【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.
#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人
----小弟頹譯------
蓬佩奧:謝謝。謝謝你們。州長,您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣:當您在那個體育館裡散步時,說出“蓬佩奧”的名字,人們就會耳語。因為,我有一個兄弟,Mark,他是一個非常好,一位非常出色的籃球運動員。
請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊(Blue Eagles Honor Guard)及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何? (掌聲)
也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱,我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱,由海軍陸戰隊介紹,讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 (笑聲)(按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 )一切都很好。
很榮幸來到Yorba Linda,尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。
在這困難時刻,使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員,感謝,感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。
我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓,包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫,Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower (尼克遜兩位女兒)對這次訪問的支持。
我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者,他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-(掌聲)-尊貴的客人,謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人,您們必須支付額外的費用(笑)。
以及那些正在觀看直播的人,感謝您的收看。
最後,正如州長所說,我在Santa Ana出生,離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭,您從沒想過我會站在這裡。
我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話,我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien,聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。
我們有一個非常明確的目標,一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面,數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。
我們的目標是明確指出,特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的,並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在,我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民,並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟,我們的自由,乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。
自基辛格(Kissinger)博士秘密訪問中國以來,到明年已經過去了半個世紀,而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。
那時世界大不一樣了。
我們以為與中國交往(engagement)將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。
但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩,看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加,因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。
我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作,並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊,包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大,甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。
從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區,我都有著與美國人心中的疑問:從與中國交往至今,美國人民這50年見到了什麼?
領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確?
這是中國對 "雙贏" 局面的定義嗎?
實際上,從國務卿的角度來看,美國更安全嗎?我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平,並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平?
看,我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理,它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展,如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀,而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀,那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續,也絕不能重返。
正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣,我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
現在,在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前,我想明確地說,他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情,而且他很可能是對的。
他是中國的傑出學生,冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者,正如我們一樣。
他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視,即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。
1967年,尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。
他的話是這樣的:他說:“從長遠來看,我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前,世界不會安全。因此,我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內,我們必須作出影響,而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”
我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞:“促使改變”。
因此,在歷史性的北京之行中,尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由,更安全的世界,並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。
隨著時間的流逝,美國決策者越來越多地認為,隨著中國變得更加繁榮,它將會對外開放,它會在國內變得更加自由,而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小,它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。
但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是,我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復,但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。
我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂,只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會,研究中心,高中,大學,甚至參加了家長教師會議。
我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化,後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。
我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇,只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。
前一天,Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子:萬豪,美國航空,達美航空,聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及,以免激怒北京。在荷里活,這裏的不遠處,距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者,他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。
公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。
這種企業忠誠度如何運作?奉承會得到獎勵嗎?讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說:“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”
中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密,損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈,然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。
它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。
尼克遜總統曾經說過,他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”,這正是如此。
現在,有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來,這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚,或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大,或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。
無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因,今天的中國在國內都越來越專制,並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。
特朗普總統說:夠了。
我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在,也有人堅持認為,為了對話而對話。
現在,要明確地說,我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前,我去了檀香山,與楊潔篪見面。
這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話,但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。
楊的承諾,就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣,都是空洞的。我想,他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求,因為坦率地說,這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有,特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣,我們必須記住,中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。
正是這種意識形態,正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異,就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。
以我在眾議院情報委員會,然後擔任中央情報局局長,以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗,使我對這種中央理解成為可能:
唯一的方式 — 真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法,不是對中國領導人聽其言,而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說,他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共,我說我們必須"不信任和核查"。 (掌聲)
我們,世界上熱愛自由的國家,必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣,促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革,因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。
我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣,把這個假象視為正常國家。
我們知道,與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的,遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議,以作為主導全球的渠道。
但是,通過堅持公平條款,就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣,我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。
我們也知道,與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題,而且其中許多是由國家贊助的,因此無需追求利潤。
華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司,它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅,並為採取了相應的行動。
我們也知道,如果我們的公司在中國投資,他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。
因此,我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作,以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。
我們也知道,我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。
我們知道,解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治,擴大中國帝國,而不是保護中國人民。
因此,美國國防部加大了工作力度,擴大了在東,南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊,以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。
同樣,坦率地說,我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策,推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標,以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。
就在本週,我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館,因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 (掌聲)
兩週前,我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。
我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。
國務院- 在世界各地,各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流,只是要求公平和互惠。
但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力,他們是一個充滿活力,熱愛自由的人民,他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 (掌聲)
無論我走到哪裡,我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談,有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前,我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。
上個月在我的辦公室裡,我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生,他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生,請您站起來,以便我們見到您嗎? (掌聲)
今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生,你能站起來嗎? (掌聲)
我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事,共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是,他們認為自己能代表14億被監視,壓迫和害怕說出來的人。
恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點,失去對權力的控制。
試想一下,如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信,並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報,那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。
幾十年來,我們的領袖一直無視,淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話,他們警告過我們所面對之政權。
我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。
但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。
但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心,因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心,因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友,破壞國內外的信任,拒絕財產權和法治。
我有信心。我之所以有信心,是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒,他們知道我們無法回到過去,美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾,悉尼到河內都聽說過。
最重要的是,我相信我們可以捍衛自由,因為自由本身是漂亮的。
看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制,要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。
