關於 made in america council ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

To Smash a Cracked Pot ｜Lee Yee

The national security honeymoon, the calm before the storm, is over. The sword of Damocles above our heads comes swinging down.

Against the professional recommendations of the Board of Education, the University of Hong Kong’s (HKU) governing council went with the majority’s decision and fired Benny Tai Yiu-ting, associate professor of the Faculty of Law. Certainly, no one would challenge Benny Tai’s comment that the decision to terminate his appointment was made by “an authority beyond the university through its agents”.

Three males and one female, aged between 16 and 21, were arrested on suspicion of “secession” in violation of the national security law. There was no action, only online speeches. Perhaps the few words by these teenagers are powerful enough to split a country of 1.4 billion people?

I had been pondering whether the Communists and their bootlickers would adopt the disqualification tactic or the postponement tactic in the upcoming Legislative Council election. The answer has been revealed that mass disqualifications would come first, and then a postponement may follow. Some said that the Communists are “braver” than I had predicted; but to borrow a young person’s words, which I find to be more suitable: rationality limits my imagination.

The three-part strike happened within a period of two days, putting an end to the honeymoon where the CCP had once sought dialogue, probed, soothed, and observed the global siege led by the United States. Now the CCP is addressing the US sanctions head-on while flexing its muscles by targeting Hongkongers.

This also illustrates that the attempt by the pan-democrats to navigate within the cavity of the national security law, to try to compromise on the confirmation letter to see a way out through election was an utter, complete failure. They could have followed my suggestion from a month ago, to run in the election with proud and loud opposition against the national security law, to welcome being disqualified and show the civilized world “what the CCP is plotting against Hong Kong”. That would have been more courageous. Yet some pushed their luck, and now they face the same fate of being disqualified.

CCP’s honeymoon period following the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong was based on the assumption, by the CCP as well as other overseas observers, that Trump’s tough policy toward China was for his election campaign. Since the current projection of the election seems unfavorable to Trump, that there is hope for the Democrats to take over, and the US might change its policy toward China.

When the United States ordered the closure of the Chinese Consulate in Houston, and when the four top officials, especially Pompeo’s declaration of resistance to China, made it clear that the US ultra-cold war strategy towards China is unlikely to be reversible.

Stephen Young, a senior diplomat who had stationed in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei, said that demanding other countries to close their consulates is a very drastic strategy. In the past, if a foreign diplomatic agency had a blunder, actions would usually have been taken against a person. The closures of the consulates suggest that the relationship is close to a break-up.

On July 25, the New York Times published the words of Ryan Hass, the President of the US National Security Council in the Obama era, that said, “They want to reorient the U.S.-China relationship toward an all-encompassing systemic rivalry that cannot be reversed by the outcome of the upcoming U.S. election. They believe this reorientation is needed to put the United States on a competitive footing against its 21st-century geostrategic rival.”

The two bills on Hong Kong, and the one on Xinjiang Uyghurs, were all passed almost unanimously in the US Senate and the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House and Democrat, Pelosi, was particularly enthusiastic; left-wing media such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, though have been critical of Trump, have both affirmed and even encouraged Trump’s anti-China policy.

This has been a 180 from Trump’s previous declaration of “America First” when he did not hesitate to offend the United Kingdom, the European Union, and even Asia-Pacific countries. Pompeo has recently been chummy with Europe and the Asia-Pacific to ally up, and emphasized in his anti-CCP declaration the need for the free world to act together. In fact, Trump’s unilateralism has pivoted, and the allies have returned to their positions one after another, and a global siege towards China has gradually been formed.

Has China been in touch with the US Democratic Party in private to probe whether its China policy will change if it wins the general election? There is no way of knowing. Even if so, the answer is apparent.

The US policy toward China leaves no room for maneuver, and the power-hungry CCP must now hold tight onto the hastily enacted national security law till the end. The longer they hold out, who knows how many more Hong Kong officials or pro-Beijing people would be affected along the lines of Bernard Chan and his sanctioned foreign bank.

What the CCP and its Hong Kong bootlickers are doing could be described with the Chinese idiom “to smash a cracked pot”. The pot is already cracked, then just smash it. It means that there are blemishes, and mistakes that cannot be corrected or will not be correct, then why not send the helve after the hatchet.

Lu Xun said, “When the brave is angered, he draws the sword towards the stronger; when the coward is angered, he draws the sword towards the weaker.” Disqualifications coupled with the postponement, is it “braver”? Or rather, “the coward is angered”.

It is too late to “chicken out” now (Lee Yee)

Pro-establishment camp keeps spreading news about postponement of the Legislative Council (LegCo) elections. Following Tam Yiuchung, Tong Kawah said the government could put the elections on hold for 14 days as many times as necessary. Tanya Chan pointed out that the government seems to intend extending the current LegCo session in view of the absence of gazetted announcement of when it will end.

Communist China and Hong Kong originally planned to threaten Hong Kong people with the National Security Law, then browbeat candidates into signing a confirmation in support of the law that is to be used as evidence to disqualify (DQ) the opposition faction from the elections. By doing so, they are to get the elections in the bag. However, to everyone’s surprise, the National Security Law has stirred up worldwide backlash, putting China under siege. Meanwhile, Hong Kong have not overawed, as evidenced by their will to resist demonstrated in the primary elections of pro-democracy camp, in which a large number of young pro-resistance hopefuls were elected. So long as the Carrie Lam regime massively disqualifies candidates, it will certainly give rise to an even fiercer global backlash. Providing that the anti-China measures escalate, neither will China be able to stay authoritative in front of its compatriots by showing the white feather, nor will it be courageous enough to wage a head-to-head battle.

It seems that the DQ strategy has been relinquished. Swift and decisive enforcement of the National Security Law was seen merely on the first day of its implementation. Since then, it has rarely been cited for law enforcement. Even though Communist China and Hong Kong stubbornly refuses to admit a fault, they are inarguably aware of having been a bit “cheeky”. Ditching the DQ strategy, they may suffer a crushing defeat in the elections. What should they do now? To counterplot, the epidemic could be a convenient pretext for putting off the elections.

Nonetheless, while the plight in which China is under siege by the world has gotten in shape, it is too late to “chicken out” . On July 21, Pompeo met with Nathan Law, an activist from Hong Kong. Law said to him that disqualifying candidates from elections amounts to a severe challenge to the values of democracy, calling on the international community to respond to it with a tough stance. So, even if the elections are put off, the U.S.’s sanctions will not be delayed.

On the same day, a fire outbreak broke the news to the world that the U.S. ordered closure of the Consulate General of the People's Republic of China(PRC) in Houston. The U.S. State Department said: The consulate was directed to close in order to protect American intellectual property and Americans' private information. China has been engaging in espionage and infiltration for decades, and in recent years, it has gone deeper and more extensive.

U.S. senator Marco Rubio said the Consulate General of the PRC in Houston is not a diplomatic unit , but the central point of China’s enormous operation network of espionage and infiltration, which should have been closed. Holding a concurrent post of the Deputy Chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, Rubio has access to the classified information of the U.S. Congress.

Gordon G. Chang, a prominent American academic, said the U.S. should direct the Consulate General of the PRC in New York to close as well for it is the core operation center of the CCP in eastern America.

Trump said yesterday there is a possibility that other consulates of China are ordered to close as well.

China indicated that “necessary reactions would be made”. According to Reuters, China is considering closing the Consulate General of the U.S. in Wuhan for retaliation. Global Times Editor in Chief Hu Xijin said “80%” of the Reuters’ coverage is “wrong”, being of the opinion that Beijing would highly likely adopt a tit-for-tat strategy to close the Consulate General of the United States in Hong Kong, which is as equally important as the one in Beijing, or expel half of the personnel from Hong Kong.

China had better ditch the rhetoric and do it fast. Although “80%” of Reuters’ coverage may be “wrong”, I’m afraid what is wrong is China dare not even close the Consulate General of the U.S. in Wuhan. The response yesterday of the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC to closure of the Consulate General of the PRC in Houston was also empty rhetoric. And its reaction to the UK offering BNO holders right of abode in the UK was: “China will consider denying BNO passports as valid travel documents.” It is not only empty rhetoric, but literally moonshine.

Earlier on, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the PRC Wang Yi said in a forum held by China-U.S. Think Tanks that the Sino-U.S. relations should “activate and open conduits for dialogues” and “get back to the right track”. On July 21, being asked about the Sino-U.S. relations on CCTV, Cui Tiankai, the Ambassador of the PRC in the U.S., remarked: “It is necessary to activate and open conduits for dialogues. Now that there isn’t even a conversation, it should be deemed abnormal”. It has suggested that China craves reopening a dialogue with the U.S.. However, Trump openly said he did not want to talk to Xi Jinping. The U.S. has already turned a deaf ear to China.

The Hong Kong version of National Security Law certainly plays a major role in contributing to the current predicament. The law has shown to the international community China would not live up to any promise. When the basic trust is gone, the basis for a dialogue is gone. Action is way more down-to-earth than rhetoric!

