網路城邦
回本城市首頁 中國星火論壇
市長:古士塔夫  副市長: lukacsGuoding
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會公共議題【中國星火論壇】城市/討論區/
討論區外交、軍事 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
新冷戰
 瀏覽24,293|回應188推薦5

lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (5)

CHARLIE
沙包
Chocola
貓喵~XD
古士塔夫

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-05/31/content_6181913.htm

新華網莫斯科5月31日電(記者劉洋)俄羅斯總統普京31日在莫斯科舉行的新聞發佈會上嚴厲抨擊國際秩序單極化主張和國際政治中的單邊主義。

    普京說,世界已經發生了變化,某些國家試圖建立單極化世界,並希望把自己的意志強加給所有其他國家,甚至不惜破壞國際關係及國際法準則。他說,在處理國際問題時,用“政治合理性”標準取代國際法準則的做法“非常有害而且危險”。 

    普京指出,何謂“政治合理性”?這種合理性由誰裁定?他強調,鑒於“政治合理性”可能被歪曲和濫用,基於這種標準的外交做法“無異於獨裁和帝國主義”,俄羅斯對此明確表示反對。 

    由於美國在攻打伊拉克、部署反導系統等問題上一貫堅持單邊主義立場,俄羅斯領導人近期多次對美國政策提出批評。今年2月,普京在德國慕尼克安全政策會議上猛烈抨擊美國“幾乎無節制”地濫用武力,“差不多在所有領域都超越界限”,“總試圖用各種手段來實現政治觀念”,並認為美國領導的“單極世界”不可接受。

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2238666
 回應文章 頁/共19頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁
雖然如此~~~~時殷弘認為,之後才是問題
推薦1


沙包
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

古士塔夫

FP的短片認為美國不會為了台獨和中國開打

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5YLHoGKaDY

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2343739
紀要: 布殊中東新路線圖
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦1


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

古士塔夫

 http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-News/2007Cti-News-Content/0,4521,110504+112007072300054,00.html
每周寫專欄,偶而會抱怨國內媒體漏掉某條國際新聞。上星期台灣各報接連漏掉了兩條消息,卻因為都牽涉到沒完沒了的巴勒斯坦問題,情有可原。連《紐約時報》也後知後覺,事過兩天才有報導。《華盛頓郵報》更只短短數百字,看來都是受了以巴糾紛「新聞疲勞症」之害。

第一則是七月十六日下午,布希總統鄭重其事地在白宮大廳發表重要演說,宣布他「全新的」中東政策。開場白首先表明,五年前在玫瑰花園演講時,他是第一位提出巴勒斯坦應獨立建國的美國總統。美國願見「兩個民主國家| 以色列與巴勒斯坦 | 和平又安全地共存共榮。」(Two democratic states - Israeland Palestine - living side by side inpeace and security.)

這番話暗示:美國在半世紀多來的中東糾紛裏,一直偏袒以色列,縱容以軍在約旦河西岸為所欲為的立場,面臨真正調整的時刻了。若在平時,強大的「猶太遊說團」(the Jewishlobby)會立即動員它麾下成千上百的民間團體、參眾兩院議員、華爾街金融鉅子與各地傳播媒體,用各種理由反對。然而這次卻毫無動靜,令人詫異。

第二則漏網新聞更有趣,布希演講的前一天即七月十五日,裴瑞斯(Shimon Perez)正式就任以色列總統,任期七年。讀者或許聽過此人姓名,卻不會想到再過十天即八月二日,他就滿八十四歲;總統任滿時將是九十一歲高齡。相形之下,從前西德總理艾德諾(Konrad Adenauer, 1896 - 1967)創立基督民主黨(CDU),人稱「老頭子」(der Alte),卸任總理時也只六十七歲。

猶太人不是傻瓜,為何單院制的以色列國會(Knesset)在六月十三日選出裴瑞斯為總統呢?我想最重要的原因就是配合布希的新中東政策,希望在層層死結的以巴糾紛裏,找出一條可以前進的道路。

