發新話題
打印

[國際新聞] 美國針對中國的政策方向 US Policy Against China

華府加強審查 中國減少投資美初創企業
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/cnnews/20190107/bkn-20190107180330243-0107_00952_001.html

美國總統特朗普去年宣布,擴大美國外商投資審查委員會(CFIUS)的審查權,被指是限制中國及其他國家的投資,以保護美國的敏感科技。有關決定導致中國投資者對投資美國科技初創企業卻步。

中國投資者去年投資美國科技初創企業的資金,達到破紀錄的30億美元(約234億港元),相信是投資者和企業希望趕及美國在8月公布新監管制度前,搶先完成交易的結果。惟此後企業和中國投資者擔心冗長的政府審查,或會耗費資源,於是開始修改交易條款,甚或放棄交易。

CFIUS負責審查外國投資帶來的潛在國家安全和競爭風險,成員來自美國財政部、國防部、國務院和國土安全部等。CFIUS的年度報告顯示,中國投資者於2013年至2015年,提交了74宗申請,是各國之冠。

華府限制輸出核能技術 蓋茨公司放棄與中方合作
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/amenews/20190103/bkn-20190103231503991-0103_00972_001.html?eventsection=hk_cnnews&eventid=71549E518AB9CA45E050007F010049A4

美國政府早前宣布嚴格限制對華輸出民用核能技術,微軟始創人蓋茨(Bill Gates)旗下公司TerraPower,因而被迫放棄與中方國營企業的合作項目,要尋求新的合作夥伴。

《華爾街日報》報道指,TerraPower前年與中方國營企業達成合作協議,打算在北京以南興建核反應堆試驗項目。該公司指,計劃中的核反應堆使用貧鈾作燃料,從而提高安全性並降低成本。

惟蓋茨日前撰文表示,基於當局最近對中國科技貿易政策的變化,TerraPower與中方共同項目已不太可能繼續推進;並指因國內監管核能限制甚多,亦增加了在國內作核反應堆試驗的難度。
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

民調:逾半加拿大人認為北京威脅國家安全 應禁華為5G設備
https://www.post852.com/267116/%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF%EF%BC%9A%E9%80%BE%E5%8D%8A%E5%8A%A0%E6%8B%BF%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%BA%E8%AA%8D%E7%82%BA%E5%8C%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%A8%81%E8%84%85%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%e3%80%80%E6%87%89%E7%A6%81/

英國防大臣:可能在南海建軍事基地,發揮全球作用
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/46723327
華為的國家安全風險:西方和盟國聯合布防
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/46595173
科技冷戰興建5G網絡 華為面對西方情報聯盟抵制
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-46390757
華為引發的安全擔憂:貿易戰和地緣政治對抗
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-46527875

[ 本帖最後由 WeAreHK 於 2019-1-16 16:40 編輯 ]
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

批中國不守規矩 美國不再視而不見!
https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E6%89%B9%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E4%B8%8D%E5%AE%88%E8%A6%8F%E7%9F%A9-%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E4%B8%8D%E5%86%8D%E8%A6%96%E8%80%8C%E4%B8%8D%E8%A6%8B-234114517.html

美國總統潘斯(Mike Pence)曾在去年10月時,空開譴責中國並力挺台灣,近日在美國國務院舉辦的駐外使節會議(Global Chiefs of Mission Conference)上,潘斯再次譴責中國一再無視國際規範,並強調美國不會對此容忍、視而不見。

根據《美國之音》報導,美國副總統潘斯指出,中國利用債務外交、不平等的貿易行為,來擴張其國際影響力,並在南海咄咄逼人的態度,讓美國看不下去。潘斯表示,美國支持全球海域的航行自由,但中國卻一再無視國際規範,因此美國不會再視而不見。

潘斯提到,美國已對中國「予以警告」,美國總統川普對價值2500億美元的中國商品加徵關稅,尤其是中國認為的優勢產品,倘若中國仍沒有做出改變,並做到對中美雙方都有利的協議,美國將會繼續對中國實施更多的關稅措施。但潘斯對這場中美貿易戰,仍抱有高度期望,希望中國能回到談判桌上和平談話。

在去年10月時,潘斯曾公開演說表示「只有台灣的民主制度才是所有中國人的最佳選擇。」並指控中國大力干預美國的政策和內政。

美兩黨議員提法案 禁向華為中興售美國晶片
https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E7%BE%8E%E5%85%A9%E9%BB%A8%E8%AD%B0%E5%93%A1%E6%8F%90%E6%B3%95%E6%A1%88-%E7%A6%81%E5%90%91%E8%8F%AF%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%AD%E8%88%88%E5%94%AE%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E6%99%B6%E7%89%87-041400182.html

美媒指司法部調查華為涉盜企業機密 或很快起訴
https://hk.news.yahoo.com/%E7%BE%8E%E5%AA%92%E6%8C%87%E5%8F%B8%E6%B3%95%E9%83%A8%E8%AA%BF%E6%9F%A5%E8%8F%AF%E7%82%BA%E6%B6%89%E7%9B%9C%E4%BC%81%E6%A5%AD%E6%A9%9F%E5%AF%86-%E6%88%96%E5%BE%88%E5%BF%AB%E8%B5%B7%E8%A8%B4-003431234.html
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

