当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2018年12月12日 20:52:43    日报  参与评论()人

赣州妇女儿童医院整形科赣州做眼袋手术多少钱章贡区处女膜修复多少钱 江西省中心人民医院激光除皱手术多少钱

赣州整形美容医院鼻唇沟怎么样Fresh fighting between Ukraines military and Russia-backed separatists killed at least five people in the region of Donetsk, officials said Tuesday.官方报道说,在新的一轮对抗中,乌克兰军队和俄罗斯持的分离分子武装在顿涅茨克相互炮击,打死至人。Officials at the rebel-run Donetsk city hall also said at least 13 people were wounded in the fierce outbreak of shelling over the previous 24 hours.分离分子武装控制的顿涅茨克的市政厅官员说4小时的激烈炮击还造成至少13人受伤。Fighting has raged in the self-declared separatist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, especially around the Ukrainian-controlled town of Debaltseve, since peace talks in Belarus between Ukraines government and the separatists collapsed Saturday.自从上周六乌克兰政府和分离分子在白俄罗斯的和平谈判破裂之后,自行宣布独立的顿涅茨克和卢甘斯克爆发了激烈战斗,特别是在乌克兰控制的城镇德巴尔切夫周围。There are fears the violence could soon escalate. On Monday, a pro-Russian separatist leader announced a ;general mobilization; with the aim of bolstering separatist armed forces to as many as 100,000 fighters.人们担心暴力还会升级。一名亲俄罗斯分离主义领袖星期一宣布“总动员”,目标是将反政府武装扩大到10万人。Meanwhile, the ed States says it has not made a decision on whether to provide Ukraine with lethal military assistance in its fight against the separatists.与此同时,美国表示还没有决定是否向乌克兰提供杀伤性武器,帮助乌克兰打击分离主义分子。来 /201502/358997南康市打溶脂针价格 There were troubling portents in the way Democrats humbled President Barack Obama last Friday. It is not only that he made a rare visit to Capitol Hill to appeal for Democratic support on his global trade agen#173;da. Nor that he warned them that a vote against it would be the same as one against him. These were bad enough. Worse is that it was Nancy Pelosi the Democratic leader, and linchpin of every legislative victory since Mr Obama took office, including healthcare who put the knife in his back. When your closest ally betrays you, it is time to reach for your Shakespeare.上周五,民主党羞辱巴拉克#8226;奥巴Barack Obama)总统的方式有一些令人不安的征兆。不只是他罕有地造访国会山,希望赢得民主党对其全球贸易议程的持。也不是他警告称,反对该议程就是反对他。这些已经足够糟糕了。更糟糕的是,民主党领导人南#8226;佩洛Nancy Pelosi)在奥巴马背后捅了一刀。自奥巴马上任以来,佩洛西是奥巴马所有立法胜利(包括医疗改革)的关键人物。当你最亲密的盟友背叛你时,你就该求助莎士比Shakespeare)了。Mr Obama may have to beg, flatter and cajole his way out of this one. The only way to retrieve his trade agenda let alone his credibility will be to reverse last week’s defeat. It has been done before. The best example is Congress’s rejection of the 0bn Wall Street bailout package (the troubled asset relief programme, Tarp) in September 2008. It was reversed 72 hours later. But George W Bush, the then president, could point to a stock market in free fall. The Dow fell almost 1,000 points after the first vote, enough to terrify lawmakers into the Yes camp on the second. Mr Obama has no such prompts. The Dow Jones index dropped 140 points last Friday, which was no more than an average bad day.要杀出困境,奥巴马或许不得不设法乞求、奉承和哄骗。挽回其贸易议程(更别提他的信誉了)的唯一途径是逆转上周的败绩。以前出现过这种事情。最好的例子是,2008月美国国会否决了7000亿美元的华尔街纾困方案——问题资产救助计Tarp)2小时后该决定被逆转。但时任总统乔治·W·布什(George W Bush)可以指向一落千丈的美国股市。在首次投票后,道琼斯指Dow)下挫000点,吓得立法者在第二轮投票时加入持阵营。奥巴马没有得到这种辅助。上周五,道琼斯指数下跌140点,只是一个普通的糟糕交易日。Mr Obama badly needs to come up with something in the next few days. The price of failure for him and the US is too high. The costs would be threefold. First, rejection of the trade promotion authority (TPA), or fast-track negotiating powers, would leave the US without a global economic strategy in a rapidly changing world. It would kill prospects of wrapping up the Pacific trade deal on which Mr Obama has been working for three years. The 12-member group covers almost 40 per cent of the world economy. It would also halt progress in the parallel transatlantic talks, which cover close to half the global economy.奥巴马迫切需要在未来几天拿出一些应对方案。对于他(以及美国)而言,失败的代价太高。这表现在三方面。首先,否决“贸易促进权”法案(TPA,又称快速道(fast-track)谈判授权)将令美国在这个快速变化的世界丧失一项全球经济战略。这将断送缔结奥巴马已努年的太平洋贸易协定的可能性。《跨太平洋伙伴关系》(Trans-Pacific Partnership,简称TPP2个成员国占全球经济的0%。这也将让平行的跨大西洋谈判进展受阻,这些成员国占全球经济近一半。Next, it would rob the US “pivot to Asiaof its most important element. Mr Obama’s biggest argument for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that it would force China to abide by global rules on trade and investment. China is not included in the group. Perhaps un#173;wisely, Mr Obama has played that China card explicitly and repeatedly. A collapse in the TPP talks would breathe life into China’s rival initiative, to which the US does not belong. Any scepticism that others would take the China-led trade talks seriously was laid to rest last month when America’s regional allies, including Australia and South Korea, spurned the US boycott of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. There is no reason to suppose it would turn out any different on trade. Most countries would far prefer US leadership to China’s. But in America’s ab#173;sence, there is only one alternative.其次,这将剥夺美国“重心转向亚洲”战略中的最重要元素。奥巴马持TPP的最有力理由是,该协定将迫使中国遵守全球贸易与投资规则。中国没有被纳入该协定。或许不明智的是,奥巴马明确、多次地打出这张“中国牌”。TPP谈判的破裂将为中国与之竞争的倡议(美国不在其中)注入生机。对于其他国家将严肃对待由中国主导的贸易谈判的怀疑,已在上月消除,美国在亚洲的盟友(包括澳大利亚和韩国)没有理睬美国对中国主导的亚洲基础设施投资(AIIB)的抵制。没有理由设想在贸易问题上会出现不同的结果。多数国家将更青睐美国的领头,而非中国。但在没有美国的情况下,只有一种选择。Last, the death of TPA at Democratic hands would deprive Mr Obama of credibility on the world stage. His trade team, led by the very able Michael Froman, has assured the US’s Pacific partners that TPA’s enactment was a foregone conclusion. Since Mr Obama al#173;y had the bulk of Republicans on his side, it was only a matter of persuading a sliver of Democrats to back him. The fallout would go far beyond trade. Mr Obama faces a deadline to conclude US-led talks with Iran. This year and over Mr Obama’s protestations the US Senate took the unusual step of passing a bill that would give it 60 days to review the contents of any Iran nuclear deal. There is a clear parallel to fast track. Mr Obama had insisted an Iran deal would not qualify as a treaty and would therefore not require Senate approval. Iran is less likely to risk the necessary concessions if it thinks Congress will torpedo the deal. On what grounds would Iran trust Mr Obama’s assurances?最后,若TPA葬送在民主党手里,奥巴马将丧失其在世界舞台上的信誉。由非常能干的迈克尔#8226;弗罗Michael Froman)领导的奥巴马的贸易团队,已让美国在太平洋地区的合作伙伴相信,TPA仪案的通过是一个免不了的结果。奥巴马已经有大多数共和党人站在他这一边,他本来只要说一小部分民主党人持他就行了。失败的冲击波将远远超越贸易领域。奥巴马面临着与伊朗完成由美国主导的核谈判的最后期限。今年,美国参议院不顾奥巴马的抗议,不寻常地通过了一项法案,使自己获0天时间审议伊朗核协议的内容。这与“快车道”有清晰的类似之处。奥巴马此前坚称,与伊朗达成的协议算不上条约,因此不需要参议院批准。如果伊朗认为美国国会将否决协议,它就不太可能冒险作出必要的让步。有什么理由让伊朗相信奥巴马的保?In an ideal democracy, any of these points ought to be a clincher. But in the real world politicians look to their own survival before thinking of the bigger picture. Mr Obama must thus come up with something more persuasive. One hope is that Republicans will save the day without Mr Obama having to do anything. After all, Republicans believe in free trade and fast-track powers would be inherited by Mr Obama’s successor, who might well be a Republican. Last week’s defeat was an “only on Capitol Hillmoment, in which TPA was passed (by a majority of eight) only to be sunk by defeat of another part of the package. Enactment of that part, which subsidises retraining workers who lose their jobs to trade, was required for the whole bill to pass. Both parties voted heavily against.在理想的民主政体中,上述任何理由都应该是起决定性作用的论据。但在现实世界中,政客们把自己的生存置于全局考虑之前。因此,奥巴马必须拿出更有说力的理由。一个希望是,不需奥巴马采取任何动作,共和党人就将扭转局面。毕竟,共和党人信仰自由贸易,而且快车道权力将被奥巴马的继任者继承,而后者很可能是共和党人。上周的挫败是典型的“国会山式”荒唐剧,TPA部分被通过了(赞成方获得了8票的优势),却因法案的另一部分遭否决而受挫。只有那一部分(补贴对因贸易而失业的工人的再培训)也获得法律效力,整个法案才能通过。两党都有很多议员投票反对这部分。If it squeaks through on the second try, Mr Obama would be saved. But it would require Republicans to hold their noses and vote for something they mistrust (subsidies) to save someone they abhor (Mr Obama). The other hope is that Ms Pelosi and colleagues change their mind on the merits of trade deals. But that seems improbable. So Republicans are left with a dilemma: should they defeat Mr Obama and hobble the US? Or give Mr Obama a victory that would also save America’s credibility? The coming days will be very revealing.如果法案在第二次尝试时勉强通过,奥巴马将会得救。但这需要共和党人捏住鼻子,投票持他们不信任的事情(补贴)以拯救他们讨厌的人(奥巴马)。另一个希望是,佩洛西及其同事从贸易协定的好处着想,改变想法。但那似乎不太可胀?所以,共和党人面临一个两难困境:到底是应该击败奥巴马,让美国受到重创?还是应该让奥巴马获胜,同时也挽救美国的信誉?未来几天将让我们大开眼界。来 /201506/381118赣州黑眼袋手术

兴国县注射丰下巴费用Should proposed US plurilateral trade agreements be welcomed? This is a big question, not least for those who consider the liberalisation of world trade to be a signal achievement. It is also highly controversial.美国提议的诸边贸易协定应该受到欢迎吗?这是一个大问题,不仅仅是对于那些认为世界贸易自由化是一项重大成就的人。这也是个极富争议的问题。Since the failure of the “Doha roundof multilateral negotiations launched shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 the focus of global trade policy has shifted towards plurilateral agreements restricted to a limited subgroup of partners. The most significant are US-led: the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. As a study by the US Council of Economic Advisers puts it, the Obama administration’s trade agenda aims to put America “at the center of an integrated trade zone covering nearly two-thirds of the global economy and almost 65 per cent of US goods trade自从“多哈回合Doha round)多边谈判(“多哈回合”在20011日恐怖袭击之后不久启动)失败以来,全球贸易政策的焦点已转向仅限于某个伙伴国集团的诸边协定。最重要的协定均由美国主导:《跨太平洋伙伴关系》(Trans-Pacific Partnership,简称TPP)以及《跨大西洋贸易与投资伙伴关系协定》(Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,简称TTIP)。正如白宫经济顾问委员会(CEA)一项研究所指出的,奥巴马政府的贸易议程旨在将美国置于“一个覆盖全球经济近2/3、美国货物贸易近65%的一体化贸易区的中心地位”。The TPP is a negotiation with 11 countries, most importantly Japan. Its partners account for 36 per cent of world output, 11 per cent of population and about one-third of merchandise trade. The TTIP is between the US and the EU, which account for 46 per cent of global output and 28 per cent of merchandise trade. The main partner not included in these negotiations is, of course, China.TPP是美国与11个国家(最重要的是日本)谈判的贸易协定。