傅聪表示，要坚决捍卫中国人民抗日战争和世界反法西斯战争的胜利成果，坚决捍卫战后国际秩序，决 不允许否认和歪曲侵略历史，决不允许军国主义死灰复燃，决不允许历史悲剧重演。一切挑战和妄图颠 覆战后国际秩序的言行，都可能给世界制造动荡不安，给人类这个命运共同体带来严重灾难，必须高度 警惕、坚决反对。 傅聪强调，作为二战战败国，日本必须深刻反省历史罪责，恪守就台湾问题做出的政治承诺，立即停止 挑衅越线，收回错误言论。（央视记者 徐德智 曹健） 当地时间12月18日，中国常驻联合国代表傅聪在联合国大会纪念首个"反对一切形式和表现的殖民主义 国际日"高级别会议上发言时指出，日本惨无人道的殖民统治，在台湾犯下罄竹难书的罪行，决不允许 否认和歪曲侵略历史，决不允许军国主义死灰复燃，决不允许历史悲剧重演。 傅聪表示，当前，殖民占领虽已结束，殖民体系虽已瓦解，但世界仍未走出殖民主义的阴影，殖民主义 衍生出的霸权主义、单边主义、强权政治大行其道。国际社会要在思想、政治、经济、文化、教育等各 领域抵制殖民主义思维，铲除殖民主义遗毒，维护国际公平正义，推进国际关系民主化、法治化。 傅聪指出，世界反法西斯战争的历史告诉我们，和平是需要争取 ...

傅聪说，当前，殖民占领虽已结束，殖民体系虽已瓦解，但世界仍未走出殖民主义的阴影，殖民主义衍 生出的霸权主义、单边主义、强权政治大行其道。国际社会要在思想、政治、经济、文化、教育等各领 域抵制殖民主义思维，铲除殖民主义遗毒，维护国际公平正义，推进国际关系民主化、法治化。 中国代表：日本必须深刻反省历史罪责 停止挑衅越线 中新社联合国12月18日电 联合国大会18日举行纪念首个"反对一切形式和表现的殖民主义国际日"高级 别会议。中国常驻联合国代表傅聪在会上发言表示，日本殖民统治是台湾历史上最黑暗的一页。日本必 须深刻反省历史罪责，恪守就台湾问题做出的政治承诺，立即停止挑衅越线。 傅聪说，"反对一切形式和表现的殖民主义国际日"旨在推动国际社会铭记殖民主义危害，加速现有非殖 化进程，终结一切形式和表现的殖民主义。联大举行此次会议，具有重要意义。 编辑：董文博 广告等商务合作，请点击这里 本文为转载内容，授权事宜请联系原著作权人 中新经纬版权所有，未经书面授权，任何单位及个人不得转载、摘编或以其它方式使用。 关注中新经纬微信公众号(微信搜索"中新经纬"或"jwview")，看更多精彩财经资讯。 傅聪说，世界反法西斯战争 ...

傅聪强调，作为二战战败国，日本必须深刻反省历史罪责，恪守就台湾问题做出的政治承诺，立即停止 挑衅越线，收回错误言论。（央视记者 徐德智 曹健） 责编：张青津、卢思宇 傅聪介绍，历史上，日本曾侵略中国、朝鲜半岛和东南亚，并进行惨无人道的殖民统治，日本侵略者在 台湾犯下罄竹难书的罪行，先后有65万多台湾同胞惨死在日军屠刀下，约20万台湾青年被强征入伍， 2000多名台湾妇女被强迫成"慰安妇"，台湾七成土地被强占，煤矿、金矿等资源遭到毁灭性开采，这是 台湾历史上最黑暗的一页。 傅聪表示，要坚决捍卫中国人民抗日战争和世界反法西斯战争的胜利成果，坚决捍卫战后国际秩序，决 不允许否认和歪曲侵略历史，决不允许军国主义死灰复燃，决不允许历史悲剧重演。一切挑战和妄图颠 覆战后国际秩序的言行，都可能给世界制造动荡不安，给人类这个命运共同体带来严重灾难，必须高度 警惕、坚决反对。 0:00 当地时间12月18日，中国常驻联合国代表傅聪在联合国大会纪念首个"反对一切形式和表现的殖民主义 国际日"高级别会议上发言时指出，日本惨无人道的殖民统治，在台湾犯下罄竹难书的罪行，决不允许 否认和歪曲侵略历史，决不允许军国主义死灰复燃，决不允许历 ...