出生於波蘭的裴瑞斯是位傳奇人物,在以色列政壇打滾六十五年;一九五九年進入國會,當選總統後才辭去議員職務。這些年來,以色列多次更換內閣,他在其中十二個內閣裏歷任新聞、交通、財政、外交或國防部長等職,代理過一次內閣總理,然後又做過兩屆閣揆。當選總統之前,他仍是副總理兼區域經濟發展部長。

一九九四年,裴瑞斯以外長身分,秘密和巴勒斯坦領袖阿拉法特在挪威奧斯陸進行談判。時任總理的拉賓事先並不知情,發覺之後,拉賓聽任他繼續談判,若失敗則可矢口否認。所以達成和平協議(the Oslo Accords)後,三人共同獲得諾貝爾和平獎。

以色列有十幾個政黨,裴瑞斯換過五個政黨,先後擔任過工黨(Avoda或稱Labor)與左翼聯合陣線(the Alignment)的領袖。這次競選總統,則由佔國會最多數席次的前進黨(Kadima)提名,依照以國憲法,由全體一百廿名國會議員記名投票;而第一輪裴瑞斯只獲得五十八票,到第二輪才以八十六票當選。他的勝利顯示以色列朝野也瞭解,目前以巴間僵持不下的局面,必需有像裴瑞斯這樣的溫和人物,才能獲得巴勒斯坦人信任,給和平一線希望。

自從「六日戰爭」大勝後,以色列倚仗無堅不摧的軍事力量,佔領整個約旦河西岸與迦薩走廊,對世居當地的巴勒斯坦人進出設下種種限制。引起巴人反感最深的,是以國政府十幾年來持續在佔領區內建造村落,收容俄國來的新猶太移民;又藉防堵炸彈自殺客為詞,豎起兩公尺半高的圍牆,不斷蠶食巴人世代祖居的地區。裴瑞斯認同以色列應有正當防衛的權利,但他對擴張猶太人居住地區,卻不無微詞。

今日的巴勒斯坦基本上形同兩國:二○○五年,急進的「哈瑪斯」(Hamas,原意為伊斯蘭抵抗運動)雖有恐怖行為前科,靠選票成為巴勒斯坦自治議會最大黨,符合民主原則,使美國啞口無言,只能以停撥援助款為抵制。哈瑪斯幕後有伊朗與敘利亞支持,獨佔迦薩走廊沃土。而領導「法塔」(Fatah,意為巴勒斯坦全國解放運動)的巴勒斯坦自治政府主席阿巴斯,雖然代表世界各國都承認的巴勒斯坦臨時政府,卻侷處約旦河西岸,號令難出大門。

布希總統宣示的新政策,用意在迫使巴人在法塔與哈瑪斯之間做出選擇。他最重的一句話是:「巴勒斯坦人民必須決定自己的未來,他們要溫和與希望呢,還是恐怖與死亡?」而為達成共識,萊斯國務卿月底將啣命前往中東,配合剛就任「四方代表」的英國前首相布萊爾,主持一項國際會議,邀請阿巴斯、以色列與「其它鄰國」部長級以上代表,共同磋商根本解決以巴問題。布希沒說明鄰國包括哪些國家,但大家都知道他最關注的是沙烏地阿拉伯,因為沙國至今仍與美國不同調,拒絕承認以色列的存在。

布希在演講裏,呼籲阿拉伯各國放棄「世界上沒有以色列這個國家的謊言」,希望他們支持合法的阿巴斯政府。布希保證歐美各國將盡力協助巴勒斯坦,美國已立即撥發補助款一億九千萬美元,另外提供二億二千八百萬美元貸放給巴勒斯坦工商業。美國並將召集捐助國會議,邀請日本、挪威、沙烏地、約旦、埃及等國出席,共商如何幫助巴勒斯坦立國的經濟基礎。

布希也要求以色列政府立即將巴勒斯坦應分得的稅款,撥交給阿巴斯。以色列已從其囚禁的一萬巴人囚犯中,先釋放二百五十五人,以示善意;也沒有反對布希的新號召。完全重起爐灶的新中東計畫能否打破過去屢次失敗的命運,就看月底萊斯與布萊爾之行了。


本文於 修改第 3 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2325369
David Miliband的新外交
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦2


Guoding
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (2)

lukacs
沙包

David Miliband(1965-),已故馬克思主義理論家Ralph Miliband之子。牛津大學畢業後,獲甘迺迪獎學金,留學MIT獲政治系碩士(之前曾在波士頓上學)。2001首次當選國會議員。

Every Foreign Secretary quotes Lord Palmerston, who famously said we have no permanent allies and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. But is it true? Today, we have permanent alliances. The US is the single most important bilateral relationship. We are committed members of the EU. We are proud of our role in the UN, on the Security Council, and the Commonwealth. These alliances are founded on shared values and embedded in shared institutions. The evolution in foreign policy is driven by changing circumstances and the changing distribution of power, not by changes in values and alliances.  This evolution depends on new thinking and new solutions…..

A Better Britain

....

First, our prosperity relies on a more open Britain – open to new investment and trade, to new people and ideas.  In the 21st century, the successful countries of the world will be those that are more open in their social structures, more open in their political structure....

The vision is a Britain that is a global hub. Just as the City of London acts as the centre of the global financial market, British cities and institutions and ideas can become the hubs for scientific, cultural and political collaboration.  But the vision needs to be delivered in new circumstances with new tools.

The Changing Distribution of Power

The environment for diplomacy has been affected by a series of shifts in the distribution of power at international level. ‘Balance of power’ is no longer a basis for diplomacy.  Today, the new diplomacy needs to reflect the new distribution of power.

First, for much of the last century our security concerns were primarily about excessive and expansionist state power, threatening their own citizens or neighbouring countries.  Today, some of the greatest threats are likely to emerge in countries where state power is too weak not too strong – too weak to clamp down on the creeping threat of global terrorism. The implication is clear: building the capacity of states must go hand in hand with building democratic accountability.  While we have actually seen a substantial reduction in the size of conventional and nuclear arsenals since the end of the cold war, the sense of insecurity felt by our citizens may actually have increased.  Across the world, people are demanding more power for themselves. Our task is to make this a force for progress not destruction.

Second, over the next two decades, with the growing strength of China and India, we are likely to see political, economic and military power more geographically dispersed than it has been since the rise to global dominance of the European Empires in the 19th Century. This makes our most important bilateral relationship – with the United States – more not less important.  It makes the case for our leading role within the European Union and NATO more obvious than ever.  It makes our membership of the Security Council and therefore our work with Russia and China more vital than ever.  It makes our determination to champion UN reform – with Security Council membership for a larger group of countries – more relevant than ever.  And it actually offers a new basis for a vibrant Commonwealth as a unique network of nations.

Third, there is a mismatch between national power and global problems. The risk of financial crises, climate change, and health pandemics cannot be mitigated by individual countries; they require collective action on a global scale.  Managing the risks from globalisation and maximising the benefits requires institutional innovation and the development of the EU reflects this.

Fourth, the power to coordinate at scale can be done without the hierarchies of bureaucracies or the price mechanism of markets – either the helping hand of the state or the invisible hand of the market. Technology is enabling networks to challenge the power of traditional incumbents, economically and politically. In benign forms, it can be seen with Linux challenging Microsoft Windows, Wikipeadia challenging Encyclopaedia Britannica or political campaigns such as Make Poverty History, Stop Climate Chaos, or Move On. Less welcome, obviously, is the increasing capacity of extremists and terrorists to coordinate their disparate activities without the vulnerability of a single point of control. The power of technology to connect people across the world needs to be put to strategic use.

The new distribution of power changes the way we need to analyse threats and exploit opportunities. Our security is threatened by terrorist networks using the freedom of an open society, but can be enhanced by the spread of democracy and good governance. Our prosperity is threatened by climate change but can be enhanced by free trade. Our sense of powerlessness is exacerbated by the weakness of international institutions, but can be diminished by the potential of new networks. In other words, there are new sources of insecurity, but also new resources for prosperity. 