The President’s Executive Order on Hong Kong Normalization

Issued on: July 14, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-393), the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-76), the Hong Kong Autonomy Act of 2020, signed into law July 14, 2020, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, determine, pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) is no longer sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the People’s Republic of China (PRC or China) under the particular United States laws and provisions thereof set out in this order. In late May 2020, the National People’s Congress of China announced its intention to unilaterally and arbitrarily impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. This announcement was merely China’s latest salvo in a series of actions that have increasingly denied autonomy and freedoms that China promised to the people of Hong Kong under the 1984 Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (Joint Declaration). As a result, on May 27, 2020, the Secretary of State announced that the PRC had fundamentally undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and certified and reported to the Congress, pursuant to sections 205 and 301 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended, respectively, that Hong Kong no longer warrants treatment under United States law in the same manner as United States laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1, 1997. On May 29, 2020, I directed the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to begin the process of eliminating policy exemptions under United States law that give Hong Kong differential treatment in relation to China.
China has since followed through on its threat to impose national security legislation on Hong Kong. Under this law, the people of Hong Kong may face life in prison for what China considers to be acts of secession or subversion of state power –- which may include acts like last year’s widespread anti-government protests. The right to trial by jury may be suspended. Proceedings may be conducted in secret. China has given itself broad power to initiate and control the prosecutions of the people of Hong Kong through the new Office for Safeguarding National Security. At the same time, the law allows foreigners to be expelled if China merely suspects them of violating the law, potentially making it harder for journalists, human rights organizations, and other outside groups to hold the PRC accountable for its treatment of the people of Hong Kong.
I therefore determine that the situation with respect to Hong Kong, including recent actions taken by the PRC to fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to that threat.
In light of the foregoing, I hereby determine and order:

Section 1. It shall be the policy of the United States to suspend or eliminate different and preferential treatment for Hong Kong to the extent permitted by law and in the national security, foreign policy, and economic interest of the United States.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 202 of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5722), I hereby suspend the application of section 201(a) of the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, as amended (22 U.S.C. 5721(a)), to the following statutes:
(a) section 103 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (8 U.S.C. 1152 note);
(b) sections 203(c), 212(l), and 221(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1153(c), 1182(l), and 1201(c), respectively);
(c) the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.);
(d) section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. 4565(m));
(e) the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4801 et seq.); and
(f) section 1304 of title 19, United States Code.

Sec. 3. Within 15 days of the date of this order, the heads of agencies shall commence all appropriate actions to further the purposes of this order, consistent with applicable law, including, to:
(a) amend any regulations implementing those provisions specified in section 2 of this order, and, consistent with applicable law and executive orders, under IEEPA, which provide different treatment for Hong Kong as compared to China;
(b) amend the regulation at 8 CFR 212.4(i) to eliminate the preference for Hong Kong passport holders as compared to PRC passport holders;
(c) revoke license exceptions for exports to Hong Kong, reexports to Hong Kong, and transfers (in-country) within Hong Kong of items subject to the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, that provide differential treatment compared to those license exceptions applicable to exports to China, reexports to China, and transfers (in-country) within China;
(d) consistent with section 902(b)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-246), terminate the export licensing suspensions under section 902(a)(3) of such Act insofar as such suspensions apply to exports of defense articles to Hong Kong persons who are physically located outside of Hong Kong and the PRC and who were authorized to receive defense articles prior to the date of this order;
(e) give notice of intent to suspend the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders (TIAS 98-121);
(f) give notice of intent to terminate the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (TIAS 99-418);
(g) take steps to end the provision of training to members of the Hong Kong Police Force or other Hong Kong security services at the Department of State’s International Law Enforcement Academies;
(h) suspend continued cooperation undertaken consistent with the now-expired Protocol Between the U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America and Institute of Space and Earth Information Science of the Chinese University of Hong Kong Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in Earth Sciences (TIAS 09-1109);
(i) take steps to terminate the Fulbright exchange program with regard to China and Hong Kong with respect to future exchanges for participants traveling both from and to China or Hong Kong;
(j) give notice of intent to terminate the agreement for the reciprocal exemption with respect to taxes on income from the international operation of ships effected by the Exchange of Notes Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong (TIAS 11892);
(k) reallocate admissions within the refugee ceiling set by the annual Presidential Determination to residents of Hong Kong based on humanitarian concerns, to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law; and
(l) propose for my consideration any further actions deemed necessary and prudent to end special conditions and preferential treatment for Hong Kong.

