「每日英文閱讀分享#012」
今天是週四,
先跟大家分享一句Albert老師的金句:「你只是暫時沒有理想中的好,但不代表未來你就註定是這樣了!」
常常我都會陷入覺得自己應該英文還不錯的幻想中,但真正遇到挑戰的時候才會深深理解自己的不足。
也很慶幸總是有各種打擊讓我可以一直不斷努力學習。
不知不覺就進入第12天每日閱讀了,
昨天認真的覆盤一下這12天的情況,
發現大部分只能夠把文章看完、貼文寫完,
並沒有辦法在1.5小時內整理完所有單字的筆記,決定先從每天五個並運用開始。
「承認自己做不到100%就先從10%開始!」
讓我們一起每天學習一點點,用積少成多的方式慢慢走得長久吧!
今天不小心廢話太多XD
想問大家,如果要說「把我的希望都寄託在…上了」大家會怎麼說呢?
先想一下不要看答案~
本篇文章用這個片語:pin one’s hopes on…:
to hope very much that (something) will help one or allow one to succeed
本文例句:Sources at political risk consultancies have indicated to me that U.S. businesses have pinned their hopes on a possible end of the Trump presidency following the November 2020 elections.
#言之有物
#英語學習
#商業英文
#BusinessEnglish
#InternationalBusiness
#Globalization
#每日英文閱讀分享
#一起來建立英文閱讀習慣吧
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「political globalization」的推薦目錄:
- 關於political globalization 在 椪皮仔 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於political globalization 在 堅離地城:沈旭暉國際生活台 Simon's Glos World Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於political globalization 在 陳奕齊 - 新一 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於political globalization 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於political globalization 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於political globalization 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於political globalization 在 What is POLITICAL GLOBALIZATION? What does POLITICAL 的評價
political globalization 在 堅離地城:沈旭暉國際生活台 Simon's Glos World Facebook 的精選貼文
【#TheDiplomat🌍】難得The Diplomat讀者對香港有興趣:
The series of iron-fisted moves last month in Hong Kong may seem sudden to international observers: Hong Kong government’s earlier reinterpretation of the China-Hong Kong relationship, the election of a pro-Beijing legislator to be a Legislative Council chair through a controversial mechanism, and Beijing’s recent decision to impose a national security law on Hong Kong. The desire to bring Hong Kong under the banner of “one country, one system” is not impulsive. Quite the contrary, it’s a calculated campaign to initiate a so-called “second reunification with Hong Kong” — since the first reunification after the handover, using a lenient soft-power approach, has supposedly failed.
What are Beijing’s calculations that motivate this bold campaign now? And more important, will the campaign work?
While I remain highly skeptical of solely applying the realist framework to study Hong Kong, Beijing’s mentality is nonetheless entirely realism-driven. It is therefore essential to use this lens to understand more of their thoughts.
COVID-19: A Golden Opportunity on the International Stage?
To start with, the coronavirus pandemic seems to have created an ideal backdrop for Beijing to push forward its iron-fisted policy toward Hong Kong. The West has been devastated by the pandemic, more so than China, and has been slower to recover economically. Instead of decoupling from China, Beijing thinks the West is desperate for an influx of Chinese capital and markets. This notion encourages Beijing to pursue brinkmanship, in the form of confrontative “wolf warrior diplomacy,” its escalation of sharp power, and, most recently, Hong Kong’s national security law. As long as the international community does not put their condemnation into action, Beijing will keep pushing the envelope.
Beijing is convinced that the chambers of commerce representing other countries in Hong Kong will always place profits above all else as long as the national security law does not threaten them. Business deals struck at the crucial moment can entice foreign businesses to use their lobby teams in their home countries in Beijing’s favor.
Although anti-China sentiment has become more mainstream, Beijing, the major beneficiary of globalization in the past two decades, has tied its destiny with various elites internationally. These “friends of China” can be swayed to safeguard Beijing’s interests, but the up-and-coming leaders in many countries look less friendly. Therefore, the window of opportunity for Beijing to act is closing before the new value-driven generation comes to power.
