After I posted on my leave plans on Sunday, a few of you asked what was on my reading list, so I am sharing some books I have read / am reading / or hope to read. Three of the books are available from the National Library Singapore. Do check out the NLB app (iOS: https://go.gov.sg/moiqhc | Android: https://go.gov.sg/hu17bc). It is a marvellous resource, and you will definitely be able to discover many books to suit your interests.
[ Nuclear Folly, a History of the Cuban Missile Crisis
by Serhii Plokhy ]
The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. I had read "13 Days", the short memoir by Robert Kennedy about it as a teenager, and later Graham Allison's "Essence of Decision", a seminal study using the Crisis to analyse decision making from different perspectives. Both were mainly based on US records. Plokhy's book draws on Soviet archives, to present events from both the US and Soviet points of view. Many mistakes were made on both sides. The saving grace was that both President John Kennedy and General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev desperately wanted to avoid a nuclear war. But even then the two sides avoided a nuclear exchange only by a hair’s breadth, and only by chance, because events once set in motion were no longer entirely within the two leaders' control. A gripping read.
[ The Bilingual Brain, and what it tells us about the science of language
by Albert Costa ]
Having learnt several languages myself, and grappled with our bilingualism policy in schools, this book was a natural choice. I am still reading it. Did you know that a newborn infant already recognises and prefers the language (or languages) which their mother spoke while they were in her womb, and within hours of birth can also distinguish between two different languages that they have never heard before? Infants pick up a language (or two) naturally in their first years, but learning a second or third language later in life is much harder. This book explains why.
[ Capturing Light, the Heart of Photography
by Michael Freeman ]
A book about the different sorts of light, how they influence the photo you take, and how to use them to create the effect and mood that you want. Photographers know about the golden hour and blue hour, hard light and soft light, direct and indirect lighting, front and back lighting, haze, mist and fog, and so many more variations. The book includes lots of the author’s photos illustrating his points, taken over many years. Hope to pick up something from reading it. But the key in photography (as in so many other skills) is to practise and practise, if you want to improve.
[ Bettering Humanomics, A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science
by Deidre Nansen McCloskey ]
The author, a distinguished economist, argues that economics is not just about incentives and institutions, mathematical models and observed behaviour. It should take a broader, more humanistic approach, paying attention to ethics and values, “what people believe, and the stories they tell one another”, as one reviewer put it. Certainly in government we must think about these broader factors all the time, while making sure we get the economics right. Not just in trade and industry or finance, but also in national development, education, health, manpower, sustainability and the environment, social and family development, and so much of public policy. I haven't read this book yet, but saw an enthusiastic book review, and look forward to reading the book itself.
Happy reading! – LHL
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,...
「trade war in history」的推薦目錄:
- 關於trade war in history 在 Lee Hsien Loong Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於trade war in history 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於trade war in history 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於trade war in history 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於trade war in history 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於trade war in history 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於trade war in history 在 A (brief) history of the world's trade wars | CNBC Reports 的評價
trade war in history 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最佳解答
Jenna Cody :
Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.
This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.
So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.
Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).
Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.
Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.
Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.
What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.
So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.
It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.
This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.
In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.
After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.
Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.
In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).
In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.
Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.
It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.
Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.
This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.
*
Now, as I said, none of this matters.
What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.
Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.
Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.
Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.
So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.
And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.
The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.
A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.
There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…
…well, that’s already settled.
The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.
Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.
If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.
trade war in history 在 李怡 Facebook 的最讚貼文
I sincerely hope I am wrong | Lee Yee
I know very little about American issues. In the past, I even thought that no matter which party wins the presidential election, there would be no significant difference under the Constitution and the existing system. However, it is different this time. This US presidential election not only involves the interests of the Americans but also concerns the future political situation of the world, especially for China and Hong Kong.
The state of society tearing as a result of this presidential election is far beyond any from the past, almost to the point of a civil war. As far as the domestic situation in the US is concerned, it is not a dispute between supporting Trump or supporting Biden, but a fight between support for Trump and opposition to Trump. The topics of discussion are 1) epidemic prevention and control measures, 2) violence and disorder due to the Black Lives Matter protests, and 3) economy. Arguments from both standpoints are too numerous to detail and many are reasonable with solid judgment. It is very difficult to explain clearly in this short article. I will only discuss the history and current situation of Sino-US relations.
The most important timeline in the history of the modern relations between China and the US is after WWII during the Chinese Civil War between the Kuomintang (KMT)-led government of the Republic of China and the Communist Party of China (CPC). At that time, the 33rd president of the US and leader of the Democratic Party, Harry S. Truman pursued a policy of appeasement to the CPC and actively advocated negotiations between the KMT and the CPC. During the Chinese Civil War, it was apparent that he was pro-communist and made the communist military stronger. The KMT was defeated for internal reasons but the US inclination was key. After the KMT government retreated to Taiwan, in January 1950, President Truman issued a statement that the US would not intervene with the situation in China and declared that the island groups of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some minor islands were not within the scope of the US military. The US Democratic Party allowed mainland China to fall into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Later, Chiang Kai-shek commissioned General Ho Shai-lai to Tokyo to meet with Douglas MacArthur, the American general who administered postwar Japan during the Allied occupation and oversaw the occupation, rebuilding and democratization of Japan. The visit aimed to win the support of General MacArthur and was ultimately able to save Taiwan.
Another important page in the history of the Sino-US relations was the diplomatic breakthrough of Republican US President Richard Nixon in 1971. A military conflict broke out in the previous year at the border of China and the then Soviet Union. The Soviet Union intended to deploy nuclear weapons to perform a so-called “surgical removal operation” on China’s nuclear base. However, it was halted when it probed the US for reactions. The US stated that if the Soviet Union employed nuclear weapons, it would undoubtedly challenge the US nuclear balance policy. After that, when the US collaborated with China to strategically deal with the superpower Soviet Union, the US did not abandon Taiwan. Not until 1979 when Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the US and a democrat, established diplomatic relations with the CCP that the US severed ties with Taiwan. The incident triggered a global trend to set up diplomatic relations with the CCP, which enabled the CCP to steady a firm holding in the international community.
The third important aspect in the history of the Sino-US relations was in 2000, under Bill Clinton’s administration, China was given entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) and granted a most favored nation (MFN) status. Since then, it developed its foothold as an international manufacturer in the global market. Furthermore, its economy took off through intellectual property theft, failure to commit to the promise of its 2001 accession to the WTO and market dominance by means of authoritarian capitalism. As China’s economic development fully penetrates into the Western world, on the one hand, it takes advantage of the multinational companies invested in China to control the capital markets of the US and the West. On the other hand, it invests heavily in its grand propaganda to control overseas Chinese media and even Western mainstream media.
Every election candidate receives donations from multinational companies. Not to mention 90% of the mainstream media in the US are owned or operated by these Democratic Party’s donors. Therefore, they turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room and injudiciously embrace the CCP regime that has infiltrated the American society and continuously infringed on human rights at home. In addition to the interest considerations, the media of course also has the leftist ideology permeated in Western academia and journalism. I will elaborate on this topic at another time.
Finally, there is Trump who is not swayed by the donors of multinational corporations because he himself does not lack money nor is he afraid to offend most of the leftist media. He sometimes speaks without thinking but he never seeks the so-called “political correctness,” and basically does what he says he would. People who stand on the moral high ground with the spirit of great love would shake their heads upon his words and actions. Regardless, only a person like Trump can start to contain the power that infiltrated the US and the Western world, and support the democracy of Taiwan and Hong Kong’s campaign for autonomy.
Currently, anti-China is the general social conscience in the US. Biden’s China policy seems to align with that of Trump’s. Biden even defined the CCP’s handling of Xinjiang as an “ethnic genocide.” However, is there really no difference between the two parties? Recall that when Clinton was running for the presidency, he said that he opposed the Republican government’s annual review of the US MFN status for China. He believed it should not be granted but after he took office, he made China’s MFN status permanent and sent China to the WTO.
As the Democratic Party controls Wall Street and mainstream media, I am not optimistic about Trump in this election. Even so, I really hope from my brain to my heart that I am wrong.
trade war in history 在 A (brief) history of the world's trade wars | CNBC Reports 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>