[時事英文]美國正式退出世衛組織
Do you think this was the "right" move? What are some factors we must consider? Leave a comment!
*scare quotes: https://bit.ly/3gHWPca
★★★★★★★★★★★★
《華爾街日報》專文:
The U.S. has formally notified the World Health Organization it will withdraw from the United Nations agency over President Trump’s criticism of its ties to China, a move critics say will hamper the international fight against the Covid-19 pandemic and sap the U.S. of global influence.
1. World Health Organization 世界衛生組織(簡稱WHO)
2. withdraw 使退出
3. the United Nations agency 聯合國機構
4. ties to 跟...的關係;聯繫
5. hamper 阻礙
6. pandemic 全球大流行的疾病
7. sap (v.)(尤指經過一段很長的時間)削弱;使耗盡
8. global influence 全球影響力
美國已正式通知世界衛生組織,基於總統川普對WHO與中國關係的抨擊,美國將退出這個聯合國下屬機構。批評人士表示,此舉將阻礙國際社會抗擊新冠大流行,並削弱美國的全球影響力。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
The U.S. State Department sent notice to the U.N. on July 6 it would end its 72-year-old membership in the WHO. The exit won’t take effect until next July, leaving it contingent on Mr. Trump’s re-election. His rival for the White House, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, said Tuesday the U.S. would remain a member if he wins.
9. The U.S. State Department 美國國務院
10. membership 會籍;會員身分;會員資格
11. exit (n./v.) 退出
12. take effect 起作用;産生效果
13. contingent on/upon sth 視⋯⋯而定;因⋯⋯而變;取決於⋯⋯
14. re-election 連任;再度當選
15. rival 競爭者;對手
16. the White House 白宮(美國總統府)
17. presumptive 可據以推定的;推測為真的
18. Democratic 美國民主黨的
19. presidential nominee 總統候選人
美國國務院7月6日向聯合國發出通知,稱將終止美國在WHO長達72年的成員身份。美國退出WHO要到明年7月才會生效,因此最後結果將取決於川普是否連任。川普的競選對手、民主黨候選人拜登週二表示,如果他獲勝,美國將繼續是WHO的成員。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
The U.S. is the single largest donor to the WHO, giving about $450 million a year, much of it earmarked for specific diseases such as polio, which has nearly been eradicated. A U.S. exit would eliminate that funding going forward and leave the WHO more dependent on private donors, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, its second-largest contributor. It would accelerate a shift in which global health increasingly relies on a handful of billionaire donors and charities, with national governments reluctant to offer more taxpayer funds, public health experts have said.
20. donor 捐贈者
21. earmark 指定⋯⋯作特定用途
22. polio 脊髓灰質炎;小兒麻痺症
23. eradicate 根除;消滅;杜絕
24. eliminate 消除
25. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 比爾暨梅琳達蓋茲基金會
26. contributor 捐獻者;捐助者;捐款人
27. accelerate 促使⋯⋯早日發生
28. a shift in... 對⋯⋯的改變(主意、立場等)
29. a handful of billionaire 少數的億萬富翁
30. reluctant 不情願的;勉強的
31. taxpayer 納稅人
美國是WHO的單一最大捐贈者,每年捐款約4.5億美元,其中大部分款項專門用於脊髓灰質炎等特定疾病。脊髓灰質炎已經接近被消除。美國退出會使WHO在未來失去上述資金,將令該機構更多地依賴私人捐贈者,例如其第二大捐贈者比爾暨梅琳達蓋茲基金會。公共衛生專家表示,這將加速一項轉變,即全球衛生依賴於少數億萬富翁捐贈者和慈善機構,而非西方大型政府的納稅人資金。
*「donor」與「contributor」雖皆有捐贈者之義,惟後者之捐款帶有意向性與合作性,如蓋茲基金會捐贈專款供杜絕小兒麻痺症研究之用;前者則是單純捐款,同時也能作「器官」捐贈者。
《華爾街日報》完整內容:https://on.wsj.com/38DizTu
圖片出處:https://bit.ly/2O5pP1d
★★★★★★★★★★★★
US Taiwan Watch: 美國台灣觀測站世衛專題:https://bit.ly/2W0aG5A
NPR報導:https://n.pr/325ejLz
★★★★★★★★★★★★
對新聞英文和批判性思考有興趣的同學也可以參考我的課程:
🌎 https://bit.ly/3eTHIvH
#國際時事英文
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,...
