Last week, as they do every year, students across the US observed Constitution Day and Citizenship Day — at least they are supposed to, pursuant to a congressional act in 2004.
The objective is to ensure that the US’ young people acquire at least a rudimentary knowledge of the nation’s origins, its values and founding principles, as well as its initial failure fully to live up to those values and principles.
They will be educated that the US Constitution was intended to establish a system of government informed by the revolutionary concept stated in the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights … life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Yet, they also learn that women were denied the right to vote for the next century and a half, and that people dragged from Africa in chains were denied their God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
They were slaves, owned like property by other human beings, and slavery was allowed to flourish as an institution in the southern half of the country for the next eight decades.
However, as Abraham Lincoln declared in 1858, the nation could not go on living half-slave and half-free: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
It took a calamitous Civil War to resolve the internal conflict in favor of the unity of the nation based on human freedom. Three amendments to the constitution and several acts of Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court also were required to flesh out that moral mandate.
Though the time and circumstances China faces today are quite different from those Americans have grappled with over the past two centuries, the core issue presented by “one country, two systems” is the same: Can a nation endure while it embraces two contrasting sets of values?
The tumult in Hong Kong is an existential moment for that proposition. Hong Kong’s Basic Law was drafted as part of the Sino-British Joint Declaration covering Hong Kong after the handover to China on July 1, 1997.
The declaration stated that Hong Kong would be governed under the principle of “one country, two systems” and continue to enjoy its capitalist system and individual freedoms for 50 years after the handover.
That meant that the 7 million people of Hong Kong would be an island of relative freedom within a nation of a billion Chinese denied those same rights and liberties. The same status presumably would apply eventually to the 23 million people of Taiwan.
However, the Chinese Communist Party decided early on that Lincoln was right about the incompatibility of two competing value systems, and carried his principle to the nth degree: A nation cannot live 99.9 percent slave and 0.1 percent free. That one-10th of 1 percent of relatively free Chinese would have to be brought to heel, and the elimination of those rare and special freedoms in any part of China could not wait until 2047.
So Beijing began a methodical campaign to erode the political rights Hong Kongers were promised under the Basic Law, starting with the direct election of the territory’s government.
Most recently, it tried to impose an extradition law that would subject Hong Kong residents to the prosecutorial and judicial system of mainland China, triggering three months of ongoing public protests.
China’s communist leaders know that freedom, democracy and the rule of law are political contagions that could infect the vast Chinese population — Tibetans, Uighurs, Falun Gong and Christians aspire to the same “unalienable rights” that the people of Hong Kong and Taiwan are determined to preserve for themselves.
They saw in 1989 that the vast Chinese population harbors the same subversive impulses, so they mean to crush it anywhere it appears in the People’s Republic of China.
The question Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and his communist comrades must face is whether the clash of value systems will end with another Chinese civil war rivaling the US’ titanic struggle if they continue to resist the inextinguishable urge for freedom, or with a premeditated evolutionary plan that will bring China to a system of peaceful political reform.
Joseph Bosco served as China country director in the office of the US secretary of defense. He is a fellow at the Institute for Taiwan-American Studies and a member of the advisory committee of the Global Taiwan Institute.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs