|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 08:47 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
SuperKedah 发表于 18-9-2020 08:25 PM
現在, 證據這麼明確, 你要不要承認並作出澄清 :
1) Sri Lanka的Hambantota Port不是一代一路的冬冬
2) 債務問題, 日本與印度加起來都快70%了.....
它們才是讓Sri Lanka陷入債務陷阱的凶手!!!!
( ...
不管你承不承认，一贷一赂带来的弊端和威胁已是事实，很多工程已经喊停，西非國家塞拉利喊停大陸在當地建造機場的計劃，泰国眉公河工程也是喊停，原因是生态环境会被破坏加上主权和安全会受威胁。马国被迫继续是因为不想亏了45亿赔偿金，不然老早也已经喊停。斯里兰卡和中国关系还算不错也被阴了，见过人家遇鬼的经历当然都有提防。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 08:50 PM
|
显示全部楼层
不管你承不承认，一贷一赂带来的弊端和威胁已是事实，
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 08:53 PM
|
显示全部楼层
你只是一張嘴說這不好, 那不好...又不提出讓人信服的證據....
有提出個時空穿越的劇情....有一個被打臉的債務故事....然後你說,
不管你承認不承認.......都是弊端與威脅......
你不會臉紅不好意思的嗎????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 09:06 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah 于 18-9-2020 09:08 PM 编辑
泰国眉公河工程也是喊停，原因是生态环境会被破坏加上主权和安全会受威胁。
這個我也清楚, 和一代一路根本無關....
有涉及六個國家, 即中國, 緬甸, 竂國, 泰國, 柬埔寨.
是為了改善湄公河國際航道疏浚工程.....新聞有報導:
2016年底，为进一步提高澜沧江-湄公河航运的便利化水平和安全性，泰国内阁审议通过了2015-2025年澜沧江-湄公河国家间航运发展规划。今年1月，在缅甸曼德勒召开的航运联合委员会第15次会议上，泰方宣布已批准湄公河疏浚工程的前期工作。泰国港务部门负责人表示，疏浚工程是根据沿岸六国协议进行的，目的是扩大水道，保证500吨级货船能够全年通行，增加货运量和节约成本。巴育总理近日在回答媒体提问时也强调，湄公河疏浚工程是流域内各国达成的共识，不是任何国家的单方行为。
是六個國家達成的共識.....現在你只說是中國的錯....
你嘛! 能不能不要反中反到這麼無腦.
當其他國的決策者都是塑膠嗎?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 09:36 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
SuperKedah 发表于 18-9-2020 09:06 PM
這個我也清楚, 和一代一路根本無關....
有涉及六個國家, 即中國, 緬甸, 竂國, 泰國, 柬埔寨.
是為了改善湄公河國際航道疏浚工程.....新聞有報導:
是六個國家達成的共識.....現在你只說是中國的錯....
你嘛 ...
怎么会无关? 这是前车之鉴，这债务协议还加剧了对习近平标志性“一带一路”倡议最为刺耳的指责：全球投资和借贷项目实际上相当于是为全世界的弱小国家设下的债务陷阱，助长了各个陷入困境的民主国家的腐败和专制行为。
数月以来，对斯里兰卡、印度、中国以及西方官员的采访以及对港口项目文件和协议的分析都无情地表明，中国以及其控制的公司在渴求资金的小国中如何确保了自己的利益。
在斯里兰卡2015年选举期间，中国港口建设的大笔资金直接流向了拉贾帕克萨的竞选助手和竞选活动，拉贾帕克萨对中国提出的条件一概接受，在中国削弱印度在南亚影响力的行动中，他被视为一个重要盟友。政府的调查核验了文件及现金支票记录，纽约时报查看了这些款项。
下面一段有没有很熟悉? 和我国一贷一赂像不像?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 09:53 PM
|
显示全部楼层
開甚麼玩笑, 有甚麼証據? 胡扯也要有個限度.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 09:56 PM
|
显示全部楼层
数月以来，对斯里兰卡、印度、中国以及西方官员的采访以及对港口项目文件和协议的分析都无情地表明，中国以及其控制的公司在渴求资金的小国中如何确保了自己的利益。
拿出來啊....證據何在....證據在你的嘴上???
不懂你啦, 反中反到腦殘....完全都是你的一張嘴在車大炮!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 18-9-2020 09:58 PM
|
显示全部楼层
你要寫科幻小說就寫吧....你提不出任何證據前,
我都當間碟, 政治或科幻小說在看.
我在等你的證據!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 10:38 AM
|
显示全部楼层
如果以下的债你中国认为公平，应该要还，那么那些什么东海岸，斯里兰卡等，也是公平的，外国自然也还中国的债了。
美国称中国欠偿1.6万亿百年国债 酝酿催还
发表时间： 23/08/2020 - 11:27
美国国会参众两院共和党议员相继推出议案，呼吁华盛顿向北京收回108年前由时任中华民国政府发行的近两万亿美元债券的“百年老账”。金融专家和活动人士表示，如果华盛顿奉行“一个中国”的政策，北京就是唯一的主权债务人。
据自由亚洲报道称，美国议员促北京当局偿还1.6万亿百年国债。该报道引据国际媒体8月22日消息，来自田纳西州的共和党籍国会众议员马克·格林（Mark Green）日前提出了一项决议案，呼吁中国政府偿还超过1.6万亿美元的债务，其中包括拖欠美国主权债务持有者的利息。此前，亚利桑那州国会参议员玛莎·麦克萨利（Martha McSally）和田纳西州国会参议员玛莎·布莱克本（Marsha Blackburn）在上星期共同提出了一项类似的决议案。
该报道称，这项没有法律约束力的决议案，表达了一些国会议员的意愿；只有行政当局能够对此采取行动。
决议案中所提到的中国政府发行的债券，是由当时的中华民国政府，以黄金作为后盾于1912年发行的债券。但当时的国民政府在1949年因为与中共的内战败退到了台湾。公众关心，要收回这笔“百年老账”是否有法理依据，以及历史中是否有类似先例。
据该报道，金融专家和活动人士均表示，主权债务的追溯期永远不会失效。
观察人士认为，北京长期以来一直坚持要美国奉行“一个中国”的政策，而按照国际法继任国政府应对其前任政府的债务负责。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 10:45 AM
|
显示全部楼层
如果以下的债你中国认为公平，应该要还，那么那些什么东海岸，斯里兰卡等，也是公平的，外国自然也还中国的债了。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 10:45 AM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 11:18 AM
|
显示全部楼层
先提出它何以歸類為惡債在國際法上的論述吧.
美国称中国欠偿1.6万亿百年国债 酝酿催还
发表时间： 23/08/2020 - 11:27
美国国会参众两院共和党议员相继推出议案，呼吁华盛顿向北京收回108年前由时任中华民国政府发行的近两万亿美元债券的“百年老账”。金融专家和活动人士表示，如果华盛顿奉行“一个中国”的政策，北京就是唯一的主权债务人。
据自由亚洲报道称，美国议员促北京当局偿还1.6万亿百年国债。该报道引据国际媒体8月22日消息，来自田纳西州的共和党籍国会众议员马克·格林（Mark Green）日前提出了一项决议案，呼吁中国政府偿还超过1.6万亿美元的债务，其中包括拖欠美国主权债务持有者的利息。此前，亚利桑那州国会参议员玛莎·麦克萨利（Martha McSally）和田纳西州国会参议员玛莎·布莱克本（Marsha Blackburn）在上星期共同提出了一项类似的决议案。
该报道称，这项没有法律约束力的决议案，表达了一些国会议员的意愿；只有行政当局能够对此采取行动。
决议案中所提到的中国政府发行的债券，是由当时的中华民国政府，以黄金作为后盾于1912年发行的债券。但当时的国民政府在1949年因为与中共的内战败退到了台湾。公众关心，要收回这笔“百年老账”是否有法理依据，以及历史中是否有类似先例。
据该报道，金融专家和活动人士均表示，主权债务的追溯期永远不会失效。
观察人士认为，北京长期以来一直坚持要美国奉行“一个中国”的政策，而按照国际法继任国政府应对其前任政府的债务负责。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 11:18 AM
|
显示全部楼层
1) 斯里蘭卡的合約有那條有不公平, 違反本國法律或國際法的事項.
2) 東海岸鐵路也參照 (1)
3) 一帶一路也要參照 (1)
按照國際法, 它是惡債.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 11:23 AM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah 于 19-9-2020 01:31 PM 编辑
你這就錯了.... 你貼了文, 當然你得先面對別人的質問.