The Lack of Incentive Behind the U.S. and U.K.’s Escalating Rhetoric
While U.S. politicians from left to right are vocal against China, their ultimate goal, Beijing believes, is to win votes in the November election. They would hence avoid hurting the interest groups they represent and go easy on actions aiming to punish China, such as denying Hong Kong’s status as a separate customs territory, sanctioning Chinese companies listed in Hong Kong, or escalating the trade war.
Even though the Trump administration is ramping up the rhetoric to sanction China, protecting Hong Kong’s autonomy is not one of the United States’ core interests. In contrast, having control over Hong Kong is China’s core interest. Beijing would rather make concessions over other disputes with Washington in exchange for claiming victory in Hong Kong for its internal propaganda.
Britain, the co-signer of the Joint Declaration for Hong Kong’s handover, is arguably most entitled to denounce Beijing’s violation, which would give mandates to the United States to act. But Beijing is convinced that Britain, not as powerful as it used to be, will not make such a move. Beijing’s recent plans to withdraw businesses from the United States and list them in the London stock market is a move to place a wedge between the two powers. U.S. President Donald Trump’s unilateralism and his harsh stance against U.S. allies also strengthens Beijing’s conviction that the West will not follow the United States’ lead.
Beijing’s Divide and Conquer Strategy in Hong Kong
Hong Kong’s parliament, the Legislative Council (LegCo), is a major roadblock to Beijing’s control, as demonstrated twice since the handover — in 2003 when the national security law was first introduced and in 2019 with the anti-extradition legislation that sparked city-wide protests. In both setbacks, Beijing lost control when moderate pro-establishment legislators broke away from the party line in the face of public outcry. As the September LegCo election approaches, the last thing Beijing wants is for the election to become a de facto referendum on the single issue of the national security law, which could result in another landslide win for the democratic parties. The law would be untenable to the international community if it’s opposed by both pro-democracy voters, which according to polls account for 60 percent of the votes, and moderate pro-establishment voters.
The moderates, despite their reluctance to embrace hardline rule in Hong Kong, differ from the more militant faction within the non-establishment camp in that the former rejects the so-called “mutual destruction” option, which risks Hong Kong’s special trade status — its economic lifeline — as a bargaining tactic to force Beijing to back off. Now that Washington is considering withdrawing Hong Kong’s privileges, the possibility of mutual destruction is becoming real. As Beijing has been promoting a narrative that all supporters of the protest movement’s “Five Demands” are bringing about mutual destruction, Beijing hopes the moderates, in fear of losing their financial assets, might turn toward the establishment.
On the other hand, the pro-democracy camp is at risk of breaking apart. Moderate pro-democracy supporters have been going to rallies to keep up with the political momentum. However, marches with more than a million participants would be impossible under the current oppressive environment. For example, the authorities abuse COVID-19 social distancing measures to suppress rallies, permits for peaceful protests are increasingly difficult to obtain, pro-establishment businesses heavily censored the social media activities of employees, and outspoken individuals are often cyberbullied.
Without support from the moderates, some within the pro-democracy camp may radicalize, as Beijing expects. The radicalization would fit Beijing’s tactic of painting protests as separatism and terrorism, justifying the imposition of the national security law. The trajectory would be similar to Beijing’s handling of the 1959 Tibetan “riots,” during which Mao Zedong’s directive was “the more chaotic the scene, the better.”
The Nationalistic Agenda to Divert Domestic Attention
But after all, to Beijing, Hong Kong is not just Hong Kong. In the wake of the pandemic, Beijing urgently needs to uphold nationalism to divert unwanted attention from its economic crisis. That includes a global propaganda campaign to promote its triumph over COVID-19. Upgrading the Hong Kong protests to a national security issue — as a battle against foreign interference to complete the “reunification with Hong Kong” — best suits the nationalist atmosphere. The all-time low sense of belonging with China among the new generation in Hong Kong further justifies a strong-arm approach. The success of the strategy would offer a way to reunite with Taiwan, which would consolidate Xi’s leadership within the Communist Party.
