香港國際論壇

路透：美國聯邦政府合約禁用華為等五陸企產品

路透9日報導，川普政府計劃本周敲定聯邦監管規章，禁止美國聯邦政府向使用五家陸企產品的公司採購貨品或服務。

這五家中國公司包括：華為（Huawei）、海康威視（Hikvision）、大華（Dahua）、海能達（Hytera）和中興（ZTE）。

此規定可能產生深遠的影響，因為對銷售產品或服務給美國政府的公司而言，未來將必須證明自己未使用大華或海康威視的產品，但這兩家公司是全球監視設備和攝影機的大廠牌。

海能達的雙向無線電收發器，以及華為和中興生產的通訊設備或智慧手機這類行動裝置，也受制於這項規定。

凡是日常營運使用這五家陸企設備或服務的公司，若未獲美國政府准予豁免，未來都無法再對美國政府銷售貨物和服務。

華府不滿中共對中共病毒疫情的處理方式、中共強推香港版國安法，以及延續近兩年的貿易戰，已導致美中緊張關係升高。

白宮預算管理局（OMB）代理局長Russ Vought在回覆路透的聲明中寫道：「我國面臨中國這類外國對手企圖滲透的重大危險。川普政府藉充分落實聯邦採購禁令，讓我們的政府維持固若金湯，以對抗華為這類邪惡網路。」

美國政府責任署（GAO）的資料顯示，美國政府每年核准價值超過5,000億美元的政府採購合約。

美國正在考慮打擊港元 將香港踢出「SWIFT」 彭博社撰文報道，美國正在考慮對中國施行港區國安法進行懲罰的選項，其中一個選項是禁止香港的銀行獲取美元，這實際上意味著將香港自治區與世界主要儲備貨幣「切割」。

如此，意圖獲得本地資產的外國投資者將無法兌換港元（香港的官方貨幣），而美元的流入也將停止。

彭博社的消息人士澄清說，這樣的提議只在國務院一級言議，到目前為止還沒有得到足夠的支持可供川普政府的高級官員們討論。

此外在這種情況下，港元與美元之間長期的聯繫匯率將會脫鉤，它最初是在1983年還是英國殖民地的香港在本地貨幣急劇貶值後作出的應對措施。

考慮中的對中國施行港區國安法的其他懲處選項包括，將香港排除在銀行間支付系統SWIFT門外。

美助理國務卿：已到生存關頭 美歐必須共同面對戰略威脅！ 美國國務院

經濟和工商事務局

華盛頓哥倫比亞特區

2020年7月7日

關於中（共）國的跨大西洋對話：管理日益升級的利害關係

經濟和工商事務局（Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs）助理國務卿馬尼沙·辛格（Manisha Singh）的講話

[摘譯]

****

近幾十年來，我們一直努力同中華人民共和國展開持續對話，這些對話關係到其在全球經濟共同體各成員中的作用，以及有關它向以市場為基礎的經濟轉型也許會促進更大自由的理念。但中國共產黨已明確顯示其進行經濟間諜活動的意圖，不僅威脅著商業，而且威脅著各國的安全。

川普政府（Trump Administration）的《國家安全戰略》（National Security Strategy）闡明，經濟安全就是國家安全。從美國和歐洲公司盜取知識產權、敏感技術和人工智慧不僅是違反商務規定的行為，而且是我們必須共同應對的戰略威脅。

我們已將談話從沒有得到認真對待的對話轉向將會得到認真對待的行動。我們希望為獲得進入我們的市場而做出的承諾將會得到遵守。

這一直是我們同中華人民共和國有待完成的協議的基礎，我們在其中強調要讓我們的公司企業能夠享有公平競爭的環境，包括知識產權保護、透明做法和市場准入。

我們已將國際努力作為重點工作，曝光像華為和中興這樣不可信賴的供應商利用第五代（5G）技術來損害我們的情報機構而構成的重大威脅，這是美國和歐盟（EU）擁有共同利益的又一個領域。

我們的團隊積極主張使用可信賴的商家，而不使用有可能因中國公司根據中華人民共和國的法律而必須對信息傳輸予以透露或干擾的系統。可信賴的商家網是我們抵制一帶一路計劃和中華人民共和國監控制度的部分舉措。它體現跨大西洋價值觀，並且為尋求按照商業條件營商而不出讓主權的國家提供一個必要選擇。

尤其是現在，隨著我們從全球大流行疫情中恢復和通過技術支持我們的健康、生計和安全，我們需要對我們使用的平台不會給我們個人和國家造成損害具有信心。

為保護人權，川普政府已採取具體行動，針對對中華人民共和國國內殘暴行徑負有責任的中（共）國官員實施制裁。我們還發布了商務警告，提醒公司企業當心供應鏈可能與新疆強勞的關聯。歐洲聯盟有著針對中（共）國踐踏人權實施制裁的歷史，這可以追溯到天安門廣場事件。

