疫週刊 看國際 Pandemic Weekly Taiwan | https://reurl.cc/nn4Em6
最近全球疫情在周末愚人節、華人清明節、復活節前夕,又再度推向高峰。
而全球疫苗發展至今,我們在上周看過全球合作,把產能推至極致,但是也有出口 #互相爭奪 的荒謬狀況
--
1. 瀰漫於大西洋,出口拉鋸戰衍生的 #疫苗民族主義 (vaccine nationalism)
來自校園開放、育兒需求、和企業的壓力,使每個歐盟政治決策者們更難做出專家認為對的事情:加強限製而不是放鬆。
更糟糕的是,整個歐盟範圍內的疫苗推廣工作比許多人所希望的要慢得多。
3月21日,歐盟27個成員國已每100人施用13劑,而美國則為每100居民37劑。因此,儘管美國人有理由相信,最壞的情況將在今年夏天結束,但隨著第三波感染以及疫苗接種進展緩慢,整個大西洋的氣氛變得更加黯淡。
英國早於3月14日,根據從成年人中隨機抽取血液測試結果得出的估算結果,英格蘭擁有相關抗體的人群所佔比例最大,為54.7%。
在英國享受高施打率的同時,儘管布魯塞爾沒有採取出口禁令,但歐盟確實加強出口管制,這意味著阿斯利康疫苗普及供應的拉鋸戰可能會繼續。由於與年輕人中罕見的凝血障礙有關,德國和加拿大都對該疫苗本身進行了越來越嚴格的審查。
有人擔心,歐盟實行疫苗禁令可能會朝著“疫苗民族主義”的方向邁出危險的一步。
至於已經實行疫苗民族主義的地方,美國可能就是這樣的例子,其疫苗政策似乎就是“美國優先”。Airfinity彙編的數據顯示,截至3月,美國生產的1.64億份Covid-19疫苗中,沒有出口。英國的情況與此類似,生產了1600萬劑,出口量為零。
相比之下,歐盟已出口了迄今已生產的1.1億劑中的42%,而中國也已將其2.29億劑中的一半以上出口到海外。目前為止,歐盟將繼續成為迄今為止最慷慨的疫苗生產國之一,其新的出口政策旨在實現比例和互惠。但是要小心的是這也是很多國際藥廠核心在歐洲,依但各種因素出口限制,會是全球危機。
--
2. #美國倡議公平接種
在國內大規模接種的部分,美國CDC已發布旅遊指引,疫苗施打成為重要依據,但是遏制病毒傳播的措施,與變異病毒一再出現與傳播,顯然成為一場拉鋸戰
JAMA已經有作者威廉·帕克(William F.Parker)投書 "Fair Allocation at Covid19 Mass Vaccination Sites" (大規模疫苗接種需公平分配)
https://reurl.cc/mq4GM1
提到"先打先贏",未必是最佳策略,要更能主動觸及那些因為各種原因無法前去施打的弱勢族群,這樣才能達到真正的群體免疫。
--
3/ #亞洲疫情新潮 與 COVAX危機
病毒變異再次流行,但是對亞洲疫情的影響尚不清楚。約翰·霍普金斯大學(Johns Hopkins University)指出這波新潮已經席捲亞洲多個國家,並有可能比以前的爆發更加兇猛。
這些又急遽升起的國家包含,前三名為菲律賓、印度、孟加拉。
從3月19日開始,#菲律賓 在一天之內新病例數已連續五次打破記錄,到週五為止記錄了近10,000起新病例。從與人口有關的新病例來看,該國也是亞洲受影響最大的國家。連續7天的新病例滾動平均值約為每百萬人有76例。
在其後,#印度 每百萬人口中有近42個新病例。印度上週有68,000例新病例,仍低於9月份近98,000例的高峰,但迅速上升。
#孟加拉 的病例數以與鄰國相似的速度增長,近期平均新發生率每百萬人口39例,僅次於該國第一波高峰期2020年7月每百萬人口40例。
繼上週印度特有的雙重突變體外,菲律賓於3月13日報告了第三代變種,該變種被懷疑是危險的巴西突變體P.1的後代。在該國也發現了英國和南非的變種。
其餘為巴基斯坦和日本,開始發現疫情增長,構成第四波。東南亞國家(越南,柬埔寨和泰國)也收到了比平常更多的新病例。
放緩的國家,包含馬來西亞和印尼
人口眾多且受第三大影響的馬來西亞,新發生率在下降。之前受災最嚴重的印尼也是緩和的局勢。這是根據牛津大學Our World in Dara收集的數據得出的。
在目前已經不太受影響的地區,韓國,新加坡和尼泊爾,仍保持穩定水平。
—
在印度冠狀病毒感染迅速增加之後,該國的疫苗出口速度已放緩。該國還根據COVAX計劃提供了國產阿斯利康疫苗,但由於第二波國內需求激增,該國已暫時停止了出口。
結果,當然是印度的疫苗接種速度迅速提高囉。
【🦠疫週刊|看國際】每周日台灣時間早上 9:30AM 歡迎持續支持我們!
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過1萬的網紅米克瑞 MickRayTW,也在其Youtube影片中提到,愛台灣跟著哪裡有關係嗎? 想訂閱就訂閱吧!!! =) https://www.youtube.com/MickRayTWTV 英文頻道:MickRay https://www.youtube.com/user/MickRayChung 跟蹤我: Facebook: https://www.fa...
taiwan nationalism 在 Apple Daily - English Edition Facebook 的最佳貼文
#Editorial AppleDailyTW|"The antagonism between the U.S. and China is difficult to resolve in the short term, and it is not yet at its worst. Taiwan is one of the elements in the opposition between the U.S. and China, and the confrontation between the two powers is both a risk and an opportunity for Taiwan. However, unlike the previous Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which was a combination of capitalist and communist ideologies, in the current confrontation between the U.S. and China, both sides are at the height of patriotism and nationalism. The issue of Taiwan covers all the most sensitive areas, and there are many subtle details that are not understood or cared about by the international community. Therefore, if Taiwan is to ensure its own safety and interests, it must strengthen its own power and role. The principles must be firm, our mind must be clear, and our strategies and gestures must stay flexible. It is not easy to have any of the above four qualities, but Taiwan must manage to joggle them all. Following instructions, Chiu Tai-san proposed “constructive ambiguity.” Although the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council commented coldly and said it’s “wordplay without sincerity,” it is still an indicator worthy of follow-up observation."
