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.
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS