Exclusive: Lebanon’s leaders warned in July about explosives at port – documents

Reuters / Samia Nakhoul, Laila Bassam
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lebanon-security-blast-documents-excl/exclusive-lebanons-leaders-warned-in-july-about-explosives-at-port-documents-idUSKCN2562L7

 

BEIRUT (Reuters) – Lebanese security officials warned the prime minister and president last month that 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate stored in Beirut’s port posed a security risk and could destroy the capital if it exploded, according to documents seen by Reuters and senior security sources.

Debris are seen in the port area after a blast in Beirut, Lebanon, August 10, 2020. REUTERS/Hannah McKay TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Just over two weeks later, the industrial chemicals exploded in a massive blast that obliterated most of the port, killed at least 163 people, injured 6,000 more and destroyed some 6,000 buildings, according to municipal authorities.

A report by the General Directorate of State Security about events leading up to the explosion included a reference to a private letter sent to President Michel Aoun and Prime Minister Hassan Diab on July 20.

While the content of the letter was not in the report seen by Reuters, a senior security official said it summed up the findings of a judicial investigation launched in January which concluded the chemicals needed to be secured immediately.

The state security report, which confirmed the correspondence to the president and the prime minister, has not previously been reported.

“There was a danger that this material, if stolen, could be used in a terrorist attack,” the official told Reuters.

“At the end of the investigation, Prosecutor General (Ghassan) Oweidat prepared a final report which was sent to the authorities,” he said, referring to the letter sent to the prime minister and president by the General Directorate of State Security, which oversees port security.

“I warned them that this could destroy Beirut if it exploded,” said the official, who was involved in writing the letter and declined to be named.

Reuters could not independently confirm his description of the letter.

The prime minister’s office and the presidency did not respond to requests for comment about the July 20 letter.

The prosecutor general did not respond to requests for comment.

‘DO WHAT IS NECESSARY’

The correspondence could fuel further criticism and public fury that the blast is just the latest, if not most dramatic, example of the government negligence and corruption that has already pushed Lebanon to economic collapse.

As protests over the blast raged in Lebanon on Monday, Diab’s government resigned, though it will remain as a caretaker administration until a new cabinet is formed.

The rebuilding of Beirut alone is expected to cost up to $15 billion, in a country already effectively bankrupt with total banking system losses exceeding $100 billion.

Aoun confirmed last week that he had been informed about the material. He told reporters he had directed the secretary general of the supreme defence council, an umbrella group of Lebanon’s security and military agencies chaired by the president, to “do what is necessary”.

“(The state security service) said it is dangerous. I am not responsible! I don’t know where it was put and I didn’t know how dangerous it was. I have no authority to deal with the port directly. There is a hierarchy and all those who knew should have known their duties to do the necessary,” Aoun said.

Many questions remain over why the shipment of ammonium nitrate docked in Beirut in late 2013. Even more baffling is why such a huge stash of dangerous material, used in bombs and fertilisers, was allowed to remain there for so long.

The letter sent to Lebanon’s president and prime minister followed a string of memos and letters sent to the country’s courts over the previous six years by port, custom and security officials, repeatedly urging judges to order the removal of the ammonium nitrate from its position so close to the city centre.

The General Directorate of State Security’s report seen by Reuters said many requests had been submitted, without giving an exact number. It said the port’s manifest department sent several written requests to the customs directorate up until 2016 asking them to call on a judge to order the material be re-exported immediately.

“But until now, no decision has been issued over this matter. After consulting one of our chemical specialists, the expert confirmed that this material is dangerous and is used to produce explosives,” the General Directorate of State Security report said.

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

The road to last week’s tragedy began seven years ago, when the Rhosus, a Russian-chartered, Moldovan-flagged vessel carrying ammonium nitrate from Georgia to Mozambique, docked in Beirut to try to take on extra cargo to raise the fees for passage through the Suez Canal, according to the ship’s captain.

Port authorities impounded the Rhosus on December 2013 by judicial order 2013/1031 due to outstanding debts owed to two companies that filed claims in Beirut courts, the state security report showed.

In May 2014, the ship was deemed unseaworthy and its cargo was unloaded in October 2014 and warehoused in what was known as Hangar 12. The ship sank near the port’s breakwater on Feb. 18, 2018, the security report showed.

Moldova lists the owner of the ship as Panama-based Briarwood Corp. Briarwood could not immediately be reached for comment.

In February 2015, Nadim Zwain, a judge from the Summary Affairs Court, which deals with urgent issues, appointed an expert to inspect the cargo, according to the security report.

The report said the expert concluded that the material was hazardous and, through the port authorities, requested it be transferred to the army. Reuters could not independently confirm the expert’s account.

Lebanese army command rejected the request and recommended the chemicals be transferred or sold to the privately-owned Lebanese Explosives Company, the state security report said.

The report did not say why the army had refused to accept the cargo. A security official told Reuters it was because they didn’t need it. The army declined to comment.

The explosive company’s management told Reuters it had not been interested in purchasing confiscated material and that the firm had its own suppliers and government import licences.

From then on, customs and security officials wrote to judges roughly every six months asking for the removal of the material, according to the requests seen by Reuters.

Judges and customs officials contacted by Reuters declined to comment.

A number of customs and port officials have since been detained as part of the investigation into the blast.

A still image taken from a drone footage shows the damage two days after an explosion in Beirut’s port area, Lebanon August 6, 2020. Reuters TV/via REUTERS

‘BAD STORAGE AND BAD JUDGMENT’

In January 2020, a judge launched an official investigation after it was discovered that Hangar 12 was unguarded, had a hole in its southern wall and one of its doors dislodged, meaning the hazardous material was at risk of being stolen.

In his final report following the investigation, Prosecutor General Oweidat “gave orders immediately” to ensure hangar doors and holes were repaired and security provided, a second high-ranking security official who also requested anonymity said.

On June 4, based on those orders, state security instructed port authorities to provide guards at Hangar 12, appoint a director for the warehouse and secure all the doors and repair the hole in the southern wall, according to the state security report and security officials.

The port authorities did not immediately respond to requests for comment

“The maintenance started and (port authorities) sent a team of Syrian workers (but) there was no one supervising them when they entered to fix the holes,” the security official said.

During the work, sparks from the welding took hold and fire started to spread, the official said.

“Given that there were fireworks stored in the same hangar, after an hour a big fire was set off by the fireworks and that spread to the material that exploded when the temperature exceeded 210 degrees,” the high-ranking security official said.

The official blamed the port authorities for not supervising the repair crew and for storing fireworks alongside a vast deposit of high explosives.

Reuters could not determine what happened to the workers repairing the hangar.

“Only because the hangar faces the sea, the impact of the explosion was reduced. Otherwise all of Beirut would have been destroyed,” he said. “The issue is all about negligence, irresponsibility, bad storage and bad judgment.”

Trump Seeks TikTok Payment to U.S., Despite No Clear Authority

Bloomberg / Justin Sink
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/trump-seeks-tiktok-payment-to-u-s-despite-no-clear-authority?srnd=premium-asia

President Donald Trump repeatedly insisted on Monday that any sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations would have to include a substantial payment to the U.S. — but it wasn’t clear under what authority he can extract a payout.

It would be unprecedented, based on recent history, for the U.S. government to collect a cut of a transaction involving companies in which it doesn’t hold a stake. Trump said the money would come from China or an American buyer such as Microsoft Corp.

“The United States should get a very large percentage of that price, because we’re making it possible,” Trump told reporters at a news conference Monday evening. “Whatever the number is, it would come from the sale, which nobody else would be thinking out but me, but that’s the way I think. And I think it’s very fair.”

Earlier in the day, Trump said TikTok will have to close in the U.S. by Sept. 15 — unless there’s a deal to sell the social network’s domestic operations to Microsoft or another American company.

Trump set off a furious scramble over the fate of the Chinese-owned app on Friday, when he said he would ban the company’s operations through an executive action on Saturday. But the weekend passed without any official move from the White House, after the president spoke with Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Satya Nadella about his company’s efforts to purchase the viral video application.

Clock Ticking

Microsoft said in a blog post that it was aiming to complete a deal for TikTok’s operations in the U.S., as well as in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, no later than Sept. 15. The White House had insisted upon that deadline, according to people familiar with the matter. It could prove an uphill climb, with key details for the deal — including price — still not worked out, people familiar with the discussions said.

Microsoft’s blog post also said it’s committed to “providing proper economic benefits to the United States, including the United States Treasury.” That language referred to tax revenue and job creation, according to a person familiar with the matter — rather than some sort of special transaction fee.

Trump compared the arrangement to landlord-tenant dynamics. “Without the lease, the tenant doesn’t have the value,” he said. “Well, we’re sort of in a certain way the lease. We make it possible to have this great success.”

The U.S. assesses fees associated with deals under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which investigates overseas acquisitions of U.S. businesses. But those charges — set on a sliding scale and going no higher than $300,000 — didn’t fit what Trump described.

CFIUS has been reviewing ByteDance Ltd.’s 2017 purchase of the lip-synching app Musical.ly that was later folded into TikTok.

The White House has said it’s concerned that ByteDance could be compelled to hand over American users’ data to Beijing or use the app to influence the 165 million Americans, and more than 2 billion users globally, who have downloaded it. And Trump has looked to ratchet up pressure on China ahead of November’s election, frustrated by slow implementation of the trade pact inked earlier this year and the spread of the coronavirus for which he blames China.

— With assistance by Josh Wingrove, Liana Baker, and Dina Bass

COVID-19 and school openings are a dangerous mix. Don’t force us students to risk it.

NBC News / Sadie Bograd, rising high school senior
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/covid-19-school-openings-are-dangerous-mix-don-t-force-ncna1235536

High school students know that we can’t simply go back to life as usual. NBC News / Courtesy Emanuelle Sippy / Getty Images

I’m sad that I missed the prom last spring. I’m sad that I missed my final day of 11th grade and saying goodbye to my graduating senior friends. I’m even sad that I missed studying for finals and taking AP tests in a crowded gymnasium and experiencing the exhausted feeling of relief that follows.

But that doesn’t mean I think we should have kept schools open. Unhappy as I may feel, I know the momentary joy of a school dance, even one as momentous as prom, was not worth the accompanying danger to public health. I know that school closures and self-quarantines were necessary measures to keep our community healthy and safe.

Though teens are often accused of being irresponsible risk-takers, my peers and I seem to generally agree that these sacrifices were worth it. In addition to the many friends who have told me so, a student-led education advocacy group in Kentucky that I’m a part of, the Prichard Committee Student Voice Team, conducted a survey in May of more than 9,000 students from 119 counties across the state. Some 84 percent agreed with the decision to close schools to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Students know that our personal desires for a traditional high school experience are outweighed by the common good. We know that to return to school, we need detailed plans to protect students and school employees, ones that follow health recommendations. We know we can’t simply go back to life as usual. So why doesn’t our government?

Over the past weeks, White House officials have called for a return to a pre-pandemic education system. Last week, Trump threatened to withhold federal aid from schools that do not reopen fully, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began recommending that schools return to in-person teaching.

These directives are infuriating. With COVID-19 cases continuing to rise, the administration’s efforts to force me and my peers back into crowded buildings without protection reveal just how little they care for our well-being and for the well-being of our at-risk friends and relatives. I’d rather spend my senior year online than needlessly endanger the lives of my school’s teachers and staff.

It makes me angry that I, a student, have managed to prioritize the guidance of public health officials over my desire for the traditional high school experience when so many government officials struggle to make a similar sacrifice or calculus.

The stereotypical teenage battles with authority have now, quite literally, become a fight for our lives — and contrary to expectations, we’re the ones asking for more rules and restrictions. Instead of arguing with our parents over curfews and social media use, we’re demanding that our policymakers honor our unwillingness to go back to school if we can’t do so safely.

Despite students’ concerns, some states are starting to act on President Donald Trump’s suggestions. In Jefferson, Georgia, for instance, schools are opening in-person without requiring students and teachers wear masks, practically guaranteeing the spread of the coronavirus. They’re doing this notwithstanding vocal complaints from much of the student body and nationwide polls showing Americans are still concerned about reopening schools.

In Florida, teachers unions are suing to block a July 6 emergency order that requires schools to be open five days a week. In South Carolina, Gov. Henry McMaster made similar demands that schools offer in-person instruction.

Other countries are demonstrating that a safe return seems possible. In nations across Asia and Europe, schools have reopened without major outbreaks. But those countries waited until their COVID-19 caseloads were relatively under control before sending students and staff into what would otherwise be hotbeds of infection.

They also took significant precautions before attempting in-person education, precautions I am happy to take myself when my school eventually transitions away from virtual learning. From distancing desks and staggering class schedules to daily temperature checks and mandatory mask policies, there are dozens of measures that can alleviate the risks created by a pandemic that’s still raging.

School systems, however, must also help students in a holistic way. COVID-19 has made it harder for students to access mental health care even as they experience increased feelings of depression and anxiety, while the economic crisis is creating new difficulties for students and families. Schools have historically played a role in providing social services, mental health assistance and nutritious meals, a role that needs to be amplified in the coming months.

In Kentucky, at least, most school administrators seem to recognize the danger facing students, teachers and staff. After exploring a variety of hybrid options, like having only half the student body come to school on a given day, my district recently announced that we would start the semester virtually.

This news was disappointing, to say the least, but also a relief. I’m glad my state has taken the safer, more rational course of action. But the confirmation that I won’t be seeing the vast majority of my friends or teachers this August, that I’ll be spending the foreseeable future mostly confined within the walls of my house, brought on a fresh feeling of loss and dismay.

It also made me wish we had taken more forceful action sooner. It made me wish we hadn’t let our desire to reopen the country at all costs outweigh our respect for undeniable facts.

The inability of our policymakers to grasp a concept that a fifth grader could understand is highlighting something students have known all along: Our voices matter. As the direct recipients of education, we deserve to be included in decisions that impact our everyday lives. The public officials determining what school will look like during a pandemic need to listen more to public health experts — but also to students, who spend over 30 hours a week experiencing firsthand the impacts of their policies.

We won’t go back to a school that’s unconcerned with our health and safety. We won’t listen to the mandates of a school system that won’t listen to us.

无可T代,“出色”演绎,Tiffany T1系列新作七夕全球首发

Tiffany & Co. 蒂芙尼T1系列18K黄金及白金手镯、戒指

2020年8月6日,正值七夕来临之际,世界著名珠宝及腕表品牌Tiffany & Co. 蒂芙尼于官网和微信限时精品店全球首发Tiffany T1系列18K黄金与18K白金全新杰作,并携手“蒂芙尼T代言人”易烊千玺,再次演绎无可T代的摩登魅力。

“蒂芙尼T代言人”易烊千玺佩戴Tiffany T1系列18K黄金及白金新作,演绎无可T代的摩登魅力

Tiffany T1系列极具辨识度的“T”形图案与数字“1”巧妙融合,自今年4月上市以来,凭借其大胆的美学设计和全新摩登风范重新定义现代奢华。全球首发的Tiffany T1系列18K黄金与18K白金新作,在延续Tiffany T1设计精髓的基础上,融入更多至臻材质,再次诠释无可T代的独立主张和自信态度。

Tiffany & Co. 蒂芙尼T1系列18K黄金、白金及玫瑰金手镯与戒指

「个性之我,最是独一无二」

什么是无可T代?是恣意张扬的风采,亦是鲜明独到的主张。蒂芙尼相信,无论是外在风格,还是内在气质,皆源于内心深处那个独一无二的自我。Tiffany T1系列,凝先锋精神于创新设计,诠释不惧束缚的自信态度,演绎勇往直前的独立精神,旨在礼赞坚韧强大的内在力量,鼓舞每一个人拥抱自我,挥洒个性。

全新Tiffany T1 系列珠宝的推出,进一步展现蒂芙尼在设计美学中蕴含的独到风格见解。从时尚优雅的玫瑰金,到大胆夺目的黄金与天然纯净的白金,蒂芙尼以现代精神运用多元材质,满足不同风格需求,亦彰显同一态度:每个人都能从Tiffany T1系列中探寻属于自己的至美风采,释放果敢无畏的自我力量。

「非凡质感,演绎摩登新姿」

Tiffany T1系列新作,融入18K黄金与18K白金材质,细腻质感邂逅流畅构型,一展令人惊喜的风格魅力。18K黄金材质明丽夺目、卓尔不凡,在现代设计中焕发全新摩登韵味,于指间、腕间折射个性锋芒。18K白金材质则以独特银白色光泽,映衬“T”形图案的醒目出众,赋予这一系列简洁纯粹之美。

 Tiffany & Co. 蒂芙尼T1系列18K黄金镶钻宽式手镯

至臻材质与璀璨钻石的巧妙碰撞,进一步造就Tiffany T1系列全新珠宝的别样魅力。技艺精湛的蒂芙尼工匠大师手工镶嵌颗颗钻石,交错有致间光芒流转,耀目非凡。在蒂芙尼钻石的点缀下,Tiffany T1系列新作兼具坚韧造型与精致韵调,又于简约气息中释放灵动活力。一系列出色质感与卓越细节,再次彰显蒂芙尼独树一帜的现代奢华定义。

 Tiffany & Co. 蒂芙尼T1系列18K白金镶钻窄式戒指

Tiffany T1系列18K黄金及18K白金作品,延续大胆设计,糅合非凡材质,书写以摩登为名的风格篇章,让无可T代再次成为你的态度主张。Tiffany T1系列新作线上全球首发后将登陆线下精品店。

关于Tiffany & Co. 蒂芙尼

1837年,查尔斯·路易斯·蒂芙尼(Charles Lewis Tiffany)先生在纽约创办Tiffany & Co.蒂芙尼,由他开设的纽约精品店凭借非同凡响的华美宝石迅速成为珠宝爱好者心中的“珠宝殿堂”。自此,蒂芙尼成为典雅气质、新颖设计、匠心工艺以及卓越创新的代名词。20世纪,伴随着销售网络不断扩张、文化影响力持续壮大,蒂芙尼品牌风靡全球,杜鲁门·卡波特(Truman Capote)的经典小说《蒂芙尼的早餐》以及奥黛丽·赫本®(Audrey Hepburn®)主演的同名电影恰是这段繁荣的佐证。

如今,蒂芙尼公司集珠宝、钟表及奢侈饰品的设计、制造和营销业务于一身,与旗下关联公司共同秉持品质立身的匠心精神。公司现有14000余名员工,其中约5000名技艺精湛的工匠在蒂芙尼工作室从事钻石切割和珠宝创作。蒂芙尼一直致力于负责任地发展自身事业,保护自然环境、倡导多元与包容的文化,并对公司运营所在的环境和群体产生积极影响。

目前,蒂芙尼公司已在全球开设300余家精品店,致力于打造全渠道零售体验。更多品牌信息欢迎访问蒂芙尼网站www.tiffany.cn。

添加蒂芙尼官方微信

帝舵皇家系列腕表

帝舵皇家系列

2020年,受新冠疫情的影响,巴塞尔和日内瓦两大钟表展宣布取消,也影响到了新品的正常发布。在钟表爱好者的翘首以盼下,帝舵表接连带来了两次惊喜:先是在7月初推出了碧湾1958型海军蓝款,受了钟表爱好者们的热烈追捧。紧接着又在7月末发布了帝舵皇家(TUDOR Royal)系列腕表。

与前者相比,此次发布的皇家系列并不是一款单品,而是面向年轻消费者打造的全新腕表系列。帝舵也别出心裁,选择了一种新颖且时髦的产品发布形式:伴随着由周杰伦亲自担当创意、指导并主演的宣传影片在线上引发轰动,皇家系列腕表也同步现身于帝舵表专卖店中。

在竞争激烈的高级制表行业中,帝舵表虽然一直保持着相对低调的形势作风,但却拥有着超高的人气和口碑。这要追溯至帝舵表起源的1926年,当时劳力士创办人汉斯·威尔斯多夫 (Hans Wilsdorf ) 注册了“The TUDOR”商标,后来又正式创立了Montres TUDOR SA帝舵表公司。

其产品沿袭劳力士腕表所尊崇的品质理念,但售价更为平易近人,深受大众的欢迎。在近一个世纪的发展历程中,帝舵表始终以风格优雅、精准可靠、品质卓越和物超所值而著称。

从某种意义上说,皇家(Royal)这个系列名称也是对品牌历史传统的延续。早在上世纪50年代,帝舵便推出Royal钢制腕表,象征着出色的品质,如今的皇家系列腕表也同样值得信赖。

皇家系列的特色

具体到产品,帝舵皇家系列给人的第一感觉是兼具运动气息与潮流风范,虽然采用了偏运动风的荧光指针和一体式表带,但对表圈和表盘细节的处理却非常讲究,精美且不失雅致。

  • 坑纹外圈

首先请注意皇家系列的表圈。在内行人眼中,表圈存在的意义主要是展现设计和工艺,皇家系列腕表更是如此。它的表圈是在传统的坑纹表圈的基础上,增加了立体的切割条纹,使得切割坑纹与抛光饰面相互交替,形成高度和明暗上的反差,体现出精良的做工和装饰效果。而且这种表圈的设计风格是帝舵表原创的,只此一家,别无分号。

  • 一体式“五链节”表带

对腕表稍有了解的朋友都知道,一体式表带往往是高端运动表的“专属配置”,不仅要与表壳浑然一体,对工艺的要求也更高。皇家系列的表带采用“五链节”结构,与表壳衔接的两列链节经过仔细抛光,外侧链节及中间链节则以磨砂处理,肉眼可辨的精湛工艺体现出了制作者的匠心。表带链节的表面柔韧顺滑,边缘细节处理则贯彻了帝舵表一直以来对佩戴舒适度的重视。作为一体式表带,材质当然要与表壳统一,除了316L钢款之外,此系列还可选择间隔链节的黄金钢表带,搭配18 ct黄金表圈的款式。

  • 精致时尚的表盘

表盘是腕表的脸面,自然不能有丝毫大意。帝舵皇家系列腕表的表盘就十分讲究,选择也足够丰富。其表盘饰以别致的太阳光线饰纹,黑色、银色、香槟色或蓝色的盘面,令饰纹的光线效果更为显著,同时又不失沉稳和典雅魅力,令人目不转睛。此外,帝舵皇家系列腕表的表盘镶有罗马数字时标,这也是唯高端表款惯用的设计元素,在时尚之中增添了一丝复古气息。此外,珍珠母贝款的女装腕表则镶嵌钻石时标,高雅而不失妩媚。

  • 瑞士自动上链机芯

皇家系列腕表共分为四种尺寸(41、38、34或28毫米),分别转载三种型号的瑞士制造自动上链机芯,性能可与天文台认证的精密时计相媲美。其中43毫米款装载的是带有星期和日期显示的2834型自动上链机芯;38和34毫米款装配的是带有日期显示功能的2824型自动上链机芯;而28毫米款内置的则是专为女性打造的世界上最袖珍的自动上链机芯之一2671型,同样带有日期显示功能。

  • 丰富的款式

如前文所述,皇家系列腕表分为四种尺寸,配合316L钢或18 ct黄金这两种材质,以及9款不同配色和装饰工艺的表盘,共有多达52个款式可供选择,其中不乏周杰伦的41毫米蓝盘同款,以及浪漫、典雅的女装表。这也就意味着,阁下不仅可以从中挑选出适合自己的款式,还可从容搭配出不同价位和颜色的对表组合。

皇家系列的产品哲学

自1926年创立以来,帝舵表一直致力于打造兼具出众性能与相宜价格的优质腕表。皇家系列正是此严苛制表理念的传承典范,使每一位佩戴者均能以相宜价格享受到无愧于帝舵品牌的超凡品质。

该系列腕表从里到外皆为瑞士制造,表壳由整块316L不锈钢打造而成,配备旋入式上链表冠及底盖,确保佩戴时防水深度始终能达100米(330英尺)。腕表内部装配瑞士产自动上链机芯,精确度可达天文台表级别,属微型机械工艺之典范。表盘及指针均由技艺高超的专业工匠制作而成,“五链节”表带则以其独特的设计、严谨的工艺和精巧的打磨,带来流畅舒适、简约灵动的佩戴体验。

对于广大年轻消费者而言,腕表的价格和质保服务往往是他(她)们最关注的问题,这也正是帝舵皇家系列最令人心仪之处。该系列的每款产品皆享有帝舵提供的五年质保服务,无需进行登记,也不要求任何维修检查,且支持转让。相应的,它的价格却异常亲民,根据配置的高低,从17000元到30000元不等(希望品牌提供具体数额),其中的顶配采用了18 ct黄金坑纹外圈和镶钻表盘,价格优势非常明显。

凡此种种,无不体现出了帝舵皇家系列的非凡品质和物超所值,更深刻诠释了帝舵表#天生敢为#的品牌精神和一如既往精益求精的制表哲学。毕竟周天王都肯为它自导自演,自弹自唱,品质绝对差不了。

Lee Teng-hui, 97, Who Led Taiwan’s Turn to Democracy, Dies

纽约时报中文网 | JONATHAN KANDELL
https://cn.nytimes.com/asia-pacific/20200730/lee-teng-hui-dead/

Lee Teng-hui in Taipei in 2018. He succeeded Chiang Ching-kuo to become the first native president of Taiwan and later its first popularly elected leader. Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

Lee Teng-hui, who as president of Taiwan led its transformation from an island in the grip of authoritarian rule to one of Asia’s most vibrant and prosperous democracies, died on Thursday in Taipei, the capital. He was 97.

The office of Taiwan’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, announced the death, at Taipei Veterans Hospital. News reports said the cause was septic shock and multiple organ failure.

Mr. Lee’s insistence that Taiwan be treated as a sovereign state angered the Chinese government in Beijing, which considered Taiwan part of its territory and pushed for its unification with the mainland under Communist rule. His stance posed a political quandary for the United States as it sought to improve relations with Beijing while dissuading it from taking military action to press its claims over the island.

As president from 1988 to 2000 — the first to be elected by popular vote in Taiwan — Mr. Lee never backed down from disputes with the mainland, and he continued to be a thorn in its side well into his later years. In 2018 he called, unsuccessfully, for a referendum on declaring the country’s name to be Taiwan, not the Republic of China, as it is formally known — a move that would have paved the way for sovereignty.

“China’s goal regarding Taiwan has never changed,” he told The New York Times in a rare interview at a time when the Chinese government was trying to further isolate the island from the international community. “That goal is to swallow up Taiwan’s sovereignty, exterminate Taiwanese democracy and achieve ultimate unification.”

President Tsai’s office praised Mr. Lee’s achievements, saying in a statement, “The president believes that former President Lee’s contribution to Taiwan’s democratic journey is irreplaceable and his death is a great loss to the country.”

Mr. Lee entered Taiwan’s politics during the dictatorial Nationalist Party regimes of Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo, who assumed power after his father’s death in 1975. The Nationalists ruled with brutality, which reached a peak in 1947 with what became known as the February 28 incident, in which up to 28,000 Taiwanese were massacred by Chiang Kai-shek’s troops in response to street protests. The Nationalists imposed martial law two years later, and it was not lifted until 1987 by Chiang Ching-kuo.

Born in Taiwan, Mr. Lee joined the Nationalist Party, known as the Kuomintang or KMT, in 1971 and became an agricultural minister. He was later mayor of Taipei and governor of Taiwan Province before being tapped as vice president in 1984.

When Chiang Ching-kuo died of a heart attack in 1988, Mr. Lee succeeded him, becoming the first native Taiwanese president.

Mr. Lee being sworn in as president in January 1988 after the death of President Chiang Ching-kuo. Mr. Lee had been vice president, chosen by Mr. Chiang.Credit…Associated Press

Mr. Lee dismantled the dictatorship and worked to end the animosity between those born on the mainland and the native Taiwanese. He pushed the concept of “New Taiwanese,” a term suggesting that the islanders, no matter their backgrounds, were forging a common identity based on a democratic political system and growing prosperity.

He pursued a deliberately ambiguous policy with mainland China, shifting between rigid hostility, tentative conciliation and defiant independence. His attempts to demonstrate Taiwan’s international sovereignty sometimes provoked the mainland into saber-rattling military exercises.

One such episode occurred after a trip by Mr. Lee to the United States in 1995, ostensibly to visit Cornell University, his alma mater. China accused the United States and Taiwan of colluding to raise the island’s diplomatic status. In a demonstration of Beijing’s ire, Chinese military forces fired test missiles into the Taiwan Strait, which separates the island from the mainland. Washington countered by positioning warships off the Taiwan coast. The affair strained relations between Washington and Beijing for months.

Mr. Lee again infuriated Beijing in a German television interview in 1999 by suggesting that relations between Taiwan and China should be conducted on a “special state-to-state” basis. That provoked tirades in the official Chinese media. The People’s Liberation Army Daily denounced Mr. Lee as “the No. 1 scum in the nation.” The Xinhua News Agency called him a “deformed test-tube baby cultivated in the political laboratory of hostile anti-China forces.”

A picture released by China’s state-run Xinhua news agency showed People’s Liberation Army military exercises in 1996 during Taiwan’s first open presidential election, which Mr. Lee won. Xinhua, via Reuters

But such attacks made Mr. Lee only more popular in Taiwan. A tall, silver-haired, tough-minded campaigner with a dazzling smile, he used his charisma to rally support. He spoke the slang of the ports and factories, rode bullhorn trucks with local candidates and set off firecrackers to please the deities of local temples.

“The people like Lee Teng-hui because he stands up for them in the face of China’s dictators,” Chen Shui-bian, the mayor of Taipei at the time, said in 1996,

Lee Teng-hui was born on Jan. 15, 1923, in Sanzhi, a village on the outskirts of Taipei. His father was a police detective in the employ of the Japanese authorities that ruled Taiwan as a colony from 1895 to 1945. Mr. Lee studied agronomy in Japan at the Kyoto Imperial University and served as a second lieutenant in the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II, though he never saw action.

He returned to Taiwan after the war and secretly joined the Communist Party of China while completing his undergraduate work at the National Taiwan University. “I read everything I could get my hands on by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,” he wrote in his 1999 memoirs, “The Road to Democracy.”

He joined the protests in the February 28 incident in 1947, but he soon renounced Marxism and joined the KMT. The party later destroyed his Communist Party records when he became politically prominent.

Mr. Lee inspecting troops in 1997. Once in office he ended decades of state-of-emergency measures on Taiwan. Reuters

Mr. Lee married Tseng Wen-fui, the daughter of a prosperous landholding family, in 1949, and both became devoted Presbyterians. They had two daughters, Anna and Annie; their only son, Hsien-wen, died of cancer. He is survived by his wife and daughters as well as a granddaughter and a grandson.

Taiwan became a separate political entity in 1949 after the civil war in China brought Mao’s Communists to power, forcing Chiang’s defeated government to flee to the island, some 100 miles from the mainland.

For the next 30 years, Taiwan, with American support, maintained the fiction that it was the seat of China’s legitimate government in exile. Washington finally recognized the Communist government in Beijing in 1979 and severed its formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. But it continued to guarantee Taiwan’s security against a mainland invasion and backed negotiations between both sides aimed at reunification.

Mr. Lee cultivated ties with the United States during two academic stays, receiving a master’s degree in agricultural economics from Iowa State University in 1953 and a Ph.D. from Cornell in 1968. In between, he taught in Taiwanese universities, gaining recognition as an agricultural economics scholar and attracting the attention of Chiang Ching-kuo, then a deputy prime minister under his father. On the younger Chiang’s recommendation, Mr. Lee was appointed minister without portfolio. He distinguished himself by promoting programs that raised health standards and farm incomes.

Mr. Lee, center, and his wife, Tsang Wen-hui, foreground, on a goodwill visit to the United States in 1983, when he was governor of Taiwan Province. He was named vice president the next year. Associated Press

With Chiang Ching-kuo installed as president, Mr. Lee was appointed mayor of Taipei in 1978 and set about modernizing the capital’s road and sewer systems. As governor of Taiwan Province, from 1981 to 1984, he pushed agrarian reforms that helped achieve a balanced growth between urban and rural areas, still a hallmark of Taiwan.

Mr. Chiang selected Mr. Lee as his vice president in 1984. It was a dramatic departure from the usual practice of appointing only former mainland Chinese to top government posts. His selection was viewed as a gesture toward the native Taiwanese, who had been politically powerless despite accounting for 85 percent of the population.

When Mr. Lee became president in 1988 on Mr. Chiang’s death, he moved to break with the Chiang family’s autocratic system, publicly deploring the February 28 massacres. He ended decades of state-of-emergency measures, allowed citizens to send mail to mainland relatives and visit them, dropped bans on street demonstrations, eased press restrictions, promoted a multiparty system and decreed open elections for the National Assembly.

The KMT easily retained control of the legislature, but more than three-fourths of the seats went to Taiwanese natives.

“What had been a tight police state under Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo is now the most democratic society in the Chinese-speaking world,” The Times declared in a 1992 editorial.

Mr. Lee campaigning in Taipei in 1996. After succeeding to the office as vice president, he became Taiwan’s first popularly elected president. The Asahi Shimbun, via Getty Images

Mr. Lee was elected outright in 1996, in Taiwan’s first open presidential contest. Seeking to begin a dialogue with Beijing, he supported a policy of “one China, two equal governments.” But he insisted that Taiwan would rejoin the mainland only if China became a democratic, capitalist society. In the meantime he again called for “state to state” relations between Taipei and Beijing, a policy that the mainland rejected. Instead, Chinese officials tried to persuade other countries to cut all ties with Taiwan, asserting that any improvement in relations would come only after Mr. Lee had retired.

Mr. Lee was succeeded in 2000 by Chen Shui-bian, the Democratic Progressive Party candidate whose election ended KMT rule. In his two terms, Mr. Chen presided over a huge expansion of Taiwan’s trade and investment in China, a process that had already been underway during the Lee presidency. But like his predecessor, Mr. Chen frustrated Beijing’s attempts to get Taipei to acknowledge the mainland’s sovereignty and embrace a timetable for unification.

Mr. Lee came out of retirement in 2018 to help create the Formosa Alliance, a new party calling for the formal independence of Taiwan from China. But the party did not go ahead with a promised referendum on independence.

Late in life, Mr. Lee endured the ignominy of corruption charges. In June 2011, he was indicted, along with a financier, Liu Tai-ying, on charges of embezzling almost $8 million in public funds during his presidency. Mr. Lee was acquitted in 2013.

He took solace in proclaiming that he had helped his island of 23 million inhabitants serve as a beacon for the 1.4 billion people on the mainland. Or, as he wrote in his memoirs, “We have developed the economy and have embraced democracy, becoming the model for a future reunified China.”

Mr. Lee in 2018. He came out of retirement that year to help create the Formosa Alliance, a new party calling for the formal independence of Taiwan from China. Lam Yik Fei for The New York Times

U.K. changes diplomatic immunity rules after teen, Harry Dunn, dies near U.S. base

NBC News / Adela Suliman
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-k-changes-diplomatic-immunity-rules-after-teen-harry-dunn-n1234566

LONDON — Britain will no longer offer immunity from criminal prosecution to the families of the American staff at a military base near where a teenager was killed by a car driven by the wife of an American diplomat.

The change, announced by Foreign Minister Dominic Raab on Wednesday, comes after intense lobbying by the family of Harry Dunn, 19, who died in August 2019 after his motorcycle was struck by Anne Sacoolas, an American, near the base at Croughton Annex — a British installation used by the United States.

Harry Dunn.Courtesy of the Dunn Family

The United Kingdom’s decision comes a day after Dunn’s death was raised in a meeting between Prime Minister Boris Johnson — who has previously called for Sacoolas to return to the country — and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was making a brief trip to London.

“The U.S. waiver of immunity from criminal jurisdiction is now expressly extended to the family members of U.S. staff at the Croughton Annex,” Raab said in a statement. “Permitting the criminal prosecution of the family members of those staff, should these tragic circumstances ever arise again.”

Raab said the changes took effect Monday, implying they would not be retroactive.

Dunn’s mother, Charlotte Charles, welcomed the decision as a “huge step forward” and said it would ensure a similar tragedy would “never happen to another family,” she told Britain’s PA News Agency.

She said her son would be “proud” but vowed to continue to campaign for Sacoolas to return to the U.K.

The case sparked a transatlantic dispute between Washington and London about whether Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity from prosecution.

Dunn’s parents have called for Sacoolas to return to the U.K. to face trial after she was charged in December with causing death by dangerous driving.

Her lawyer has said previously that Sacoolas will not return voluntarily to potentially face jail for “a terrible but unintentional accident.”

The State Department also said Sacoolas was covered by diplomatic immunity and could not be extradited, in a move that caused friction with London. NBC News has yet to receive comment from the State Department on the latest U.K. rule change.

Family spokesman Radd Seiger speaks on behalf of father of Harry Dunn, Tim Dunn, center right, and mother Charlotte Charles, center left, after meeting with Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab in 2019. Peter Summers / Getty Images

In October, Dunn’s family met with President Donald Trump at the White House to petition him to extradite Sacoolas. During the meeting, Trump dropped a “bombshell” according to Dunn’s mother, revealing that Sacoolas was waiting to meet the family in the room next door. The family declined to meet her.

“We have the deepest sympathy for Harry Dunn’s family. No family should have to experience what they have gone through and I recognize that these changes will not bring Harry back,” Raab said.

He said he hoped the change in rules would at least bring “some small measure of comfort” to the Dunn family.

Australian Student Sues Government Over Financial Risks of Climate Change

New York Times 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/world/australia/lawsuit-climate-change-bonds.html

Firefighters on the outskirts of Bredbo, New South Wales, Australia, in February, when wildfires devastated vast stretches of the state. Matthew Abbott for The New York Times

SYDNEY, Australia — Katta O’Donnell grew up with a fear of fire. As a child, she remembers burning bark falling from the air because of wildfires. This year, she worried that the blazes sweeping across regional Australia, fueled by climate change, could destroy her home outside Melbourne, the same way they had turned thousands of acres into ash.

Now, Ms. O’Donnell, 23, is leading a class-action lawsuit filed on Wednesday that accuses the Australian government of failing to disclose the material risks of climate change to those investing in government bonds. The suit accuses the government and the treasury of breaching its duty by not disclosing the risks of global warming and their material impact on investors.

It is the first time, experts say, that such a climate change case has been brought against a sovereign nation.

Ms. O’Donnell is joining a wave of young climate activists who have stepped on to the world stage in recent years. The Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, for example, has spurred a global protest movement, testified before the United States Congress and the European Parliament, scolded world leaders in a fiery speech at the United Nations for not doing enough and sounded that alarm at the World Economic Forum in Davos, declaring, “Our house is still on fire.”

But Ms. O’Donnell’s case takes a unique tack by focusing on government bonds and the investment environment, said Jacqueline Peel, a law professor at University of Melbourne.

“My personal experience with climate change makes everything I read about climate change more tangible,” Ms. O’Donnell, a fifth-year law student at La Trobe University in Melbourne, said in a recent interview. “I want my government acting with honesty and telling the truth about climate risks.”

Simply put: Any risks to the country’s economic growth, value of its currency or international relations, to name a few factors, might change the value of her investment, her suit states.

Ms. O’Donnell, backed by a team including two prominent lawyers, is not asking for damages, but wants the government to step up on its climate change policies. The suit seeks an injunction stopping the government from further marketing bonds until they add those disclosures.

