關於 united front work department ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

‘An English-speaking Mao Zedong’｜Lee Yee

In mid-November, a friend of mine, a youngster, texted me: “He’s really stingy.” I replied: “It’s OK! Even though we have been holding different views for years, he has been putting up with my audacity.”

Since we met because of June 4 at a dinner with other pro-democracy movement figures, we have been acquainted with each other for more than 30 years, during which we had frequent dealings and contact with one another for a number of years. Asked by him about how much money was needed for running a magazine, I, the operator of The 90s, a business with small capital, told him to put in ten times of mine for a weekly publication. In the end, he invested a hundred times of it in running the most influential magazine that cornered the market in town. Later on, he founded a newspaper which also changed the media ecology in Hong Kong, initiating an unprecedented market setting all at once.

Inspired by the democracy movement in Beijing to switch to another line of work, he surely did it for his compassion for China. I used to have it myself, and it stayed strong until June 4, after which I merely hoped for the indigenous values of Hong Kong to be preserved. In light of the Handover being imperative under the circumstances, to get the democratization of Hong Kong moving seemed to be the only way out, though I reckoned the chance of success was slender as well.

In terms of our beliefs in freedom, democracy and the rule of law, there hasn’t been much difference between us. As to our outlooks on the prospect of democracy of China and Hong Kong, I have always been pessimistic while he has always taken the opposite view. It is understandable because pessimism is never an obstacle to my writing while it is to an operation of such a big media business.

In 2005, I was invited by him to become a writer-turned-editor in charge of the opinion page. He promised me back then he would never meddle in my editorial orientation. As I recommended on purpose a commentator who had fallen foul of the paper, he consented without hesitation. It’s a shame that I was finally turned down by that commentator.

From being an editor to being fired nine years later, from writing editorials to writing a column, I have been disagreeing with him on a number of issues over the last decade: localists versus pro-Greater China camp, freedom of discussion about independence, evaluation of the youths and the valiant, support for or criticisms of the pan-democratic alliance, “conspiracy theories” in all previous elections… But as my boss, he has been putting up with me, delivering to me his opposite viewpoints through somebody else. And he never hampered me from publishing articles I showed him in advance that bluntly criticized him.

With his compassion for Greater China, opening up of China was definitely appealing to him. As far as I know, China did try quite a number of times to take him in in its united front work. There was an occasion that one of his good friends met him in Taiwan, saying to him that he was invited by the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) to pay a visit to China, that he was to be allowed to run newspapers there about everything – entertainments, sports and the society, except for politics, and that in view of the growing economy of China, he would earn a big fortune. No sooner had he finished listening to it than he called the security guards to send the guest off. Later, he explained to me why he did it so abruptly instead of euphemizing. He said he was actually afraid of not being able to resist the enticement, and that he would abstain from the principle of distancing himself from the power. Listening to the story about his being aware he would get feeble, I admired him in all sincerity.

At whiles I just think he displeased the CCP not because of his words and deeds, but the fact that he couldn’t tell good from bad. Who couldn’t be bought off? Not least he’s just a businessman. That was just so riling!

When the publication began in Taiwan, I was told that according to the tacit business regulation in Taiwan, kickbacks had to be given to those who were empowered to do ad placements from the clients’ side. Yet the boss disapproved of it, which made things difficult for the staff in the advertising department. I asked him why he couldn’t bend the rule a little. He said as we kept laying bare under-the-table deals among politicians and businessmen, it was hard to justify ourselves if we also engaged in the same dirty deals. He is really somebody who insists on complying with laws, attaches importance to rules and ethics. Whenever I think of such a person being imprisoned, I feel sorrowful about him and the society.

It has been more than a year since last time I got in touch with him that he gave me a call asking me to stop writing my memoir for a few days to talk about the anti-extradition movement in my column in March last year. That was the only time he has ever suggested a writing topic for me. I agreed for I was going to do the same thing.