【華為危機】國家安全絕不妥協 加國部長:絕不因中國壓力退縮
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/international/realtime/article/20190119/59159706

德國、加拿大考慮中斷華為5G合作 中國威脅:會有惡果
https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E5%BE%B7%E5%9C%8B-%E5%8A%A0%E6%8B%BF%E5%A4%A7%E8%80%83%E6%85%AE%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%B7%E8%8F%AF%E7%82%BA5g%E5%90%88%E4%BD%9C-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B%E5%A8%81%E8%84%85-%E6%9C%83%E6%9C%89%E6%83%A1%E6%9E%9C-091701489.html

擬嚴格限制中國電訊商在美營業
特朗普圖判華為死刑
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/international/daily/article/20190120/20595155


【中美貿易戰】歐美多國正有意限制華為發展,美國總統特朗普政府更打算再進逼中國,將利用總統行政指令嚴格限制中國電訊商發展。有美國學者分析指,美國會用對付中興的方法對付華為,或禁止出售重要零件,等於判華為死刑。

美國彭博社引述消息人士指,該行政指令正在草擬階段,仍未上呈特朗普,條文不會提及華為及中興的名字,亦不會全面禁止某些企業在美國營業,但條文將給予美國商務部去審視包括中國在內的敵對國家出產的貨物及相關收購。消息人士又指,行政指令雖然正值中美貿易戰的談判,但美國今次並不單考慮經濟問題,更考慮國防問題。

或禁向華為供應重要零件
曾任職於國防承包公司蘭德公司(Rand Corporation)的中國軍事問題專家毛文杰(James Mulvenon)透露,該總統行政命令會在未來數星期才公佈,但現時不少美國公司正已準備修訂公司政策迎合指示。毛文杰估計,今次行政命令生效後,最低亦會一定程度下禁止華為在美國買賣,最嚴重情況甚至會採用對付中興的措施,限制所有美國公司向華為供應重要的美國零件,他形容:「這等同宣判了華為死刑」。

國家安全委員會發言人馬奇斯無回應有關行政指令,但他表示美國政府一直與盟友或其他持相關理念的夥伴減少5G調配及其他通訊設備帶來的風險。他說:「通訊網絡是我們城市的支柱,影響生活各個範疇,美國將會確保我們使用的網絡是絕對安全及可靠。」華為駐美國首席安全官Andy Purdy回應指,對華為和5G的擔憂是沒有根據的。

美國主要的電訊運營商AT&T Inc.和Verizon Communications Inc今年內會推出小規模的5G服務版本,明年美國將大規模的商務應用。根據美國研究報告,連接上網的設備數量每年增長三分之一,到2021年將達到251億個。為美國國會提供諮詢的美中經濟和安全評估委員會專員Michael Wesse指,5G可以令大量設備通過數百萬個天線實現即時通訊,令美國國防「創造了新的薄弱環節」。他認為:「華為在5G領域的重要地位為可能的網絡間諜和惡意軟件創造了一個新的載體。」

華為手機台灣越禁越好賣
美國對華為極為謹慎,但與大陸一海之隔的台灣民眾卻似乎沒那麼警戒心。華為旗艦機「Mate20 X」昨日在台灣上市,台北微風南山體驗店一早就湧現大批人潮排隊。片段所見,店外人龍最少有500人,有台灣網民不禁說:「怎麼越禁反而賣得更好?」

杜魯多:不會屈服於北京威嚇
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/international/daily/article/20190120/20595159

加拿大在孟晚舟事件後,與中國關係急劇轉壞,近日更傳出禁止華為參與當地5G建設。中國駐加拿大大使警告加國將有「後果」,對此加拿大總理杜魯多昨強硬回應,各國應關注中國如何用政治威嚇迫使加國順從中國。

不會讓國家安全受損
杜魯多指所有國家都應關注中國如何為了商業利益,不斷威嚇加拿大,他強調加國不會屈服於中方的壓力,並會堅持法治及獨立的司法制度。加拿大公共安全部部長Ralph Goodale昨說:「我們已經充份表明,我們不會讓國家安全受到損害。我們將採取適當的分析,最終做出我們認為符合加拿大利益的決定。」他還說,加國不會被中方的威脅「嚇阻」。

法新社分析指,目前已有數國跟隨華府號召禁用華為設備,但這種情況頗令歐洲為難,原因是華為的5G能力遙遙領先瑞典的愛立信(Ericsson)、芬蘭的諾基亞(Nokia)與南韓三星(Samsung)。華為波蘭銷售總監王偉晶本月初在波蘭因涉嫌從事間諜活動被捕,他昨透過律師宣稱:「指控完全沒有根據,十分害人」,強調自己無罪。

受夠中國竊密!華為被美判「死刑」,德國擬修法驅逐
https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/51982/huawei-u.s.-lawmakers-bill-germany-exclusion

【中美角力】華為告美國科技公司 要對方授權專利 (12:34)
https://m.mingpao.com/fin/instantf2.php?node=1546922098444&issue=20190108

【華為危機】國家安全絕不妥協 加國部長:絕不因中國壓力退縮
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/international/realtime/article/20190119/59159706

