Friday, January 17, 2025

The EU economy is recovering modestly

European Union Economic Update | Q3-2024 

The EU economy is recovering modestly

Weak Chinese demand and a potential trade war with the U.S. are weighing on exports.

The EU economy is recovering modestly but still faces significant structural adjustments and external pressures. In the third quarter of 2024, gross domestic product grew 0.4 percent compared with the previous three-month period in both the eurozone and the broader EU, fueled by steady domestic consumption and a rebound in international tourism. However, stubborn inflation and tighter European Central Bank policies have eroded consumer purchasing power and curbed borrowing. Ireland and Poland have outpaced other economies, leveraging tech-driven exports and EU-funded infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, Germany and Italy lag due to high energy costs and structural barriers.

The EU’s economic outlook remains clouded by several challenges. Rising energy costs, worsened by the cutoff of Russian gas, are straining industrial economies, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. Southern Europe is grappling with high youth unemployment and growing sectoral inequalities, further straining social stability. Global trade uncertainties, including weaker Chinese demand and potential U.S.-EU frictions, are undermining export growth. Efforts like the European Green Deal and the Recovery and Resilience Facility aim to drive sustainable growth, but balanced progress will require tackling inefficiencies and fostering competitiveness across all member states.

BRICS' Monetary Ambitions Collapse Under Dollar Strength

BRICS Currency Summit Showdown: Is It Too Late for the US Dollar? BRICS' Monetary Ambitions Collapse Under Dollar Strength


For several years, the BRICS have sought to reduce their dependence on the US dollar through the development of a monetary alternative. However, at the beginning of 2025, the reality of the foreign exchange market eludes them. The dollar is stronger than ever, reaching new heights while the currencies of the bloc collapse. The Indian rupee plummets to a historic low of 85.93, the Chinese yuan weakens, and other local currencies struggle to resist. Despite the efforts of the BRICS to counter the hegemony of the greenback, the current dynamics expose the limits of their de-dollarization strategy and raise questions about the viability of a credible alternative.

The dollar crushes BRICS currencies

The BRICS’ de-dollarization project faces an unforgiving reality: the dollar remains the safe haven for global markets. At the start of the year, the DXY index, which measures the strength of the greenback against a basket of currencies, experienced nine consecutive days of gains, reaching 109.30, close to its all-time high of 109.53. This rise complicates the ambitions of the bloc, which struggles to impose a credible alternative.

The surge of the dollar has immediate repercussions on BRICS currencies. Thus, the Indian rupee collapsed to 85.93 against the dollar, its lowest historical level, and even threatens to cross the 86 mark. The Chinese yuan and the Japanese yen follow the same trajectory, unable to withstand the pressure from the greenback. Despite the BRICS’ efforts to limit their exposure to the dollar, the markets continue to favor the American currency, thereby weakening the emerging currencies.

Several factors explain this dominance of the dollar. The US Department of Labor has released figures that reflect a robust labor market in the United States. Weekly jobless claims fell to 201,000 from 211,000 previously, reinforcing investor confidence. At the same time, Christopher Waller, governor of the Federal Reserve, indicated that inflation is expected to continue declining in 2025, a sign perceived as favorable for the American economy. This combination of indicators stimulates demand for the dollar and relegates BRICS currencies to struggling against a currency that continues to gain attractiveness.

Faced with the uninterrupted rise of the dollar, the BRICS’ de-dollarization project seems to be stalled. Despite regular announcements about the creation of a common currency, no major progress has been made. India, a key member of the bloc, is increasing its dollar reserves, suggesting a loss of confidence in the feasibility of a viable alternative. This strategic choice highlights the internal contradictions within the BRICS, where the economic interests of the members diverge in the face of the dollar’s dominance.

While the bloc aims to reduce its exposure to the dollar, it still struggles to build a credible alternative. The dollar’s hegemony relies on two pillars: its stability and liquidity, advantages that BRICS currencies fail to match. Although some countries have signed bilateral agreements aimed at promoting trade in local currencies, these initiatives remain marginal and do not diminish the dollar’s influence on global trade.

The challenge of de-dollarization goes beyond monetary agreements. Investors and financial institutions continue to favor the dollar due to its long-term reliability. As long as this dynamic persists, the BRICS will struggle to impose an alternative capable of competing with a currency that remains the backbone of the global financial system. To reverse the trend, the bloc will need to propose tangible solutions that can convince the markets that an alternative to the dollar is not only possible but also preferable.

The BRICS’ bet on freeing themselves from the dollar confronts an unyielding reality: the greenback remains the pillar of international trade and continues to attract investors and financial institutions. Despite declared ambitions, the alliance struggles to propose a viable alternative capable of reversing the trend. Without a credible currency, widely adopted and supported by robust financial infrastructure, the dollar will maintain its central role in the global economy. As long as this dependence continues, the BRICS risk remaining on the fringes of the global financial system, rather than redefining its rules.


Facts and the fictions around China, Imported Recyclables, and Ocean Plastic

Stop exporting plastic waste to China to boost recycling at home, say  experts | Plastics | The Guardian 

 Facts and the fictions around China, Imported Recyclables, and Ocean Plastic

Addressing the facts and the fictions around China's ending its overseas purchases of recyclable plastic.      

Plastics in our oceans is an emotional issue. The sight of injured marine life and devastated reefs drives us to act out of passion to address a problem that seems all too simple: the irresponsible dumping of plastic trash that ultimately flows into the ocean. Yet the gulf between what the data show and what people think they know can often lead to responses that are poorly optimized. Today we're going to continue our discussion about how plastic trash gets into our oceans, and what we should be doing about it; this time focusing on the specific issue of China and the purchase of recyclable plastic from overseas.
Gravitas: China dumps most amount of Plastic in Oceans


This is a rare episode  about plastic in the ocean — where it comes from, the true nature of the problems it causes, and what should be done about it — and the episode really blew up. I got at least ten times as much direct feedback on it as I do on the typical episode, both positive and negative. Almost all the negative feedback had something to do with China's 2018 halting of importing recyclable plastic from the United States. One of the main points in the show had to do with the source of all that plastic in the ocean, which is mainly China. Even though the United States produces a lot more waste per person, we mismanage only 2% of it, while China mismanages 76% of theirs. However, for a long time, China imported a lot of recyclable plastic, much of it from the United States. Many of you believed that this meant the United States was still ultimately responsible for much of that trash entering the ocean from Chinese rivers. But with the new Chinese policy in place, and imports from the US curtailed, many of you believed that China will now have far less waste to mismanage, and the United States will now have far more. Therefore, many of you felt, the episode's ultimate conclusion that there's very little Americans can do about this was wrong, and that initiatives like bans on plastic bags and straws still have a meaningful place in the solution. Given that there was so much feedback like this, I felt a followup episode was warranted. China's imports from the US were not covered in my original show, and perhaps they should have been.

Visualized: Ocean Plastic Waste Pollution By CountrySensationalist headlines did not help the situation either. As deceptive as any of them was a very popularly shared article on CNBC titled "The world is scrambling now that China is refusing to be a trash dumping ground" and included lines like "China was the dumping ground for more than half of the world's trash before the ban". Such misleading rhetoric didn't give a very accurate picture of the economic relationship.

First, and most important to understand, is that this was not a case of the US moving its trash to China to make it their problem, which clearly wouldn't make any logical sense for China to do. China did not buy trash from the US; they bought recyclable raw materials to feed their exploding manufacturing needs. That material had not been trash in the United States either; it was properly managed recyclables that had been sorted and was ready to go into manufacturing. China did not buy it in order to dump it into their rivers; they bought it to manufacture products with. This was part of China's manufacturing supply-side, not part of their post-consumer waste, which is why it's not relevant to their problem of letting trash flow to the oceans.

With waste inside China so poorly managed, there was little available high-quality recycled raw material available to industry. That's why they bought it from abroad: it was much cheaper to buy ready materials than it would have been to revamp their own ineffective waste management infrastructure nationwide.

A 2018 paper in Science Advances titled "The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade" by Brooks, Wang, and Jambeck is an excellent source for more on this. As emerging markets in China skyrocketed in the 1990s, Chinese manufacturers bought more and more recyclables from overseas. It was mutually beneficial for everyone: China needed the inexpensive raw materials, and developed nations needed a profitable way to sell recyclables that exceeded the needs of their own domestic markets.

This is where we should revisit the concept of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, discussed in episode #665. This is a bell curve that shows the amount of environmental degradation over time as a nation's economy develops. Poor nations don't make any investment in the environment; but since they don't have much, they don't produce much trash. Then as their economy grows, consumers produce more trash and the bell curve climbs. As their economy grows more and they start to see the effects of what a mess they're making, they begin to make environmental investment — and this is where China is right now, at maximum trash output, and just beginning to invest in waste management. As the economy grows further, the output of mismanaged waste decreases as effective environmental policy dominates and waste management improves. The United States, for example, is all the way at the far right side of the Kuznets bell curve: a big economy, big investment in the environment, and minimal environmental degradation.

At China's import peak in 2010, 123 countries worldwide exported over 14 gigatons of recycables annually, with China buying just over half of it, as their manufacturing juggernaut was at maximum. As they began to suffer the severe effects of pollution, China began imposing greater restrictions on the recyclables they purchased, requiring that they be better sorted and more pure. Eventually this became their "Green Fence" policy of 2013, which placed strict rules on the quality of imported materials. The Green Fence had an immediate impact worldwide on material recovery facilities (MRFs, often pronounced "murphs"). Suddenly the MRFs couldn't sell to China, and for many of them, China had been by far their largest customer — in fact, China accounted for about 40% of all their business worldwide. In any business, too much dependence upon a single customer can pose an unacceptable risk, and the Green Fence was the first shot across the bow to the world's MRFs. China's imports dropped by gigatons.

Then in 2017, China pushed their selectivity even further, deploying their "National Sword" initiative which was a crackdown on all the black market imports that had sprung up as a result of the Green Fence. Together, Green Fence and National Sword symbolized China's cresting the top of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Their investment in their own environment reached the point where it became imperative to stimulate domestic material recovery. Rather than let 76% of their post-consumer waste end up in rivers and ultimately the world's oceans, it was time to collect it, recover any usable recyclables, and properly manage the rest.

So it was not unexpected that in July 2017, China filed a notice with the World Trade Organization that beginning in 2018, they would ban all imports of post-consumer plastics, mixed paper, and other recyclables, totaling some 24 types of material. By cutting off Chinese manufacturers' access to foreign raw materials, China was attempting to force the emergence of domestic MRFs to clean up China while stemming the flow of cash overseas.

And this is where we are now. Inside the United States — the world's second biggest generator of plastic waste — the impacts on the waste management industry has so far been limited, according to the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), and despite some reporting in the popular media of a doomsday scenario such as a 2019 article in WIRED headlined "Since China's Ban, Recycling in the US Has Gone Up in Flames". The prediction by some people — that American waste management companies would turn to dumping recyclable plastic at sea — has certainly not come to pass, and would be illegal anyway. Some municipalities have cut or scaled back collection of recyclables, as the industry has focused on improved processes to produce higher quality materials, and finding alternative markets for unsold recovered plastic.

Economists are predicting that this trend will increase. As MRFs have dropped their prices in response to the increased supply and reduced demand, alternative markets have risen. New technologies such as optical and robotic sorting have contributed to constant improvement in the quality of materials. And, importantly, economists expect that China will ultimately relax its ban on purchasing from overseas, due to the reduced prices and the improved quality. We're seeing a gradual market adaptation, not an overnight catastrophe. Overall, most analysts are seeing China's ban as generally a good thing for the waste industry worldwide, forcing everyone to — quite literally — clean up their act.

But in the short term, deposition of plastics in landfills has increased. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. To understand why not,  we discussed two major threats to Earth's oceans that are far more immediate and dangerous than plastic trash: overfishing, and above all, global warming and the attendant acidification. One of the keys to controlling global warming is controlling methane emissions — an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but fortunately present in much lower concentrations. Landfills are the third largest source of anthropogenic methane in the world, so it seems like we should be terrified at the prospect of adding more plastic waste to landfills. However, this is not the case. It turns out landfills are a great way to dispose of plastics that the market won't let us recycle. Here's why.

Buried trash generates methane in three ways. According to the EPA, these are:

    (1) Vaporization of organic compounds,
    (2) Chemical reactions among materials in the landfill,

and the biggest contributor:

    (3) Biological decomposition of organic compounds.


However, plastic is conveniently immune to this. Inorganic carbon in plastics does not decompose in a landfill environment. It is permanently sequestered and produces no greenhouse gas emissions. If the market can't support recycling plastic waste, landfilling it is — perhaps surprisingly — the most environmentally responsible thing we can do.

Conversely, some municipalities have turned to the absolute worst thing we can do with surplus plastic: burning it, often for generating electricity. This creates not only all the greenhouse gases that plastic is capable of, it also produces the unhealthiest components of smog. Far more than any plastic in the ocean, the burning of plastic in the atmosphere is ultimately much more harmful to the ocean and to ocean life.

So let's briefly recap the important points:

    The problem of plastics in the ocean is probably not as bad as many people fear. The problems of overfishing and global warming related ocean acidification are far worse.

    There is little that Western citizens can do that can have any meaningful impact on ocean plastics as the causes are almost entirely within Asia. Studies show that initiatives like bans on plastic bags and straws in Western countries actually do more harm than good.

    China's termination of plastic imports will result in less plastic in the ocean, as their industry moves toward increased recovery.

    The most probable environmental impact China's shift will have in Western countries is a short-term increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of recyclables, but this will likely not last very long. The quality of recovered materials will improve.

    The best way Americans (and other Westerners) can help with the oceans is to focus on recycling and long term reduction of carbon emissions — which is most effectively done at the ballot box.

And always remember one of the key policies : Seek out data-driven policy over emotion-driven policy. Often they are different; sometimes radically so.

Trump emphasizes pro-space war agenda

US, China, Russia gearing up for space wars to come - Asia Times 

Trump emphasizes  pro-space war agenda



Trump to tap NRO official as Air Force secretary

The move emphasizes the next administration's pro-space agenda.

President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Troy Meink, currently principal deputy director of the National Reconnaissance Office, to lead the Department of the Air Force.

United States Space Force - Wikipedia“Troy will work with our incredible Secretary of Defense Nominee, Pete Hegseth, to ensure that our Nation’s Air Force is the most effective and deadly force in the World, as we secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH,” Trump said in a Truth Social post today, confirming previous Defense One reporting.

The announcement completes Trump’s picks for service secretaries.

Troy Meink, then-deputy Air Force undersecretary for space, answers questions during a space budget briefing at the Pentagon on March 5, 2015.Meink has served as the principal deputy director of the spy agency since 2020. A former KC-135 navigator, he went on to hold various roles in the national-security space and intelligence world.

Trump, who moved to create the Space Force in his first term, is viewed as highly pro-space. And with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk as a key advisor in his second term, space is all but certain to be a priority for the administration.

Trump has also tapped Matt Lohmeier to be Air Force undersecretary, according to a person familiar with the plans. Lohmeier is a former Space Force lieutenant colonel who was fired after appearing on a conservative podcast to promote a book he wrote alleging that Marxist ideologies are prevalent in the military.

Thursday, January 16, 2025

俄罗斯“影子舰队”之一的油轮“鹰 S号”被芬兰特种部队扣押

Baltic sea cable damage: Finland seizes Russian ship suspected of sabotage 

 近日,芬兰的行动再次引发国际关注。继中国货轮“伊鹏3号”因海底电缆故障被芬兰截停后,疑似为俄罗斯“影子舰队”之一的油轮“鹰 S号”也在2024年12月26日被芬兰特种部队扣押,这一系列事件不仅加剧了俄、芬之间的紧张,也令波罗的海地区的局势迅速升温。

 芬兰方面以“配合调查”为由,对“伊鹏3号”进行长时间扣押,并指控该货轮可能与海底电缆断裂事件有关。尽管芬兰未提供实质证据,中方对此强烈抗议,并强调该船从事的是合法航运活动。这起事件造成了中国企业巨大的经济损失,也对中、芬关系造成了深远影响。

然而,这并非结束。芬兰于12月26日再次对国际航运采取行动,扣押了俄罗斯油轮“鹰 S号”,并宣称该油轮涉嫌运输受制裁的俄罗斯石油及军事侦察设备。俄方对此表示强烈反对,认为芬兰此举是赤裸裸的挑衅,并指责芬兰充当北约利益的“先锋队”。