「quotes about leaving」的推薦目錄:
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 蘇浩 Anthony So Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 Top 10 quotes about leaving someone ideas and inspiration 的評價
- 關於quotes about leaving 在 I watched you leave… I always... - Ranata Suzuki Quotes 的評價
quotes about leaving 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的最讚貼文
【#印度時報 刊文聲援 #臺灣 參與WHO📣】
豬年🐷真的不能有遺 #珠 之憾~
就在 #諸 多國家在WHO執委會上紛紛挺身 #為臺執言 的同時,小編赫然發現 #印度 🇮🇳媒體也在用力刊登 #挺臺專文 呢!💪
Just as several countries were speaking up for #Taiwan 🇹🇼 at the executive board session of the #WHO, we came across this editorial by Rudroneel Ghosh, a reporter with the The Times of India, in which he showed his support for Taiwan! 👉🏻https://reurl.cc/MX2N4
文長慎入嗎?😏 就讓小編直接為大家 #朗讀 這篇由印度記者Rudroneel Ghosh主動投書的文章精華吧~(小編讀到最後一段不禁想起可憐的 #瘟豬豬...😢)
💬 臺灣參與 #世界衛生大會 並非中國內政,而是國際性的議題... 拒絕臺灣的參與,無疑是在全球公衛防疫機制,留下一個巨大的缺口...
💬 臺灣一直是全球醫療健康的 #實質貢獻者,自1996年以來,已在80多個國家挹注高達60億美元,從事 #國際醫療 和 #人道救援 工作… 臺灣在醫療資訊系統方面之長才,可真正嘉惠開發中國家,國際社會需要臺灣成為正式全球衛生框架的一員...
💬 北京必須證明它在國際上是一個負責任、寬容及合理的強權,在政治的祭壇上 #犧牲全球健康 並不睿智‼️
100% agree! #TaiwanCanHelp 👍
#挑戰英文全文 👉🏻https://reurl.cc/MX2N4
We’ve got some key quotes from the article below if you want the #TLDR version 👇
“But stonewalling Taiwan’s participation in the #WHA is not a Chinese issue – it is an international issue [...] Leaving Taiwan out of the WHA leaves a gaping hole in the #global response health mechanism.”
“Besides, Taiwan has been a net #contributor to global health. Since 1996 it has invested about $6 billion in international medical and humanitarian aid efforts in more than 80 countries... And Taiwan’s expertise in things like #MedicalDataSystems can truly benefit developing nations. For all these reasons and more, Taiwan needs to be part of the formal global health architecture.”
“Beijing has to demonstrate that it can be a responsible, accommodative and reasonable power. Sacrificing global health at the #altar of politics is not the way to go.”
#WhatATrooper
quotes about leaving 在 蘇浩 Anthony So Facebook 的精選貼文
I still don’t understand why they are in dialogue with China
A response to “Why we are in dialogue with China”, the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Parolin gave to Gianni Valente (that is, an interview cooked up between the two).
I read the interview several times, now I read it again (even if the reading repels me) in order to honestly make my comments.
I am grateful to His Eminence for recognizing that “it is legitimate to have different opinions”.
(1)
First of all, we note the insistence with which His Eminence affirms that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are of a pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting is only in a political key.
What we see instead is that he venerates the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his master Casaroli and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles from any interference by secular power.
I will never forget my amazement at reading a report in the Osservatore Romano a few years ago on a speech that he had given where he describes the heroes of the faith in the central European countries under the communist regime (Card. Wyszynsky, Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, without mentioning them) as “gladiators”, “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage”.
(2)
We also note the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he has absolutely no respect for all of this at all (they are “gladiators”!)
He also speaks of wounds that are still open and his intention to treat them by applying “the balm of mercy”. But what wounds is he talking about?
Towards the end of the interview, at one point he says: “To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation”.
So he knows very well that in the Church in China it is not (if not infrequently) a case of personal offenses or resentments, but persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? It is not a question of personal offenses to be forgiven. It is a slavery from which to free oneself.
Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Rewarding traitors? Castigating the faithful? Forcing a legitimate bishop to give way to an excommunicated one? It this not more like rubbing salt on these still open wounds?
Let us return to the “objective situation”. The painful state was not created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this enslavement, there are those who suffer, unfortunately there are those who embrace it.
Faced with this reality is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, conflict, compromise, giving in, surrender, betrayal”?
Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are the conditions right? Where is this unity? How can we collaborate? Thus, we must analyse the two fundamental points that need clarification.
(3)
What is the unity you want to achieve?
a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and states that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China”. If I’m not mistaken, I was the first to affirm this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, because, in both communities, the faithful in their hearts are loyal to the Pope (today with the increasing number of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply this affirmation to the entire Church in China).