[ 本帖最後由 WeAreHK 於 2019-1-20 06:53 編輯 ]
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

俄媒曝馬哈蒂爾取消中國項目幕后推手 貿易戰走向危險
http://news.dwnews.com/global/big5/news/2019-01-21/60113724.html

兩艘美國艦艇駛過台灣海峽 太平洋艦隊指屬例行行動
http://news.tvb.com/greaterchina/5c49c30ce60383b738aac2db
美國太平洋艦隊派出兩艘艦艇,駛過台灣海峽。

美國有線新聞網絡引述,太平洋艦隊發言人表示,根據《國際法》,美軍導彈驅逐艦「麥克坎貝爾號」及補給艦「華特迪爾號」,在台灣海峽進行了一次例行行動,強調是要表明美國對維護自由開放的印度太平洋的承諾,又強調美軍會繼續,在任何《國際法》允許的領域飛行,航行及執行任務。

美國去年十月與十一月亦曾派軍艦穿越台灣海峽,解放軍派多艘軍艦跟蹤監視。

[ 本帖最後由 WeAreHK 於 2019-1-24 07:32 編輯 ]
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

【中美角力】索羅斯:習近平是自由社會「最危險敵人」
https://china.hket.com/article/2259972/%E3%80%90%E4%B8%AD%E7%BE%8E%E8%A7%92%E5%8A%9B%E3%80%91%E7%B4%A2%E7%BE%85%E6%96%AF%EF%BC%9A%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E6%98%AF%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E3%80%8C%E6%9C%80%E5%8D%B1%E9%9A%AA%E6%95%B5%E4%BA%BA%E3%80%8D?mtc=30024

在中美恐爆科技戰之際,國際投資者索羅斯(George Soros)周四(24日)在瑞士達沃斯世界經濟論壇中火上加油,指中國國家主席習近平是自由社會最危險的敵人,因他以機器學習(machine learning)及人工智能取得的突破,來壓迫中國人民。他又促請美國集中打擊華為及中興,並強調中美已處於冷戰,或快將轉為熱戰。

索羅斯在演說中解釋,中國科技公司已成為被極權控制的工具,「對自由社會的致命危險,是來自機器學習及人工智能的工具或落在極權政權手裏。」

他稱,中國急速增加的個人資訊,將集中在中央資料庫內,成為「社會信用系統」。根據這些資料,人民將被推算法評定,以判斷民眾是否對國家安全構成威脅,讓習近平能完全控制國民,非常「可怕」和「可惡」。他指出,雖然中國並非世界上唯一的獨裁政權,但在機器學習及人工智能方面,是最富有、最強大、技術最先進的國家。

美國應集中打擊中興華為

索羅斯指出,西方及中國在爭逐互聯網方面已爆發激戰,中國想主導數碼經濟的規則,因此以其新平台科技壟斷發展中的世界,「去年我仍相信中國會更融入全球管制的系統,但習近平的所作所為,改變了我的看法」。

他又認為,美國應該集中把焦點放在中國,並打擊中興和華為,而非只著重貿易赤字。他解釋,若這些公司主宰5G市場,將為全球帶來安全上的風險。他強調,習近平要使一黨專制的國家,具至高無上的統治權威。

中美正處冷戰或轉為熱戰

索羅斯又表示,中美兩國已處於冷戰,並可能快將轉為熱戰。因此,特朗普2017年底稱中國是「戰略競爭對手」的說法太簡單,「有效應付中國的政策不能只是喊口號,而是需要更精密、詳盡及可行,這必須包括美國對『一帶一路』的經濟政策回應。」

他強調,若特朗普向中國讓步及聲稱取得勝利,又同時攻擊美國盟友,將削弱美國壓制中國的目標。他相信,除非特朗普及習近平都不在權位,否則中美兩國難進行更大合作。

在北京,外交部發言人華春瑩表示,在當今全球化不斷深入發展的時代,只有秉持發展眼光及包容態度,才能為自身發展,及國與國之間關係的發展,開闢更廣闊的空間,希望美方有關人士能端正態度、放遠眼光,對中國發展有客觀、理性和正確的態度。

索羅斯的中國事務顧問梁恒在《和索羅斯一起走過的日子》中,曾揭示他對中國事務深感興趣,包括曾有意獨資在中國創辦金融學院,但最終無功而還。另外,他曾在上世紀80年代於北京設立「中國改革與開放基金會」,資助與經濟改革相關的研究,但其後被中方指是美國中情局的代理人,最終基金會在1989年停止運作。

索羅斯示警:習近平是自由社會最危險敵人
https://www.rti.org.tw/news/view/id/2009442

投資大亨索羅斯:習近平是自由社會最危險敵人
https://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E6%8A%95%E8%B3%87%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%A8%E7%B4%A2%E7%BE%85%E6%96%AF-%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3%E6%98%AF%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%9C%80%E5%8D%B1%E9%9A%AA%E6%95%B5%E4%BA%BA-215457646.html

【兩岸頭條】索羅斯轟中共監控人民: 習是自由世界最危險敵人
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/china/realtime/article/20190126/59186787

索羅斯:習近平是自由社會最危險敵人 促美打擊華為中興
https://hkcnews.com/article/18115/%E7%B4%A2%E7%BE%85%E6%96%AF-%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3-%E9%81%94%E6%B2%83%E6%96%AF%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E8%AB%96%E5%A3%87-18129/xi-jinping

Bloomberg Live George Soros Speaks at Davos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZGoXP-BWoc


George Soros: China is 'most dangerous' to open societies | Davos 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXGxShCv3nw


[ 本帖最後由 WeAreHK 於 2019-1-25 15:29 編輯 ]
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

索羅斯在達沃斯世界經濟論壇發言(全文)
https://www.hkcnews.com/article/18125/%E7%B4%A2%E7%BE%85%E6%96%AF-%E9%81%94%E6%B2%83%E6%96%AF%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E8%AB%96%E5%A3%87-%E7%BF%92%E8%BF%91%E5%B9%B3-18125/%E7%B4%A2%E7%BE%85%E6%96%AF%E5%9C%A8%E9%81%94%E6%B2%83%E6%96%AF%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E8%AB%96%E5%A3%87%E7%99%BC%E8%A8%80%EF%BC%88%E5%85%A8%E6%96%87%EF%BC%89

Remarks delivered at the World Economic Forum
Davos, Switzerland, January 24, 2019

Good evening and thank you all for coming.

I want to use my time tonight to warn the world about an unprecedented danger that's threatening the very survival of open societies.

Last year when I stood before you I spent most of my time analyzing the nefarious role of the IT monopolies. This is what I said: "An alliance is emerging between authoritarian states and the large data rich IT monopolies that bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developing system of state sponsored surveillance. This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even George Orwell could have imagined."

Tonight I want to call attention to the mortal danger facing open societies from the instruments of control that machine learning and artificial intelligence can put in the hands of repressive regimes. I’ll focus on China, where Xi Jinping wants a one-party state to reign supreme.

A lot of things have happened since last year and I've learned a lot about the shape that totalitarian control is going to take in China.

All the rapidly expanding information available about a person is going to be consolidated in a centralized database to create a "social credit system." Based on that data, people will be evaluated by algorithms that will determine whether they pose a threat to the one-party state. People will then be treated accordingly.

The social credit system is not yet fully operational, but it's clear where it's heading. It will subordinate the fate of the individual to the interests of the one-party state in ways unprecedented in history.

I find the social credit system frightening and abhorrent. Unfortunately, some Chinese find it rather attractive because it provides information and services that aren’t currently available and can also protect law-abiding citizens against enemies of the state.

China isn't the only authoritarian regime in the world, but it’s undoubtedly the wealthiest, strongest and most developed in machine learning and artificial intelligence. This makes Xi Jinping the most dangerous opponent of those who believe in the concept of open society. But Xi isn't alone. Authoritarian regimes are proliferating all over the world and if they succeed, they will become totalitarian.

As the founder of the Open Society Foundations, I’ve devoted my life to fighting totalizing, extremist ideologies, which falsely claim that the ends justify the means. I believe that the desire of people for freedom can't be repressed forever. But I also recognize that open societies are profoundly endangered at present.

What I find particularly disturbing is that the instruments of control developed by artificial intelligence give an inherent advantage to authoritarian regimes over open societies. For them, instruments of control provide a useful tool; for open societies, they pose a mortal threat.

I use "open society" as shorthand for a society in which the rule of law prevails as opposed to rule by a single individual and where the role of the state is to protect human rights and individual freedom. In my personal view, an open society should pay special attention to those who suffer from discrimination or social exclusion and those who can’t defend themselves.

By contrast, authoritarian regimes use whatever instruments of control they possess to maintain themselves in power at the expense of those whom they exploit and suppress.

How can open societies be protected if these new technologies give authoritarian regimes a built-in advantage? That's the question that preoccupies me. And it should also preoccupy all those who prefer to live in an open society.

Open societies need to regulate companies that produce instruments of control, while authoritarian regimes can declare them "national champions." That's what has enabled some Chinese state-owned companies to catch up with and even surpass the multinational giants.

This, of course, isn't the only problem that should concern us today. For instance, man-made climate change threatens the very survival of our civilization. But the structural disadvantage that confronts open societies is a problem which has preoccupied me and I’d like to share with you my ideas on how to deal with it.

My deep concern for this issue arises out of my personal history. I was born in Hungary in 1930 and I'm Jewish. I was 13 years old when the Nazis occupied Hungary and started deporting Jews to extermination camps.

I was very fortunate because my father understood the nature of the Nazi regime and arranged false identity papers and hiding places for all members of his family, and for a number of other Jews as well. Most of us survived.

The year 1944 was the formative experience of my life. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of political regime prevails. When the Nazi regime was replaced by Soviet occupation I left Hungary as soon as I could and found refuge in England.

At the London School of Economics I developed my conceptual framework under the influence of my mentor, Karl Popper. That framework proved to be unexpectedly useful when I found myself a job in the financial markets. The framework had nothing to do with finance, but it is based on critical thinking. This allowed me to analyze the deficiencies of the prevailing theories guiding institutional investors. I became a successful hedge fund manager and I prided myself on being the best paid critic in the world.