是的,確實有差異。與蘇聯不同,中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是,北京對我們依賴,甚於我們依賴他們。 (掌聲)
瞧,我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代,某些陷阱(按:修昔底德陷阱)是預設的,中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的,因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣,自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它,就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習,來到這里工作,來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。
是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國,也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權,如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。
但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠,堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。
這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了,我們讓中共制定交往條款,但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。
我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線,而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實,這就是美國最近所做的事情,因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張,因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家,以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。
現在,這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此,其中一些人根本沒有能力,沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確,我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來,因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗,我們無法重複。
我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力,民主國家包括歐洲,非洲,南美,尤其是印度太平洋地區。
而且,如果我們現在不採取行動,那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由,並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝,我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈,中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。
習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴,除非我們允許
現在,這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。
因此,我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國,北約,七國集團國家,二十國集團,我們的經濟,外交和軍事力量合力,如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前,無疑足以應付這一挑戰。
也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體,一個新的民主國家聯盟了。
我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文,我問“要警醒禱告,免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意,肉體卻是軟弱的。”
如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變,共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。
確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命,而美國完全有能力領導它,
因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣,注視著獨立廳,我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。
確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔,包括中國境內的人。
確實,尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變,否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。
今天的危機已經明確了。
今天,覺醒正在發生。
今天,自由世界必須作出回應。
我們永遠無法回到過去。
願上帝保佑你們每個人。
願上帝保佑中國人民。'
願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。
謝謝你們。(掌聲)
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.
And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)
Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.
It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.
To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.
We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.
I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.
And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.
And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.
And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.
My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.
We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.
Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.
Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.
Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.
The world was much different then.
We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.
But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.
We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.
I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:
What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?
Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?
Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?
And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?
Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.
As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.
He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.
He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.
In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:
He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”
And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”
So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.
As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.
But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.
The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.
We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.
We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.
We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.
Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.
In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.
This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.
And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”
China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.
It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.
It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.
President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.
Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”
Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.
And President Trump has said: enough.
I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.
Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.
It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.
Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.
As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.
It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.
My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:
That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)
We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.
We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.
We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.
But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.
We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.
A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.
We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.
Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.
We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.
The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.
We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.
And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.
And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.
Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)
We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.
We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.
And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.
But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.
That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.
I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.
And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.
Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)
Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)
I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.
Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.
Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.
For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.
And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.
But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.
But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.
I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.
I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.
And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.
Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.
It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)
Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.
It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.
But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.
And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.
We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.
Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.
Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.
And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.
So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.
Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.
We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”
If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.
Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.
As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.
And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.
Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear.
And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond.
We can never go back to the past.
May God bless each of you.
May God bless the Chinese people.
And may God bless the people of the United States of America.
Thank you all.
(Applause.)
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「empower definition」的推薦目錄:
- 關於empower definition 在 馮智政 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於empower definition 在 Nicolene Pichapa Limsnukan Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於empower definition 在 宮能安 Kung Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於empower definition 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於empower definition 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於empower definition 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於empower definition 在 Empower Meaning - YouTube 的評價
empower definition 在 Nicolene Pichapa Limsnukan Facebook 的最讚貼文
❤❤
สารจากใจทีมแอดมิน TalkMissThailand ถึงสาวน้อยมหัศจรรย์คนนี้ Nicolene Pichapa Limsnukan ....ทำไมเราถึงรักและสนับสนุนนิโคลีนตลอด1ปีที่ผ่านมา....