But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter on which Jesus established his Church, the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church subject to its power.
b) Eliminating this division and achieving unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with one wave of a magic wand, let alone by manipulating the Letter of Pope Benedict.
In the Letter by Pope Emeritus there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church's life. “Father Jeroom Heyndrickx citing out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life,” has made it his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “there should be no more underground communities, everyone must come to the open and become part of the community subject to the Government”.
In the Commission for the Church in China we pointed out this grave error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ignored this warning, obviously supporting Father Heyndrickx’ theory.
It was only two years later, when this mistake had already done immense damage, that we managed to include some notes in the “Compendium” booklet to try to distinguish the reconciliation of hearts from unity in structures.
c) Parolin says that one should not maintain “a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures”. But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under Government power, which certainly exercises control over it and shows no sign of giving it up.
Pope Benedict says that the journey of unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).
But our diplomats want a miracle and they want it now, and not only. They also accuse others of clinging “to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures” and of not being ready “to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective”.
These are really cruel reproaches to address to faithful members of the Church, who for many years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!
When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and on our part one wants unity at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “bird’s cage”.
d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will this encourage people to walk together? To embark on a new path? With serenity? With confidence?
It is said that it will be a gradual process, but let us suppose that the authors already have the next steps to be taken after the legitimization of the illegitimate in mind.
What will become of those Bishops who are legitimate according to the law of the Church but who are not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, admitted to the cage? Will it finally be “a” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)
Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. You can endure and suffer an evil (damage), but you can never do wrong (sin), great or small.
Our suffering at the creation of a schismatic Church by others may be inevitable, but we cannot assist in its creation.
Moreover, a schismatic church created by the party is not a cause for fear, it will fade with the fall of the regime. Instead, a schismatic church with the Pope's blessing would be horrifying!
(4)
Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?
With reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).
a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but possible, because it depends only on our goodwill, dialogue with the Government is more difficult.
b) Pope Francis in Seoul had said: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one's own identity.”
It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and let it be known where we want to arrive, that is, what our conscience dictates as a desirable outcome to dialogue. In our case, obviously it is: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but favours the true good of the nation”.
Will we be able to manage this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there at least a minimum foundation to hope in the present situation when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and overbearing than ever? When, both its words and actions point to an even more rigorous control of every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.
The Communists no longer feel the need to save appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (The joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference is [always] led by a government official”) The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” for compassion for those who find themselves not of their own will under severe pressure.
From what we can observe see, the Holy See is acquiescing to this unacceptable reality. (Is it really sure that this is for the good of the Church?)
In order for a dialogue to be true, it must start from a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our own seems to start from a position of weakness. Reliable source says that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop James Su Zhi Min who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because our interlocutors refused. In my opinion, our delegation should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling down to them from the outset.
After all we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That they have churches and cathedrals in various places? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they say Masses in private homes so as not to be disturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018 we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of these our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that by now it also has the consent of the Holy See.
c) While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely rude gesture it dismissed the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China set up by Pope Benedict without so much as a word. The only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican was Archbishop Savio, sending him as Nuncio to Greece. So much for “finding synthesis of truth”! So much for “discovering God's plan together”! They are convinced that they “have considered everything properly”.
(5)
The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of expressions of the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear as if he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for 'Evangelization of the Peoples have thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back on the right path.
At the beginning and end of the interview he made two citations respectively.
a) In Chapter 4 Paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.. “
b) In Paragraph 6 he had said: (Citing “Deus caritas est”) “The Church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice..”
In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.
(6)
Given the recent controversies, I feel the desire to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.
It is true that my revelations of a private interviews may have caused him embarrassment and for this I am sorry. But I am still convinced that there is a void between the way of thinking of His Holiness and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who readily take advantage of the Pope's optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from the responsibility of the erroneous judgement of his collaborators and that he has communicated his encouragement to my brothers in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep water”.
If, by chance, one day a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to “monastic life”. Certainly as a son, even if unworthy, of Don Bosco I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.
Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord will preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”
quotes about leaving 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
quotes about leaving 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
quotes about leaving 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
quotes about leaving 在 I watched you leave… I always... - Ranata Suzuki Quotes 的推薦與評價
I watched you leave… I always watch you go. It's the repeating cycle of my life… me always being here and you always leaving.” - Ranata Suzuki... ... <看更多>
quotes about leaving 在 Top 10 quotes about leaving someone ideas and inspiration 的推薦與評價
When you decide to let go, you're not losing hope, you're only hoping for more, hoping for better, hoping for something worth holding on to. ... <看更多>