Running a hedge fund was very stressful. When I had made more money than I needed for myself or my family, I underwent a kind of midlife crisis. Why should I kill myself to make more money? I reflected long and hard on what I really cared about and in 1979 I set up the Open Society Fund. I defined its objectives as helping to open up closed societies, reducing the deficiencies of open societies and promoting critical thinking.

My first efforts were directed at undermining the apartheid system in South Africa. Then I turned my attention to opening up the Soviet system. I set up a joint venture with the Hungarian Academy of Science, which was under Communist control, but its representatives secretly sympathized with my efforts. This arrangement succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. I got hooked on what I like to call "political philanthropy." That was in 1984.

In the years that followed, I tried to replicate my success in Hungary and in other Communist countries. I did rather well in the Soviet empire, including the Soviet Union itself, but in China it was a different story.

My first effort in China looked rather promising. It involved an exchange of visits between Hungarian economists who were greatly admired in the Communist world, and a team from a newly established Chinese think tank which was eager to learn from the Hungarians.

Based on that initial success, I proposed to Chen Yizi, the leader of the think tank, to replicate the Hungarian model in China. Chen obtained the support of Premier Zhao Ziyang and his reform-minded policy secretary Bao Tong.

A joint venture called the China Fund was inaugurated in October 1986. It was an institution unlike any other in China. On paper, it had complete autonomy.

Bao Tong was its champion. But the opponents of radical reforms, who were numerous, banded together to attack him. They claimed that I was a CIA agent and asked the internal security agency to investigate. To protect himself, Zhao Ziyang replaced Chen Yizi with a high-ranking official in the external security police. The two organizations were co-equal and they couldn’t interfere in each other’s affairs.

I approved this change because I was annoyed with Chen Yizi for awarding too many grants to members of his own institute and I was unaware of the political infighting behind the scenes. But applicants to the China Fund soon noticed that the organization had come under the control of the political police and started to stay away. Nobody had the courage to explain to me the reason for it.

Eventually, a Chinese grantee visited me in New York and told me, at considerable risk to himself. Soon thereafter, Zhao Ziyang was removed from power and I used that excuse to close the foundation. This happened just before the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 and it left a "black spot" on the record of the people associated with the foundation. They went to great length to clear their names and eventually they succeeded.

In retrospect, it's clear that I made a mistake in trying to establish a foundation which operated in ways that were alien to people in China. At that time, giving a grant created a sense of mutual obligation between the donor and recipient and obliged both of them to remain loyal to each other forever.

So much for history. Let me now turn to the events that occurred in the last year, some of which surprised me.

When I first started going to China, I met many people in positions of power who were fervent believers in the principles of open society. In their youth they had been deported to the countryside to be re-educated, often suffering hardships far greater than mine in Hungary. But they survived and we had much in common. We had all been on the receiving end of a dictatorship.

They were eager to learn about Karl Popper's thoughts on the open society. While they found the concept very appealing, their interpretation remained somewhat different from mine. They were familiar with Confucian tradition, but there was no tradition of voting in China. Their thinking remained hierarchical and carried a built-in respect for high office. I, on the other hand I was more egalitarian and wanted everyone to have a vote.

So, I wasn't surprised when Xi Jinping ran into serious opposition at home; but I was surprised by the form it took. At last summer's leadership convocation at the seaside resort of Beidaihe, Xi Jinping was apparently taken down a peg or two. Although there was no official communique, rumor had it that the convocation disapproved of the abolition of term limits and the cult of personality that Xi had built around himself.
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

It's important to realize that such criticisms were only a warning to Xi about his excesses, but did not reverse the lifting of the two-term limit. Moreover, "The Thought of Xi Jinping," which he promoted as his distillation of Communist theory was elevated to the same level as the "Thought of Chairman Mao." So Xi remains the supreme leader, possibly for lifetime. The ultimate outcome of the current political infighting remains unresolved.

I've been concentrating on China, but open societies have many more enemies, Putin's Russia foremost among them. And the most dangerous scenario is when these enemies conspire with, and learn from, each other on how to better oppress their people.

The question poses itself, what can we do to stop them?

The first step is to recognize the danger. That's why I'm speaking out tonight. But now comes the difficult part. Those of us who want to preserve the open society must work together and form an effective alliance. We have a task that can’t be left to governments.

History has shown that even governments that want to protect individual freedom have many other interests and they also give precedence to the freedom of their own citizens over the freedom of the individual as a general principle.

My Open Society Foundations are dedicated to protecting human rights, especially for those who don't have a government defending them. When we started four decades ago there were many governments which supported our efforts but their ranks have thinned out. The US and Europe were our strongest allies, but now they're preoccupied with their own problems.

Therefore, I want to focus on what I consider the most important question for open societies: what will happen in China?

The question can be answered only by the Chinese people. All we can do is to draw a sharp distinction between them and Xi Jinping. Since Xi has declared his hostility to open society, the Chinese people remain our main source of hope.

And there are, in fact, grounds for hope. As some China experts have explained to me, there is a Confucian tradition, according to which advisors of the emperor are expected to speak out when they strongly disagree with one of his actions or decrees, even if that it may result in exile or execution.