Read more: https://bit.ly/3rkC9vM
"美中對立短期難解,且眼前尚非低點,台灣是美中矛盾的環節之一,兩強對抗是台灣的風險也是機會,但不同於上次美蘇冷戰是資本主義與共產主義意識形態之爭,這次的美中對峙,由於雙方又都正值愛國主義、民族主義情緒高點,台灣議題則橫跨所有最敏感範疇,有許多微妙的眉角並非國際所理解或在意的,因而台灣若要確保自身安全和利益,就須強化自己的實力和角色,原則要堅定,頭腦要清楚,手法身形要靈活,以上四者能得其一已是不易,台灣卻要能夠兼顧,邱太三奉令拋出「建設性模糊」之說,國台辦昨雖冷回「玩文字遊戲,沒有誠意」,但仍是值得後續觀察的風向球。"
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP
#AppleDailyENG
taiwan nationalism 在 Mordeth13 Facebook 的最讚貼文
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.
taiwan nationalism 在 米克瑞 MickRayTW Youtube 的精選貼文
愛台灣跟著哪裡有關係嗎?
想訂閱就訂閱吧!!! =)
https://www.youtube.com/MickRayTWTV
英文頻道:MickRay
https://www.youtube.com/user/MickRayChung
跟蹤我:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MickRayTV
Instagram: http://instagram.com/yunray_chung
Twitter: https://twitter.com/YunRayChung
Tumblr: http://mickray-chung.tumblr.com
taiwan nationalism 在 Campus TV, HKUSU 香港大學學生會校園電視 Youtube 的最佳解答
Campus TV, HKUSU Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/hkucampustv
「凡是渴望在這個遺忘之島上尋找意義與故鄉的人必須勇敢承擔思想、記憶與認同的重量。」──吳叡人
香港民族位處於中國邊陲,努力尋找屬於自己的身份和歷史。香港大學學生會特意邀請了《想象的共同體:民族主義的起源和散佈》譯者吳叡人先生為我們分享,透過比較沖繩、香港及台灣民族主義的興起和流變,引發我們對於「自我」與「他者」的思辨。
日期:二零一五年四月二十一日(星期二)
地點:百週年校園LG.08室
時間:晚上六時至九時(五時半登記入場)
講題:沖繩、香港及台灣的民族主義興起
名額:150人
語言:國語(大會將提供英語即時傳譯)
講者:吳叡人
台灣桃園人,畢業於臺灣大學政治系、芝加哥大學政治系博士,專攻比較政治和政治理論等範疇。吳老師為《想象的共同體:民族主義的起源和散佈》的譯者,早年任職日本早稻田大學政治經濟學部講座教授,現任中央研究院臺灣史研究所副研究員。
主持:李啟迪
學苑前專題編輯、《香港民族論》的作者之一,現就讀香港大學社會科學學院,雙主修政治與公共行政和歷史。
‘He who desires to pursue meaning and origins on this island of oblivion must bear the weight of thoughts, memories, and recognition.’—Dr Wu Rwei-ren
At the periphery of China, the Hong Kong nationality has been pursuing our own identity and history. HKUSU has now invited Dr Wu Rwei-ren, the translator of ‘Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism’, to share his thoughts on such issue. A comparison of the rise and change of nationalism among Okinawa, Hong Kong, and Taiwan shall surely inspire our thoughts on the meaning of ‘ourselves’ and ‘the others’.
Date: 21 April 2015
Venue: LG.08, Centennial Campus
Time: 6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.
Topic: The Rise of Nationalism in Okinawa, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
Seats: 150
Language: Mandarin (instant English interpretation will be provided)
Guest speaker: Dr Wu Rwei-ren
From Taoyuan, Taiwan, Dr Wu graduated from the Department of Political Science at the National Taiwan University and earned his doctoral degree from the University of Chicago in politics with a research focus on comparative politics and political theory. As the translator of ‘Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism’, he was formerly the Chair Professor at the School of Political Science and Economics at the Waseda University, Japan. He is currently the associate research fellow at the Institute of Taiwan History of the Academia Sinica.
Host: Mr Lee Kai-tik, Jack
Mr Lee is a former Feature Editor of Undergrad, HKUSU and one of the writers of ‘Hong Kong Nationalism’. He is a student from the Faculty of Social Sciences of HKU and is currently majoring in Politics and Public Administration and History.
taiwan nationalism 在 Specificities and Limits of Taiwanese Nationalism 的相關結果
Taiwanese nationalism is, in many ways, specific. On the one hand it is a recognised phenomenon. On the other, as the product of a young state, the Republic ... ... <看更多>
taiwan nationalism 在 Opinion | Taiwanese nationalism faces a trial by empire 的相關結果
Washington has enabled the formation of a distinctive Taiwanese identity for more than seven decades by arming Taiwan and credibly deterring ... ... <看更多>
taiwan nationalism 在 Taiwanese nationalism - Wikipedia 的相關結果
Taiwanese nationalism is a nationalist movement which asserts that the Taiwanese people as a distinct nation. Due to the complex political status of Taiwan, ... ... <看更多>