Search results

Wang Siu-ha. ; Thesis submitted in: December 2003. ; Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2004. ; Includes bibliographical references (leaves 146-150). ; Abstracts in English and Chinese. ; Chapter Chapter I : --- Introduction --- p.1 ; Chapter Chapter II : --- Peasant women before the Revolution --- p.18 ; Chapter Chapter III: --- "The Bolsheviks on the ""Women Question""" --- p.46 ; Chapter Chapter IV : --- Mobilizing Peasant Women --- p.71 ; Chapter A. --- Educating Peasant Women ; Chapter (I) --- Formal education --- p.72 ; Chapter (II) --- Informal education --- p.76 ; Visual political propaganda: poster ; Chapter B. --- Coercing Peasant Women ; Chapter (I) --- Dekulakization --- p.83 ; Chapter (II) --- The Anti-Religious campaign --- p.85 ; Chapter Chapter V : --- Peasant Women Respond to Collectivization --- p.91 ; Chapter A. --- Educating Peasant Women ; Chapter (I) --- Peasant Women Respond to Formal Education --- p.93 ; Chapter (II) --- Peasant Women Respond to Informal education --- p.108 ; Chapter B. --- Coercion ; Chapter (I) --- Dekulakization --- p.112 ; Chapter (II) --- Anti-religious measures --- p.115 ; Chapter (III) --- Introduction of Secular Rites for Religious Rites --- p.119 ; Chapter Chapter VI: --- Conclusion --- p.131 ; Chapter A. --- Rationalists --- p.136 ; Chapter B. --- Rationalist-Romantics --- p.138 ; Chapter C. --- Romantics --- p.139 ; Appendix 1 --- p.143 ; Appendix 2 --- p.144 ; Appendix 3 --- p.145 ; Bibliography --- p.146

The COVID-19 pandemic brought on the so-called "coronacrisis," a global crisis event enormous in size and force. The crisis questioned the ability of states and instruments of international governance to respond quickly and effectively to the global threats. It is noteworthy that there was no strong correlation between crisis management efficacy and the type of political system of a country. However, the countries with elaborated and well-financed health systems, were able to struggle with the devastating consequences of the coronacrisis better than those with systemic, structural and financial problems of their healthcare sectors. It is obvious that the ability to manage the coronacrisis is not related to the type of political governance or ideology, but to the state administrative resources and competence of the cabinet / leaders. That potentially gave an opportunity for countries with different ideological foundations to neglect their tensions and unite the efforts in the containment of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (e.g. create mutual programmes of vaccination and medicine distribution). The main forces are the Transatlantic alliance, Russia and China. Unfortunately, no visible COVID-19-related agreement between them ever happened so far. Instead, the coronacrisis situation was used by the political rivals to intensify their aggressive rhetoric against each other (e.g., USA and Russia, USA and China) or profit from it in deepening international collaboration not connected with the pandemic itself (e.g., Russia and China). We do not observe any real mutual efforts of liquidating the pandemic consequences even within an ideological block, to say nothing about different blocks. The US–EU relationships worsened during the pandemic, especially at the background of Trump's cool attitude towards international organisations and his decision to leave the World Health Organization in the midst of the pandemic and his threatening words that US may also abandon the NATO. Likewise, John Bolton spoke of the EU as an entity hostile ...