Soft and hard power

This has implications not just for foreign policy priorities, but how we go about pursuing them. If we are to continue to be a force for good, we need to be smart about how and when we combine the soft power of ideas and influence and the hard power of economic and military incentives and interventions.

The first source of power, set out by the Prime Minister, is winning the battle of ideas.

This means being clear about objectives. Our objective is not domination. It is not to force others to live as we do. In a world as diverse and complex as ours, it is to establish, on however thin a basis, a set of rights and responsibilities, by which we can live side by side.  Our aim must be to galvanise all the resources of moderation to block the path of radical extremism. Nowhere is this more the case than in the Middle East, and in the drive for a two-state solution.….

The battle of ideas also means being clear about facts and evidence - such as whether it is in our financial self-interest to tackle climate change.  The Stern Review showed that the UK can have a major impact on debates across the globe by reframing climate change as an economic as well as an environmental challenge. So I believe Margaret Beckett was profoundly right to take the debate about climate change into the Security Council earlier this year, to reflect the importance of climate change to international security.

We need to find similar ways of leading thought on other areas, whether this is concrete and immediate challenges such as nuclear disarmament and proliferation or longer term challenges such as the future of global institutions.

The second source of power is influence within institutions. Britain acting alone does not possess the power or legitimacy to directly effect change on the scale required. Acting with others we can make a difference.

Multilateral action is not a soft option.  Just look at Afghanistan – a country that symbolises our dual goal of protecting our national security and promoting human rights. Our forces are deployed as part of a NATO operation involving over 30 countries, backed by a UN mandate.  The military operation is backed by a comprehensive approach including EU and UN investment in development and humanitarian assistance.

Multilateralism does not replace the need for bilateral relationships.  If we want Britain to be a global hub we need a strong relationship with the leading global power.  The US is our single most important bilateral partnership because of shared values but also because of political reality.  The US is the world’s largest economy.  Engaged – whether on the Middle East Peace Process or climate change or international development – it has the greatest capacity to do good of any country in the world. ...

Some people try to compare our relationship with the US with our position in the European Union. But the EU is not a bilateral relationship – we are members of the EU.  That membership is an asset in economic terms – guaranteeing open markets and setting common standards where needed.  It is an asset in tackling crime.  And it needs to be a greater asset in foreign policy – not substituting for nation states but giving better expression to the common commitments of nation states.  That is why we support the proposal to amend the EU Treaties so that we have at our disposal a single Representative to take forward our Common Foreign and Security Policy where all 27 Member States wish to act together and give authority to do so.  It just makes sense.

All multilateral institutions need a strong sense of purpose. The EU was founded to tackle a threat that no longer exists: conflict within western Europe. If it is to renew its mandate, it needs to find a new raison d’etre, including, I believe, a focus on addressing one of the greatest threats to our future prosperity and security: climate change. Creating an Environmental Union is as big a challenge in the 21st century as peace in Europe was in the 1950s.

Our longer term challenge is to adapt and strengthen other multilateral institutions and networks to renew their mandates, reform the way they work, and adapt more quickly to new threats and new opportunities.

If ideas and influence are examples of so called ‘soft power’, then the third source of power - incentives and sanctions – represent harder power.  We should use them to maximum effect. History suggests that the attraction of becoming members of ‘clubs’ such as the WTO, NATO, or most profoundly the EU, is a powerful one. The benefits of free-trade or military protection when linked to states playing by the rules can incentivise reform and establish norms of behaviour.…..

We have a range of tools at our command. The changing distribution of power in the world means we must be a force for good by virtue not of choosing hard or soft power, but combining both. In a world of conflicts within states, national sovereignty is no answer to complaints about the systematic abuse of human rights. In a world where challenges cut across country borders, we need more than ever to build regional and global institutions that are more effective and more legitimate. In a world where the ‘power to destroy’ is greater, we need both economic incentives and guarantees of security combined with a continued role for hard power interventions.….