This came as a great relief to me when I had been on the verge of despair. The committed defenders of open society in China, who are around my age, have mostly retired and their places have been taken by younger people who are dependent on Xi Jinping for promotion. But a new political elite has emerged that is willing to uphold the Confucian tradition. This means that Xi will continue to have a political opposition at home.

Xi presents China as a role model for other countries to emulate, but he's facing criticism not only at home but also abroad. His Belt and Road Initiative has been in operation long enough to reveal its deficiencies.

It was designed to promote the interests of China, not the interests of the recipient countries; its ambitious infrastructure projects were mainly financed by loans, not by grants, and foreign officials were often bribed to accept them. Many of these projects proved to be uneconomic.

The iconic case is in Sri Lanka. China built a port that serves its strategic interests. It failed to attract sufficient commercial traffic to service the debt and enabled China to take possession of the port. There are several similar cases elsewhere and they’re causing widespread resentment.

Malaysia is leading the pushback. The previous government headed by Najib Razak sold out to China but in May 2018 Razak was voted out of office by a coalition led by Mahathir Mohamed. Mahathir immediately stopped several big infrastructure projects and is currently negotiating with China how much compensation Malaysia will still have to pay.

The situation is not as clear-cut in Pakistan, which has been the largest recipient of Chinese investments. The Pakistani army is fully beholden to China but the position of Imran Khan who became prime minister last August is more ambivalent. At the beginning of 2018, China and Pakistan announced grandiose plans in military cooperation. By the end of the year, Pakistan was in a deep financial crisis. But one thing became evident: China intends to use the Belt and Road Initiative for military purposes as well.

All these setbacks have forced Xi Jinping to modify his attitude toward the Belt and Road Initiative. In September, he announced that "vanity projects" will be shunned in favor of more carefully conceived initiatives and in October, the People's Daily warned that projects should serve the interests of the recipient countries.

Customers are now forewarned and several of them, ranging from Sierra Leone to Ecuador, are questioning or renegotiating projects.

Most importantly, the US government has now identified China as a "strategic rival." President Trump is notoriously unpredictable, but this decision was the result of a carefully prepared plan. Since then, the idiosyncratic behavior of Trump has been largely superseded by a China policy adopted by the agencies of the administration and overseen by Asian affairs advisor of the National Security Council Matt Pottinger and others. The policy was outlined in a seminal speech by Vice President Mike Pence on October 4th.

Even so, declaring China a strategic rival is too simplistic. China is an important global actor. An effective policy towards China can’t be reduced to a slogan.

It needs to be far more sophisticated, detailed and practical; and it must include an American economic response to the Belt and Road Initiative. The Pottinger plan doesn’t answer the question whether its ultimate goal is to level the playing field or to disengage from China altogether.

Xi Jinping fully understood the threat that the new US policy posed for his leadership. He gambled on a personal meeting with President Trump at the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires. In the meantime, the danger of global trade war escalated and the stock market embarked on a serious sell-off in December. This created problems for Trump who had concentrated all his efforts on the 2018 midterm elections. When Trump and Xi met, both sides were eager for a deal. No wonder that they reached one, but it’s very inconclusive: a ninety-day truce.

In the meantime, there are clear indications that a broad based economic decline is in the making in China, which is affecting the rest of the world. A global slowdown is the last thing the market wants to see.

The unspoken social contract in China is built on steadily rising living standards. If the decline in the Chinese economy and stock market is severe enough, this social contract may be undermined and even the business community may turn against Xi Jinping. Such a downturn could also sound the death knell of the Belt and Road Initiative, because Xi may run out of resources to continue financing so many lossmaking investments.

On the question of global internet governance, there's an undeclared struggle between the West and China. China wants to dictate rules and procedures that govern the digital economy by dominating the developing world with its new platforms and technologies. This is a threat to the freedom of the Internet and indirectly open society itself.

Last year I still believed that China ought to be more deeply embedded in the institutions of global governance, but since then Xi Jinping's behavior has changed my opinion.  My present view is that instead of waging a trade war with practically the whole world, the US should focus on China. Instead of letting  ZTE and Huawei off lightly, it needs to crack down on them. If these companies came to dominate the 5G market, they would present an unacceptable security risk for the rest of the world.

Regrettably, President Trump seems to be following a different course: make concessions to China and declare victory while renewing his attacks on US allies. This is liable to undermine the US policy objective of curbing China’s abuses and excesses.

To conclude, let me summarize the message I’m delivering tonight. My key point is that the combination of repressive regimes with IT monopolies endows those regimes with a built-in advantage over open societies. The instruments of control are useful tools in the hands of authoritarian regimes, but they pose a mortal threat to open societies.

China is not the only authoritarian regime in the world but it is the wealthiest, strongest and technologically most advance. This makes Xi Jinping the most dangerous opponent of open societies. That's why it's so important to distinguish Xi Jinping's policies from the aspirations of the Chinese people. The social credit system, if it became operational, would give Xi total control over the people. Since Xi is the most dangerous enemy of the open society, we must pin our hopes on the Chinese people, and especially on the business community and a political elite willing to uphold the Confucian tradition.

This doesn't mean that those of us who believe in the open society should remain passive. The reality is that we are in a Cold War that threatens to turn into a hot one. On the other hand, if Xi and Trump were no longer in power, an opportunity would present itself to develop greater cooperation between the two cyber-superpowers.