其伙伴国的产出占世界总量6%,人口占全球总人口的11%,商品贸易占全球的大/3。TTIP是美国与欧盟之间的协定,占全球产出的46%,商品贸易的28%。当然,中国是未被纳入这些谈判的主要贸易伙伴。Some of the countries participating in TPP still have quite high barriers to imports of goods. The CEA notes the relatively high tariffs in Malaysia and Vietnam and agricultural protection in Japan. It also argues that the TPP partners and EU have higher barriers to imports of services than the US.一些参与TPP的国家仍然存在相当高的货物进口壁垒。CEA指出了马来西亚和越南相对较高的关税以及日本的农业保护。该委员会还认为,TPP伙伴国以及欧盟的务进口壁垒高于美国。Yet lowering barriers is only a part of the US aim. The CEA report adds that, in the TPP, Washington is proposing “enforceable labor protections and greener policies But it is also seeking “strong enforcement of intellectual property rights In the TTIP, “both sides seek agreement on crosscutting disciplines on regulatory coherence and transparencyin other words making rules more compatible with one another and more transparent for business. Thus, both TPP and TTIP are efforts to shape the rules of international commerce. Pascal Lamy, former director-general of the World Trade Organisation, argues that “TPP is mostly, though not only, about classical protection- related market access issues#8201;.#8201;.#8201;.#8201;TTIP is mostly, though not only, about#8201;.#8201;.#8201;.#8201;.#8201; regulatory convergence不过,降低壁垒只是美国的一部分目标。CEA报告补充称,在TPP中,华盛顿方面提议“可强制执行的劳动保护和更环保政策”。但是,它还寻求“有力执行知识产权保护”。在TTIP中,“双方寻求就交叉领域的监管连贯性和透明度达成一致”——换句话说,让双方的法规更兼容、对企业更透明。因此,TTP和TTIP都是旨在塑造国际商务规则的努力。世界贸易组WTO)前任总干事帕斯卡#8226;拉米(Pascal Lamy)认为,“TPP主要是(尽管不全是)关于经典的与贸易保护相关的市场准入问题……而TTIP主要是(尽管不全是)关于监管融合”。Whether these negotiations succeed will depend on whether the administration obtains trade promotion authority from Congress. But should we want them to succeed?这些谈判能否取得成功,将取决于奥巴马政府是否会从国会获得贸易促进TPA)。但是,我们应该期盼谈判成功吗?The straightforward points in favour are: plurilateral agreements are now the best way to liberalise global trade, given the failure of multilateral negotiations; their new rules and procedures offer the best template for the future; and they will bring significant gains.直截了当的持理由是:考虑到多边谈判的失败,眼下诸边协定是促进全球贸易自由化的最佳方式;它们的新规则和程序为未来提供了最好的模板;它们将带来显著收益。These arguments have force. Yet there are also counter-arguments.这些观点很有说力。不过,也有反面的观点。With limited political capital, the focus on plurilateral trade arrangements risks diversion of effort from the WTO. That might undermine the potency of global rules. Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University stresses such risks. Furthermore, preferential trading arrangements risk distorting complex global production chains.在政治资本有限的情况下,专注于诸边贸易安排可能会分散投入WTO的努力。这进而可能削弱全球规则的效力。哥伦比亚大Columbia University)的贾格迪什#8226;巴格沃蒂(Jagdish Bhagwati)强调了此类风险。此外,特惠贸易安排可能扭曲复杂的全球生产链。Another concern is that the US is using its clout to impose regulations that are not in the interests of its partners.另一个担忧在于,美国正利用其影响力强行制定不符合伙伴国利益的法规。I would be less concerned about labour and environmental standards, though both might be inappropriate, than about protection of intellectual property. It is not true that tighter standards are in the interest of all. On the contrary, if US standards were to be imposed, the costs might be very high.尽管劳工和环境标准都可能不适当,但我对它们不如对知识产权保护那么担忧。关于更严格的标准有利于各方的说法是不对的。相反,如果普遍推行美国标准,成本可能会非常高。Finally, the economic gains are unlikely to be large. Trade has been substantially liberalised aly and any gains decline as barriers fall. A study of the TPP by the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington suggests that the rise in US real incomes would be below 0.4 per cent of national income. A study of TTIP published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London comes to slightly higher numbers for the EU and US. Completion of TPP and TTIP might raise US real incomes by 1 per cent of GDP This is not nothing, but it is not large.最后一点是,经济收益不太可能会很高。贸易已经得到大幅自由化,随着贸易壁垒的降低,进一步的收益会减少。华盛顿彼得森国际经济研究所(Peterson Institute for International Economics)对TPP的研究显示,美国的实际收入增量将不到国民收入.4%。伦敦的经济政策研究中心(Centre for Economic Policy Research)发表的对TTIP的研究显示,欧盟和美国的增量数字略高。TPP和TTIP达成后,可能会使美国实际收入增量达到GDP%。这不容忽略,但也不是很大。The US-EU agreement does not raise concerns about the US ability to bully its partners. In trade, the two sides are equally matched. There are three further concerns with the TTIP, however.美国和欧盟之间的协定并未引起人们对美国欺负伙伴国的担忧。在贸易方面,双方势均力敌。不过,人们对TTIP还是抱有3个担忧。First, Jeronim Capaldo of Tufts University has argued that estimates of the gains ignore macroeconomic costs. His Keynesian approach argues that the EU will lose demand because of a fall in its trade surplus. This is ridiculous. Macroeconomic problems should be addressed with macroeconomic policies. Trade policy has different goals.第一,塔夫茨大学(Tufts University)的叶罗尼#8226;卡帕尔多(Jeronim Capaldo)认为,对收益的预估忽视了宏观经济的成本。按照他的凯恩斯主义逻辑,欧盟将损失需求,因为其贸易顺差将会下降。这是无稽之谈。宏观经济问题应该用宏观经济政策来解决。贸易政策的目标本来就不同。Second, some of the barriers they are attempting to remove reflect different attitudes to risk. The negotiators will have to devise a text that allows co-ordination of regulatory procedures over drug testing, say, without imposing identical preferences. If Europeans do not want genetically modified organisms, they must be allowed to preserve that preference. If trade policy ts on such sacred ground, it will die.第二,这些协定试图消除的某些壁垒,反映了伙伴国对待风险的不同态度。谈判代表们将不得不妥善拟定文本,在避免强加相同偏好的前提下,使监管程序的协调成为可能,比如说针对药物测试。如果欧洲人不想要转基因生物,他们必须被允许保留这种偏好。如果贸易政策触犯此类神圣领域,它将会碰壁。Finally, we have the vexed issue of investor-state dispute settlement. Many complain that political choices publicly-funded health systems or the right to control drug prices might be put at risk by systems biased in favour of business. Negotiators fervently deny this. They had better be right.最后,我们还有一个棘手问题,那就是投资国家纠纷解决。很多人抱怨称,政治选择——公费医疗体系或者控制药品价格的权利——可能会被偏向于企业的制度置于风险之中。谈判代表们强烈否认这一点。他们最好没说错。On balance, the benefits of TPP and TTIP will probably be positive, but modest. But there are risks. They must not become an alternative to the WTO or an attempt to push China to the margins of trade policy making. They must not be used to impose damaging regulations or subvert legitimate ones. T carefully. Overreaching could prove counterproductive even to the cause of global trade liberalisation.总而言之,TPP和TTIP的好处可能是积极的,但程度有限。但是这其中存在风险。必须避免用它们替代世界贸易组织、或把中国推向贸易政策制定边缘的企图。它们不得被用于推行破坏性的法规或是颠覆正当法规。必须谨慎行事。把手伸得过长可能会适得其反,甚至不利于全球贸易自由化事业。来 /201505/376112 南康激光祛胎记多少钱兴国妇幼保健人民医院祛痘多少钱



瑞金妇幼保健人民医院做祛疤手术多少钱 赣州哪整容最好放心健康 [详细]
兴国县开眼角手术要多少钱 江西省中心医院激光去烫伤的疤多少钱 [详细]
赣州俪人整形美容医院纹唇 健步诊疗赣州整形美容医院治疗血管瘤怎么样管分类 [详细]
365诊疗赣州硅胶隆鼻价钱 赣州丰下巴价格光明问答赣州哪里可以点痣 [详细]