關於 state status差異 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A

Q96: 有人主張中華民國1949年底滅國了，這樣的說法正確嗎

A96:

主張1949中華民國滅國？是指流亡滅國然後又建國，建了不知道什麼的東西？

1949年台澎領土主權還是屬於日本的喔！國際法規定國與國之間戰爭的結束是要簽訂「和平條約」，因此日本投降後停戰了，進入戰勝盟軍的盟佔時期，最終在《舊金山和約》48個國家與日本簽訂決議處理戰後責任歸屬。台澎領土在《舊金山和約》生效就是領土主權歸屬未定。若沒簽約到《舊金山和約》的國家可與日本簽訂子約，其條件不能優於母約（舊金山和約）。

那這裡就有個問題了，如果1949年的中華民國是另一個國家，不是中國，這代表這個國家從來沒有對日宣戰，也沒跟日本打過仗，那是要簽什麼鬼和約？

沒有承認中華民國是中國代表，那是要簽什麼《中日和約》？日本跟什麼國簽條約？

不要跟我說日本跟台灣國簽約喔，去把原文中日和約仔細看，基本英文能力不用太好，也看得懂。

如果跟日本簽《中日和約》的那個東西不是中國，而且還是1949之後才出現的國家，那1941年以前中國跟日本簽的條約關它屁事？幹嘛在《中日和約》第４條扯到這些？

最後，中華民國是中國流亡政權，1912年建立政權不是建國👉🏻https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=rotpnetwork&set=a.2763561250403580

—————
以下補充一下《中日和約》⚠️文長可略

中日和約（Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China）
（🔗 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Peace_between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_China）

先從《舊金山和約》開始談起，第 26 條：”...... Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any State granting that State greater advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present Treaty.” 意即：如果日本跟沒簽《舊金山和約》的盟國成員簽約，條件優於《舊金山和約》的話，其他盟國成員全都可以一體適用。

因此，沒簽署到《舊金山和約》的中國（中華民國政權），與日本在1952年4月28日簽署《中日和約》，此約於 1952年8月5日生效。

《中日和約》是《舊金山和約》的子約，子約效力無法超越母約，母約沒把「台澎領土主權」移轉給任何國家，子約也辦不到。換句話說，若條件更優渥，則同盟國成員皆可享受其條件。所以，如果日本真的有辦法依照《中日和約》將台澎領土主權移轉給中國（中華民國政權）的話，那依照《舊金山和約》第 26 條的規定，台澎領土主權現在會變成45個最終批准和約國家共有喔！

中華民國政權作為當時的中國代表，若想透過子約《中日和約》得到台澎領土主權是不可能的，因為《舊金山和約》對台澎處置就是主權歸屬未定。

再來，實際上沒簽約到《舊金山和約》的中國代表ROC，與日本簽訂《中日和約》，當時就是承認接受《舊金山和約》的安排，台澎主權歸屬未定的事實，表示中國代表ROC也同意《開羅宣言》中「臺澎主權歸屬」的部分要依《舊金山和約》處理。

這就表示中英美三國都同意以《舊金山和約》的規定取代《開羅宣言》中關於台澎領土主權的約定，台澎領土主權自然應依《舊金山和約》的規定來認定，也就是處於「未定」的狀態。

以下舉例大家比較有疑慮的部分：
《中日和約》第4條：”It is recognized that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.”
有人主張因為第4條之前簽約的馬關條約就失效，正確應該來說是停止這個條約的狀態。但領土主權不會透過，你停止了這個狀態以後就會達到領土主權移轉的效果。國際法不存在割讓條約終止後，自動回復給原本領土主權國的狀態，因為割讓條約是已經完成的事情，條約只剩下法律的形式而已。更何況大清帝國對台澎領土主權的掌控實際上只有西半部而已。

領土主權移轉必須簽訂另一個條約；馬關條約失效回歸到原本的狀態，這是不對的，舉個例子：「A國 跟 B 國打仗，A 國輸，A 國把甲地割讓給 B國；B 國跟 C 國打仗，B 國輸，B 國把甲地再割讓給 C國；後來A 國又跟 B 國打仗，這次A國反敗為勝打贏了。雙方將之前割讓甲地給 B 國的條約廢除。如果廢除割讓領土主權的條約會讓領土主權回歸原位，那甲地領土主權會回歸 A 國嗎？但明明領土在 C 國手上，是要如何回到 A國呢？難道 A 國、B 國或聯合AB國要再去跟 C 國打一場，而且還要打贏才能把甲地搶回來？這樣戰爭永遠打不完了。
所以，依照法律的安定性原則，廢除條約讓領土主權回歸是不可能的。」

《中日和約》第10條：”For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).” 意即：「就本約而言，中華民國國民應認為（英文版：shall be deemed to，即「應視為」）包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖，所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章、而具有中國國籍之一切臺灣及澎湖居民及前屬臺灣及澎湖之居民及其後裔；中華民國法人應認為包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章所登記之一切法人。」

對日本而言台澎人本來就不是中華民國國民，但日本在《中日和約》第10條寫台澎人被視為（shall be deemed to）中華民國國籍，特別寫出來是因為原本領土主權擁有的國家，土地上人民也會是國民，但因為中華民國沒有台澎主權，因此特地寫出來。

另外，中華民國政權外交部在 1952 年作成的〈議定中華民國與日本國間和平條約總報告書〉🔗 https://www.facebook.com/794597360633322/posts/1405108306248888/?d=n中，也明白承認中日和約無法解決臺澎主權未定問題：「查金山和約僅規定日本放棄臺灣澎湖而未明定其誰屬，此點自非中日和約所能補救。」由此可知，即使是中華民國政權外交部也知道台澎主權歸屬問題根本無法依《中日和約》來處理。

戰敗國日本針對「日華和約第四條之約定是否使臺澎主權回歸中國」之問題，於1964年2月29日在「第０４６回国会予算委員会第１７号」，由「日本條約局局長-中川融」表示：「日華和平條約第四條，雖然有岡田先生所指出的條款，簡單來說，這條規定雙方承認開戰前日華間所締結的條約均因戰爭結果而歸無效。但是，因為有些條約的涵蓋範圍廣，所以現在會受以前締結的條約影響。也可以說，有些條約的內容會沿用至今。當然這些條約的內容已消失，甚至也有『一次就結束』的條約，諸如台灣割讓等條約，便是『完成割讓台灣』一事即達成目的，之後僅具備形式上的效力。由於這是『已經執行完畢』的條約，就算事後廢棄，亦僅是形式上的廢棄，『已經執行完畢的事項無法因此而回到未執行前的狀態』，此類條約廢棄的效果，在國際法上為非常重要的問題，國際法學者的一致見解亦如上所示，若非如此，則國際間將無法安定；割讓領土後因戰敗而使其全部恢復原狀，之前的割讓條約無效，這是不可能的。」

「內閣總理-池田勇人」也表示： 「我們說得很清楚。我方在對日和約中放棄了（台澎主權）。這不是我們可以置喙的。所以，我們只是依據對日和約的規定，在遵守規定的同時締結了新的日華和平條約。即使是依據日華和平條約，也不能做出違背『依舊金山和約之決定日本已放棄（台澎主權）』的事。即使有做出決定，我們也不是以『中華民國具有對台主權』的想法簽條約，這點條約局局長也多次提到。我們現在也是在這樣的想法下運用日華條約。」

-
最後再提《中日和約》在1972年9月29日日本轉承認PRC政權是中國代表時，這張和約就法律上已實質停止了唷！因為簽訂《中日和約》時有寫上適用對象範圍就是中華民國代表的中國，所以對日本來說台灣人也不用再「被視為」中華民國國籍的人了。

-
以下引用「臺澎國際法法理建國連線」法普：🔗 https://www.facebook.com/rotpnetwork/posts/3749287158497646
在進行法律效力的解釋時，有一個很重要的基本解釋原則叫做「明示其一，排除其他」。也就是說，假設今天有好幾個項目可以寫在法律文件裡，但只有其中部分被提及，此時表示對建立這份法律文件的當事者來說，他們決定排除掉那些沒寫進去的項目。

如果仔細觀察《開羅宣言》、說要實施《開羅宣言》的《波茨坦宣言》，以及《舊金山和約》的內容的話，會發現在《開羅宣言》裡提到的讓朝鮮獨立有出現在《舊金山和約》裡，但在《開羅宣言》裡提到將台澎主權移轉給中華民國卻「沒有」出現在《舊金山和約》裡。那麼，在運用前述的「明示其一，排除其他」的法律解釋基本原則之後，就可以知道，《舊金山和約》全體當事國雖然有在讓朝鮮獨立上達成共識，但對讓台澎領土主權移轉給中華民國並沒有達成共識。要不然為何不像「朝鮮獨立」那樣明白寫出來？

由此可知，《舊金山和約》絕非單純為《波茨坦宣言》的內容背書，如同橡皮圖章的存在。事實上，從美國在 1950年12月27日出具的外交函文可知，美國認為《開羅宣言》、《波茨坦宣言》等戰時宣言應該要受到考量更完全的和平條約的拘束，而不是顛倒過來，讓只有少數國家參與的戰時意向聲明凌駕於各參戰國皆能參與、表示意見的和平條約。

US Aide-mémoire 1950.12.27:
"The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore "Manchuria. Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China." That Declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered. The United States cannot accept the view, apparently put forward by the Soviet government, that the views of other Allies not represented at Cairo must be wholly ignored."
意即：「1943 年的開羅宣言提到將「滿洲地區、福爾摩莎及澎湖還給中華民國」。依據美國政府的看法，該份宣言，就和雅爾達及波茲坦等戰時宣言一樣，必須受到將所有相關因素皆納入考量後作成的任何最終和平條約的限制。」
（🔗 臺澎國際法法理建國連線 ）

也可見1954年12月1日關於舊金山和約及台北和約對台澎主權歸屬的處理方式，以及台澎與金馬法律地位的差異，美國國務卿 John Foster Dulles 表示：【嚴】格按法律來說，福爾摩莎及澎湖群島的主權從未確定過。這是因為對日和約僅涉及讓日本放棄對這些島嶼的權利與（主權）權源。但對日和約並未決定其未來的（主權）權源，這在中華民國與日本訂定的和約中也沒有決定。因此，這些島嶼（福爾摩莎與澎湖群島）的法律地位和始終是中國領土的離岸島嶼（金門與馬祖）的法律地位是不同的。

Remarks at News Conference on the Purpose of Treaty with R.O.C. (Dec. 1, 1954), in DEP'T ST. BULL., Dec. 1954, at 896.
“[T]echnical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan. Therefore, the juridical status of these islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, is different from the juridical status of the offshore islands [Quemoy and Matsu] which have always been Chinese territory.” 意即：「舊金山和約與台北和約都未決定台澎主權歸屬。台澎法理地位與金馬不同。」

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

延伸閱讀❣️
👉🏻台澎人做著夢中夢中夢： https://reurl.cc/8yqAdj
👉🏻法理建國派的目標：https://reurl.cc/ZQynqW
👉🏻［英語繁中字］台灣在國際上不被承認的原因與解決方法：https://youtu.be/lss2OdMhi90
👉🏻聖峰演講影片Youtube ：
https://youtu.be/-a_qHXh_URM
👉🏻聖峰演講實錄Podcast：
https://anchor.fm/rotpnetwork-shin-hong-ng/episodes/2019-03-29-ep8kln
👉🏻Apple podcast：https://reurl.cc/a5qZjQ
👉🏻 《台澎法理建國指南》電子書：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFXTxYOtkqrwEyV11w0kQyKujxEZsU8N/view?usp=sharing

奶茶抗木蘭

呢套戲廸士尼最貴嘅真人版因為疫情轉咗去網上公影（比咗月費仲要加US$30），近日展開全球宣傳活動。

可惜去到泰國有得上畫，反而遇上奶茶聯盟...

泰國學生領袖Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal就親自去戲院自拍講啲咁嘢，結果由泰國推到英國嘅《The Telegraph》同《The Guardian》都報導，幫個主角宣傳當日嘅言論。

"Tomorrow Mulan starts screening on the first day.

But we have not forgotten that actor Mulan supports the use of police violence against Hong Kong demonstrators fighting for freedom and democracy.

Invite everyone #BoycottMulan #BanMulan So Disney and the Chinese government know that the violence of the state against the people is unacceptable."

#廸廸尼欠奶茶一句多謝

Photo Source：Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal
原Tweet：https://twitter.com/NetiwitC/status/1301467292576878598?s=20
報導：
《The Telegraph》
Thai pro-democracy protesters joining growing calls to boycott Disney's Mulan
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/04/thai-pro-democracy-protesters-joining-growing-calls-boycott/
《The Guardian》
Pro-democracy boycott of Disney's Mulan builds online via #milkteaalliance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/04/pro-democracy-boycott-of-disneys-mulan-builds-online-via-milkteaalliance
*********************************
支持Patreon係本Page嘅支柱：
https://www.patreon.com/goodbyehkhellouk
（最新 3/09/2020）
响英國學中文Out咗...
https://bit.ly/2Z1GKrh
英國五大傳媒幫手重溫721
https://bit.ly/31vSjse
復課：英國全國最糾結嘅決定
https://bit.ly/34udfSl
美國大選：民調反映唔到嘅民意，就係最大嘅變數
https://bit.ly/32ix7p0
馬莎裁員反映白領職位危機
https://bit.ly/31gxrW4
英國A-Level放榜突顯公私營教育差異
https://bit.ly/31RPXmK
白俄羅斯，三十年獨裁的困局
https://bit.ly/3iw4zyB
LOTR與BNO的關系
https://bit.ly/3gEpqzx
*******************************

【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.)