Core Viewpoint - The recent U.S. meeting highlighted India's vulnerability in trade relations, particularly regarding rice exports, as President Trump expressed concerns over India's alleged dumping practices that harm American farmers [1][3]. Group 1: U.S.-India Trade Relations - Trump questioned the fairness of India's rice exports and suggested that they should be subject to tariffs, indicating a shift in U.S. trade policy focus towards India [3]. - The U.S. administration's stance reflects a broader strategy to address perceived trade imbalances, with India being pressured for greater market access and concessions [5]. - India's previous attempts to foster a special relationship with the U.S. through tariff reductions and military procurement have not yielded the expected benefits, exposing its weaknesses in negotiations [5]. Group 2: India's Strategic Response - In response to U.S. pressure, India has sought to diversify its partnerships, notably with Russia, to signal its strategic autonomy and reduce reliance on the U.S. [7]. - Despite India's efforts to balance its relations with Russia, the U.S. has intensified its demands, indicating that India's strategy may not effectively counter U.S. pressure [7][9]. - The contrasting responses of China and India to U.S. trade actions highlight India's limitations in leveraging its position, as China has employed robust countermeasures while India remains cautious [9]. Group 3: International Trade Dynamics - The situation underscores the reality that having ambitions as a major power is insufficient without the corresponding capabilities to assert those ambitions effectively [9]. - The dynamics of power politics reveal that not all nations can adopt a confrontational stance against superpowers like the U.S. without facing significant repercussions [9].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has evolved into a significant geopolitical reorganization affecting global order, with contrasting proposals from the U.S. and Europe highlighting differing strategic priorities [1][41]. Group 1: U.S. and European Proposals - The U.S. has proposed 28 points that largely align with Russia's long-standing demands, including territorial concessions and military neutrality for Ukraine, which raises concerns among European nations [7][41]. - In response, Europe has put forth 24 counter-proposals emphasizing a ceasefire as a prerequisite for negotiations, asserting that territorial integrity is non-negotiable [8][10]. - The U.S. seeks a quick resolution to the conflict, while Europe prioritizes a sustainable security framework for Ukraine to prevent future aggression from Russia [12][41]. Group 2: Ukraine's Position - Ukrainian President Zelensky has expressed gratitude towards the U.S. while simultaneously navigating the pressures of accepting or rejecting American proposals, indicating a precarious balancing act [3][4]. - Zelensky's willingness to suggest modifications to the U.S. plan reflects a compromise, yet the lack of military backing undermines Ukraine's negotiating power [14][16]. - The internal divisions within Ukraine, between pro-European and pro-Russian factions, complicate the government's ability to present a united front in negotiations [41][48]. Group 3: Geopolitical Implications - The conflict has exposed deep fractures within the transatlantic alliance, with the U.S. engaging in back-channel communications with Russia while Europe feels sidelined [31][32]. - The ongoing war has transformed Ukraine into a battleground for larger geopolitical interests, with its fate largely determined by the decisions of major powers rather than its own agency [42][46]. - The shifting global focus towards other geopolitical hotspots may further marginalize Ukraine's plight, complicating its recovery and reconstruction efforts post-conflict [50][51].

Group 1 - The core argument emphasizes the importance of decolonization as an essential part of improving global governance, as highlighted by China's proposal for a more just and reasonable global governance system [1] - The speech references the historical context of decolonization, noting that 65 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which inspired many nations to seek freedom and independence [1] - Despite the end of colonial occupations, colonialist thinking persists, manifesting in hegemony and power politics, which need to be addressed across various domains including thought, politics, economy, and culture [1] Group 2 - A resolution draft titled "International Day Against All Forms and Manifestations of Colonialism" was submitted by the Venezuelan representative, aiming to accelerate the decolonization process and raise awareness of the harms of colonialism [2] - China expresses support for the decolonization of the 17 non-self-governing territories recognized by the UN and advocates for the self-determination rights of their peoples [2] - The issue of the Malvinas Islands is identified as a historical legacy of colonialism, with China advocating for peaceful negotiations based on the principles of the UN Charter to resolve territorial disputes [2]

Group 1 - The 80th anniversary of the United Nations is being commemorated, emphasizing China's commitment to the UN's ideals and its role in maintaining international order and contributing to global peace and development [1] - The significance of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression is highlighted as a crucial part of the global anti-fascist struggle, showcasing China's sacrifices for humanity and world peace [1] - The establishment of the United Nations post-World War II is recognized as a pivotal decision by the international community, with China being a founding member and the first signatory of the UN Charter [1] Group 2 - The current international landscape is described as turbulent, necessitating a reflection on history and a commitment to multilateralism and cooperation [2] - China, in collaboration with the UN and other member states, has organized various commemorative activities to enhance global understanding of its contributions to World War II [2] - The importance of the UN as a platform for multilateralism and global governance is emphasized, with a call to strengthen its role amidst rising unilateralism and hegemony [2] Group 3 - A global governance initiative proposed by China aims to address the increasing governance deficit, promoting principles such as sovereign equality, adherence to international law, and a people-centered approach [3] - This initiative is seen as a significant contribution to global governance reform, aligning with the UN Charter's principles and reflecting China's commitment to multilateralism [3] - China expresses willingness to collaborate with other nations to implement various global initiatives, reinforcing the vision of building a community with a shared future for humanity [3]

Group 1 - China's rare earth magnet exports surged nearly 75% in July compared to June, reaching 5,577 tons, marking the highest monthly level since January [1][4] - The top three destinations for China's rare earth exports in July were Germany, the United States, and Vietnam, with exports to the U.S. increasing from 46 tons in May to 619 tons in July [4][6] - The U.S. has shifted its stance towards China after acquiring rare earth materials, labeling China as a "hostile nation" and making unfounded accusations against it [6][9] Group 2 - The U.S. has a history of imposing sanctions and making baseless claims against China, including accusations related to Hong Kong and Taiwan, which have strained bilateral relations [9][13] - Recent U.S. legislative proposals target Chinese companies allegedly supporting Russia, further deepening tensions between the two nations [24][26] - China is committed to defending its interests and has emphasized its technological advancements in response to U.S. sanctions, showcasing improvements in companies like Huawei and SMIC [32][33]

Group 1 - Europe should deepen cooperation with China in areas such as green transition, technological innovation, digital economy, and industrial upgrading to build a more resilient autonomous development capability and promote a more balanced multipolar structure [1][3] - The U.S. unilateral tariff measures will directly impact European exports, leading to continuous outflow of industrial capital to the U.S. market, resulting in job losses and a decline in domestic demand, accelerating Europe's deindustrialization process [3] Group 2 - China has the confidence and capability to respond to U.S. unilateral tariff measures, with a rising proportion of exports to markets outside the U.S. and a booming domestic consumption market [2] - China's strategic ability to safeguard national interests is strengthened, focusing on self-innovation and expanding consumption demand while promoting agricultural modernization and urban-rural integration [2]

Core Points - The trade agreement between the US and Japan is characterized as a one-sided deal that heavily favors the US, with Japan making significant concessions [1][6] - The Japanese government is portrayed as having capitulated to US demands, leading to a situation where they are expected to invest $55 billion, with the US taking 90% of the profits [3][4][6] - The agreement is seen as detrimental to Japan's agricultural sector, which will face increased competition from US products due to market openings [4][6] Group 1: Agreement Details - The US reduced the threatened tariff on Japanese goods from 25% to 15%, which is framed as a concession but is viewed as a manipulation of Japan's position [3][4] - Japan is required to invest $55 billion in the US, with the US extracting 90% of the profits, a highly unusual and unfavorable arrangement for Japan [3][6] - The agreement forces Japan to open its markets, including sensitive agricultural products, which undermines its previous protections [4][6] Group 2: Market Reaction - Despite the unfavorable terms of the agreement, the Japanese stock market reacted positively, with the Nikkei 225 index rising over 800 points and major automotive stocks like Toyota and Mazda seeing significant gains [2] - This reaction is likened to a psychological phenomenon where individuals express relief at avoiding a worse outcome, despite the negative implications of the agreement [2][6] Group 3: Implications for Japan - The agreement is described as a "humiliating" deal for Japan, reminiscent of historical treaties that imposed severe restrictions and concessions [6][8] - The long-term sustainability of this relationship is questioned, as continuous concessions from Japan may lead to public discontent and economic challenges [8][9] - The agreement highlights the power dynamics in international relations, with the US leveraging its position to extract favorable terms at the expense of Japan [8][9]