Katta O’Donnell, who is leading a class-action lawsuit against the Australian government. Photo: Molly Townsend

“The claim asks for disclosure of risks — it doesn’t tell the government what to do or how to act,” said David Barnden, one of three lawyers representing Ms. O’Donnell. All took her case free, they said.

But experts say that the case’s strategy is interesting given that the government has the power to legislate on climate change and control, in part, that risk.

The Australian government has not publicly responded to the lawsuit. Reached for comment, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department said in a statement that it did not comment on current court proceedings.

Australia is physically vulnerable to climate change, which has helped drive drought, broken temperature records and led to the bleaching of the Great Barrier reef, so the financial risks of investing in the country have raised concerns. In 2019, Sweden’s central bank said it was letting go of Western Australian and Queensland government bonds in part because the greenhouse emissions from both were too high.

In recent years, the country’s financial and corporate regulator have pressured financial institutions that issue bonds to disclose their plans to measure and mitigate the risks related to climate change.

“One of the major issuers of securities on the global financial markets is not leading from the front,” Rob Henderson, the former chief economist for National Australia Bank, said of the government’s lack of disclosure.

Ms. O’Donnell’s case builds on an emerging trend of climate litigation, with calls for private companies to take responsibility for their part in the growing threat to the planet.

A Peruvian man chose to sue Germany’s largest energy company because, he said, melting glaciers exacerbated by climate change are threatening his home. Other nations, including the Pacific island of Vanuatu, which are facing a threat to their very existences because of climate change, have said they are considering taking legal action against the world’s biggest fossil-fuel companies.

In all, 1,587 climate litigation cases have been brought worldwide since 1986 and May this year, with Australia second only to the United States, according to the Grantham Institute of Research on Climate Change and the Environment. The cases have been filed “as a way of either advancing or delaying effective action on climate change,” the institute says.

It is unclear if Ms. O’Donnell will be successful. But with many private corporations measuring — and promising to mitigate — their contributions to climate change, there is “strong acceptance of the simple argument that climate change poses material and financial risks,” said Anita Foerster, a senior lecturer in business law at Monash University.

Ms. O’ Donnell, who bought her first government-issued bonds this year, says her interest in climate law and its effect on investors began when she heard Mr. Barnden, now her lawyer, speak at a lecture last year. She said she chose her legal strategy because she wanted to educate herself and others who bought such bonds of the potential financial risks of climate change.

A forest near Lake Conjola in New South Wales, Australia, where a fire swept through on Dec. 31. Matthew Abbott for The New York Times

“All routes are crucial, and we will need to unite.” she said. “But investment and the economies and the climate are all so closely linked, and that really needs to be highlighted.”

“The government knows about the problem,” she added. “They know the solutions, and they know what they need to do but they’re not doing it.”

Mr. Henderson said he expected the case to prompt those in other nations to follow suit: “Other people will be saying, hang on what about our government?”

TikTok introduces US$200 million fund for US creators despite political headwinds

South China Morning Post / Coco Feng
https://www.scmp.com/tech/apps-social/article/3094501/tiktok-introduces-us200-million-fund-us-creators-despite-political

TikTok creators in the US will be able to tap into a new US$200 million fund. Photo: EPA-EFE

TikTok, the short video app facing a potential ban in the US, has introduced a US$200 million fund to reward creators on its hugely popular platform.

The fund, open to applications from US creators above 18 starting in August, will initially target influencers such as teachers and livestreamers and help all video makers collaborate on paid campaigns with brands, the company said Thursday.

The funding will be distributed in the coming year and is expected to grow during that time. Qualified recipients must meet an unspecified baseline for followers and post original content in line with TikTok rules.

TikTok, the first major success in global cyberspace by a Chinese company, is facing strong political headwinds in several international markets. In the first half of 2020, the app recorded 596 million downloads, ranking top among non-game apps even without taking into account its Chinese version Douyin, according to analytics firm Sensor Tower.

The US is TikTok’s third-largest market, contributing 8.2 per cent of new installations from January to June, after India and Brazil, which accounted for 27.6 and 9.6 per cent respectively, according to Sensor Tower.

A US Senate panel on Wednesday introduced a proposed ban on TikTok being used on devices operated by government employees. The legislation will move to the Senate floor and then be voted on by both chambers.

In India, 59 Chinese apps, including TikTok, were banned after a deadly border clash last month. Australia is also scrutinising the app over foreign interference and data privacy concerns. Pakistan’s telecoms authority on Tuesday urged TikTok to control obscenity, vulgarity and immorality on the platform.

“While the past few months have been challenging for many, we’ve been awed by the outpouring of empathy, humour, and truly uplifting content from our users,” TikTok US general manager Vanessa Pappas wrote on its website.

TikTok has long been accused of lacking in rewards for content creators. Unlike YouTube which allows creators to monetise content from ads on the platform, TikTok influencers only receive tips during live streams, which is a very small part of the video content.

Earlier this week, three of TikTok’s biggest creators announced off-platform deals. Charli D’Amelio, the most followed creator and her sister Dixie D’Amelio announced a make-up line, and Addison Rae, the platform’s second most followed account, said she will host a Spotify-exclusive podcast co-hosted by her mother.

The new fund aims to “realise additional earnings” for creators and “encourage those who dream of using their voices and creativity to spark inspirational careers,” Pappas wrote.

中国对美政策的困境:如何保持强硬但避免“分手”

纽约时报中文版 / KEITH BRADSHER, STEVEN LEE MYERS
https://cn.nytimes.com/china/20200724/us-china-consulate/

北京——两周前,中国外交部长王毅曾呼吁美国在两国关系问题上悬崖勒马,寻找合作途径。没过几天,他在与俄罗斯外长通电话时抱怨说,美国“已经失去了理智、道德和信用”。

问题现在是,中国在这方面能做什么。特朗普政府对中国的广泛攻击,几乎没给中国领导人留下多少不会威胁让两国关系彻底破裂的选项。在中国正与印度、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚等许多其他国家发生冲突的时候,如果中美关系彻底破裂,北京可能会更加孤立,已受新冠病毒大流行及其全球后果影响的中国经济也可能遭受伤害。

美国周二公布命令,要求中国仅在72小时内关闭驻休斯敦总领事馆,这只是政府激怒中国官员的最新行为。在短短几周里,中国政府已忍受了抵制中国5G无线技术的运动力度加大、对负责香港和穆斯林为主的新疆地区官员的制裁,现在美国又指控中国派遣数十名隐瞒身份的军人来美窃取商业、军事,甚至医学秘密。