But those of us committed to engaging with the world have faced profound questions about how to do so. We confront scepticism and fatalism. John F Kennedy got this right. He said foreign policy should be based on ‘idealism without illusions’. In this speech I have tried to speak without illusions – about the challenges and the difficulties.  But the idealism is still there – above all about Britain’s ability to be a global hub which lives out its values and advances them abroad. The job of the Foreign Office is to lead that debate, and with your help that is what we will do.

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2321645
英國新外相: Idealism without illusions
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦0


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6907416.stm

 

Fresh from reacting to the Russian decision to expel four British diplomats, Britain's new Foreign Secretary David Miliband has given his first speech outlining the foreign policy challenges facing the Brown government.

 

He made his address at the think tank Chatham House in central London.

It is hard to sum up a speech in a single word - and it was not one that Mr Miliband himself used - but "fusion" might be an appropriately modern term to describe the policies of this young, evidently bright and dynamic foreign secretary. For Mr Miliband argued that old distinctions between foreign policy and domestic policy had collapsed.

He praised the utility of both multilateral and bilateral relationships and he stressed the need to mix instruments of soft and hard power into a new smarter way of doing the business of foreign policy.

'Major role'

For the highly traditional London foreign policy institute Chatham House - and for the Foreign Office itself - this was a rather unusual event.

It was jointly hosted by a global online organisation known as avaaz.org which claims to be a "million-strong global advocacy network" who carried the speech over the web.

Beyond the gimmickry and the obvious self-congratulatory smiles that everyone was being so "modern", there was a serious purpose.

Mr Miliband spoke of the need for a new diplomacy which he said could begin in the Foreign Office but would need to draw on the widest base of ideas - from think tanks to networks of concerned citizens.

There was much here that was long-standing Labour foreign policy though it was re-heated and re-stated in a succinct and coherent manner.

The foreign secretary insisted that an engaged Britain still had a major role in a world where the distribution of power had changed dramatically.

"Just as the City of London acts as the centre of the global financial market," he argued, "British cities, institutions and ideas can become the hubs for scientific cultural and political collaboration."

Strong 'Atlanticism'

There was a strong multi-lateral accent to this speech. He stressed the need to reform international institutions like the United Nations.

Problems like climate change and pandemics, Mr Miliband said, required collective action on a global scale.

But he noted that bilateral relationships were also still important - none more so than that between Britain and the United States.

The relationship with Washington he characterised as Britain's "single-most important bilateral partnership", not only because of shared values "but also because of political reality".

"The US is the world's largest economy," he went on, "engaged - whether on the Middle East peace process or climate change or international development - it has the greatest capacity to do good of any country in the world." |

So no diminution of the Labour government's strong "Atlanticism" there. Mr Miliband set out long-standing government policy on Iraq. He said that Britain would fulfil its international obligations and its obligations to the Iraqi people.

But despite all the controversy over the Iraq war, he did not shy away from the potential need for military interventions in the future.

'Force for good'

His speech also made explicit reference to the declaration at the World Summit in 2005 that the international community has a "responsibility to protect" populations from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This he described as "a vital new stage in the debate about the relationship between human rights and national sovereignty".

This idea was at the heart of former Prime Minister Tony Blair's arguments for muscular interventions abroad.

Mr Miliband nonetheless called for a new and more integrated way of combining foreign policy instruments.

"If we are to continue to be a force for good," he argued, "we need to be smart about how and when we combine the soft power of ideas and influence and the hard power of economic and military incentives and interventions."

In conclusion, the foreign secretary quoted another youthful leader, John F Kennedy, the US president of the 1960s.

He famously spoke of foreign policy based on "idealism without illusions". Mr Miliband said he had no illusions, but that he retained the idealism "above all of a Britain that lives out its values at home and advances them abroad".