Also, including the Hong Kong issue as part of the national agenda means that the Hong Kong government, which has already lost its will to govern, will dance to Beijing’s tunes.
This comprehensive crackdown on Hong Kong’s civil society is unprecedented. Beijing believes that the heavy-handed approach would pervade Hong Kong with a sense of powerlessness and bring it to its knees. As long as the international response is limited, the execution of the national security law, according to Chairman Mao’s “theory of contradiction,” will follow a script of “a soft hand” and “a firm hand.” That is, after its imposition, the law will initially apply restraint and be used only on individuals to set a stern example, so that the general public would feel as if the law does not impact them at all and property and stock prices would not fall. Gradually and subtly, if the realist formula of Beijing works, the “second reunification” could become a self-proclaimed success story for Beijing’s propaganda.
However, Beijing’s evaluations are not foolproof. Any single miscalculation could lead to a contradictory outcome for the People’s Republic of China. Is it really prepared?
▶️ 國安法:中國的現實主義框架
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjhRbV8qTgo
⏺ 中美夏威夷峰會
https://www.patreon.com/posts/38378214
political globalization 在 陳奕齊 - 新一 Facebook 的最佳解答
Don’t Be Naive! Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is Standing on the Side Against Human Civilization
Peaceful world order after WWII had been established upon the philosophy worshiping multilateralism. The cultural basis supporting such multilateralism contained an imagination believing in the ultimate good of the respect for diversity.
The Rise of China and the Naivete of EU
However, as time progressed into the Post-Cold War era of the 90's, globalization in trade became the dominant trend. Following the global embrace of multilateralism and respect for diversity, it was believed that China would have been influenced by open and positive values once she had participated in this big family of global trade. Indeed, China took advantage of its role as the "world factory" and gained a huge economic leap forward. After China joined the WTO in 2000, within seventeen to eighteen years, China had grown nine-fold compared in terms of its aggregate economic volume. Furthermore, it surpassed Germany in 2005 and Japan between 2009 and 2010, becoming the second-largest economy in the world.
In particular, due to the global financial crisis derived from the subprime mortgage in 2007 and Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in 2008 in the United States, the PIGGS countries turned into victims in Europe. China thus took advantage of this crisis to expand its power, bridging China’s role as depicted in Hu JinTao's "China's peaceful rise" to that in Xi JinPing's "China dream." Finally, China has revealed its ambition to compete for the position as a world leader and a planner of a new world order. The United States has finally, recently woken up to this nightmare of Xi, who has long intended to use China's almighty economic power to achieve his political agenda and hegemony. Unfortunately, many EU countries who consider themselves as advanced, civilized, pro-human rights and respectful to diversification, such as Germany and France, still fail, or refuse, to see the CCP regime’s true color and remain extremely naive towards it.
Repulsion towards Vulgarity, Tolerance towards Violence
Ironically, the two leading EU countries, Germany and France, prefer a dictatorial emperor, Xi, over Trump elected by the Americans with their ballots. The two countries do not shy away from showing them disgusted by Trump’s vulgar behaviors, but reluctantly show intolerance towards Xi’s cruelty and dictatorship. As a result, the EU countries develop inconceivable and mysterious stubbornness: they loudly criticize countries practicing death penalty based on their own judicial system; however, they are generous and subdued when it comes to the violence happening in HongKong where the HongKong police and Chinese GongAn basically bypass all applicable, or reasonable, laws. We should find this contrast deeply disturbing.