等這詰問過程結朿, 你才可以要求別人提出其
論述解釋來回應你的質問!!! 這才是交互詰問的程序.
所以, 這個回合沒結朿前, 請你依規矩,
先回應別人的質問!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 11:25 AM
|
显示全部楼层
哦! 可以啊, 你認為如此,
那你就提出你的說明,
證據也一併貼上來support 你的說法.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 05:16 PM
|
显示全部楼层
日期是14号，所以当大家讨论完了14号的质问，再来讨论过后的发文。
所以，你貼了文, 當然你得先面對別人的質問.
等這詰問過程結朿, 你才可以要求別人提出其
論述解釋來回應你的質問!!! 這才是交互詰問的程序.
所以, 這個回合沒結朿前, 請你依規矩,
先回應別人的質問!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 05:17 PM
|
显示全部楼层
在你解释你中国之前的债是恶债，所以不用还后，就到我了。
请你就提出你的說明,
證據也一併貼上來support 你的說法.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 19-9-2020 06:23 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah 于 19-9-2020 06:24 PM 编辑
早就己貼出來了, 連support的資料都貼出了, 沒爬文就叫,
真的是低智的麻拉佬.
95樓:
https://cn.cari.com.my/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=4241459&pid=134847949&fromuid=1864021
資料早就齊全了, 輪到你啦, 等你表演....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 20-9-2020 02:38 PM
|
显示全部楼层
资料那里有齐啊，最重要的那几块静静不出声，就当着没有了？
人家借你钱作为抗日战争的财务资助借贷，变成你口中的恶债？这不是叫做忘恩负义咯！
China's secret? It owes Americans nearly $1 trillion
By Richard Parker
China has a secret: It owes American investors hundreds of billions of dollars.
The Chinese government doesn't like to talk about it and the U.S. government doesn't want to raise it. But decades ago, Beijing defaulted on debt owed to Americans, as well as investors and governments around the world. In one case, it was paid. In the rest it was not. More than 20,000 American investors own this debt. The U.S. government may also own Chinese war debt, unpaid since World War II.
With the simple stroke of an executive proclamation, President Barack Obama can begin the process of addressing this issue. A 1930s-era law has established a quasi-public agency within the Securities and Exchange Commission, known as the Corporation of Foreign Securities Holders, which can arbitrate this dispute, much as a predecessor agency did for decades. China can both afford and benefit from this solution; it will afford goodwill at a time when relations between the world's two superpowers are strained.
The story begins nearly 100 years ago, in 1913, when the government of China began issuing bonds to foreign investors and governments for infrastructure work to modernize the country. As the country fell into civil war in 1927, paying these debts became increasingly difficult and the government fell into default. Even so, in April 1938, the Nationalist government of China began to issue U.S.-dollar denominated bonds to finance the war against Japan's brutal invasion.
Locked in a pitched battle for survival, the government issued these bonds into 1940. As part of its wartime financial aid, the U.S. government further provided a $500 million credit to China in March 1942, shipping gold there and helping to stabilize the currency. In return, it appears that the U.S. government redeemed some of these dollar-denominated bonds. But China doesn't appear to have repaid this debt either, according to State Department records, and the declaration of the People's Republic of China in 1949 ended decades of political, military and financial cooperation.
While successor governments are usually bound by the debts of predecessor governments, the new Communist government refused to pay any of these claims. The issue lay dormant for decades, just as the bilateral relationship did. Then, in 1979, as part of normalizing relations, Washington released government financial claims regarding the expropriation of American property and appears to have dropped the matter of the war debt entirely. However, it is one thing for government decision-makers to let go of government debt, however questionable that is.
And it is entirely another thing for individual citizens to press their claims.
Some U.S. investors tried to sue the Chinese government in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes it very hard for any U.S. citizen to sue a foreign government in U.S. courts because the law generally says that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction.
The law usually only allows the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if a foreign government waives its immunity, commits a tort or seizes property. Recent additional exceptions have been added for terrorism. China lost an initial summary judgment for failing to appear in court but, with the urging of the U.S. State Department, later appeared in court and successfully argued that U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction.
Today, the Chinese bonds held by U.S. investors may be worth as much as $750 billion, according to Jonna Bianco, president of the American Bondholders Foundation, who estimates the value of bonds held by investors worldwide may be $10 trillion, including interest and penalties for default.