中国外交部发言人周四再次誓言,将对美国关闭领馆的做法采取必要的反制措施。他把美国政府的指控斥为“恶意诬蔑”。

官方的愤怒正在中国激起反美情绪,让鹰派更加大胆地发声。民族主义者呼吁,中国除了采取克制的针对性措施,还要更进一步,甚至应该考虑关闭美国驻香港总领事馆。

“让他们紧张着吧,”中共党报《环球时报》总编辑胡锡进在提到驻中国六个使领事馆的美国外交官时写道。他说,美国驻香港总领事馆“明摆着”就是个情报中心,并大大夸大了驻香港工作人员的数量。

他还提到了驻休斯敦总领事馆收到关闭命令后的匆忙反应,可以看见有人在领馆院子里把文件放在金属容器中烧掉。“让他们各家领馆都做一个紧急计划,都把文件打好包,准备烧掉。”

美国已命令中国关闭其驻休斯敦的领事馆。GO NAKAMURA/GETTY IMAGES

幕后的中国高级官员似乎无意让紧张局势进一步升级,他们担心在特朗普总统竞选连任的当下,任何举动都可能让他有可乘之机。特朗普如果以高调的方式与中国摊牌,可能会分散美国人对他在疫情中拙劣应对措施的注意力,让他能以一个保卫自己国家对抗外国势力的领导人形象来进行竞选。“这是一种典型的游戏,从外部找一个分散注意力的事情,来激发人民对总统的支持,”北京的香港问题高级顾问刘兆佳说。

与此同时,北京不能在美国的密集攻击面前表现软弱。中国的学校逐步培养起来的、被官方媒体放大的民族自豪感要求中国领导人在来自国外的挑战面前保持强硬立场。

“中国需要维护自己的荣誉和主权,”上海复旦大学国际关系教授沈丁立说。

中国外交部发言人汪文斌在周四的例行记者会上说得很明白,中国官员们十分清楚他们的两难处境。

“我们没有兴趣去干预美国的大选,我们也希望美方不要在大选当中拿中国说事,”他说,并马上警告特朗普政府:“我们奉劝美方不要一错再错,否则中方必将作出正当和必要的反应。”

与美国紧张关系的不断升级暴露了北京在应对问题上的分歧。美中之间的冲突比中国官员仅在几周前所预计的要广泛、激烈得多。

据几名参与中国政策制定的人士透露,分歧中的一方是中国安全部门和军队的官员,他们反对采取任何可能被美国解读为软弱的和解立场。另一方是那些主要关心经济问题的官员,他们寻求对美国的行动做出更慎重的回应,比如保持贸易停战状态不变。由于外交问题的敏感性,这些知情人士要求不透露姓名。

熟悉中国政策制定的人士说,即使在驻休斯敦领事馆关闭之后,中国仍会执行今年1月15日与美国签署的所谓第一阶段贸易协议。

如果中国想在美国总统大选中伤害特朗普的话,北京可以停止大量购买美国食品。根据新冠病毒疫情暴发之前签署的贸易协议,中国同意购买美国食品。停止购买会惩罚美国农民,他们在一些州可能是重要的选民阵营。

芝加哥大型贸易公司福斯通(INTL FCStone)驻上海的大宗农产品专家达林·弗里德里希(Darin Friedrichs)说,到目前为止,中国今年夏天一直在大量购买美国的玉米、小麦、高粱和猪肉。不到两周前,中国完成了有史以来最大一笔购买美国玉米的单笔订单,距离上一笔大宗交易仅隔4天。

今年1月,美国和中国签署了一份有限的贸易协议。中国据说将继续遵守这份协议。PETE MAROVICH FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

中国领导人习近平仍是北京政策辩论的最终仲裁者,他还没有对两国关系恶化发表言论。周三,关闭领事馆的消息公开时,习近平正在远离北京的吉林省视察,似乎未受外交冲突的惊扰。周四,他视察中国人民解放军空军航空大学时,只谈了8月份纪念建军节的事情。

“北京的政策总是由习本人来调整,”北京的独立分析师吴强说。“他自己踩油门,然后自己踩刹车。”

中国人似乎对中美关系的急剧恶化感到震惊。外交部长王毅在7月9日的讲话中似乎为稳定两国关系画出了途径。

“习近平主席多次强调:我们有一千条理由把中美关系搞好,没有一条理由把中美关系搞坏,”他说。“只要双方都有改善和发展中美关系的积极意愿,我们就能够推动中美关系走出困境,重回正轨。”

尽管如此,中国人在许多新战线上面临对峙。在关闭领事馆的这轮最新攻击中,特朗普政府指控中国外交官在美国各地的几起经济间谍和试图盗窃科研成果的案件中起帮助作用。

中国官员愤怒地谴责了关闭领事馆的做法,称其为一种挑衅行为,将进一步破坏已经恶化的关系。中国驻休斯敦总领事蔡伟说,关闭驻休斯敦领事馆的做法是对中美关系的“极大破坏”。中国驻休斯敦总领馆是1979年中美正式建交后,北京在美国设立的第一个领事馆。

在以前关系紧张时,两国元首特朗普和习近平有时会通过打一次长途电话或见一次面来缓和分歧。在贸易战恶化时,以及在新冠病毒暴发初期双方的言语冲突升级时,都曾发生过这种情况。

不过,华盛顿现在用的语调已比以前更糟。特朗普似乎对化解危机已经不再感兴趣。

“习近平反而可以采取主动,”加州大学圣迭哥分校21世纪中国研究中心主任谢淑丽(Susan L. Shirk)说。“习近平也可以通过邀请美国与中国一起领导一场为测试、生产和公平分配新冠病毒疫苗做规划的国际努力,来展示中国的善意。”

来自华盛顿的强硬政策和言辞表明,是美国,而不是中国,正在为双边关系设定越来越对抗的基调。“我认为,开始的时候你可以将关系的大部分失衡归咎于中国,”亚洲协会美中关系中心主任夏伟(Orville Schell)说。“但随着美国尽最大努力挑战中国,它似乎不再有兴趣敞开大门,找到改进措施。”

考虑到美国行动的广范程度,以及两党对这些行动越来越多的支持,即使特朗普的挑战者小约瑟夫·R·拜登(Joseph R. Biden Jr.)在大选中获胜的话,目前也不清楚中国是否能够指望情况会有所改善。

夏伟指出,拜登任副总统时曾与习近平见过多次面,两人甚至一起旅行过。

“拜登可以利用他们之间存在的一种对称来重塑中美关系,”夏伟说。“真正的问题是,习近平是否能用同样的方式来回应——为得到一点东西而做出一点让步,这是否会被视为软弱。”

“我确实认为拜登及其团队完全有能力找到一个新的平衡点,”夏伟还说。“我不太相信中国会发现这一点容易做到。”