Secession: Why some in Oregon want to become part of Idaho_我的网站
A |
File picture of US Capitol. Photo: VCG The US Senate on Friday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would impose sanctions on buyers of Russian oil, a measure that had long been championed by the late senator Lindsey Graham before his death last month, CNBC reported. A Chinese expert criticized the legislation, warning that if implemented, the bill, driven largely by political motives aimed at catering to US domestic political correctness, could severely disrupt the already fragile global energy market and economy. He also noted that the bill is essentially a tool of political coercion, weaponizing tariffs and unilateral sanctions to hijack normal global energy trade and override sovereign economic choices of independent nations. The legislation, named The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, aims to hurt Russia's war effort in Ukraine by penalizing purchasers of Russian oil and Russian leaders. It passed with bipartisan support 86-11 and will now proceed to the House, which is on recess until September, per CNBC. The bill would impose tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries that are among the top five purchasers of Russian crude oil or gas, which includes China and India. It also includes sanctions targeting Russian leaders, officials, targeting Russian leaders, oligarchs and financial institutions. At the request of US President Donald Trump, the bill extends sanctions on Iran's weapons and energy sectors, CNBC reported. Notably, the bill's excessive tariff discretion has sparked fierce internal doubts within US political circles. Representatives Gregory Meeks of New York and Don Beyer of Virginia said in a statement they still had "fundamental concerns" about the tariff powers for the president, who has made them a central piece of his "America First" approach to foreign policy. "What the bill does grant ... are sweeping new tariff authorities that the president could weaponize with abandon, as he has repeatedly done in the past," said Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Beyer, the senior Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, according to Reuters. Chinese experts have strongly criticized the bill's politically driven nature, its economic coercion, and its severe spillover risks to the global economy. The bill, aimed at putting pressure on Russia, would disrupt global energy markets and create new uncertainties for the world economy if implemented, Yang Jin, associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times. Many economies retain legitimate, market-based energy cooperation with Russia out of practical economic and energy security needs. Russia's energy exports have long been a key component of the global energy system, with countries including India and some European nations continuing to rely on Russian oil and gas, said Yang, noting that even some European countries have received exemptions to maintain energy imports from Russia, underscoring the role of Russian supplies in supporting economic stability. India's reliance on Russian crude increased further after the conflict in West Asia disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. With Gulf supplies affected during the US war on Iran, Indian refiners turned more heavily towards Russian oil as an alternative source, Indian media Hindustan Times reported on Saturday after US Senate passed the bill. When asked about the bill on July 15, Lin Jian, spokesperson from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that China firmly opposes unilateral sanctions that have no basis in international law or authorization of the UN Security Council, and will take necessary measures to firmly defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese businesses and citizens. Practicing double standards and resorting to coercion and pressuring will eventually prove to be self-defeating, said Lin. Yang further pointed out that the push for the bill, labeled after Lindsey Graham, who was known as one of the toughest Russia hawks in Washington, lays bare Washington's distorted domestic political logic. The legislation, which represents another typical case of US hegemonic long-arm jurisdiction, is largely designed to ease US domestic governance pressure. As the Trump administration fails to deliver substantive progress in de-escalating the Russia-Ukraine conflict as promised, ramping up external sanctions and forcing third-party sovereign countries into abandoning normal economic and trade cooperation has become a convenient political tool for US politicians to showcase tough posturing and ease domestic pressure, Yang said. 。
B | Mike McCarter knows his American history almost as well as he knows his Bible. His family has lived and worshipped in Oregon for four generations. "The only time I lived out of the state was during the Vietnam War when I was in the military," he said.But his Oregon may not be the Oregon you're thinking of, the one with the misty rugged coastline, pinot noir wineries, and its loyally Blue politics. McCarter lives in the town of La Pine, in the state's rural and more sparsely populated part – the Red side of Oregon. "It's almost like the Grand Canyon goes right along the Cascade Range," he told correspondent Lee Cowan. "It is a big divide."What that means politically, he says, is that the Blue part of Western Oregon always outweighs the Eastern part's Red. "In talking to a legislator over in the Portland area, I said, 'The legislature doesn't listen to our people, our representatives over here.' He said, 'Whoa whoa whoa, stop, Mike. We hear what they're staying. We just out-vote you.'"
So, McCarter decided to look for greener pastures - or in this case, at least ones a little more red. Last fall, when "Sunday Morning" first met McCarter, he was spearheading a campaign called Move Oregon's Border. The group had been busy introducing ballot measures all across the state asking voters about the idea of pushing the urban, Blue bits of Oregon into a smaller but still populous state, and then taking the rural Red bits and creating what would be part of a more expansive Idaho.The group Move Oregon's border advocated for moving the border so that rural counties in Oregon's east would become part of Idaho, a more conservative state. CBS News Sandie Gilson owns a real estate business in rural John Day, Oregon, which is closer to Boise than it is Portland in virtually every way. She told Cowan, "When you have a government that won't listen to the opposition, or take into account those of us that live out here, then we have no government representation."Cowan asked Gilson, "Are you optimistic that you think you have a chance?""I look at it like the American Revolution was a big hurdle to make, and they did it," she replied.
It'd been a year since "Sunday Morning" visited, so Cowan went back, to find out how things stood. Back then, nine counties had voted in favor of considering making Eastern Oregon part of Idaho. Now, that number is up 12, with another set to vote next May. CBS News "We're getting into people's heads about this," McCarter said.As for Idaho, well, it's at least open to discussions. This past spring Idaho's state representatives approved a measure to begin a dialogue with Oregon over whether and how to redraw their common boundary. But so far, McCarter said Oregon is playing hard to get, at least in public. "We've heard from behind the scenes, 'Wait a minute, if we fund a bridge in Eastern Oregon, why would be we do that if it's going to become Idaho?'" he said. But the opposition has swung into gear, too. A Portland non-profit called Western States Center is branding the move a "radical change" that would raise taxes and cut wages. Comparing it to Oregon's past white nationalists hate groups, one ad declares, "Members of Patriot Group, a white nationalist hate group, support a secession. Makes you wonder: Why are violent extremists pushing for secession?"Their message: If rural conservatives don't like Oregon's urban liberal leanings, well, don't move the border, move themselves instead.
McCarter said, "We're not running away from the problem, we're not going to run away and move to Idaho. We're going to deal with the problem right here and now."There are a lot of details still to be ironed out, and the devil is in every one of them. Not to mention the fact that actually changing the border would require both Oregon and Idaho to agree, and would then need approval by the U.S. Congress.Richard Kreitner, author of the book "Break It Up: Secession, Division, and the Secret History of America's Imperfect Union," says it's hardly a new idea: "I don't think that we should act like state lines are written in stone. We should look at them and say, 'Does this actually make sense?' Little, Brown "Secession has always been there. Catholics lived in Maryland, debtors lived in Georgia, you know, Puritans lived in New England. They were kind of separate to begin with. And that's why they wanted nothing to do with one another.""So, it's really woven into our DNA?" asked Cowan. "Absolutely. There's nothing sacred about Oregon. There's nothing sacred about Delaware or my native New Jersey, in my opinion. You know, these are just kind of inherited forms."Mike McCarter will be the first to tell you that moving Oregon's border is radical. But, he says, if we've learned anything about our politics in the last several years, it's that "conventional" seems so yesterday.
"I mean, as fast as things are changing in this country right now, why can't we?" he said. "Why can't people still have the right to vote for who governs them?" For more info:
微信
移动端