 

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2320815
要聞紀事: 俄國中止歐洲傳統軍控條約, 英國檢討美英關係
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦0


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

英國務大臣說英對外關係應超越“英美特殊關係”

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-07/14/content_6375425.htm

新華網倫敦7月14日電  據英國《每日電訊報》14日報道,英國新任外交國務大臣馬洛赫·布朗說,英國的外交政策應超越“英美特殊關係”,加強同法國、德國等歐洲國家以及印度、中國等經濟快速發展國家的關係,奉行更爲“均衡”的對外政策。

    馬洛赫·布朗在上任後首次接受媒體專訪時說,“布萊爾-布希式的關係不可能經受考驗”,“那是一種源于戰爭領導人之間的關係,富有強烈的感情色彩,而世界多數領導人都不贊成這種關係”。

    他說,英國現在需要建立超越正常雙邊夥伴關係的橫向聯盟,奉行更爲“均衡”的對外政策,同法國總統薩科齊、德國總理默克爾及其他國家領導人一起將“有許多令人振奮的事情要做”,同時加強跨大西洋關係。

    此前,英國國際開發大臣道格拉斯·亞歷山大呼籲美國在處理國際事務時應更多依靠聯盟和國際合作,而不是單純依靠武力。他本月12日在美國外交學會發表演講時說,在當今世界,一個國家的實力已經不能由其所擁有的破壞力量來衡量。因此,“我們需要通過我們的言行來顯示,我們是國際主義者,不是孤立主義者;是多邊主義者,不是單邊主義者;是按照核心價值,而不是根據特殊利益來行事。我們必須根據共同的價值觀建立新的聯盟。”
 

    英國一些媒體認爲亞歷山大實際上批評了布希政府的外交政策,是英國新任首相戈登·布朗可能重新確定英國對外政策的一個迹象。但這位新任首相在接受英國廣播公司採訪時說,他將繼續按照前首相布萊爾的方式工作,與美國政府保持非常密切的關係。  

Russia suspends arms control pact 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6898690.stm 

Russian President Vladimir Putin has suspended the application of a key Cold War arms control treaty. 

Mr Putin signed a decree citing "exceptional circumstances" affecting security as the reason for the move. 

Russia has been angered by US plans to base parts of a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic. 

The 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) limits the number of heavy weapons deployed between the Atlantic Ocean and the Urals mountains. 

'Cornerstone'  

The Russian suspension will become effective 150 days after other parties to the treaty have been notified, President Putin's decree says. 

The suspension is not a full-scale withdrawal - but it means that Russia will no longer permit inspections or exchange data on its deployments. 

Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said Moscow was not "shutting the door to dialogue". 

"We have submitted to our partners proposals on ways out of the situation. And we continue to wait for a constructive reaction," Mr Kislyak said. 

But a Nato spokesman said the alliance "regretted" Russia's decision.  

"The allies consider this treaty to be an important cornerstone of European security," James Appathurai said. 

He added that the move was "a disappointing step in the wrong direction".

Russia's suspension of its application of the treaty is yet another sign of a worsening relationship between the US and Russia, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus. 

An informal meeting earlier in July at the Bush family's Maine home seems to have done very little to improve ties between the two leaders, he says.  

It is also yet one more sign of a more assertive Russian foreign policy, our diplomatic correspondent says. 

The CFE agreement of 1990 was one of the most significant arms control agreements of the Cold War years. 

It set strict limits on the number of offensive weapons - battle tanks, combat aircraft, heavy artillery - that the members of the Warsaw Pact and Nato could deploy in Europe, stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals.  

In the wake of the collapse of communism, the treaty was revised in 1999, in part to address Russian concerns. 

But this revised treaty has never been ratified by the Nato countries who want Russia to withdraw all of its forces from two breakaway regions with Russian-speaking majorities - Abkhazia in Georgia and Trans-Dniester in Moldova. 

"The CFE treaty and missile defence are the two major irritants between Russia and the West. It would have been easy, it still is easy, I think Nato allies feel, to move closer to ratifying the CFE treaty," the Nato spokesman added. 