为了监控中、俄船舰可能破坏海底电缆的行为,北约司令部派遣十艘船舰,在波罗的海地区巡航。图:翻摄自@Israelwaronhama X账号

芬兰在2023年4月正式加入北约后,对俄罗斯的外交立场愈发强硬,并且加强了军事部署。据报导,北约计划在芬兰境内部署军事基地和先进武器系统,这一战略调整对俄罗斯构成了极大的安全威胁。俄罗斯警告,芬兰的行为将进一步激化地区矛盾,并可能导致严重后果。

随着芬兰的行为,俄罗斯已加强军事部署,特别是在俄芬边境和波罗的海区域。俄军已在芬兰边境部署了“伊斯坎德尔”战术导弹,并加强了波罗的海舰队的军事活动。克里姆林宫表示,若局势恶化,芬兰将成为俄军首要打击目标。

芬兰的行为不仅遭到中、俄两国的强烈反对,也让波罗的海地区的其他国家感到不安。部分欧洲国家担心这事件可能将整个地区拖入冲突漩涡。。

俄方表示,若局势恶化,芬兰将成为俄军首要打击目标。图:翻摄自腾讯网

俄军已在芬兰边境部署了“伊斯坎德尔”战术导弹,并加强了波罗的海舰队的军事活动。(示意图)图:翻摄自剑哥的思政课

欧洲国家派舰加强巡查俄国“影子舰队”,防止跨国海底电缆遭到破坏。图:翻摄自胖哥洞察

波罗的海周边国家地图。图:翻摄自胖哥洞察

黑海周边国家地图。

促使加沙达成人质协议的三个因素

Trump: 'All hell will break out' if Hamas hostages not returned 

 促使加沙达成人质协议的三个因素


自5月以来,加沙停火与人质释放协议便被放在谈判桌上。但现在,以色列与哈马斯在多哈的间接谈判中,正在讨论这个框架——为什么在经历了长达八个月的战争后,现在反而有新的期待,认为这个协议可能会成功?

有几个因素发生了变化——无论是政治层面还是地面局势。

首先是特朗普(Donald Trump)当选为下一任美国总统。

他威胁说,如果人质在他1月20日就职之前未被释放,“将会有地狱降临”

哈马斯很可能将此视为一个信号,认为即便是拜登政府设法试图限制以色列政府的某些行动,也有可能在特朗普上台后被解除——虽然很难想像,这对已经经历了15个月战争重创的加沙地带意味着什么。

以色列方面也感受到了来自特朗普的压力,要求结束加沙冲突,这不仅会影响特朗普推动更大范围地区协议的计划,还会影响他作为一位结束战争的总统形象。

另一方面,以色列总理本杰明·内塔尼亚胡(Benjamin Netanyahu)依然面对来自极右派联盟盟友的持续压力,要求他继续这场战争。

然而,特朗普也可能成为他的一个资产,帮助说服这些极右派盟友接受这份协议并留在政府内。新的美国总统以及他选择的以色列大使,被视为支持以色列在被占领的西岸地区建立定居点,而以色列极右派财政部长贝扎雷尔·斯莫特里奇(Bezalel Smotrich)曾表示,他希望吞并该地区。

然而,在与总理进行会面后,斯莫特里奇似乎并不信服。他在社交媒体上写道,当前的协议对以色列的国家安全是一场“灾难”,他不会支持这个协议。

但以色列的一些人认为,斯莫特里奇和他的极右派盟友、国家安全部长伊塔马尔·本·吉维尔(Itamar Ben-Gvir)将当前在以色列政府中担当的角色,视为他们巩固对西岸地区控制的最佳机会,尤其是在特朗普重返白宫的情况下,他们不太可能履行辞职的威胁。

第二个变化是内塔尼亚胡面对来自以色列军事机构的压力。

Palestinian territories profile - BBC News据报导,军方重要人物多次挑战内塔尼亚胡,质疑继续战争的军事目标是否合理——尤其是在消灭哈马斯高层领导人并摧毁加沙地区的基础设施之后。

上周,10名以色列士兵在加沙丧生,再次突显了战争令以色列付出的代价,以及一个长期存在的问题——内塔尼亚胡所承诺的“对哈马斯的彻底胜利”是否能实现。

一些分析人士现在认为,哈马斯重建的速度超过了以色列对其的打击速度,因此以色列需要重新考虑其战略。

Hamas: What has happened to its most prominent leaders?第三个变化是伊朗“抵抗轴心”中的哈马斯盟友,从黎巴嫩的真主党到叙利亚的巴沙尔·阿萨德(Bashar al-Assad)政权,随着哈马斯领袖雅赫亚·辛瓦尔(Yahya Sinwar)在加沙被杀,其盟友力量日渐削弱与衰退。

基于所有这些原因,现在被视为数月来弥合以色列与哈马斯之间分歧、结束战争的最佳机会。

但在过去八个月的谈判中,始终没有改变的仍然是双方之间的重大分歧。

其中最关键的问题是哈马斯的主要关切是希望结束这场战争,而以色列则希望无论是出于政治还是军事原因,仍保持重新开战的可能性,。

正如乔·拜登(Joe Biden)总统在5月所概述的那样,这份协议分为三个阶段,只有到达第二阶段才会实现永久停火。

目前的成功可能取决于是否能找到保证措施,消除哈马斯对以色列在第一阶段人质释放后退出协议的担忧。

至于如何管理以色列撤出区域的领土问题,目前也尚不明确。

但过去一周,围绕这一问题在整个区域发展的外交网络,加上内塔尼亚胡派遣以色列安全机构负责人与一名关键政治顾问前往多哈参与谈判,都是令人鼓舞的信号。

同样,巴勒斯坦拘留协调员卡杜拉·法雷斯(Qadoura Fares)也已经前往多哈。

协议尚未达成——谈判也曾破裂过。

但如今,这项旧协议正在激发新的希望,部分原因是谈判是在新的地区背景下展开,内部和国外主要盟友的压力也越来越大。

“战狼”下场惨 曝卢沙野离任

中共外交战狼撒野的内在逻辑(图) - 卢沙野- 习近平- 王毅- 时评- 吴国光-看中国网- (移动版) 

被外界称为“战狼”的中共前驻法大使卢沙野,今年1月任期结束后黯然回国。据透露,卢沙野因在法国政坛臭名远播,在离任前几乎不离开中共大使馆,法国政界也无人与他会面,为躲避当地媒体,他甚至连理发都不敢走出大使馆。

台湾媒体引述官方情资透露,卢沙野在驻法最后期间,法国政界没人要与卢沙野会面,他只能整天待在中共大使馆,任期结束黯然返回中国。

知情官员说,法国政府、国会对卢沙野非常不满,后期几乎不跟这个中共大使会面。卢多数时间都待在使馆。他以前会出去理发,但后来直接请理发师到大使馆,帮他剪头发。

知情官员表示,卢沙野之所以整天待在中共大使馆,一方面也是为了躲避法国媒体,避免他的发言再度引发轩然大波。

美前官员证实秦刚还活着更多“战狼”命运不被看好(图) - 出版社- 外交- 赵立坚- 官吏- 台宛民-看中国网- (移动版)卢沙野2009年曾任中共外交部非洲司司长,在中共党魁习近平上台后,卢沙野得到重用,2015年任中共中央外事工作领导小组办公室政策研究局局长,2016年任中共驻加拿大大使,2019年起任中共驻法国大使。

在任驻法大使期间,卢沙野因发表“战狼”言论,曾多次被法国外交部召见。

2022年8月,卢沙野对外受访时称,“统一台湾后,要对台湾人进行‘再教育’,让台湾人变回爱国分子,让他们再度支持统一。”该访谈播出后震惊欧洲,国际舆论哗然

2023年4月,卢沙野在接受法国采访时,质疑包括乌克兰在内的前苏联国家的主权,他还宣称,2014年以来被俄罗斯占领的乌克兰领土克里米亚“一开始就是俄罗斯的”。

此番言论引发极大反响,近80名欧洲议员呼吁法国外交部,要把卢沙野列为不受欢迎人物。


卢沙野的战狼言论不但招致国际舆论谴责,而且在华人圈同样引爆舆论海啸,有网友评论,卢沙野“一人胡说,全国背锅,让整个国家跟着丢脸”。

美国斯坦福大学高级研究员吴国光曾经撰文分析,“中共外交战狼的出现,并不是哪一个外交官的个体原因所造成的,因此不是偶发的;这其实是中共在一系列关于国际关系的大判断下所着意在外交界促发的一种制度现象。”