It is possible to dream of something similar to the United Nations Treaty that arose out of the Second World War. This would be the appropriate ending to the current cycle of conflict between the US and China. It would reestablish international cooperation and allow open societies to flourish. That sums up my message.

[ 本帖最後由 WeAreHK 於 2019-1-25 15:26 編輯 ]
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

索羅斯指華為主宰5G 勢致全球危機
http://std.stheadline.com/daily/article/detail/1952066-%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B-%E7%B4%A2%E7%BE%85%E6%96%AF%E6%8C%87%E8%8F%AF%E7%82%BA%E4%B8%BB%E5%AE%B05G %E5%8B%A2%E8%87%B4%E5%85%A8%E7%90%83%E5%8D%B1%E6%A9%9F

內地科技巨企華為遭遇多國封殺之際,有「金融大鱷」稱號的國際著名投資者索羅斯周四在達沃斯世界經濟論壇發言時,再踩華為一腳,指華為若主宰5G市場,將為全球帶來安全危機。中國外交部指索羅斯的言論「顛倒黑白」、「毫無意義」。

索羅斯指中國不僅是專制政權,也是最富有、最強大及科技最先進的國家,這使國家主席習近平成為開放社會最危險的對手。他認為美國與其向全球發動貿易戰,不如集中對付中國。他呼籲美國制裁華為及中興等科技公司,因為如果讓這些公司主宰5G市場,將對全球構成不可接受的安全危機。

八十八歲的索羅斯上世紀九十年代尾曾狙擊港元,又一直「唱淡」中國經濟。對於他的最新言論,外交部發言人華春瑩昨天表示,當今世界,誰在開門修路,誰在關門築牆,一目了然,「個別人發表顛倒黑白與是非的言論毫無意義,不值一駁。」另據路透社報道,美國政府透過國家安全法令,限制頂尖大學使用華為及其他中國公司的電訊設備。加州大學柏克萊分校、威斯康星大學、德州大學奧斯汀分校等為免失去聯邦政府經費,考慮拆除相關中國公司的設備,或停止合作和接受資助。
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

【中美解碼】Forbes拆局:中美最大風險 並非貿戰而是...…
https://china.hket.com/article/2255988/【中美解碼】Forbes拆局:中美最大風險%20並非貿戰而是......?mtc=30010

中美在南海的軍事對抗已現初形
中美日都在非洲爭利益
相比之下,貿易戰未必是中美最大風險


中美貿易戰直接衝擊中國政經大局穩定、直搗中國國家利益,但美國《福布斯(Forbes)》分析指,中國與美國之間最大的問題,並不是貿易戰,而是在南海和非洲潛在的軍事對抗風險。

《福布斯》在當地時間19日發出報道稱,中國和美國之間存在許多問題,包括可能導致全球金融市場不穩定的貿易戰。但這並非兩國之間最大的問題。中美最大的問題是在南海和非洲日益增長的對抗。這個問題可能持續數年甚或數十年,並可能發酵成為兩國之間的軍事對抗。

南海軍事對抗已現初形

根據報道分析,南海是中國經濟和政治議程的重中之重,它標誌中國海上絲綢之路的開通,旨在使中國成為世界上下一個主要的經濟領導者。而中方一直主張自己擁有對南海的「歷史」權利。

然而,對南海作主權聲索的還有菲律賓、馬來西亞、文萊、越南。更重要是中國還需要與美國、英國、法國、日本和澳洲競爭,應對這些國家在南海執行的「自由航行任務」。 這帶來公開軍事對抗的潛在風險,進而對金融市場和該地區的經濟一體化產生破壞性影響。

據了解,美國到2020年將有60%的海軍駐紮在亞洲,主要針對中國。在日本京都附近的美日反導彈系統對準中國。美國還部署全球鷹無人偵察機,並在南海大大增加挑戰活動。這些軍事動作,反映區內軍事對抗的風險。

此外,非洲也是中國經濟議程上的重點。非洲已成為中國擴展國影響力、和益的方便易行目標。中國領導人每年都會派出商務代表團前往每個非洲國家首都。代表們致力於確保中國的基礎設施項目,並提出貿易協議。

中美日都在非洲爭利益

《福布斯》分析,這裏的麻煩在於,其他經濟大國也將非洲視為其政治和經濟議程的重要組成部分。根據約翰·霍普金斯大學中非研究所的數據,美國仍然是非洲最大的「捐助者」。 然後還有日本需要考慮,日本與美國結盟,並且在非洲的投資也更加積極。

【中美角力】美艦穿越台海 環時:無效的地緣政治示威
https://china.hket.com/article/2259945/【中美角力】美艦穿越台海%20環時:無效的地緣政治示威?mtc=rwamd6

在中美即將舉行貿易談判之際,美國太平洋艦隊「麥克坎貝爾」(USS McCampbell)號驅逐艦和「迪爾」(USNS Walter S.Diehl)號補給艦周四(24日)通過台灣海峽。中國官方《環球時報》今日發表社評稱,美國軍艦過台海的真正目的是作地緣政治示威,但不能恐嚇中國。

