2009年06月30日
1909年與巴拿馬建交的是誰?
馬英九出國前的演說中提及,「我國與巴拿馬有非常長久的關係,早在1909年就已經建交,兩國交往整整1個世紀,邦交非常穩固,雙方互動也非常頻繁。」
誰,是馬應九口中的「我國」,而和巴拿馬建交呢?
與巴拿馬建交的是「中國政府」,是在北京的「大清帝國政府」。1912.02.12接受「大清帝國政府」權力移轉的北京「中華民國政府」,這時還沒個影子。
1909年與巴拿馬相互「國家承認」+「政府承認」的,是「中國」。
當時的台灣已經是日本的一個「外地」,並非國家,也無外交權。
這是「中國」的業績,不是台灣的。
中國,是「國家」(state)。
大清帝國、中華民國、中華人民共和國,是「政府」(government)。
馬英九,是「政權」(administration or regime)。
看到「國」就以為是state的話,那蔣經國,是哪一「國」?
http://www.president.gov.tw/php-bin/prez/shownews.php4?Rid=15453
以伊拉克為例:佔領何時結束?
對於質疑受降≠佔領,或誤以為簽訂和平條約=結束佔領者,這篇報導是一個啟發。
世界的複雜,很顯然的,超乎台灣人可愛的單純想像之外。以下是伊拉克戰爭與重建的日程表,但故事還沒完。
...繼續閱讀
2009年06月29日
日本海的三國志、四國志,還是五國志?
4 countries establish two sea lines connecting 3 ports of each countries--Japan, Russia, S. Korea. The extra one is China. China is not a coastal state of Japan Sea yet a party of the sea lines. The other coastal country N. Korea is a third party. Ironic stories may come up...
...繼續閱讀
VOA的制式回覆(但「繁頭簡肉」的欺騙,已經改正)
Dear Listener,
Thank you for your comments on our VOA programming. We will look into the issue you raised in your email. As always, VOA strives to provide its audience around the world with the most accurate, up-to-date and balanced news and information possible. Letters and emails from loyal listeners such as yourself help us to do this.
In Appreciation,
VOA Audience Mail
2009年06月28日
2009年06月27日
2009年06月26日
領海的公海
【Comment】
The Chosun Daily reported that there are 5 sea lanes for the US carriers through Japanese territorial sea. Japan restricted its territorial sea width from a regular 12 miles to 3 miles for this.
The US enjoys the right of transit passage as well as innocent passage under UNCLOS. The US definitely enjoys more rights as an ally of Japan.
...繼續閱讀
2009年06月24日
Viva Mr. Ma,連美國人也臣服
一直提供繁、簡兩中文字服務的美國之音(VOA),約略在馬兄提出「視簡書正」之後,立即100%響應。
其作法是簡骨繁皮:只有首頁是繁體字,其餘連接都改為簡體字。
http://www.voafanti.com/gate/big5/www.voanews.com/chinese/
朋友草擬抗議信,如下:
Dear Sirs,
I read VOA Chinese website almost everyday. Recently, it is very inconvenient for me to understand after you switched to the simplified Chinese Character.
I was educated by reading the traditional Chinese Character. Simplied Chinese is absolutely hard for me to understand. I would urge you, at least, to make an option such that people can have the choice either to read in Traditional or Simplied Chinese.
Although there are 1.2 billion people in PRC using simplied Chinese, yet there remains at least multi-million people from Singapore, SE Asia, Hong Kong, and Taiwan and even in North America remaining uisng traditional Chinese. By adopting such an option, your website will certainly be more welcome by those who are not used to the Simplied Chinese.
Your attention is greatly appreciated.
可以利用一下!
PUBLICAFFAIRS@VOA.GOV
letters@VOA.gov
Chinese@VOAnews.com