Seeing CCP through the eyes of Mao
In fact, these european countries and the western world are deluded by the so-called “respect for diversity.” Let’s use the wisdom of the CCP’s spiritual leader, Mao Ze Dong, as a framework to rethink this diversity concept in civilization. In his work “Correct Handling of Contradictions Between People,” published in 1957, Mao clearly classified social contradictions into “contradictions of two different natures”: “contradictions between ourselves and the enemy” and “internal contradictions among the people”. Contradictions between ourselves and the enemy are antagonistic, for example the contradictions between the exploiting and the exploited classes; but contradictions among people is non-antagonistic. Therefore, the former can not be mediated and resolved, but the latter one can be. Mao further advocated that contradictions between ourselves and the enemy should be resolved by dictatorship, but contradictions between the people should be resolved by a method of “cooperation-criticism-cooperation.” In other words, incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy can only be solved by suppression, but internal contradictions can be softened by cooperation.
Civilization and CCP - Two Incompatible Conflicting Systems
It is time for us to recognize that CCP, a sovereign of authoritarianism and digital dictatorship, should not have been regarded as a representation of the diversity of human civilization. Diversity should be defined based on a founded premise, i.e., a premise confined with certain agreements and consensus, necessary and beneficial for composing diversity. In fact, the value CCP stands for is against the universally accepted values of the world, just like the “incompatible contradictions between ourselves and the enemy”, as Mao said. As long as the existence of the CCP regime continues, human civilization will continue to be persecuted. It can be seen in the current situation of Hong Kong, where China approved the new bill of national security, thereby destroying the remaining freedom guaranteed to Hong Kongers, and assigned the “secret” police gangs to enforce the so-called “justice”.
To see the contracting natures of civilization and the CCP regime, we make an analogy with food. Normally, we respect other people’s choice for food. For instance, Ann prefers rice, Bob prefers noodles, John is a meat lover, Mary only eats seafood, etc. Although those four people have different choices of what they like to eat, they respect each other’s choices of food. However, when Daniel comes over and tells the group that he prefers to eat faeces and needs to be respected for his preference, we can start to see the ridiculousness in it. At first, the four people think eating faeces is a personal choice for Daniel, and Daniel can do whatever he/she wants as long as he/she does it at his/her home. The problem rises when Daniel starts to force other people to eat faeces, while the other four people think faeces is inedible, and should never be served on a plate.
The food analogy tells us that the CCP regime is inherently against human civilization. As a reasonable human being could not categorize feces as food, we should not be tricked to believe that the authoritarian regime of China can blend in and contribute to human civilization. The CCP regime is incompatible to human civilization just like we should not consider to eat a meal with feces in it. As the master of CCP, Mao, admitted, one can never resolve the contradiction between the authoritarian regime of China and human civilization. The existence of Chinese authoritarian regime is a symbol for deprivation of human civilization. For us to maintain and preserve human civilization, Chinese authoritarian regime must be eradicated. There is no room for the coexistence of the CCP regime and human civilization.
Draw a Bottom Line to the Respect for Diversity
Therefore, among western countries, the United States have started or should start to realize that although diversity needs to be respected and tolerated, a reasonable bottom line should be drawn to such respect. Like what I have mentioned above, rice, noodles, meat, seafood and so on should be viewed as food; however, as we can all reasonably agree, feces should not be a part of the league. The United States is now acting to exclude “feces” from the democratic league and draw a bottom line for respect-worthy diversity. However, leading EU countries are still trapped in their fancy, unconditional acceptance to “respect for diversity.” Such respect is hypocritical, empty and baseless. Now, you should be able to understand why leftards in the EU would vigorously criticize death sentences executed under a legitimate judicial system but remain indifferent to the CCP regime’s merciless, relentless and oppressive killings. Namely, they simply set a wrong premise, including feces as an eligible option for “diversity.” As for those who embrace the CCP regime because of economic benefits, they do not even deserve to be viewed as EU leftards, but merely gold diggers in the EU.
--
Special Thanks to our supporters in North America for translation🙏
political globalization 在 What is POLITICAL GLOBALIZATION? What does POLITICAL 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>