Sec. 4. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(a) Any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
(i) to be or have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning of individuals under the authority of, or to be or have been responsible for or involved in developing, adopting, or implementing, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Administrative Region;
(ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Hong Kong;
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or autonomy of Hong Kong;
(C) censorship or other activities with respect to Hong Kong that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Hong Kong, or that limit access to free and independent print, online or broadcast media; or
(D) the extrajudicial rendition, arbitrary detention, or torture of any person in Hong Kong or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or serious human rights abuse in Hong Kong;
(iii) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(A) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a)(i), (a)(ii)(A), (a)(ii)
(B), or (a)(ii)(C) of this section; or
(B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section;
(v) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or
(vi) to be a member of the board of directors or a senior executive officer of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Sec. 5. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4 of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 4 of this order.

Sec. 6. The prohibitions in section 4(a) of this order include:
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4(a) of this order; and
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 7. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 4(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, such aliens, would be detrimental to the interest of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility of implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.

Sec. 8. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 9. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 10. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) The term “immediate family member” means spouses and children of any age.

Sec. 11. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 4 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 4 of this order.

Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.

Sec. 13. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 14. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 15. If, based on consideration of the terms, obligations, and expectations expressed in the Joint Declaration, I determine that changes in China’s actions ensure that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous to justify differential treatment in relation to the PRC under United States law, I will reconsider the determinations made and actions taken and directed under this order.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 14, 2020.

🔥支付寶打賞：13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條：搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專：https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
The Real Threat to the US is the loss of self-confidence
──An Open Letter to Mr. Secretary Mike Pompeo

My name is Wang Ping-Chung, the spokesperson for the New Party, Taiwan’s political party. During the ongoing pandemic of the Covid-19, the enemy of all human beings, including the American people and Chinese people, is definitely the corona virus. However, as Secretary of State of the United States, you seem to consider China instead of the virus to be your enemy. It lets you do little in pandemic prevention but much in blaming the WHO and China. You have even made great efforts to politicalize the issue of public health in order to attack China, which reflects the United States’ prevailing concept of so-called China’s threat. Nevertheless, the real threat to the US is not China but the loss of self-confidence indeed.

As President Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Only thing we have to fear is the fear itself.” The threat you have to fear today is not other peoples but yourselves. Even though you have done your best to shift blames on the WHO and China, the fact is already clear of the US domestic misdiagnosed cases, which had been seen as H1N1 but in fact corona virus since last autumn. It is also your fault in underestimating the severity of the epidemic while China sacrificed itself to let the world have more preparation time. Accordingly, the Covid-19 has killed more than fifty thousand people in America. As China’s population is four times larger than the US, it is quite shocking that America’s death toll due to the Covid-19 has been above China’s.

I feel so sorry for the suffering of your people, yet it is never too late to mend. However, not only did you palm off the responsibility on others, but you also undermined international solidarity against the pandemic. Moreover, you even try to deny the status of the WHO as the coordinator for universal combat against diseases, which in some way means challenging the global institutions under the governance of the United Nations. It is so unbelievable that the United States, viewing itself as the world leader above half a century, is tending to destroy the world order recognized by the international society. The very reason I can think of is the loss of America’s self-confidence. It is the threat to both the US and the whole world.

For Liberalists in the United States, China has been believed either an opponent or a violator to international institutions. As far as it’s concerned, there had been debates whether to keep containing China economically and militarily or engaging it institutionally. Both were resulted from America’s confidence in its leadership. Consequently, the confidence gradually changed into arrogance, luring the United States into aggressions upon other countries as the global superpower without permission from the UN Security Council. It made America exhausted at last. Therefore, the United States has become an isolationist, and even a betrayer to the global institutions they established before. On the contrary, China seems more like a protector of the world order.

On the other hand, for Realists, the predominant thinkers in international politics, China has been seen as the primary rival to America. As they estimate there will be threat if any other regional hegemony occurs, the nation’s fear becomes beyond what its capability can hold. To some extent, this is the real crisis to your people. In fact, different from western nations developing themselves by oppressing and exploiting others, the Chinese people have risen out of poverty at the cost of blood, sweat, and tears of our own. I would like to remind you of Franklin Roosevelt’s self-evident words that nothing to fear but fear itself. The only threat you should conquer is the threat in your mind.

As Henry Kissinger has argued, relations between China and the United States need not – and should not – become a zero-sum game. He also suggested that China and America build a Pacific community with each other. Thinking in the same way, Chinese President Xi also claimed that the vast Pacific Ocean has enough space for the two large countries of China and the United States. Furthermore, I believe the world is large enough to embrace different political and social systems. As western liberalism in recent years has met difficulties in over-consumption and government failure, we should be more open-minded to the superiority of Chinese governance in some fields, especially the high efficiency in defeating the epidemic. The United States should also be more self-confident to have China rising under the global governance of international institutions, sharing with mutual benefits instead of destroying each other. Without doubt, only by doing so can the United States overcome the real threat and bring the world peace and prosperity, the real universal values for all mankind.