上海桃花节方案

tjldxdkjyxgs 2024-03-29 03:57:48

各科护士实习总结范文

Sentiment also shared by Chinese after slump in neighbors' relations

高职高专督导工作实践探索

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell walks to his office after leaving the Senate Floor at the US Capitol on Dec 21, 2020 in Washington, DC. [Photo/Agencies]

Seng Yee Lau, senior executive vice-president and chairman of group marketing and global brands at Tencent, participated in the panel discussion as a representative of China's internet technology sector.

深圳网站seo优化排名

Senior Colonel Liang Fang, a professor at PLA National Defense University, said the recent drill will test and enhance the PLA's joint operating capabilities.

Seibert's remarks came ahead of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's visit to Berlin next week. Li will chair the fifth round of intergovernmental consultations between China and Germany together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Sembo's first batch of film-themed products, including special vehicles and engineering vehicles, are expected to be sold in these markets by the end of this month.

如何seo排名

Set up in 1945 in Tianjin, Ostrich is among the 1,600 brands titled as "China time-honored brand" by the former Ministry of Internal Trade, which is part of the present-day Ministry of Commerce, in 1991.

Set during the Northern Wei Dynasty, it tells of a young woman who disguised herself as a man to take her aging father's position in the army.

杭州网站排名seo

Secessionism (precisely secessionism against state) not only seriously threatensthe territorial and sovereign integrity of the relevant countries, but also severelyimpacts contemporary international order consisting of nation states as main actorsand the United Nations as its hub. Moreover, secessionism is prone to trigger regionalturmoil and interstate conflict. Nowadays, there are more than 50 countriesencountered with varied degrees of separatist threats. Since 1990, at least 25 newindependent countries recognized by the international community have been founded,most of which proceeded along with enormous disputes and conflicts. Over the years,international community has come to reach some consensus on opposing secessionfrom existing state as well as safeguarding territorial and sovereign integrity. At thesame time, the United States has been frequently exploiting human rights as an excuseto distort the separatist issues in other countries and even to obstruct and undermineother states’ anti-secession actions.For many years, the United States has provided support to the separatist forces inTaiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong. Under the banner of so-called human rights,religion, ethnicity, democracy, and freedom, the United States strives to promote theinternationalization of Xinjiang secessionism, obstructing and undermining China’santi-secession struggle. Since 2017, for recent instance, the US executive andlegislative authorities have enacted the “Taipei Act” (the full name is “Taiwan AlliesInternational Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act of 2019”), “HongKong Autonomy Act”, “ Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019”,“Equal Entry into Tibet Act”, “Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020”, and manyother domestic bills involving Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xizang, and Xinjiang in collusionwith different oversea separatists. Continued US interference in these separatist issuesand its support for oversea separatist forces is completely misleading; it has in factnothing to do with ethnicity, religion, freedom, human rights or issues. Its purposebehind the fa?ade is to take every opportunity to obstruct and undermine China’santi-secessionism struggle and contain China’s peaceful development. Literally,territorial and sovereign integrity is where China’s core interests lie. The US supportfor “Taiwan independence”, “Hong Kong independence”, “Tibet independence”,“East Turkistan movement” and other separatist forces is considered explicitly seriousviolation of China’s core interests.Throughout history, the United States was also threatened by secessionism andonce fought a four-year civil war in order to maintain the integrity of the Federation.Regrettably, the US authority lacks empathy when it comes to the anti-secessionismof other countries. By contrast, it displays intense opportunism and pragmatismattitude towards separatism in other countries. Whether or not to support separatistforces in other countries depends entirely on the consideration of its own interests.The so-called issues of ethnicity, religion, human rights, democracy, and freedom arenothing more than tools used by the United States to interfere in the internal affairs ofother countries. Over the years, we have seen that in order to maintain its globalhegemony, the United States has continued to point fingers at the anti-secessionismstruggles of many countries around the world in the name of “protecting humanrights”. It even strives to brutally intervene or militarily interfere in the issue for that.Facts speak louder than words. The following sections will examine the history andreality of anti-secessionism struggles by relevant countries, the United States included.It is essential to see how the United States pursues double standards uponanti-secessionism issues so that its own interest is achieved at other states’ cost.1. The American Civil War: National unification takes precedence over humanrights protectionThe US government advertises itself as “human rights guardian” as well as“know-all” teacher concerning human rights. It frequently wields the big stick at othercountries for human rights “problem”. However, by no means can the human rightsrecord of the United States in history be regarded as glorious. For quite a long time,the basic human rights of women, African Americans, and aborigines in the US hadnot been effectively protected. For instance, millions of African Americans who areminorities lived as slaves for years. Since they were not equally recognized as“human” and part of the US society then, to what extent were their human rightsprotected? The slavery system in the United States aroused opposition from someprogressive civilians. While the call for abolition of this criminal system wassubstantially promoted, the advocacy further aroused opposition from the white slaveowners in the South, ultimately triggering intense political confrontation between theNorth and the South. The Southern slave owners did not hesitate to launch an armedrebellion to secede from the Federation, resulting in the American Civil War. Aboveall, the self-esteem of “human rights guardian” is apparently hypocritical when the UStook its national unity prior to human rights protection for the African Ameicans inhistory.1.1 American Civil War and Anti-Secession StruggleFor quite a long time, the reason why the American Civil War was fought has beenmisunderstood. Although the American Civil War was indeed triggered by thepolitical antagonism between the North and the South over slavery system, theprimary goal of the federal government to wage the civil war was not to protect thehuman rights of the blacks, but to preserve the unity of the state. Many historicalmaterials reveal that the primary goal of the Lincoln administration in the Civil Warwas to combat secessionism and maintain national unity, while the abolition ofslavery and the protection of human rights of the blacks were but indirectconsequences of the War. In other words, although the slavery may lead to the civilwar, its abolition was not the fundamental goal of the American government duringthe wartime.In November 1860, Lincoln won the 16th presidential election of the United States,which also signified complete intensification of the North-South political antagonismcentered on slavery. South Carolina first announced its withdrawal from theFederation in December of the year, followed by Florida, Georgia, Alabama,Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. In February 1861, the southern seceding statesconvened in Montgomery, announcing the establishment of the “Alliance ofAmerican States”, electing Jefferson Davis as interim president, and promulgating the“Alliance Constitution”. By May, four more states including Virginia, Arkansas,Tennessee, and North Carolina joined the Southern League. The United States wasactually divided into two regimes, two presidents, two constitutions, two armed forces,and two capitals by then.Under this situation, the core issue for the Lincoln government during the CivilWar was to fight against secessionism, and maintain the unification of the U.S.. Inseveral speeches before and after the Civil War, Lincoln highlighted and interpretedthe principles on the national sovereignty's authority and indivisibility. On the 4th ofAugust, 1861, Lincoln pointed out in his first inaugural address that: “I hold that incontemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States isperpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of allnational governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had aprovision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all theexpress provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, itbeing impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in theinstrument itself.” “It follows from these views that no State upon its own meremotion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effectare legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against theauthority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according tocircumstances. … I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the lawsthe Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as theConstitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfullyexecuted in all the States.”Simultaneously, after the American Civil War eruption, there were severedivergences inside the northern part regarding the reservation or abolition of slavery.While the radicals argued that the “war should be intended to abolish slavery,” theconservatives proposed to compromise with the southern part and emphasized thestrict execution of the Fugitive Slave Act, with which all the fugitive slaves should berepatriated to southern America. In this debate, General John C. Fremont wasdismissed by Lincoln in the October of 1861 over his emancipation edict in the war.In 1862, with military needs, congress began to give the partial emancipation ofslaves through acts. In June of the year, Lincoln made it clear that It’s time to solvethe problem of slavery, it makes me feel that slavery must die so that the country cansurvive.Apparently, on the relations between counter-secessionism and the abolition ofslavery, the choice from the Lincoln government was heavily influenced byutilitarianism. In this choice, the maintenance of the unification of the U.S. came first,and the human right of black people was served to support this unification. All thesearguments can be supported by the statements made by Lincoln during the first half ofthe Civil War. Lincoln said, “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of theSouthern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their propertyand their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been anyreasonable cause for such apprehension. ……I have no purpose, directly or indirectly,to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I haveno lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”When the “radicalists” published the famous “Prayer” to President Lincoln in 1862in New York, Lincoln responded in his open letter: “I would save the Union. I wouldsave it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority canbe restored; the nearer the Union will be ‘the Union as it was.’ If there be those whowould not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do notagree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could atthe same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in thisstruggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I couldsave the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it byfreeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leavingothers alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I dobecause I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I donot believe it would help to save the Union.”The U.S. became the modernized nation-state with unified sovereignty through theCivil War. It maintained the unification of the country through armed force andthereby settled down the superiority of the Union. However, the choice between theCivil War and the abolition of slavery reflects the utilitarianism of the bourgeoisie ofthe U.S.. During the movement of establishing the U.S., even though with the fact thateconomic prosperity in the first periods of the independence was largely benefitedfrom slavery, freedom was labeled as the core value of the U.S.. Given that slaverywas abolished during the Civil War, there was no complete emancipation for blackpeople in political and economic areas until the 1960s, which was almost 100 yearsafter the Civil War. Up to now, the request for entire equities of the colored races inthe U.S. is still on the way.1.2 Coosolidating the legal footing of the U.S.’s counter-secessionismEven though the American Civil War ended up with the victory of the northern partand the maintenance of the unification of the country, the war led to the seriouscasualties and economic loss. According the statistics, more than one million peoplelost their lives in the Civil War. In order to avoid the re-emergence of secessions, theU.S. government needed to nip it in the bud by completing the laws oncounter-secessionism.In 1869, after the end of the civil war, there was the famous Texas v. White case,which was a classic case of the Supreme Court of the United States discussing theissue of secession. Texas v. White definitely interpreted the constitutional boundariesof national level secession, establishing that secession is unavailable within the U.S.constitutional order, unless the remaining states all consent. The Constitution, in all itsprovisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When,therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissolublerelation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republicangovernment in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummatedher admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was theincorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The unionbetween Texas and other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble asthe union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, orrevocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States. Secessionfrom the Union is clearly unconstitutional. The US Constitution maintains the unity ofthe country from the highest level.In the early 2000s, a small but sincere secession movement arose in Alaska, wherethe Alaskan Independence Party secured one hundred signatures in support of a ballotreferendum proposing Alaskan secession from the United States. The ballot initiativewas rejected by the elections authority and ultimately the courts, on grounds that aballot initiative cannot be certified for extraconstitutional purposes. As the SupremeCourt of Alaska ultimately concluded in 2010, “secession from the Union is clearlyunconstitutional.” In that decision, the Alaska justices quoted the memorable words ofthe U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White.2. Inside and outside the State: Maintaining the integrity of its territory whilesupporting the secessions on other states’ territoriesThrough the initiation of civil war, the U.S. frustrated the attempt of separating thecountry and thereby maintained the integrity of territory finally. Until then, the idea ofunshakable unification of the United States, which was served as the basic rules ofAmerican politics, was established and confirmed to a further step through the legalprecedent of the Supreme Court of the United States. Simultaneously, the U.S.continued its annexation of neighboring states’ territories by inciting secessionisms inthese states and conducting wars with these states thereafter. Maintaining itsterritory's integrity while conducting the annexation of other states’ territories, thedouble-standard of the U.S. was thoroughly exposed under this strategy. Manyneighboring countries from Central and South America, such as Mexico andColumbia, bore the brunt of this strategy's influence.Sharply after its independence, under the propaganda of Manifest Destiny, the U.S.entered into an era of expansion. Since 1800, the U.S. government gradually wagedeconomic and political permeations to Mexican Texas in various ways. In March of1836, Texas declared its independence from Mexico and established the Lone StarRepublic. General Samuel Houston, the former governor of Tennessee and friend ofthe U.S. president Andrew Jackson, was appointed to lead the army to fight againstthe Mexican government. In March of 1837, the U.S. recognized the independence ofthe Lone Star Republic. Yet its integration process with the republic was postponedbecause of the troublesome slavery issue between the Northern and Southern U.S..In the year 1844, the annexation of Texas was the core issue for the presidentialelection. The expansionists steadily supported Texas's proposed annexation, whichwould be the new place for arranging the slavery issue under the increasingly frailbackground of the southern area. This would, in turn, preserve the safety and interestof the Northern U.S.. James K. Polk, the Democratic Party candidate, won theelection with the manifesto on proposed Texas's annexation and the conquer ofOregon. In 1845, the outgoing president John Tyler conducted a unified resolution onTexas’s annexation with the combination of the Senate and the House ofRepresentatives to avoid the Senate's possible veto. Since then, Texas became the 28thstate of the U.S., and 390,000 square miles of Mexican territories were thereby underthe rules of the U.S..At the same time, there was a massive influx of American immigrants into MexicanCalifornia since 1841. In 1846, Mexico fought against the U.S. around the issue ofinvasion and counter-invasion of California. In 1848, the Treaty of GuadalupeHidalgo was signed between the U.S. and Mexico. With this treaty, the U.S.government obtained the nowadays California, Nevada, and Utah, which contained530,000 square miles at an extraordinarily low cost of 150 million dollars fromMexico. According to figures, the U.S. seized about 950,000 square miles fromMexico through annexation, cession under the unequal treaties, low-price exchange,etc. in the first half of the 19th century. In the Mexican-American War, Mexico lostabout 55% of its territory, and the American expansionist even attempted to takeaction further to conquer entire Mexico, which was later called the “All MexicoMovement.”Another case is Panama, which was initially served as a province of the ColumbiaRepublic. In 1903, after defeating the U.K. and France militarily, Washington signedan agreement with the Columbian government on constructing the Panama Canal andthe subsequent lease issue. However, the congress of Columbia refused to approve theagreement. On the 3rd of November, 1903, the U.S. army landed on Panama, whichrendered support to the independence of Panama from Columbia and theestablishment of the Panama Republic. On the 18th of November, the U.S. governmentgained the perpetual monopoly of the construction and maintenance of the PanamaCanal from the newly formed Panama government and obtained the perpetual rightsof use, occupation, and control of the Canal later on. Thereby, the Canal and the areasurrounding the Canal was under the full power of the U.S., which made this area astate within the state. The Panama government regained the sovereignty of the Canaluntil 1999, which almost a century later.Even though the U.S. labeled its independence as a revolt against Europe'scolonialism imperial, a series of subsequent invasions to Mexico, Columbia, andPanama, which were modern countries with independent sovereignties, made the U.S.back to the track of imperialism expansion as its previous colonial powers. In this way,in order to maintain its interests as a hegemon, Washington even supportedsecessionisms in other states through triggering secessions or invasions to these states.In the face of expansionism and egoism, there is a sharp comparison betweenmaintaining the coherence of the territory of the U.S. and seizing regions of Mexico,Columbia, and Panama under the political cover of supporting secessionisms of thesestates. This comparison exposes the double standard of the U.S. on the independenceissue to a further step.3. Inside and outside the allies: the double standard on sovereignty and humanrightsEven though it is not uncommon, secessionism is still relatively unusual in theinternational community. To what extent it will succeed, and especially to what extentit can be recognized by other international actors are overwhelmingly connected to theattitude of superpowers. With this in mind, secessionism will be unlikely to succeed ifit collides with the interests of superpowers. Without the back of superpowers orunder the lack of potent rules, the separated entity can barely be recognized in acollective sense. Hence, superpowers can either be the deterrent or the catalyst tosecessions.In general, to Washington, secessionism in other states is merely a tool ofmaintaining and achieving its strategic and geopolitical interests. To allies, with thestanding point of protecting the political relations with the allies, the U.S. governmentusually supports the territorial integrity and the unification of the country and opposesits secessionism. In contrast to the allies, when confronting the secessionism of itsrival or adversary, the U.S. often utilizes the covers of ethnicity, religion, humanrights, and freedom to back up the secession movement. In some cases, Washingtoneven initiated militarized intervention directly to contain its rival or adversary.3.1 Supporting the counter-secession actions of its alliesSecessionisms are often seen in the UK, Spain, France, and Canada, etc. Whendealing with these secessions, the U.S. offers steady support to allies'counter-secessionism actions or mediation proposals to assist the allies in solving thecrises. In the secession issue of Northern Ireland, as there is a large proportion of Irishpeople in the population, the U.S. public always revealed their moral support andsympathy to the people in the conflicting area of Northern Ireland. However, theattitude of the U.S. government to the Northern Ireland independence issue wassystematically shaped by the potential impacts of the Irish people in the presidentialelection, the relations between the U.S. and the U.K., and the strategic interests of theU.S. in Europe, etc.In 1977, President Jimmy Carter stated that if disputants could be back and sit onthe bargaining table, Washington would like to offer necessary support to NorthernIreland. This attitude was settled as the tone of the U.S. on this issue all along the wayafter Carter. After the Cold War, the government of George W. Bush rendered moresupport to the Blair government to maintain the relations between the U.S. and theU.K.. Washington prohibited the entries of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) officersand thereby forced secessionism in Northern Ireland to give up fighting againstLondon. Moreover, the U.S. government issued a rigorous censorship procedure tothe funds collected by Sinn Fein in the U.S., and it also clearly supported the U.K.government’s claim that the IRA should be entirely disarmed. Washington's policiesgradually weakened the IRA’s standpoint in international morality, and the IRAthereby lost material support in the long run. All these components contributed to thesigning of the Good Friday Agreement between the U.K. and Ireland.Concerning the increasingly prevalent secession movement in Quebec of Canadaduring the mid-1990s, the U.S. government adopted a non-interference strategy thathighlighted its nonintervention into Canadian internal affairs and the support to theunification of Canada. On formal and official occasions, Washington avoided makinga public declaration on the independence issue of Quebec. However, when turned tothe private or semi-official occasions, warnings were issued from the U.S. to Quebec.A good example is President Clinton's statement in 1995 that Quebec cannot be amember of NAFTA if it gained independence. He emphasized the importance ofrelations between the U.S. and a unified Canada. This statement served as a latentfactor that substantively influenced the Quebec referendum on the independence ofthat year. In fact, the U.S. evaluation of its interests in the secessionism of Quebecwas thoroughly exposed during the congressional hearing before the 1996’s G-7summit. The participants believed that the U.S. economy would be destroyedultimately if Quebec gained its independence successfully. Apparently, the U.S. didnot expect its largest trade partner and supplier of raw materials, a unified Canadacame into divisions.Another case of the U.S. double standard is Spain. On the 27th of October, 2017,Catalonia declared its independence with a referendum of 70 votes in favor ofindependence, ten votes against independence, and two abstentions at the localparliament. To this issue, Heather Nauert, the Speaker of the U.S. Department of State,said that since there were a great friendship and an enduring partnership between theU.S. and its ally of NATO, Spain, and as Catalonia was a part of Spain, the U.S.would help to keep a powerful and unified Spain through its support to the integrity ofSpanish constitution. After the one-sided referendum of Catalonia, the Spanishgovernment temporarily canceled Catalonia's autonomous status and controlled thelocal demonstrations. The U.S. kept salience to these actions. Washington wasunwilling to suffer its economic interests from the potential independence ofCatalonia, especially its military deployment in Spain under the name of NATO. Inaddition to this, the U.S. did not want to see the domino effect of the Catalonianreferendum spread to Scotland and other areas of its allies under the risk ofsecessionism.3.2 Utilizing and intervening in the secessions of non-allies to contain theirdevelopmentsWhen secessionism occurred in its rival or adversary and adversary’s allies, theU.S., in turn, attempts to intervene in the issue and try to contain the opponent’sdevelopment through the internationalization of the problem. The secessionisms inRussia, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, China, and Iran receive supports from the U.S. toa greater or lesser degree.Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington rendered its support to thesecessions of three Baltic republics positively. After the collapse of the Soviet Union,the U.S., to a further step, backed up the secessions within the federation to a greaterdegree. One of the most typical cases is the U.S.’s support to the secessionism inChechnya. In 1999, Moscow conducted the Second Chechnya War, which leftcritiques to Western countries. The U.S. and other western countries reacteddramatically to this counter-secessionism war. They criticized Russia intensively andeven met with leaders of Chechnya rebels to show the support to the Chechnyasecessions. With all these ways, the western group led by Washington intended tointernationalize the Chechnya issue. During the Second Chechnya War, the U.S.continued its conventional strategy to sensationalize the secessionism of Chechnya. Itmade a clear difference between the counter-terrorism and the Chechnya issue, whichthereby entitled itself with the excuse to criticize that the Russian governmentdestroyed human rights in Chechnya and violated the international humanitarian lawsheavily, which included massacre, torture, abuse of force, limitations of people’sfreedom of expression and mobility, etc.The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was dissolved during the early 1990s,and Serbia and Montenegro formed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The republicmaintained good relations with Russia, which became the pain to the U.S. naturally.In the face of the secessions of Kosovo in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,Washington and its NATO allies not only offered verbal support to the Kosovosecessions but also moved a step further to conduct a 78-day long bombing inYugoslavia (actually in Serbia only) after their request of military deployment inKosovo area was rejected. This bombing forced the retreat of the Yugoslavian army.After that, the Kosovo secession movement grew quickly, which accelerated thecollapse of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In 2006, Montenegro and Serbia wereseparated. On the 17th of February, 2008, Kosovo made a one-sided claim on itsseparation from Serbia. The U.S. government recognized the independence of Kosovothe day after. Under the propaganda of the U.S. and other western states, Kosovo hasnow gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by almost 100 states.Labelling China as the “strategic rival”, the U.S. is adopting a substantivecontainment strategy to China. Since 2019, the U.S. government passed a series ofbills on Taiwan, Hongkong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and other issues which concerned oncore interests of China. Moreover, Washington conducts several provocative actionsand even sanctions on China, which contributes to a complete intervention on theunification issue of China. The bills mentioned above, plus the stigmatizations,sanctions on relevant topics, as well as the public support to the secessions withinChina, do not only paralyze the consensus between the U.S. and China but alsogreatly challenge and undermine the core interests of China on maintaining theunification of the country.4. ConclusionSince the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the integrities of bothterritory and sovereignty are the inherent attributes of a state. Moreover, theseconditions are the basis for the contemporary order of international relations. Theprocedure of the establishment of the nation-state with the prerequisites of exactterritory and sovereignty identifications is also served as the confirmation on thecounter-secessionism issue, which clarifies the fact that the territory and sovereigntyof a state cannot be split. Over the years, the countries around the world havegradually gained consensus on the maintenance of the integrity of the territory and theunification of the state through theories, institutions, constitutions, and internationallaws. This consensus is also treated as the legal and moral basis for the state’s actionson counter-secessionism. In other words, it is a fundamental factor in maintaining theinternational order where the international community should support any activity of arecognized state with sovereignty on counter-secessionism.Indeed, the gamble around secessionism and counter-secessionism shapes theterritory of a state and the situation of world politics, on the one hand; it puts directthreats to the domestic stability and the existing international order on the other hand.As a unique superpower around the world, the U.S. government relies heavily on itsdouble standard strategy. It applies forces as well as the law to itscounter-secessionism policy when faces with domestic secession issues. Meanwhile,in sharp contrast, Washington utilizes secession in its opponent as a tool to maintainits global hegemony. The U.S. gets tough with the secessions of its own or its alliesbut applies a conniving or even supportive strategy to its opponents' secessionisms.Sometimes, it even tries to hamper or paralyze its opponents’ endeavors oncounter-secessionism. What is more hypocritical is the U.S. government’s tactic touse human rights as the political cover, which intentionally confuses borders of theethnic, religious, and human rights issues, to damage the sovereignties of other statesand connive the secessions which happened in states who are deemed as rivals by theU.S.. In this situation, Washington chooses to be indifferent to the negative impacts ofthe organized terrorist actions on the state's division and the ruined human rights ofthe people who suffered from these actions.If we have to put the logic on the U.S.’s attitude to secessionism, it should be thatthe national interest of the U.S. is endowed with priority to any issue we mentionedabove. The agree or disagree with secessionism is overwhelmingly decided by theconsideration of the U.S.’s interest. The U.S. has been the biggest destroyer instead ofa contributor to the contemporary international order, which is based on the charter ofthe United Nations. The U.S. will ultimately suffer from its opportunism and egoismon the secession issues.

Secretary-General of the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), Zurab Pololikashvili, said on Tuesday that Chinese tourists can help boost Egypt's tourism sector which has slumped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

声明:资讯来源于网络,属作者个人观点,仅供参考。 投诉
相关推荐
用庄严法律捍卫神圣信仰 2024-03-29 00:44:56tjldxdkjyxgs 基础同志政治表现评语 2024-03-29 00:09:18tjldxdkjyxgs 最新七夕节爱情祝福短信精编 2024-03-29 01:57:43tjldxdkjyxgs 让妈妈感动的事情作文250字 2024-03-29 01:26:55tjldxdkjyxgs 三十六计读后感 2024-03-29 00:42:53tjldxdkjyxgs 践行社会主义核心价值观方案 2024-03-29 01:53:29tjldxdkjyxgs 徐福东渡与秦始皇的海洋意识 2024-03-29 00:10:22tjldxdkjyxgs 合同审查注意事项 2024-03-29 02:08:34tjldxdkjyxgs 师范院校图书馆改革的瓶颈在哪里 2024-03-29 02:25:27tjldxdkjyxgs 仪器采购调研报告 2024-03-29 01:24:50tjldxdkjyxgs 高职学生心理危机探析 2024-03-29 02:11:26tjldxdkjyxgs 老爸请安心接受这一份微小的报答 2024-03-29 00:16:13tjldxdkjyxgs 大学生暑假活动总结 2024-03-29 02:57:42tjldxdkjyxgs 有关活着的读后感 2024-03-29 02:30:03tjldxdkjyxgs 办事处双拥工作总结 2024-03-29 01:25:12tjldxdkjyxgs
最新发布
晚清新政催化辛亥革命 2024-03-29 02:02:46tjldxdkjyxgs 年节能自查报告 2024-03-29 00:08:34tjldxdkjyxgs 追梦的少年作文 2024-03-29 02:08:54tjldxdkjyxgs 元代回族诗人萨都剌 2024-03-29 00:54:14tjldxdkjyxgs 禁毒国旗下讲话稿2篇 2024-03-29 00:58:21tjldxdkjyxgs 武汉调味品市场调查报告 2024-03-29 02:06:11tjldxdkjyxgs 上学迟到保证书 2024-03-29 01:38:37tjldxdkjyxgs 人教版七年级生物暑假作业答案 2024-03-29 02:15:38tjldxdkjyxgs 新一届龟兔赛跑 2024-03-29 01:40:21tjldxdkjyxgs 非主流霸气网名男生高端的 2024-03-29 01:04:10tjldxdkjyxgs 读做最好的老师心得体会 2024-03-29 00:07:27tjldxdkjyxgs 小升初考试题 2024-03-29 01:45:02tjldxdkjyxgs 活动方案 2024-03-29 02:29:40tjldxdkjyxgs 高中语文听课技巧 2024-03-29 00:17:10tjldxdkjyxgs 歇后语大全查询 2024-03-29 02:35:23tjldxdkjyxgs