新审评是否应该继续允许华为帮助修建5G移动通讯网络的事宜,而此时此刻,继香港安全法等系列事件,英国政界要求与华为全面脱钩的呼声日盛。

"US

美国禁止向华为出售芯片,却允许本国公司参与与华为一起制定5G标准  图片版权REUTERS

华为“可与情报机构等同看待”

施密特告诉BBC说:“华为毫无疑问从事了一些在(西方)国家安全方面令人无法接受的行为。”

他认为可以把华为与英国的GCHQ和美国的NSA等“讯息情报部门”等同看待。

施密特还指称:“毫无疑问流经华为路由器的数据最终被显然是(中国)国家的部门所掌握。”

“不管这种情况是如何发生的,我们确认它发生了。”

华为公司方面长期以来一直坚决否认是中国国家体系的一部分,也坚决否认将用户数据交给过中国政府部门。

华为英国主管——高级副总裁张国威(Victor Zhang)在接受BBC采访时说:“这根本不是事实。”

张国威说:“华为是私营企业,百分之百由员工所有。华为独立于任何政府,也包括中国政府。”

承认有中国偏见

施密特承认,华为如今是美国最高决策层面对的“一大难题”:因为这家业务遍布全球的中国公司生产了比所有竞争对手都好的产品。

施密特对BBC说:“我们现在需要选项,这一点极为重要。”

“我们对华为的回应……应该是通过拥有一个一样好的产品、产品线来展开竞争。”

施密特这位曾担任美国互联网巨头谷歌公司总裁超过15年的国际科技业知名人士坦承,至少他本人长期以来一直低估了中国公司创新的能力。

“我多年与中国公司打交道的时候一直对他们存在偏见”,他说。“他们很善于仿效别人的东西,他们很会团队组织,他们很会搞人海战术,但是他们搞不出什么新东西。他们非常会剽窃我们的东西。现在是抛弃这些偏见的时候了。”

“在关键的研发创新方面,中国人可以和西方同样优秀,甚至可能更优秀。”

“他们肯于花大钱。他们以与西方完全不同的方式,以国家主导的方式投资于创新。我们需要迎头赶上。”

在承认中国创新能力的同时,施密特则否认中国举国体制方式比西方自由体制更加优越。但他指出,西方必须知己知彼,充分利用自己的强项,方能在未来的竞争中百战不殆。

他认为西方的一大优势是自由民主的社会氛围与生活环境更能吸引人才:“多数人才更愿意在西方国家居住和工作,而不是在中国。”

"Eric

施密特2001年加盟谷歌,曾长期就任公司总裁一职  图片版权GETTY IMAGES

西方需要迎头赶上

施密特认为,美国和硅谷(矽谷)的最大问题是长期忽视或无视政府可能在研发创新方面所扮演的角色。

“其实,硅谷任何成功的创新项目从始至终都会有联邦政府科技补助金的影子”,他说。

施密特去年曾主持美国国家安全委员会的一次研讨会,专门聚焦人工智能领域。研讨会结论认为,中国在这方面的进展迅速令人关注。

他说:“我认为他们比我们还落后几年……但没有5年、10年那么多;而且有证据显示,中国今后几年内就可能追赶上我们。”

“所以问题就是:如果赶上了会如何呢?显然,人工智能可以应用到军事和国家安全方面。”

他还补充说,中国在量子计算等方面已经与西方国家齐头并进。

科技脱钩并非上策

尽管如此,施密特对美国政界一些人希望推动的美中科技脱钩不以为然。他认为这样做只能最终让世界上出现两种截然不同的系统。

他说:“一旦(科技平台)在全球范围内分支了,就不会再合流了。”

“我们都因共享平台和相互交换知识而获益……我担心一旦科技平台分支,国与国之间的相互了解会越来越少。”

“脱钩还是不脱钩,中国都会最终成为科技强国;他们有资源,有钱,有技术。”

“问题是,他们最终是在一个全球共通的平台上运作还是自起炉灶?分离程度越大,危险也越大。”

“对西方来说,(让中国技术)继续在西方也拥有的平台上更有利。”

强悍的竞争对手

施密特警告说,西方各国不应人为地袒护本国高科技企业,因为西方也有自身的弱点,特别是在半导体芯片产能方面。

他认为,应该继续允许中国企业使用西方公司设计的芯片,否则一旦中国开始拥有自身研发芯片的能力,对西方来说将更加不利。

各国民族主义和保护主义的抬头也是施密特访谈中批评的对象。他总结认为,半数以上美国硅谷的企业最初都是由外国移民创建的。

历数了自己在硅谷的多年经历,施密特认为,应对中国挑战的最好办法是利用西方自身的内在优势而强势竞争。

“竞争将会是激烈和残酷的——大批对手相互竞争,而我们将力争取胜。”

施密特上述言论发表于BBC广播4台节目《新科技冷战》(The New Tech Cold War)。上述节目英国夏日时间6月19日上午11:00时首播。

来源时间:2020/6/21   发布时间:2020/6/18

旧文章ID:22107