太平洋艦隊新聞發言人戈爾曼(Tim Gorman)24日表示,美國軍艦穿越台海是常規通過,遵循國際法,旨在展示美國在印太地區自由航行的決心。《環球時報》反駁稱,「這番漂亮話包裹着誰都能看得懂的挑釁」,又指美方真正目的是進行「地緣政治示威」。

社評稱,這是今年以來美艦首次過台灣海峽,也是去年10月以來的第3次此類行動,頻率是多年來所沒有過的。而美國在中國近海示威的頻率增加,產生的全是負面影響。不僅會提高中美兩軍擦槍走火的機率,還會降低中美之間的互信。從長遠看,很可能成中美關係最大及最難管控的風險源。

美軍威懾力幾乎已流失殆盡

《環球時報》續指,美軍此類行動讓中國不高興,但肯定起不到恐嚇中國的作用。隨着中國軍力不斷增加,美國軍艦通過台海所能產生的威懾力差不多已流失殆盡。無論在台海還是在南海宣示「航行自由」,美軍這樣做只能推升了地區緊張,而這種緊張越來越不受歡迎。

文章特別指出,即使在台灣內,擔心台海緊張升高可能危及台灣利益的人也不斷增多,連台獨極端勢力也越來越不再相信美軍這樣做真能起到「震懾大陸」的作用。

文章最後強調,每次美艦通過台海,或者在南海中國島礁附近經過,必有中國的軍艦監視其行動。若美國無意主動與中國開展戰略敵對,尤其是無意增加與中國發生軍事衝突的風險,那麼它就需要克制在中國近海的軍事示威行動,尤其是首先要讓它的「宣示航行自由」行動更守規矩。

美國軍艦去年曾3次通過台灣海峽,在此之前,美國一年僅大約只有1次穿越這一極敏感的海域。而美國海軍作戰部長理查森(John Richardson)18日曾表示,美國不排除派遣航空母艦穿越台灣海峽。

【中美解碼】特朗普兩條戰綫 貿易制衡中國
https://china.hket.com/article/2247826/【中美解碼】特朗普兩條戰綫%20貿易制衡中國?mtc=30010

萊特希澤與歐日等,共商改革WTO
關稅戰外,也通過國際規則制衡中國
特朗普政府如意算盤,未知能否打響


中美副部級貿易談判「加時」進行,成為全球焦點,但美國在同時間的另一個舉動,卻被許多人忽略。美國與日本、歐盟貿易官員開會,商討共同推動世貿組織(WTO)改革;當中透出一個訊息--特朗普政府在貿易領域裡,正從兩條戰綫制衡中國。

根據《華爾街日報》的報道,白宮鷹派大將、美國貿易代表萊特希澤(Robert Lighthizer)當地時間周三,低調地在華盛頓推進一次行動--聯合全球其他重要力量,對中國施壓的行動。

當天,萊特希澤與日本、歐盟的貿易代表會面,就如何改革世界貿易組織、在世貿框架下約束中國展開探討;其間,三方已同意起碼嘗試敲定一些提議,以便於今年春季,在日內瓦的世貿會議上提出。

萊特希澤與歐日 共商改革WTO

值得注意是,這並非美歐日首次聚首磋商這個議題,他們在過去一年已實現了定期會面,商討的重點是如何為WTO制定管理「非市場導向政策」的新規則,尤其側重「工業補貼」和「強制技術轉讓」等問題,矛頭直指中國。

這一個似乎被人忽略的舉動,顯示美國正同時從「非建制」與「建制」兩條路綫,處理與中國之間的貿易矛盾。所謂「非建制」,就是特朗普政府無視國際遊戲規則,單方面向中國發動關稅戰,促使中國與美方談判、進而試圖迫使中國接納有利美方的貿易規則。

至於「建制」就是指美方在同一時間,爭取掌握推動世貿組織改革的主動權,領軍主要經濟體修改世貿遊戲規則,用全球認可的框架,加碼約束中國的貿易行為。

事實上,當特朗普政府過去一年多不斷炮轟中國,用非常手段應對與中國的矛盾時,其實也沒有歇止在世貿「進攻」中國;其中,美國駐世貿大使習達難(Dennis Shea)早前就指出,中國「不公平競爭行為」違返了WTO規則,對外國企業及員工造成損害,惟美國政府會為致力推動世貿改革。

關稅戰外 也通過國際規則制衡中國

更甚至,特朗普幕僚更不止一次表明想「踢」中國出世貿組織。美國白宮經濟顧問委員會主席凱文·哈塞(Kevin Hassett)早前就重申,「可能可以研究將中國驅逐出世界貿易組織」。

觀察人士認為,中國已人世十多年,與主要經濟體的貿易關係盤根錯節,如將中國逐出世貿,全球將要付出巨大代價、也難以獲得國際主流支持,因此是幾近沒有可能發生的事;但如美國找到跟主要經濟體的利益交集點,諸如反補貼、促進公平貿易,要獲得足夠支持落實改革世貿,加碼束縛中國,並非沒有可能。

但當然,美國在世貿組織裡的主要經濟體,其實也有「牙齒印」,加上中國亦正爭取世貿改革的話語權,美方如意算盤能否打響,目前尚待觀察。
We Are Hong Kong!

TOP

發新話題