Over the years, congressional interest has been piqued. The late Rep. Henry Hyde convened hearings in 2003 and advocated that the bondholders press their case. In March, Republican Rep. Ken Calvert and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, along with eight other members of Congress, asked the Government Accountability Office to look into the matter. In April, Rep. Gary Miller inquired with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
In general, governments do inherit the debt of their predecessors just as they inherit the assets of the nation.
Governments have defaulted on debts since at least the 4th century B.C., when 10 of 13 Greek cities could not pay their bills; ironic, yes. And there is a long history of settlements, too. In the last 200 years, more than 70 governments, from Austria to Vietnam, have defaulted and eventually settled for far lesser amounts, allowing them to borrow once more, according to an MIT study, which adds: "The great majority of defaults in the 19th and 20th centuries eventually led to some form of settlement between creditors and the debtor country."
Examples abound. An international arbitration panel found that post-revolutionary Iran needed to pay the United States for military aid in 1948. Post-apartheid South Africa has not repudiated debt incurred under the previous regime. In 2006, Great Britain paid the final installment on a World War II-era loan from the United States and Canada, and even sent a thank-you note. Russia has paid debt incurred under the tzars. One exception argued by governments is that in some cases a previous regime's debt is "odious." That is, the debt was incurred to enrich the regime or oppress the people.
Neither seems the case in China, which may be why it has never submitted to international adjudication. China, for its part, has not exactly disavowed the debt; it simply has selectively refused to pay it. Beijing paid British investors a miserly $39 million upon the takeover of Hong Kong in 1987. France has tried to press the issue, even at the World Trade Organization. Further, in Taiwanese press accounts Chinese officials have indicated, in fact, that they might pay the United States -- as part of a negotiation over the final status of Taiwan.
Technically, this calls into question China's stellar credit ratings and those of its government-owned enterprises. But specifically, the U.S. government has a legal obligation to its citizens. The 1933 Securities Act established both the Foreign Bondholders Protective Council, under State and Treasury, and the Corporation of Foreign Security Holders, under the SEC, to get foreign governments to address debts owed to private U.S. investors. Housed in a Virginia suburb, the council in 47 instances settled the debts of foreign governments, including communist ones, to U.S. citizens. In 1975, the Polish government paid U.S. investors one-third the face value, or $8.5 million, of nine different series of bonds, all inherited from previous governments.
Indeed, President George W. Bush's counsel directed the bondholders to the council in 2001 but the council did nothing, most likely to keep from rocking the bilateral U.S.-China boat. Now, the council is shuttering its doors, as it has completed dozens of cases and no administration wanted to refer the Chinese case for fear of upsetting Beijing again. However, the Corporation of Foreign Security Holders is still on the books and represents the only chance for U.S. investors to be paid.
All that has to happen is that President Obama issue a proclamation to stand up the corporation, and a staff, at the SEC. The bondholders would bring their bonds in for examination and verification of the certificates and serial numbers. Then the corporation could get about settling the issue through payment, reissue of bonds, restructuring or even settling the debt. Many of these people are not wealthy investors but just everyday citizens. Bianco herself is a Tennessee cattle farmer.
The reality is that a settlement could benefit everyone. Yes, it will be politically distasteful in Beijing. But in all likelihood, a settlement would likely be struck for a fraction of the face value of the bonds. Unlike 1949, China today has the ability to pay. It would be seen as good faith by Americans. And that, in turn, would help reassure us about China's increasingly important place in the world. There are simply too many other questions about about China's peculiar brand of state capitalism.
And besides, this is what economic superpowers do: They fulfill their obligations.
Richard Parker, a former Pentagon correspondent for Knight Ridder, is president of Parker Research in Austin, Texas. He is a regular contributor to McClatchy-Tribune. Researcher Emily Boyd contributed to this article.
欠债还钱，天经地义，几时还钱？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 20-9-2020 02:48 PM
|
显示全部楼层
tuaceng 发表于 20-9-2020 02:38 PM
资料那里有齐啊，最重要的那几块静静不出声，就当着没有了？
人家借你钱作为抗日战争的财务资助借贷，变成你口中的恶债？这不是叫做忘恩负义咯！
China's secret? It owes Americans nearly $1 trillion
By Ric ... China's secret? It owes Americans nearly $1 trillion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 本周最热论坛帖子
|
2321 
46