The youngsters in touch with me have always been discontent with him and his paper because of a lot of events over more than a decade, but I have always told them to take a look at a bigger picture. He is said to be an English-speaking Mao Zedong in the newsroom. Maybe it’s true. Mao’s merits and demerits aside, his manifest stubbornness and insane words and deeds showed he was somebody that would achieve something big. Winston Churchill was also an eccentric and moody person, but he did a marvelous feat against all odds. It seems Trump belongs to the same category, so does he.

【水世界】的前製設定與現場劇照

WATERWORLD (1995)
In celebration of today’s anniversary of this wet mess/epic. Let’s celebrate the hard work this crew put into bringing this world to life. Water movies are never easy but when it comes to this movie anytime you bring it up and a crew member from it is in earshot, the stories pour out. Not always bad, I know a AC that said he had a blast, he loved the boat rides out and all the camaraderie the crew had to have to get thru it. To all the crew that helped bring WATERWORLD to life, We salute you and thanks for the memories. I personally enjoy this hot mess of a movie, it’s one of the last ones of its kind...done practically...in a way.
let’s take a deepest of dives into WATERWORLD

The director, Kevin Reynolds, knew there would be problems before production had even started, “During pre-production. Because having never shot on water to that extent before, I didn’t really realise what I was in for. I talked to Spielberg about it because he’d gone to do Jaws, and I remember, he said to me, “Oh, I would never shoot another picture on water”.
“When we were doing the budget for the picture, and the head of the studio, Sid Sheinberg, we were talking about it and I said, “Steven told me that on Jaws the schedule for the picture was 55 days, and they ended up shooting a 155 days”. Because of the water. And he sat there for a moment and he said, “You know, I’m not sure about the days, but I do know they went a hundred percent over budget”. And so, Universal knew the potential problems of shooting on water. It’s monstrous.”
The film began with a projected budget of $100 million which had reportedly increased to $175 million by the end of production. The principle photography had overrun for at least thirty days more than originally planned due to one major decision.

Whereas today they would film in water tanks with partially built sets, employing green screens to fake the locations, back in 1995 they decided to build everything full size and shoot out on the ocean.

This causes extra logistical problems on top of those that already come with making a major action blockbuster. Cast and crew have to be transported to sets. The camera boats and sets float out of position and will have to be reset between takes taking up valuable production time.

The first draft of Waterworld was written by Peter Radar, a Harvard graduate who wanted to break into the film business. His contact in the film industry was Brad Kevoy, an assistant to the legendary director Roger Corman.

Roger Corman is best known for making films very quickly on a small budget. He also liked to give young talent a chance to direct and write their own films. Brad informed Peter that if he could write a Mad Max rip off, he would arrange to finance and let him direct the picture.

Radar came back and pitched the idea for what would become Waterworld. Kevoy took one look at him and said,

“Are you out of your mind? This would cost us three million dollars to make this movie!”
So Radar kept hold of the idea and decided to re-write the script but, this time, going wild. He wrote what he wanted to see on-screen, limited only by his imagination, not a real world production budget.

He managed to get the newly written script shown to a pair of producers with whom he had made contact with. They loved it and ironically they passed it onto Larry Gordon. He shared the enthusiasm saying it had the kind of cinematic possibilities he was looking for. A deal was signed on Christmas Eve of 1989.

As further script rewrites progressed, it became clear that Waterworld was too big for the Larry Gordon’s production company to undertake by themselves. In February 1992, a deal was signed with Universal Pictures to co-produce and co-finance the film. This was now six years after the first draft had been written.

Universal had signed director Kevin Reynolds to Waterworld. Whilst he was finishing his latest film, Rapa Nui, pre-production for Waterworld was already underway.

The decision was taken that the largest set for the film, known as the atoll, would be built full size. The atoll was the primary location for film and in the story served as the location for a small population of survivors.

The logic behind this decision was due to the high percentage of live action filming required in this location, as well as a huge action set piece. No sound stage would be big enough to incorporate this number of scenes and it was crucial that we see the mariner sail his boat into the atoll, turn around and set out again. A full-size construction was the only way to go as the use of miniature and special effects would be impractical.

The next problem was deciding where to build this huge set. After much research, Kawaihae Harbour in Hawaii was chosen as the location. The atoll could be constructed in the harbour and rotated when needed thus allowing for open sea in the background. Later towards the end of principle photography, the atoll could be towed out into the open sea for the filming of the big action sequences which would be impractical to shoot in an enclosed harbour.

Director Kevin Reynolds also discussed the possibility of using the same water tank as James Cameron’s The Abyss, which had filmed there around five years ago,

“We had even entertained the notion of shooting at that big nuclear reactor facility where they had shot The Abyss, to use it for our underwater tank. But we found it in such a state of disrepair that economically it just wasn’t feasible. We didn’t have as much underwater work as they did. Most of The Abyss is interiors and underwater and model work, ours is mostly surface exterior.”

The production company had originally envisioned building the atoll by linking approximately one hundred boats together and building upon this foundation, just like the characters in the film. The production crew set out to search Hawaii and get hold of as many boats as possible.

During this search, a unique boat in Honolulu caught their attention. Upon further investigation, they discovered it was built by Navitech, a subsidiary of the famous aircraft production company, Lockheed.

They approached Lockheed with the strange request of figuring out how they could build the foundations of the atoll. Lockheed found the request unusual but didn’t shy away from the challenging. They agreed to design the atoll foundation and Navitech would construct it.

Meanwhile, an 11ft miniature model of the atoll was sent out to a model ship testing facility in San Diego. Scaled wave tanks are used to determine the effects of the open sea on large scale miniature models of new untested ship designs. This would help determine what would happen with the unusual design of the atoll when it was out of the harbour.

The atoll, when finished, was approximately ¼ mile in circumference. It took three months to construct and is rumoured to cost around $22 million. As the atoll would be used out on the open sea, it required a seafaring license. Nothing like this had been done before and after much deliberation, it was eventually classed as an unmanned vessel. This meant that all cast and crew would have to vacate the set whilst it was towed into position. By the end of production, the atoll was towed out to sea a total of five times.

Shooting out on the open sea presented a series of logistical problem as Reynolds describes,

“We had an entire navy, basically – I mean, this atoll was positioned about a mile off-shore in Hawaii, it was anchored to the bottom of the ocean so it could rotate. What you don’t think about are things like, you’re shooting on this atoll to maintain this notion that there’s no dry land, you always have to shoot out to sea. Away from the land. So we chose a location where we had about a 180 degree view of open water. Nevertheless, any time when you’re shooting, there could be a ship appear in the background, or something like that, and you had to make a choice. Do I hold up the shot, wait for the ship to move out, or do we shoot and say we’re going to incur this additional cost in post-production of trying to remove the ship from the background.

And at that time, CGI was not at the point it is now, it was a bigger deal. And so, even though if you’re shooting across the atoll and you’re shooting out onto open water, when you turn around and do the reverses, for the action, you had to rotate the entire atoll, so that you’re still shooting out to open water. Those are the kinds of things that people don’t realise.

Or something as simple as – if you’re shooting a scene between two boats, and you’re trying to shoot The Mariner on his craft, another boat or whatever, you’ve got a camera boat shooting his boat, and then the other boat in the background. Well, when you’re on open water things tend to drift apart. So you have to send lines down from each of those boats to the bottom, to anchor them so that they somewhat stay in frame. When you’ve got a simple shot on land, you set up the camera position, you put people in front of the camera and then you put background in there. But when you’re on water, everything’s constantly moving apart, drifting apart, so you have to try to hold things down somewhat.

And these are simple things that you don’t really realise when you’re looking at it on film. But logistically, it’s crazy. And each day you shoot on the atoll with all those extras, we had to transport those people from dry land out to the location and so you’re getting hundreds of people through wardrobe and everything, and you’re putting them on boats, transporting them out to the atoll, and trying to get everybody in position to do a shot. And then when you break for lunch, you have to put everybody on boats and take them back in to feed them.”

The final size of the atoll was determined by the size of the Mariners boat, the trimaran. The dimensions for the trimaran were finalised very early on in pre-production, allowing all other vehicles and sets to be sized accordingly.

Production required two trimarans boats which are so called because they have three hulls. The first was based on the standard trimaran blueprint and built for speed but also had to accommodate a secret crew below decks.

During wide and aerial shots it would have to look like Costner himself was piloting the boat. In reality, a trained crew could monitor and perform the real sailing of the boat utilising specially built controls and television monitors below deck.

The second trimaran was the trawler boat which could transform into the racer through the use of special practical effects rigs. Both of these boats were constructed in France by Jeanneau. Normally this type of vessel requires a year to construct but production needed two boats in five months!

Normally once the boat had been constructed, Jeammeau would deliver it on the deck of a freighter, requiring a delivery time of around a month. This delay was unacceptable and so the trimarans were dismantled into sections and taken by a 747 air freighter to the dock Hawaii. Upon arrival, a further month was required to reassemble the boat and get them prepared for filming.

sets recreating the inside of the tanker were built using forced perspective in a huge 1000ft long warehouse which had an adjoining 2000ft field. In this field, they built the set of the oil tankers deck, again constructed using forced perspective. Using the forced perspective trick, the 500ft long set could be constructed to give the impression that it was really twice as long.

There’s more to a film than just it’s sets and filming locations. Over two thousand costumes had to be created with many of the lead actors costumes being replicated many times over due to wear and tear.

This is not an uncommon practice for film production, but due to the unique look of the people and the world they inhabit, it did create some headaches. One costume was created with so many fish scales the wardrobe department had to search the entire island of Hawaii looking for anyone who could supply in the huge quantity required.

Makeup had to use waterproof cosmetics, especially on the stunt players. As everyone had a sun burnt look, a three-sided tanning booth was setup. The extras numbering in their hundreds, with ages ranging from six to sixty-five, passed through the booth like a production line to receive their spray tan. The extras then moved onto costume before finally having their hair fixed and becoming ready for the day.

In some scenes, extras were actually painted plywood cutouts to help enhance the number of extras on the set. This can easily be seen in one particular shot on board the Deez super tanker.

Filming on the water is not only a difficult and time-consuming process but also very dangerous. It’s been reported that Jeanne Tripplehorn and Tina Majorino nearly drowned on their first day of filming.

Waterworld’s star Kevin Costner reported having a near-death experience when filming a scene in which the mariner ties himself to his catamaran to survive a storm. The pounding water caused him to black out and nearly drown.

Unbeknownst to most of the crew, Kevin Costner’s stunt double was riding his jet ski across 40 miles of open ocean between his home on Maui and the film’s set on the Big Island. When he didn’t show up for work one day, the production team phoned his wife, who informed them he had already left for work. The stunt double’s jet ski had run out of gas halfway through his “commute” and a storm had swept him farther out to sea. It took a helicopter most of the day to find him. The stunt doubles name was Laird Hamilton.

As well as the logistical problems of creating a film of this scale and on water, they also had to deal with the press who seemed intent on wanting the film to fail. Director Kevin Reynolds discusses the situation,

“It was huge, we were constantly fighting – people wanted to have bad press. That was more exciting to them than the good news. I guess the most egregious example of that that I recall was that the publicist told me that one day…we’d been out the day before and we were doing a shot where we sent two cameras up on a mast of the trimaran and we wanted to do a shot where they tilled down from the horizon down to the deck below. We’re out there, we’re anchored, we’re setting the shot up and a swell comes in, and I look over and the mast is sort of bending.

And I turned to the boatmaster and I said, “Bruno, is this safe?”. And he looks up the mast and he goes, “No”. So I said, “Okay, well, we have to get out as I can’t have two guys fall off from 40 feet up”. So, we had to break out of the set-up, and go back in a shoot something else and we lost another half-day.

Anyway, the next day the publicist is sitting in his office and he gets this call from some journalist in the States and he goes, “Okay. Don’t lie to me – I’ve had this confirmed from two different people. I want the facts, and I want to hear about the accident yesterday, we had two cameramen fall off the mast and were killed”.

And, he goes, “What are you talking about?”. And he goes, “Don’t lie to me, don’t cover this up, we know this has happened”. It didn’t happen! People were so hungry for bad news because it was much more exciting than…they just said it, and you know, it hurt us.”
Upon release, the press seemed to be disappointed that the film wasn’t the massive failure they were hoping it to be. Universal Studios told Kevin Reynolds that one critic came out of an early screening in New York and in a disappointed tone said,

“Well, it didn’t suck.”

It is true that during principle photography the slave colony set sank and had to be retrieved. However due to bad press, the rumour became much bigger and to this day when you mention the sinking set, most people assume it was the huge atoll.

During production, press nicknamed the film “Kevin’s Gate” and “Fishtar”, referring to 1980’s box office failures Heaven’s Gate and Ishtar. Heaven’s Gate failed so badly it led to the sale of United Artists Studio and has become synonymous with failure in Hollywood.

As well as the exaggerated set problems and other various production rumours, there were also difficulties with the script. In a risky move, the film was green lit and moved into production without a finalised script.

The final total is a reportedly thirty-six rewrites. One of the writers involved was Joss Whedon. Joss had worked on many scripts before becoming a director having being at the helm of both The Avengers and the sequel Avengers: Age Of Ultron. He described his experience on Waterworld as,

“Seven weeks of hell”
Everything came to a head just three weeks before the end of principle photography. Kevin Reynolds who was an old friend of Kevin Costner allegedly walked off set or was fired. There was no official statement on what happened.

When Reynolds left the production this event caused many changes to be made. Composer Mark Isham had already composed approximately two-thirds of the film’s score by the time Reynolds left and that event ultimately caused him to leave production. As Mark describes in this interview excerpt,

“Kevin Reynolds quit the film, which left me working for Kevin Costner, who listened to what I had written and wanted a completely different point of view. He basically made a completely different film — he re-cut the entire film, and in his meeting with me he expressed that he wanted a completely different approach to the score. And I said, “oh let me demonstrate that I can give that to you”, so I presented him with a demo of my approach to his approach, and he rejected that and fired me. What I find a lot in these big films, because the production schedules are so insane, that the directors have very little time to actually concentrate on the music.”
Rumours report that Costner took control of production. He directed the last few weeks of principle photography and edited the final cut of the film that was released in cinemas.

Reynolds discusses his surprise at discovering that one of the most famous scenes from what is known as the extended version, was left on the cutting room floor,

“…it would have differed from what you saw on the screen to some extent, and one of the things I’ve always been perplexed by in the version that was released, theatrically, although subsequently the longer version included it, and the reason that I did the film, was that at the very end of the picture, at the very end of the script, there’s a scene when they finally reach dry land and The Mariner’s sailing off and he leaves the two women behind, and in the script they’re standing up on this high point and they’re watching him sail away, and the little girl stumbles on something.
And they look down and clear the grass away and that’s this plaque. And it says, “Here, near this spot, 1953, Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary first set foot on the summit of Everest”. And that was in script and I was like, “Oh, of course! Wow, the highest point on the planet! That would have been dry land!”. And we got it! We shot that. And they left it out of the picture. And I’m like, “Whaaat?!”. It’s like the Statue of Liberty moment in Planet of the Apes. And I was like, “Why would you leave that out?”

Written by John Abbitt | Follow John on twitter @UKFilmNerd

If any the crew cares to share any of their experiences on it please comment.
Thanks for reading
If you want more deep dives visit
https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewstories/?ref=share

【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.)