เพราะนิโคลีนเป็นคนที่โอบอ้อมอารี อ่อนโยน เป็นความงามที่มีคุณค่าและออกมาจากภายใน ส่งพลังบวกสู่คนไทยและชาวโลก นิโคลีนคือผู้หญิงที่เหมาะสมกับคำว่า Beauty with a purpose ทุกประการ แอดบอกเลยว่าตลอดการประกวดมิสเวิลด์2018นั้น พวกเราไม่เคยหยุดนิ่งที่จะช่วยเหลือสาวน้อยคนนี้เลยไม่ว่าปัดMobStar ทั้งวันทั้งคืน มีโหวตอะไรก็ช่วยกันสุดฤทธิ์ เพราะแฟนๆรู้ดีว่านิโคลทำเต็มที่ทำมากกว่าพวกเราอีก น้องสู้ น้องทำเต็มที่พวกเรารับรู้ได้ ผลตอบแทนรองมิสเวิลด์คือของรางวัลที่ยิ่งใหญ่ที่สุดที่น้องได้มอบให้กับแฟนๆ แต่มากกว่านั้นแล้วตลอดเส้นทางที่ผ่านมมา1 ปี นิโคลลีนคือคำว่านางงามผู้ทรงคุณค่าในหัวใจของแฟนๆชาวไทยตลอดไป อีกไม่ถึง1เดือนน้องก็จะอำลาตำแหน่งแล้วในวันที่ 3 สิงหาคมนี้ แอดไม่อาจจะบรรยายเป็นตัวอักษรได้ทั้งหมดแต่ขอใช้คำสั้นๆแทนความรู้สึกว่า ...love you forever...นิโคลลีนจะอยู่ในความความทรงจำของพวกเราตลอดไป ❤️
💗💗💗
หนึ่งในคำตอบรอบตัดสิน #MTW2018
ที่ยังตราตรึงและประทับอยู่ในหัวใจของแอดมินตราบจนทุกวันนี้
Your own definition of beauty with a purpose?
For me, beauty with a purpose beauty with a purpose means that you have the strength within you to empower other people, as well as being able to work for your society, work for your charity and follow your dreams and have other people follow their dreams as well. The fact that you are able to help other people, help pulling out their cheerfulness and liveliness means that you are the person of beauty with a purpose and totally ready to be a giver. For me, this is the ‘true’ meaning of beauty with a purpose.
Miss World - Thailand Miss World Miss World Thailand Fanpage
empower definition 在 宮能安 Kung Facebook 的最佳貼文
《親密戲導演》
American Theatre,2018年11月號。
《演員的親密戲》
擷自內文:
「性愛場景,如同設計武打場,或是舞蹈動作一般,需要同樣細心編排的動作設計,特別是在這個 #MeToo時代。 」
「我在研究所時期也是演員,所以我有親身體驗—那種來自同事的不恰當經驗,一起跟我上台的人,或是導演完全不知道該怎麼處理這些(親密戲)場景,所以他們索性就完全不處理。」Sina說 「如果你有一個比較年長的導演,碰到親密戲他會跟你們說:你們就做吧,就試看各種可能。所以你們就開始在性愛場景中即興,這是非常不舒服的經驗,而且大多數時候非常令人受傷。」
「親密戲的指示,從來沒有在演員Emily與她的女搭檔編排動作設計遇到困難時出現(她們當時在編排一個充滿戲劇衝突的雙人愛情戲),即使Emily之前演過同性間的愛情戲,她仍然發現自己舉步維艱, 而她的導演除了不斷對著她們大吼舞臺指示「洶湧的情慾」以外,毫無建樹。兩位演員根本沒有辦法自己演完這場戲,而她們發現到了排練最後階段,她們的導演對著她們大喊「就做吧。時候到了。」
「劇場的一切都是假的,」Sina說,「那是一個由演員搬演的假故事,我們必須永遠記得這點,你不應該因此失去自我,你必須在自我跟所做事情之間取得很好的平衡。是的,你必須把自己奉獻給角色,但你也必須要在適當時候離開。」
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
前言:
自己日常閱讀時發現這篇文章,其中許多觀念頗為受用,花了幾天翻譯出來,希望能給台灣帶來不同觀念交流、分享,人家對身體以及一切相關觀念,已經好前面了。
雖為英文系畢業,但仍非專業翻譯,謬誤之處歡迎指正。
歡迎轉貼,請勿用做商業用途。
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
正文:
Intimate Exchanges
Sex scenes require as much careful choreography as flight or dances, especially in the #MeToo era.
