關於 牧德offer ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.
#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人

----小弟頹譯------
蓬佩奧：謝謝。謝謝你們。州長，您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣：當您在那個體育館裡散步時，說出“蓬佩奧”的名字，人們就會耳語。因為，我有一個兄弟，Mark，他是一個非常好，一位非常出色的籃球運動員。

請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊（Blue Eagles Honor Guard）及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何？ （掌聲）

也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱，我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱，由海軍陸戰隊介紹，讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 （笑聲）（按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 ）一切都很好。

很榮幸來到Yorba Linda，尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。

在這困難時刻，使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員，感謝，感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。

我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓，包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫，Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower　（尼克遜兩位女兒）對這次訪問的支持。

我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者，他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-（掌聲）-尊貴的客人，謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人，您們必須支付額外的費用（笑）。

以及那些正在觀看直播的人，感謝您的收看。

最後，正如州長所說，我在Santa Ana出生，離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭，您從沒想過我會站在這裡。

我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話，我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien，聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。

我們有一個非常明確的目標，一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面，數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。

我們的目標是明確指出，特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的，並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在，我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民，並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟，我們的自由，乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。

自基辛格（Kissinger）博士秘密訪問中國以來，到明年已經過去了半個世紀，而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。

那時世界大不一樣了。

我們以為與中國交往（engagement）將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。

但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩，看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加，因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。

我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作，並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊，包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大，甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。

從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區，我都有著與美國人心中的疑問：從與中國交往至今，美國人民這50年見到了什麼？

領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確？

這是中國對 "雙贏" 局面的定義嗎？

實際上，從國務卿的角度來看，美國更安全嗎？我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平，並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平？

看，我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理，它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展，如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀，而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀，那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續，也絕不能重返。

正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣，我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.

現在，在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前，我想明確地說，他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情，而且他很可能是對的。

他是中國的傑出學生，冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者，正如我們一樣。

他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視，即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。

1967年，尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。

他的話是這樣的：他說：“從長遠來看，我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前，世界不會安全。因此，我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內，我們必須作出影響，而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”

我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞：“促使改變”。

因此，在歷史性的北京之行中，尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由，更安全的世界，並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。

隨著時間的流逝，美國決策者越來越多地認為，隨著中國變得更加繁榮，它將會對外開放，它會在國內變得更加自由，而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小，它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。

但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是，我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復，但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。

我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂，只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會，研究中心，高中，大學，甚至參加了家長教師會議。

我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化，後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。

我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇，只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。

前一天，Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子：萬豪，美國航空，達美航空，聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及，以免激怒北京。在荷里活，這裏的不遠處，距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者，他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。

公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。

這種企業忠誠度如何運作？奉承會得到獎勵嗎？讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說：“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”

中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密，損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈，然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。

它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。

尼克遜總統曾經說過，他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”，這正是如此。

現在，有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來，這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚，或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大，或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。

無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因，今天的中國在國內都越來越專制，並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。

特朗普總統說：夠了。

我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在，也有人堅持認為，為了對話而對話。

現在，要明確地說，我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前，我去了檀香山，與楊潔篪見面。

這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話，但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。

楊的承諾，就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣，都是空洞的。我想，他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求，因為坦率地說，這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有，特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣，我們必須記住，中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。

正是這種意識形態，正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異，就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。

以我在眾議院情報委員會，然後擔任中央情報局局長，以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗，使我對這種中央理解成為可能：

唯一的方式　—　真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法，不是對中國領導人聽其言，而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說，他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共，我說我們必須＂不信任和核查＂。 （掌聲）

我們，世界上熱愛自由的國家，必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣，促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革，因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。

我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣，把這個假象視為正常國家。

我們知道，與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的，遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議，以作為主導全球的渠道。

但是，通過堅持公平條款，就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣，我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。

我們也知道，與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題，而且其中許多是由國家贊助的，因此無需追求利潤。

華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司，它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅，並為採取了相應的行動。

我們也知道，如果我們的公司在中國投資，他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。

因此，我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作，以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。

我們也知道，我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。

我們知道，解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治，擴大中國帝國，而不是保護中國人民。

因此，美國國防部加大了工作力度，擴大了在東，南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊，以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。

同樣，坦率地說，我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策，推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標，以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。

就在本週，我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館，因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 （掌聲）

兩週前，我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。

我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。

國務院- 在世界各地，各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流，只是要求公平和互惠。

但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力，他們是一個充滿活力，熱愛自由的人民，他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 （掌聲）

無論我走到哪裡，我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談，有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前，我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。

上個月在我的辦公室裡，我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生，他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生，請您站起來，以便我們見到您嗎？ （掌聲）

今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生，你能站起來嗎？ （掌聲）

我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事，共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是，他們認為自己能代表14億被監視，壓迫和害怕說出來的人。

恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點，失去對權力的控制。

試想一下，如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信，並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報，那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。

幾十年來，我們的領袖一直無視，淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話，他們警告過我們所面對之政權。

我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。

但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。

但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心，因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心，因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友，破壞國內外的信任，拒絕財產權和法治。

我有信心。我之所以有信心，是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒，他們知道我們無法回到過去，美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾，悉尼到河內都聽說過。

最重要的是，我相信我們可以捍衛自由，因為自由本身是漂亮的。

看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制，要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。

是的，確實有差異。與蘇聯不同，中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是，北京對我們依賴，甚於我們依賴他們。 （掌聲）

瞧，我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代，某些陷阱（按：修昔底德陷阱）是預設的，中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的，因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣，自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它，就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習，來到這里工作，來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。

是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國，也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權，如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。

但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠，堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。

這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了，我們讓中共制定交往條款，但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。

我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線，而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實，這就是美國最近所做的事情，因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張，因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家，以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。

現在，這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此，其中一些人根本沒有能力，沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確，我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來，因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗，我們無法重複。

我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力，民主國家包括歐洲，非洲，南美，尤其是印度太平洋地區。

而且，如果我們現在不採取行動，那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由，並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝，我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈，中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。

習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴，除非我們允許

現在，這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。

因此，我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國，北約，七國集團國家，二十國集團，我們的經濟，外交和軍事力量合力，如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前，無疑足以應付這一挑戰。

也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體，一個新的民主國家聯盟了。

我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文，我問“要警醒禱告，免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意，肉體卻是軟弱的。”

如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變，共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。

確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命，而美國完全有能力領導它，

因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣，注視著獨立廳，我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。

確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔，包括中國境內的人。

確實，尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變，否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。

今天的危機已經明確了。

今天，覺醒正在發生。

今天，自由世界必須作出回應。

我們永遠無法回到過去。

願上帝保佑你們每個人。

願上帝保佑中國人民。＇

願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。

謝謝你們。（掌聲）

Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.
And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)
Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.
It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.
To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.
We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.
I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.
And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.
And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.
And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.
My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.
We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.
Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.
Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.
Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.
The world was much different then.
We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.
But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.
We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.
I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:
What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?
Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?
Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?
And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?
Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.
As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.
He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.
He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.
In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:
He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”
And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”
So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.
As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.
But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.
The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.
We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.
We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.
We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.
Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.
In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.
This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.
And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”
China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.
It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.
It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.
President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.
Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”
Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.
And President Trump has said: enough.
I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.
Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.
It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.
Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.
As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.
It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.
My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:
That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)
We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.
We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.
We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.
But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.
We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.
A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.
We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.
Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.
We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.
The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.
We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.
And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.
And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.
Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)
We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.
We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.
And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.
But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.
That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.
I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.
And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.
Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)
Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)
I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.
Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.
Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.
For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.
And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.
But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.
But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.
I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.
I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.
And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.
Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.
It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)
Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.
It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.
But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.
And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.
We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.
Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.
Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.
And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.
So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.
Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.
We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”
If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.
Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.
As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.
And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.
Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear.
And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond.
We can never go back to the past.
May God bless each of you.
May God bless the Chinese people.
And may God bless the people of the United States of America.
Thank you all.
(Applause.)

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

譴責這不知所謂的政權
為中國仍有這些勇敢與風骨的人而自豪

【全球法律團體聯合聲明 — 強烈譴責中國政府以吊銷、註銷律師執業證之手段持續打壓維權律師】

自2015年7月爆發轟動全球的「709大抓捕」起，中國政府打壓維權律師的行動已持續近三年。雖已接近尾聲，但打壓行動並未停止，而是從「刑事抓捕」轉變為更為隱秘的「行政懲戒」——即直接吊銷或註銷維權律師的執業證，剝奪維權律師的執業權。[1]據我們觀察，在最近8個月內，全中國已有17名維權律師及3間事務所陸續被吊銷或註銷執業證。對此，我們表示強烈譴責，並認為，中國政府的做法已嚴重違反中國憲法、律師法及國際法有關尊重和保障律師執業權利及公民權利的國家義務，中國政府應當立即無條件撤銷對受影響律師作出的吊銷或註銷執業證的各項決定，並停止對維權律師群體的一切管控和打壓。

我們注意到，從去年9月（即十九大前夕）開始，中國當局就已經在全國範圍內開展了新的一輪針對維權律師的打壓行動，並且愈演愈烈。在過去8個月時間裡，全中國共有9個省份的17名維權律師及3間律師事務所被吊銷或註銷執業證；僅過去一個月內，就有包括謝燕益、李和平、黃思敏丶文東海、楊金柱、覃永沛等在內的6名維權律師收到司法局發出的擬吊銷或註銷執業證的通知書；而廣西唯一一所維權律師事務所「百舉鳴律師事務所」，則更是被南寧司法局在其辦公場所強逼解散。儘管中國政府對外宣稱召開聽證會、給予律師申辯機會，但聽證程序卻極為不公開、不透明，救濟途徑形同虛設。而就在不久前召開的謝燕益律師的聽證會外，一名香港記者甚至被警方圍毆和非法扣留。[2]

同時，這一輪針對維權律師的吊牌運動，亦是「709大抓捕」的延續。在這17名被吊銷或註銷執業證的維權律師中，有超過一半是「709大抓捕」的涉案律師或涉案律師的辯護人，前者包括隋牧青、周世鋒、李春富、謝燕益、李和平等，後者包括余文生、文東海、楊金柱、覃永沛等。打壓前者，目的是要把維權律師群體的核心力量連根拔起；打壓後者，則是要把709抗爭運動中出現的後繼力量徹底剷除。

另外，我們亦注意到，中國政府正在以「行政懲戒」之名，行管控律師網路言論之實。儘管中國《憲法》第35條和聯合國《關於律師作用的基本原則》第23條均保障律師享有言論自由，且不應因其言論而遭受處罰，但如祝聖武、吳有水、余文生、楊金柱等律師都因為在網上公開批評中國共產黨及中國司法制度，而遭當局懲戒；玉品健律師則因他多次於網上撰文評論時政，而被當局向其事務所施壓並要求解雇；另外亦有彭永和、王龍德、王理乾等律師因為公開聲明退出律師協會，遭到報復而被註銷或吊銷執照。[3][4]由此可見，中國政府聲稱的「依法治國」只是欺騙世人的幌子，目的是企圖合理化其以言入罪、打壓異己的手段。我們注意到，前公安部副部長傅政華於今年3月開始擔任司法部部長，我們擔心未來局勢只會更加惡劣。

因此，我們強烈要求中國政府：
1. 立即無條件撤銷對受影響律師作出的各吊銷、註銷執照的各項決定；
2. 停止對維權律師群體的一切管控和打壓，確保律師不會因其代理的案件或發表的言論受到恫嚇、妨礙、不適當的干涉，或者起訴和行政制裁；
3. 切實遵守中國《憲法》、《律師法》及聯合國《關於律師作用的基本原則》有關保障律師權利的規定，尊重律師的執業權利及公民權利。


發起團體：
中國維權律師關注組，香港


聯署團體：
Human Rights Now，日本

律師助律師基金會，荷蘭

法政匯思，香港

臺灣聲援中國人權律師網絡，臺灣

臺北律師公會人權委員會，臺灣

日內瓦律師協會，瑞士


2018年6月6日

[1]根據《律師執業管理辦法》第23條，與所在律師事務所解除聘用合同，且在六個月內未被其他律師事務所聘用的律師，其律師執業證書將被註銷。儘管從法律層面講，註銷與吊銷性質不同，但過往經驗顯示，註銷的法律效果實質上與吊銷相同，律師一般都無法重新申請執業。
[2]https://hk.news.appledaily.com/…/…/article/20180520/20396145
[3]《中華人民共和國憲法》第35條：「中華人民共和國公民有言論、出版、集會、結社、遊行、示威的自由。」
[4]聯合國《關於律師作用的基本原則》第23條：「與其他公民一樣，律師也享有言論、信仰、結社和集會的自由。.....」

-------------------------------------

【A Joint Statement to Strongly Condemn the Chinese Government’s Suppression against Human Rights Lawyers through Revocation and Invalidation of Lawyers’ Licenses】

The Chinese government has continued its repression against human rights lawyers for almost 3 years since the start of the sensational and unprecedented “709 Crackdown” in July 2015. While the crackdown has seemingly come to an end, the suppression has not yet ceased. Apart from the manoeuvre of criminal detention, the Chinese government has now resorted to a subtler form of repression, administrative penalty, which involves revocation or invalidation of lawyers’ legal practice licenses, thus depriving them of their right to practice law.[1]

From our observation, at least 17 human rights lawyers and 3 law firms have had their licenses revoked or invalidated in China over the past 8 months. We, the undersigned, strongly condemn this manoeuvre. We believe that the acts of the Chinese government have seriously violated the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (“the Constitution”), the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Lawyers (“Lawyers’ Law”), and international human rights law which prescribes that state members shall respect and protect lawyers’ right to practice and the civil rights of all citizens. We urge the Chinese government to immediately and unconditionally withdraw all the decisions about revoking and invalidating lawyers’ licenses and to stop all forms of harassment, intimidation and repression against human rights lawyers in respect of their legal practice.

It has come to our attention that the Chinese authorities have launched another wave of nationwide suppression against human rights lawyers since September 2017 (i.e., the eve of 19thParty Congress), which has been intensifying. In the past 8 months, 17 human rights lawyers and 3 law firms from 9 different provinces have been deprived of the rights to practise as lawyers due to the revocation and invalidation of their practising licenses. In the past month alone, 6 human rights lawyers have already received notice from the Bureau of Justice that their licenses were to be revoked or invalidated, including Xie Yanyi, Li Heping, Huang Simin, Wen Donghai, Yang Jinzhu and Qin Yongpei. The sole human rights law firm in Guangxi, the Nanning Baijuming Law Firm, was also forced to be immediately shut down by the Nanning Municipal Bureau of Justice. Despite the Chinese government’s commitment to protect its citizens’ right to a fair and public trial which shall offer lawyers a fair hearing, the hearing procedures have never been truly open and transparent. All legal remedies are de facto futile. One Hong Kong journalist was even beaten by police and illegally detained while attempting to cover the hearing of lawyer Xie Yanyi.[2]

In the meantime, this wave of suppression of human rights lawyers is an extension of the notorious “709 Crackdown” in 2015. Amongst the aforementioned 17 lawyers, more than half are the 709 detainees or the defence lawyers for the 709 detainees. The former includes Sui Muqing, Zhou Shifeng, Li Chunfu, Xie Yanyi and Li Heping, etc., while the latter includes Yu Wensheng, Wen Donghai, Yang Jinzhu and Qin Yongpei, etc. The purpose of repressing the lawyers detained in the “709 Crackdown” is to uproot the core community of human rights lawyers, while the purpose of repressing their defence lawyersis to purge the honorable lawyers arising from the “709 Crackdown”.

It is also noted that the Chinese government has in fact controlled lawyers’ freedom of speech online by threatening to impose “administrative penalties”. According to Article 35 of the Constitution[3]and Article 23 of Basic Principles of the Role of Lawyers (“the Principles”) by the United Nations,[4]lawyers are entitled to freedom of speech and expression. Lawyers shall not be punished simply for exercising their freedom of speech. However, lawyers Zhu Shengwu, Wu Youshui, Yu Wensheng and Yang Jinzhu all received punishment due to their online criticisms of the Communist Party of China and China’s judicial system. In the case of lawyer Yu Pinjian, the law firm he belonged to was pressured by the authorities to dismiss him because he had repeatedly made comments on current affairs and politics online. In addition, lawyers Peng Yonghe, Wang Londe and Wang Liqian had their licenses retributively revoked or invalidated due to their public announcements about quitting the officially-run Lawyers’ Association. Thus it can be seen that China’s alleged “rule of law” is just a veneer to deceive the public. The underlying purpose is to justify its unlawful acts of restricting freedom of speech and repressing dissidents. It is worth noting that the former deputy minister of the Ministry of Public Security, Fu Zhenghua, was named Minister of Justice in March of this year. We share deep concern over the foreseeable exacerbation of the political situation.

In light of the above, we, the undersigned, solemnly demand the Chinese government to:
1. Immediately and unconditionally withdraw all the decisions in respect of the revocation and invalidation of lawyers’ practising licenses.
2. Stop all forms of political repression against human rights lawyers to ensure that lawyers do not suffer intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference, prosecution or administrative sanctions for taking up sensitive cases or for giving speeches in accordance with their recognized professional duties.
3. Duly uphold and respect the legal rights enjoyed by Chinese lawyers, which include the right to practice and civil rights protected under the Constitution, relevant legislation governing the practice of lawyers in China, and the Principles of the United Nations.


Initiator:
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, Hong Kong

Co-signatories:
Human Rights Now, Japan

Lawyers for Lawyers, Netherlands

Progressive Lawyers Group, Hong Kong

Taiwan Support China Human Rights Lawyers Network, Taiwan

Taipei Bar Association Human Rights Committee, Taiwan

The Geneva Bar Association, Switzerland


6th June 2018

[1]According to Article 23 of Administrative Measures for the Practice of Law by Lawyers, if a lawyer is dismissed by the incumbent law firm and not employed by a registered law firm for over 6 months, his or her legal practice license will be invalidated. From a legal perspective, the nature of “revoked” is different from that of “invalidated”. However, past experiences have shown that both statuses have same de facto outcome, lawyers generally cannot resume their practice.
[2]https://hk.news.appledaily.com/…/…/article/20180520/20396145.
[3]Article 35 of Constitution of the People’s Republic of China: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”
[4]Article 23 of United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers: “Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly.”

臺灣聲援中國人權律師網絡 Taiwan Support China Human Rights Lawyers Network Lawyers for Lawyersヒューマンライツ・ナウ Progressive Lawyers Group 法政匯思
Albert Ho Chun Yan Emily Lau Patrick Kar-Wai Poon Chong Yiu Kwong Venus Cheng Vannie Lau