本政府還針對中國共產黨在香港的行動給予制裁和譴責。香港一直是自由社會欣欣向榮的榜樣。我們知道這個地區不再有自治，嚴厲的《國家安全法》（National Security Law）進一步摧毀了香港人民原有的任何自由權利。我們並不是提出譴責的唯一國家。英國和其他國家也已經這樣做。我們的共同理想應使我們能夠對應這些殘暴舉動。

我在與歐洲同事的交談中發現，即使我們的方式各異，但我們的目標始終一致。我們希望我們的公民生活在一個法治和基本人權受到保護的世界，一個發明創造帶來更好的生活而不是政府控制的世界，一個以經濟自由作為自由社會基礎的世界。這是我們過去幾十年來希望在中華人民共和國看到的。但實際上我們看到的與此相反。

利益攸關不僅在升級，而且已經達到生存關頭，它需要美國和歐洲聯盟國家再次發揚馬歇爾計劃（Marshall Plan）的精神。

正如我們的現任國務卿邁克·蓬佩奧（Mike Pompeo）在2018年12月對歐洲聽眾所說，「本著我們偉大民主國家的最優秀傳統，我們召喚世界崇高國家建立起防止戰爭和實現所有人的更大繁榮的新自由秩序」。

謝謝各位。





Transatlantic Dialogue on China: Managing the Escalating Stakes

07/07/2020 01:02 PM EDT

Manisha Singh, Assistant Secretary

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

I want to thank the Carnegie Endowment and Institut Montaigne for the opportunity to provide my thoughts on how the United States and Europe can address the global economic challenges posed by China.

The U.S. and the EU comprise one of largest trading relationships in the world. Our joint approach to China impacts not only our citizens, but also the populations of other nations whose economic fates are tied to ours. In order to determine how we move forward, I find it’s helpful to review how we arrived at our present circumstances. The narrative of economic turbulence with China began decades ago.

Our reflection can start around the post-World War II establishment of the global economic architecture in 1948. That year, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the first major effort at global trade liberalization was enacted. Its original 23 members included some European nations, and both the U.S. and China.

The same year, the U.S. government passed the Marshall Plan for European recovery from the devastation of war. Its pledge of $15 billion in financial assistance was from the Americans, but the commitment to rebuild the transatlantic order came from both the U.S. and its Western European beneficiaries.

Secretary of State George Marshall outlined the vision in a speech he gave at Harvard University in 1947 before the enactment of the recovery plan. He said, “It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.”

During the same time period, China was facing ongoing political turmoil of its own with a civil war resulting ultimately in the 1949 creation of the communist controlled People’s Republic of China, largely as we know it today. As Europe was rebuilding, and the post war American economy began to flourish, economic contacts with the PRC were limited.

By the 1970s, when economy of the PRC grew, both the U.S. and European nations began to evaluate the need for commercial ties. However, each was also aware of the prevalent human rights abuses.

Turning back to the Marshall Plan, its purpose, as he said in the Harvard speech was “the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.”

Free institutions have existed and have sought to create a world of global commerce where members liberalize trade and importantly, adhere to the rules.

We saw the PRC initiate conversations to join the GATT. Perhaps its disputes with both EU member states and the U.S. were its motivations to join. By 1986, it had gained observer status and began a 15-year process to accede to GATT and eventually its successor the World Trade Organization. According to the WTO, the PRC was “to better integrate in the world economy and offer a more predictable environment for trade and foreign investment in accordance with WTO rules.”

In other words, the PRC spent the almost two decades leading to its 2001 entry into the WTO assuring other members that it would adapt its domestic economic practices to adhere to global rules of trade. However, both the U.S. and the EU have observed the PRC claim the benefits, yet, violate the rules of the international trading community. We have seen profound infringement onto the sovereignty of other nations in the form of sovereign debt traps among other practices. The people of the PRC have no political freedoms, no human rights and are subject to unconscionable abuses at the hands of government.

I return to Secretary Marshall’s 1947 Harvard address, in which he concludes, “Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise, will encounter the opposition of the United States.” This sentiment reflects our present thinking as well as the shared values of the transatlantic community.

Over the last few decades, we have sought to engage in continued dialogues with the PRC about its role among the members of the global economic community and the idea that its transition to a market-based economy might also lead to more freedoms. But the Chinese Communist Party has made clear its intent to engage in economic espionage threatening not just commerce, but also the security of nations.

The Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy states that Economic Security is National Security. The theft of intellectual property, sensitive technologies and artificial intelligence from American and European companies are not just commercial breaches, they are strategic threats which we must address together.

We have shifted the conversation from one of a dialogue that was not taken seriously to one of actions that will be taken seriously. We expect that commitments made to gain access to our market will be commitments kept.

This has been the basis of our pending agreement with the PRC in which we emphasize a level playing field for our companies including intellectual property protections, transparent practices and market access.

We have prioritized international efforts to expose the significant risks posed by untrusted vendors such as Huawei and ZTE utilizing Fifth Generation (5G) technology to undermine our intelligence apparatus, yet another area where the interests of the U.S. and the EU are mutual.