《交換親密》
性愛場景,如同設計武打場,或是舞蹈動作一般,需要同樣細心編排的動作設計,特別是在這個 #MeToo時代。
Adam Noble had been teaching an advanced scene class for just one month when he faced a startling encounter with sexual assault in acting. A student came to him asking for a new scene partner, saying she thought the man she had been working with, on the final scene between Stanley and Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire, had tried to rape her.
Adam Noble在他的進階場景分析課上遇到一件令他膽戰心驚的表演性騷擾事件,一名學生跟他要求更換場景搭檔,她說她的搭檔企圖在他們一起工作《慾望街車》最後一景Stanley跟Blanche的戲時,企圖強暴她。
Noble immediately offered to serve as a mediator for the two students, who had been rehearsing alone in the young man’s dorm room, in order to clarify what had happened. The situation was resolved as a misunderstanding, and the two were able to continue working together. But for Noble, who had staged his first theatrical flight in 1992, the incident served as a wake-up call.
Noble立即以協調者身分為兩位同學提供幫助(他們一直單獨在男同學宿舍房間單獨排練),以求能夠釐清事實真相。後來發現整起事件其實是個誤會,兩位同學也因此能夠繼續一起順利工作。但對於Noble來說—他從1992年就設計了他的人生第一場舞台打搏鬥戲—這起突發事件有如一記響鐘。
“We were sending these kids off on their own devices with no foundation for how to approach this stuff,” he recalled. The lack of resources for both students and teachers regarding the staging of intimate scenes was apparent.
「我們讓這些孩子在完全不具備如何處理理這種事的相關基礎知識時候,就放手要他們自己發展,」他這麼回憶。「因此,老師與學生雙方都缺乏排練親密戲的必須知識,這件事是顯而易見的。」
Noble developed a method called Extreme Stage Physicality to provide students with a framework to address what he called in an article for The Flight Master maginize “scenarios of intense physicality” with comfort and confidence. He began teaching ESP to high school, undergraduate, nd graduate students across the country. He found that the methodology was effective for all ages, and the number of reported incidents and problems dropped to zero.
Noble後來發展出了一套他稱之為「極端舞台形體」(ESP)的技巧,他對《The Fight Master》雜誌表⽰這個技巧提供了一組完整架構給學生使用,讓他們在「激烈的肢體情境」中可以感到安心並且擁有自信。他開始在高中、大學、研究所教導這套ESP技巧。他發現這套方法適用於所有年齡層,後來這些單位的性騷擾通報數量為零。
“For me as a director, it had to work for aggression, and it had to work for intimacy,” Noble said. “ It had to work across the board for those moments when the body steps in to fill the void, whether it’s violence or intimacy. Theres’s a point where the text and the words are no longer enough and the body steps in. There had to be a way for them to work on it safely.”
「身為導演,我認為在工作時,必須涵蓋侵略性以及親密性這些面向,」Noble說,「這些都必須要被全面地工作到的,特別是在那些時刻,當你的身體必須要介入來填補空缺的時候,會有那麼一個點,光靠文本跟台詞已經不足以支撐而你的身體必須要介入,在這時候必須要有一個安全工作的方法。」
That way would later be referred to as intimacy choreography, a term first used in 2006 by Tonia Sina, creator of the Intimacy Directors International. While studying movement pedagogy, including flowing and mime, Sina was helping to choreograph intimate scenes in student-directed plays and found what she described as “a hole” in choreography and no resources to help with her work.
那套方法,後來被「國際親密戲導演工作坊」創辦人之一Tonia Sina稱為「親密戲形體排練」。當 Sina在鑽研動作教育學時—其中包含小丑與默劇—一面幫忙在學生執導的劇目中擔任動作設計,就在這時候,她發現了在動作設計這個領域中的「空缺」,而這方面,她發現自己完全沒有任何資源可以幫上忙。
For her thesis he created a technique to help actors improve the conditions of their work as well as the results. Published in 2006, “ Intimate Encounters; Staging Intimacy and Sensuality” drew from her own experience as an actor. While attending graduate school at Virginia Commonwealth University, Sina’s personal life was disrupted due to the lack of structure provided for staging intimate sscenes. While rehearsing Picasso at the Latin Agile, she and her acting partner staged a love scene together, alone-a standard practice for such scenarios- with unnerving results.
她在她的論文創造了一套技巧,來幫助演員精進他們工作的狀態以及成果。2006年,她從自身演員經驗出發,發表了《親密接觸:表演中的親密性及其感官性》。大學就讀維吉尼亞聯邦大學時,Sina的私生活就因為沒有一套擁有完整架構的技巧來排演親密場景,而深受其苦。在排練Picasso at the Latin Agile 時,Sina跟她的表演搭擋需要排練一段愛情戲,而且是獨自排練—一個司空見慣的情況—然後最後結果卻令人不安。
“The second our lips touched it was not rehearing,” Sina recalled. “It was just kissing. We both felt it. We both knew. It ended up spiraling. We ended up leaving our parters for a month and we had a showmance. It caused a lot of mayhem in our personal lives because we couldn’t let these characters go. We didn’t have a safe way to do the intimacy, and we didn’t have a safe way of coming out of it.”
「當我們的嘴唇碰在一起時,那就不是在排練了。」Sina回憶道。「那就只是單純在接吻而已。我們都感覺到了,最後越演越烈,我們都因此而跟各自伴侶分手,在那個演出期間我們的私生活真的變得很混亂,因為我們都不肯放下我們劇中角色。我們沒有一個安全的方法來做親密戲,也沒有一個安全的方法來離開它。」
The two dated for a month, but their romantic relationship ended shortly after the show closed. And while Sina’s experience was consensual, there are many cases in which an intimacy director could have prevented non-consensual encounters and abuses of power, especially for young women in the industry.
他們兩個交往了一個月,但隨著戲告一段落感情也就馬上結束了。儘管Sina的案例是當事者雙方都心甘情願,仍然有非常多的例子不是如此,在那樣的狀況下其實親密戲導演是有大把機會可以防止這種違反自身意願的接觸,以及權力的濫用,特別是對業界年輕女性而言。
“While I was in grad school I was also an actress, so I was experiencing it firsthand- situations that had been completely inappropriate from co-workers, people who had been onstage with me, director and there’s a sex scene and they say, ‘You guys just do it. Just try something.’ So you’re improvising a sex scene with your partner. That’s extremely uncomfortable and very victimizing at times.”
「我在研究所時期也是演員,所以我有親身體驗—那種來自同事的不恰當經驗,一起跟我上台的人,或是導演完全不知道該怎麼處理這些(親密戲)場景,所以他們索性就完全不處理。」Sina說 「如果你有一個比較年長的導演,碰到親密戲他會跟你們說:你們就做吧,就試看各種可能。所以你們就開始在性愛場景中即興,這是非常不舒服的經驗,而且大多數時候非常令人受傷。」
Alcoa Rodies, co-founder of Intimacy Directors Internatial, witnessed and was a victim in such scenarios throughout her career. After almost chipping a tooth when a scene partner decided to intensify a kiss onstage, she was told, “ That’s part of the profession. Get used to it.” Knowing there were hundreds of other women who would gladly take her spot in a show if she left, Rodis thought she had to accept that kind of behavior for the rest of her career.
IDI共同創辦人Alcia Rodis在她自己生涯中,親眼見過幾個案例,並且,也曾經有過身為受害者的經驗。在她的對手演員決定在場上把吻戲變得異常激烈時,她的牙齒幾乎都要裂了,儘管如此,她還是被告知「這行就是這樣。早點習慣吧。」因為Rodis清楚知道如果她選擇離開的話,會有其他幾百位女性會搶破頭想要她的位置,她一度以為她必須要在整個職涯中接受這種狀況。
“We sort of learned that’s not the case, and we don’t have to just take it. We can actually be part of the process and work together,” Rodis said.
「我們後來知道其實並不是這樣的,我們不需要逆來順受。我們其實可以在整個工作過程中同心協力地工作。」Rodis 說。
Sina and Rodies, along with co-founder Siobhan Richardson, created the Pillars, the core protocol of IDI’s work and teaching. A codified process, the Pillars consist of Context, Commumication, Consent and Choreography. (They recently estabished a fifth pillar, Closure, to assist actors in walking away from a character after a performance.) Not having this process, Sina said, can be damaging and dangerous.
Sina跟Rodis,以及創辦夥伴Siobhan Richardson發明了「骨幹」這個IDI在工作及教學上的核心要素草案。其中包含:文本、溝通、同意以及動作(近期還加上了第五個骨幹:收尾。來幫助演員在戲結束之後順利離開他的角色。)Sina說,沒有這些幫助的話,是有可能帶來危害的。
“None of it’s real-it’s theatre,” said Sina. “It’s a fake story that is being portrayed by actors, and we have to keep remembering that. You shouldn’t be losing yourself. You need to have some semblance of yourself and some awareness of what you’re doing. Yes you can commit to the character, but you need to come out again.”
「劇場的一切都是假的,」Sina說,「那是一個由演員搬演的假故事,我們必須永遠記得這點,你不應該因此失去自我,你必須在自我跟所做事情之間取得很好的平衡。是的,你必須把自己奉獻給角色,但你也必須要在適當時候離開。」
IDI currently recommends four certified Intimacy Directors, with 16 candidates in training to become certified. Currently only established movement teachers, choreographers, and directors who have worked directly with a founder are able to apply for training. The organization also offers workshops for actors, directors who want to learn basic consent and choreography, and for stage managers and choreographers wanting to learn more about intimacy direction. In August 2018, a 10-day International Intimacy Pedagogy was held in Illinois.
IDI最近推薦了四位經過認證的親密戲導演,陸續還有其他十六位正在培訓。目前,機構只提供專業的、並且曾和創辦者共事過的動作老師、編舞以及導演可以申請接受培訓。IDI有提供工作坊給演員及導演學習「同意」與「動作」的基礎概念,另有舉辦工作坊,給有意願了解更多關於「如何給予親密戲指示」的舞臺經理與動作設計。2018年8月,他們在伊利諾州舉辦了為期10天的國際親密戲教育學工作坊。
Along with the Pillars, another crucial aspect of intimacy directing is recognizing and respecting traumas in one’s colleagues. All IDI-certified choreographers have completed state-offered metal health certification courses.
除了「骨幹」之外,另有一個至關重要的概念:辨識並且尊重同事的創傷。所有IDI的動作設計都完成了由州政府認證的心理健康課程。
“None of us are therapists, and none of us are counselors,” Rodis said. “But we know what to do if someone is having a metal health crisis, and we know what resources to give them. Because of the nature of the work we’re doing, and because some of us are so new, we’re getting further education on trauma.”
「我們都不是心理治療師,我們也都不是諮商師,」Rodis說「但是,我們知道當有人心理出現危機時該給他們什麼資源。因為就我們現在所做的工作本質上來說,我們都是新手,所以我們有必要持續在創傷這個議題上進修。」
While recognizing that theatre professionals are just that- professionals hired to tell a story- the founders also understand that that job can involve actors putting themselves through traumatic experiences night after night.
“We know what you’re doing is different than going to the office every day,” Rodis said, “If you’re playing Lady Macbeth every night, after a while it’s going to wear on you. So we also offer resources on how to close out at the end of every night.”
正因為知道劇場這個職業就是由一群受聘的專業演員來講一則故事,創辦者清楚的認識到這個工作可能需要演員讓他們自己日復一日、夜復一夜的經歷那些創傷。「我們明⽩你的工作不同於朝九晚五的上班族,」Rodis說,「如果妳每天晚上都在飾演馬克白夫人,過一陣子這個角色其實是會影響到妳本人的,正因為如此,我們也提供方法讓你在每晚演出過後把角色給關起來。」
One such resource is the ability to discuss sexuality and sexual experiences openly and without discomfort- a shift from the norm in American culture, which, as actor/director/teacher Claire Warden observed, has little problem with violence but tends to balk when it comes to sex, leaving directors feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed.
其中一個資源,就是擁有能力來討論性以及性經驗而不會感到不適。談論性這件事,不同於具有多重身份(演員、導演與老師)的Claire Warden觀察到的一個美國文化現象:談到暴力時大家都沒問題,不過一但談到性的時候大家都顯得有點畏畏縮縮的,這其實讓導演們都覺得不舒服與尷尬。
“We’ve got this really skewed view of sex and sexuality and intimacy, and an obsession with it,“ Warden Said, “ A lot of shame, judgment, power, and confusion lies around it, which has made it uncomfortable and awkward to talk about openly.” The root problem, she said, may be that “sexuality and intimacy have kind of blurred into one.”
「我們對於性與親密的相關議題有一種扭曲的觀念,同時卻又深深為其著迷」Warden說,「這同時又有許多羞愧、判斷、權力以及困惑參雜其中,因此讓它成為一個公開談論時會帶來不適與尷尬的議題。」根據她說,其實真正根深蒂固的問題是,我們把「性」與「親密」混為一談。
Intimacy direction was never mentioned when an actor we’ll call Emily(not her real name) was performing in a dramatic two-handler and struggled to choreograph a love scene with her female scene partner. Having never performed a same-sex love scene before, Emily found herself at a loss, and her director- whose only technique was to yell the stage direction “Rolling heat!” Repeatedly- was no help. The two actors were unable to stage the scene on their own and found themselves onstage at the end of rehearsal with the director yelling. “Just do it. It’s time.”
親密戲的指導,從來沒有在演員Emily與她的女搭檔編排動作設計遇到困難時出現(她們當時在編排一個充滿戲劇衝突的雙人愛情戲),即使Emily之前演過同性間的愛情戲,她仍然發現自己舉步維艱, 而她的導演除了不斷對著她們大吼舞臺指示「洶湧的情慾」以外,毫無建樹。兩位演員根本沒有辦法自己演完這場戲,而她們發現到了排練最後階段,她們的導演對著她們大喊「就做吧。時候到了。」
Emily recalled that “when it came time to do it in performances, fight director friends of mine ho came to see the how said, ‘That look incredibly uncomfortable for you both. You looked like you were in pain and it was obvious.’’’ Her friends asked her where the intimacy director was. Emily had never heard of such a director, saying, “ I wish I’d known about it at the time when all the yelling was happening.”
Emily後來說,「後來真的演出時,我有個舞台搏鬥導演朋友來看演出,到了所謂的『就做吧』片段時,他說『那看起來對妳們兩個都極其不舒服,妳們看起來超痛苦,而且非常明顯。」她的朋友繼續問她親密戲導演在哪。Emily那時從來沒有聽過有「親密戲導演」這種導演,她說「我真希望在所有的吼叫發叫的當下,我能夠知道『其實有親密戲導演』這件事。」
Emily now a director herself, said she is carful to ensure that her actors are comfortable when staging intimate scenes. “I am hyper-aware of my actors’ sensitivity and I’m constantly checking in with them: ‘Are you okay? Are you comfortable with this? Let me know if you’re not comfortable. We don’t have to do this. We can do something else.’ And my actors thank me for it. They’re not used to that.”
現在身為導演的Emily表示:「在排練親密戲時,我總是對我的演員的感受保持超級高的敏感度,我會不停的詢問他們『你還好嗎?你對這個覺得自在嗎?如果有不舒服要讓我知道。我們不一定要這麼做,我們可以有替代方案的。』我的演員總是對此心存感激,他們對這樣的工作方式其實還不是那麼習慣。」
Uncomfortable situations can present themselves with or without directors in the room. Often scene partners are encouraged to stage the scenes on their own, outside of rehearsal, a practice that can lead to feelings of fear and helplessness. Sina was kissed inappropriately- a kiss that hadn’t been choreographed or rehearsed- in front of an audience of 500 people and had to be in character as she received it.
不舒服的狀況不論導演在不在場都有可能發生。通常演員們會被鼓勵私下自己排練,其實,這麼做很容易引發恐懼與無助感。Sina曾在500位觀眾面前被不當的親吻—一個沒被事先設計或是排練過的吻 —而她在被親的同時還要想辦法讓自己「待在角色裡」。
“There are times where it’s, ‘Kiss, but don’t kiss until previews.’ It’s the worst,” Rodis said. “At best it’s a bad story, at worst they start grabbing you, ‘be in the moment.’ That’s the definition of assault.”
「有時候的情況是親,但是在試演前不會真的親,那種是最糟的。」Rodis說,「當那種狀況發生時,你能得到最好的結果是一個爛故事,最糟的結果是你開始被這件事給抓住還要『待在當下』, 這其實就是侵犯的定義。」
Along with establishing the definition of assault, IDI training also defines consent in clear, unquestionable terms that differentiate between that and permission. A director can give permission to touch another actor, but only a fellow actor can give consent.
除了建立侵犯的定義以外,IDI還以清清楚楚、不容模糊的語彙界定了「同意」與「允許」的差異。 導演可以「允許」演員去觸摸對手,但只有對手演員自己才可以真的表示「同意」。
“The conversation is always very professional and technical, so when we’re talking about parts of the body, it’s the biological name of the part of the body.” said Warden. “And we as intimacy directors never ask anything about and never inquire about the actors’, directors’ or anyone else’s personal sexual life, history, story, proclivities, etc.”
「所有的討論都是非常專業的,當我們必須要談論身體的部位時,我們都會用生物學名稱。」 Warden說,「身為親密戲導演,我們絕對不會去問任何演員、導演或是任何人的個人性愛生活、歷史、故事或是性傾向...等等任何事情。」
The language doesn’t change when the workshops contain students, Warden said, though she may move more slowly.
語彙的使用並不會因為工作坊有學生而改變,Warden說,只是她會教的更慢而已。
“A lot of what we’re saying for adults is still, ‘That is not real. None of this is real.’’’ said Sina. “In rehearsal, we don’t add acting to it until the very last minute, We choreograph it like we do anything else. Just do the moves so everyone knows what’s happening. Then they can add the emotion to it when the actors are ready and they feel they know the choreography well enough. And if you can get that to happen for minors, it separates the sexuality from the choreography and allows them to treat it like it is: choreography.”
「即便我們跟成年人都一直在強調『這都不是真的,這一切都是假的。』」Sina說。「排練的時候,我們不到最後一分鐘是不會加上『表演』的。在最後關頭之前。我們都像是處理其他素材一樣,做形體動作讓大家都知道會發生什麼事。一直到演員們都準備好了,對動作都夠熟悉時,他們才會真的帶入感情去演出。如果你能夠讓這些未成年先開始這麼做,慢慢的所有人就能夠把性跟動作設計分開來來看,然後以正確的眼光看它:動作設計。」
The inability to treat intimate scenes as simply choreography is a problem Sina has observed at numerous drama competitions, where students without sexual experience or knowledge, let alone the ability to separate themselves from the characters they were playing, have performed sex scenes. These situations can be traumatizing for people without the knowledge or resources to handle it.
Sina在無數個戲劇比賽上觀察到一個問題,學生們往無法把親密場景當成動作設計一樣來處理,這群學生們沒有性經驗或是相關知識,想當然就無法在性愛戲中把自己跟扮演的人物切割開來看待。這種狀況是非常有可能讓人受創的,特別是對那些沒有相關知識,或是資源來處理這種狀況的人。
“If they’re not being led through it properly, it can be very, very dangerous,” she said. “It’s illegal in our country to do anything sexual with a minor or have two minors do something sexual in front of an adult. It’s very thin line between choreography and a crime when you’re dealing with minors.”
「如果他們沒有被好好引導的話,那真的非常非常的危險。」她說,「根據我們國家的法律,讓一個或多個未成年人在成年人面前做出帶有性愛意味的事情是違法的。所以面對未成年時,在『動作設計』跟『犯罪』之間其實只有一條非常模糊的線。」
Demand for IDI services and training has spiked in the past year, since the #MeToo movement has exposed abuse in the entertainment field, including theatre, and the issues of consent and empowerment in the workplace (not to mention outside of it) have become central.
自從去年#MeToo運動開始後,對IDI這個機構的服務與訓練來說,他們面臨了重要挑戰。在娛樂產業(包含劇場)的職場上(更別提職場外也是),現在,關於「同意」與「權力」的議題都變得重要無比了。
“At the moment there’s so much need and demand and only so many of us to go around,” Warden said. “I cannot be in every single room and play out there, but what I can do is empower actors or directors or even stag managers to go into a room and say, ‘I would like to offer a way of talking about this.”
「目前來看,親密戲導演的需求與實際從業人數是不成正比的,」Warden說。「很顯然的,我不可能出現在每一個房間裡指導,但我可以做的是賦予演員、導演甚是舞臺經理權力,讓他們能夠在每個房間替自己發聲『我想要提供另外一種工作方式』。」
Also encouraging to Warden is the increased awareness among young students.
對Warden來說,令他欣慰的是年輕一代學生中對這件事情有意識的人數越來越多了。
“My hope, my intentions and my dream is that the next generation of actors, writers, and directors come out with a very different understating of respect and consent with their bodies and each others’ bodies,” Warden said. “And that leads us into an even more free and safe way to creat deep, authentic, risky stories.”
「我的願望、我的本意、以及我的夢想都是下個世代的演員、作家、以及導演都能夠對他們自己以及他人的身體,有一種非常不同於現在的理解、尊重、權利,」Warden說,「這可以讓我們以更自由,同時也更加安全的方式來創造出具深度、真誠、精彩的故事。」
Carey Purcell, New York city-based reporter
empower definition 在 Empower Meaning - YouTube 的必吃
Video shows what empower means. To give permission, power, or the legal right to do something.. To give someone more confidence and/or ... ... <看更多>