本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2312012
中國:謝俄國
推薦1


沙包
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

冷戰?

http://www.atchinese.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34686&Itemid=110

中國巨人崛起,還請美國借光

列印 E-mail
撰文 Walter T Molano   
2007/06/04, 週一

中國崛起成為世界超級大國的速度,快得超乎任何人的想像。中國是當之無愧的後起之秀,擁有龐大的資源。中國這個強勁的出口發動機,去年已經取代美國,成為對歐盟的最大出口國。

2006年中國對歐盟的出口額,同比增長21%,突破2550億歐元(約合3360億美元);相比之下,美國對歐盟的出口額僅上升8%,為1760億歐元。中國出口一路高歌猛進,全球航運價格應聲節節高升。波羅的海貿易海運交易所的“乾散貨運價指數”(Dry Freight Index)今年以來已飆升41%,而且依然升勢不減。

可是,外貿逆差並非多多益善,貿易盈利如雪球般越滾越大,令中國央行頭痛不已。中國的國際外匯儲備最近衝破1.3萬億美元,經常帳目盈餘預計今年將達到 4000億美元,相當於GDP的12.8%。隨著經濟規模不斷膨脹,在國際經濟體系的話語權日益增強,中國佔據國際舞臺中心指日可待。

正是得益於中國的正面推動作用,世界經濟2006年取得5.4%的增長。去年發達國家平均經濟增長率為3.1%,不包括日本在內的亞洲國家則有7.9%。中國和印度的GDP分別錄得10.7%和9.2%的增幅。中國因素對發展中國家的影響尤其顯著。例如,前蘇聯加盟共和國同比增長7.7%,撒哈拉抄漠以南非洲及拉美國家分別達到5.7%和5.5%。

商品需求景氣(commodity boom)正在改變整個發展中世界的經濟格局。2006年,全球貿易量同比上升9.2%,新興經濟體的國際外匯儲備因此勁增7380億美元,新興市場發展如魚得水。值得一提的是,全球流動性大增並非曇花一現;相反,流向新興市場、淨金額達到2560億美元的私人投資,表明這些經濟體的信用強度(credit strength)和增長能力不可小覷。

與此同時,美國的債務負擔越來越重,再加上各種資產價格泡沫,被壓得差點喘不過氣來。2007年第一季度美國GDP僅輕微上升1.3%,美元持續貶值。失業率持續上升,4月達至4.5%的高位,為近兩年來新增工作機會最少的月份。地產市度下滑的影響已開始在就業數據中顯玩。貸款審批標準收緊,令按揭貸款發放減少,間接導致建築業增長步伐進一步放緩。

美國經濟放緩的同時,人們也嚴重擔心其金融業能否保持健康。美國市場上充斥著價值超過7000億美元的金融衍生工具合約,其中很多同按揭市場有關聯,可謂“一榮俱榮,一損俱損”。一些分析人士認為,最近金價穩步攀升,正是源於人們擔心美國金融業將遭遇一場暴風急雨。

後起之秀的崛起正改寫著世界經濟秩序,受此影響,地緣政治格局也經歷著重新編排的過程。中國開始以指揮者的姿態,出現在國際舞臺上。北京承諾在今後三年,為非洲的基建和貿易提供200億美元鉅資,從而無可爭議地成為非洲大陸的主宰者。為緩解東鄰局勢的壓力,北京又在南北韓之間牽線搭橋,為促成和解積極斡旋,充當朝核問題六方會談機制的主推手。

再者,世界銀行、國際貨幣基金組織、世貿等由美國操控的國際組織,近年在部分國家眼中的角色開始淡出,北京得以趁機提升自身在國際金融領域的地位。可喜的是,這些變化都是正面的,至少對大多數新興市場而言如此。中國對各種商品的巨大胃口,給發展中世界的經濟注入了新的活力。

最後,中國提供的大量廉價商品,在發展中國家掀起了前所未有的消費狂潮。可以預見,要不了多久,中國這只經濟巨獸將取代美國,成為世界資本、製造和商品需求第一大國,蠶食美國在其它市場的份額。

本文版權屬作者Walter T Molano所有,亞洲時報在線經特別授權刊登。

編譯 寸草心
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2246380
戈巴契夫譴責美國「帝國主義」
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦1


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

Gorbachev criticises US 'empire'

The former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, has blamed the US for the current state of relations between Russia and the West.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6717037.stm

In a BBC interview, Mr Gorbachev said that the Russians were ready to be constructive, but America was trying to squeeze them out of global diplomacy.

He added that the Iraq War had undermined Tony Blair's credibility.

Mr Gorbachev accused America of "empire-building", which he said the UK should have warned it away from.

'New empire'

Moscow and the West have been in dispute over Iraq, America's plans for a missile defence system and civil rights within Russia itself.

Britain's extradition request for a Russian man in connection with the murder of ex-agent Alexander Litvinenko has also caused tension.

In an interview with Radio Four's The World This Weekend, Mr Gorbachev said relations between Russia and the West were in a bad state.

"Well, it's worse than I expected," he said through a translator.

"We lost 15 years after the end of the Cold War, but the West I think and particularly the United States, our American friends, were dizzy with their success, with the success of their game that they were playing, a new empire.

"I don't understand why you, the British, did not tell them, 'Don't think about empire, we know about empires, we know that all empires break up in the end, so why start again to create a new mess.'"

He added that the war with Iraq had damaged Britain's relationship with Russia after a promising start.

"Tony Blair and Putin established a very good relationship and that made it possible to advance our relationship," he said.

"But then Iraq happened and Tony found himself in the embrace of that military monster, of that war situation, and he lost a lot of his credibility in the world and in Europe."

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2242956
嚴重的事:俄國導彈可能重新瞄準西歐國家
    回應給: lukacs(lukacs) 推薦1


lukacs
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2007-06/04/content_6192490.htm
義大利《晚郵報》3日援引俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾·普京的話說,如果美國在東歐部署反導系統,俄戰略導彈將重新對準歐洲目標。

    普京在《晚郵報》刊出的一篇採訪中說:“如果美國將核打擊能力擴展到整個歐洲,我們將在歐洲標出(戰略彈道瞄準的)目標……此舉可能會引發軍備競賽,但責任不在我們。我們沒有主動改變戰略平衡,我們沒有單方面放棄《反彈道導彈條約》。”

    普京指出,為應對美國反導系統的威脅,俄羅斯將發展“更有效的進攻性武器系統”。

    美國2002年單方面退出1972年與蘇聯簽署的《反彈道導彈條約》,並計畫在波蘭和捷克部署反導系統。

    美國方面稱,反導系統用於應對來自伊朗的導彈威脅,普京對此表示:“伊朗導彈的射程沒有這麼遠。很明顯,反導系統是針對俄羅斯的。” 

Putin warns Europe in missile row
Moscow may target weapons at Europe if the US builds planned missile defence facilities in the region, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Russia has not pointed missiles towards Europe since the end of the Cold War.

Last week, Russia said it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.

The US wants to expand its missile defences into Eastern Europe. It says the system is not aimed at Russia but Moscow says its security is threatened.

'Not our fault'

Mr Putin made the comments in an interview published in Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera ahead of the G8 meeting which starts in Germany on Wednesday.

He repeated warnings that the US defence shield could lead to a new arms race but said it would the fault of the Americans if this happened.

He said the US had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.

"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.

"It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."

US President George W Bush is due to meet Mr Putin at the three-day G8 summit in the German resort of Heiligendamm.

Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

Last Tuesday, Russia tested an RS-24 missile that successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away.

It was designed to evade missile defence systems, Russia's defence ministry said.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

評論:根據現實主義,立陶宛、愛沙尼亞、波蘭、捷克等自是要力爭美軍設施進駐,當然是擋不住俄國飛彈,但最少有1. 美軍人員當人質,2. 有美國經費注入,3. 有選票。而且不只是要針對俄國,還要4. 暗中抵制德國。德國冷暖自知,但不好說出就是。



本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:https://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=2242939
頁/共19頁 回應文章第一頁 回應文章上一頁 回應文章下一頁 回應文章最後一頁