Our team is advocating for the use of trusted vendors as alternatives to a system in which Chinese companies can be required, under PRC law, to either disclose or disrupt information transmitted over their systems. The trusted vendor network is part of our counter to the One Belt One Road Initiative and the PRC surveillance state. It reflects transatlantic values and provides a necessary alternative for countries which are seeking to do business on commercial terms, not to surrender their sovereignty.

Especially now, as we recover from a global pandemic and technology supports our health, our livelihoods and our security, we need confidence that the platforms we use will not undermine us as individuals and as nations.

To protect human rights, the Trump Administration has taken concrete action by sanctioning Chinese officials for the atrocities in the PRC. We have also issued a business advisory to caution companies about supply chain links to forced labor in Xinjiang. The EU has a history of sanctioning PRC human rights violations dating back to Tiananmen Square.

The Administration has also imposed sanctions and condemned the actions of the Chinese communist part in Hong Kong, which has been example of how free societies flourish. We know the region is no longer autonomous and the draconian National Security Law further destroys any liberty the people of Hong Kong have had. We are not alone in this condemnation. The UK and other nations have done so as well. Our common ideals should enable us to address these atrocities.

In personal conversations with my European counterparts, I have found that even when our methods vary, our objectives remain the same. We want our citizens to live in a world where the rule of law and fundamental human rights are respected, where innovation leads to better lives and not government control, where economic freedom is the foundation of free societies. This is what we wanted to see from the PRC over the last several decades. We have, in fact, seen the reverse.

The stakes are not just escalating, they have reached an existential plateau where it is incumbent upon America and European Union member states to again channel the spirt of the Marshall Plan.

As our current Secretary Mike Pompeo said in December 2018 to a European audience, “In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations of the world to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity for us all.”

Thank you.

王毅稱中國5000年文明沒有侵略基因

中共外交部長王毅表示，5000年文明孕育的中國沒有對外侵略擴張的基因，相關言論引發爭議。

中美兩國近期因北京隱瞞中共病毒(又稱新冠狀病毒，COVID-19)、強行實施「港版國安法」等事交惡，中國外交部長王毅9日向「中美智庫媒體視頻論壇」發表致辭時表示，中美關係正面臨建交以來最嚴重的挑戰，美國不該尋求改造中共政策，並稱「5000年文明孕育的中國從來沒有擴張侵略的基因」。此言一出引來網友圍轟。

中共官媒報導，王毅9日向「中美智庫媒體視頻論壇」致詞，他稱，中共之下的中國大陸不照搬外國模式，也不輸出大陸模式，中國不會也不可能變成另一個美國，中國道路的成功不會對西方造成衝擊和威脅，而美國也不應尋求改變中共政策。

他特彆強調，「國際民調機構多次民意測驗顯示，中國人民對中國黨和政府的支持都高居全球榜首。」

此外，王毅還指出，中國對美政策沒有變化，中國仍願本著善意和誠意發展中美關係，中國從來無意挑戰或取代美國，無意與美國全面對抗。

王毅接著呼籲，要正確看待中美關係發展的歷史經驗，堅持走對話合作之路，中美在二戰時曾是盟友，建交40年來雙方發揮互補優勢，中國得益於包括美國在內世界各國的開放合作，而中國的發展也為美國提供持續增長的動力和市場空間。

王毅針對中美關係重建提出「開放所有對話渠道」、「梳理和商定交往的清單，形成雙方合作、對話、管控3份清單」、「聚焦和展開抗疫合作」等3項建議，並強調「5000年文明孕育的中國從來沒有擴張的基因」。

對於上述王毅言論，在民間引起熱議討論。

許多網友紛紛留言，「中國是全世界最自由的國家⋯，真是厲害了，可以騙到自己人都相信，全世界最厲害的詐騙集團。」「我黨厲害，可以把一連串的謊言，硬湊成一句自欺欺人的真理！還可以講得面不改色理直氣壯！」「睜眼胡扯是我黨最拿手的本事！共產黨有五千年嗎？」「中國的五千年文明已經被共產黨統治後文化大革命時破壞的差不多了，要說真正傳承五千年文化的，應該是蔣介石退守的台灣！認真想想看，用殘體字（簡體字）的，不配當炎黃子孫！」「5千年文化？共產黨只會破壞文化，有個屁文化！」「應該說，馬克思主義孕育的中國，一直有說謊欺騙的基因。」「這個傢伙...沒文化真可怕！馬列主義算是中國文化嗎?」

評：看現時國際形勢，泠戰熱戰都準備就緒，一切已經太遲了，看不出有任何轉圜餘地。
美方多次申明，不會再聽中方花言巧語，而是要看中方實際動作。再多説話無謂，行動最實際。

所謂：得道者多助 失道者寡助。
各國很明顯都站在美國這邊。

美國務院正式發佈檔宣佈中國南海領土主張非法 白宮官員透露擬追究北京多項責任，國安顧問將給習近平拉清單
歐盟就對中國立場轉強硬

華春瑩宣佈制裁美國四議員 評：中共跟美國展開制裁戰？
中共手拿著生果小刀，美國手拿著斬馬大刀。