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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95