以上中文字幕由新唐人電視台提供。
美國國務院的直播地址提供英文：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7azj-t0gtPM
蓬佩奥国务卿在尼克松总统图书馆发表题为《共产中国与自由世界的未来》的演说。(2020年7月23日)
谢谢你，谢谢大家。谢谢州长的介绍，实在是过奖了。的确，你走进那个健身房，提起“蓬佩奥”的名字时，会有人悄悄耳语。我有个兄弟，马克，真的是很棒，真的是很棒的篮球手。
再次为蓝鹰仪仗兵和空军下士凯拉·海史密斯和她精彩的国歌演唱鼓掌，怎么样？
也感谢劳瑞牧师动人的祷告，我想感谢休·休伊特和尼克松基金会邀请我在这个重要的美国机构发表讲话。很高兴有一位空军的人为我唱歌，一位海军陆战队的人为我做介绍，而且他们让陆军的人站到了海军的人的房子前。这一切都很好。
很荣幸来到约巴林达。尼克松的父亲在这里建了这座房子，他在这里出生长大。
感谢尼克松中心董事会和工作人员使我和我的团队今天的活动成为可能，在眼下这样做绝非易事。
我们有幸看到在座的有些非常特殊的人，包括克里斯，我得以结识他，克里斯·尼克松。我还想感谢翠西·尼克松和朱莉·尼克松·艾森豪威尔对这次访问的支持。
我还想感谢几名勇敢的中国异议人士，他们远道而来参加我们今天的活动。
所有的其他贵宾，所有的其他贵宾，感谢你们来到这里。那些能够坐在帐篷下面的人，你们一定是多付钱了。
也感谢那些收看直播的人。
最后，就像州长提到的，我出生在圣安娜，离这里不太远。今天在座的有我姐姐和姐夫。谢谢你们来。我敢打赌你们从来也没想到我会站在这里。
我今天的讲话是一系列有关中国的演说的第四部分，我请国家安全顾问罗伯特·奥布莱恩、联调局局长克里斯·雷和司法部长巴尔与我一道发表这些演说。
我们有一个非常明确的目的、一个真正的使命。这就是解释美中关系的不同层面、几十年来累积起来的那种巨大的关系失衡以及中国共产党的霸权意图。
我们的目标是表明，特朗普总统中国政策旨在解决的针对美国的威胁是显而易见的，而且我们为确保这些自由制定了战略。
奥布莱恩大使讲到了意识形态。联调局局长雷谈到了间谍问题。司法部长巴尔讲到了经济。我今天的目标是为美国人民把这些汇总在一起，详细阐述中国的威胁对我们的经济、我们的自由乃至世界各地自由民主的未来意味着什么。
明年将是基辛格博士秘密访问中国半个世纪的一年，离2022年尼克松总统访华50周年也不太远了。
大家知道，那时的世界大为不同。我们曾经想象，与中国接触将会产生团结合作的光明未来。然而，因为中共未能履行对世界的承诺，今天我们都仍然戴着口罩，目睹大流行病死亡人数的上升。每天早晨，我们都在读着打压香港和新疆的新闻头条，我们看到造成美国就业流失、沉重打击美国各地、包括南加州这里的经济的中国不当贸易行为的惊人统计数字，我们目睹中国军队变得越来越强大并且越来越具威胁性。
从加利福尼亚这里到我的故乡堪萨斯州以至更远的地方，美国人心灵和脑海中萦绕着这些问题，我也要重复它们：
与中国接触50年后，美国人民现在有什么成果可以示人？
我们的领导人提出的中国朝着自由与民主演变的理论被证明是正确的吗？
这是中国所定义的“双赢”局面吗？
而且，从一位国务卿的视角来看，核心的是，美国更加安全了吗？我们自身以及我们后代的和平前景是不是更大了？
我们必须承认一个无情的事实。如果我们希望有一个自由的21世纪，而不是习近平所梦想的中国世纪，我们必须承认一个无情的事实并应以此作为我们未来几年和几十年的指导：与中国盲目接触的旧模式根本做不成事。我们绝不能延续这个模式。我们决不能重回这个模式。
特朗普总统非常明确地表示，我们需要一个战略，保护美国经济，还有我们的生活方式。自由世界必须战胜这个新暴政。
在我好像急于要破坏尼克松总统的遗产之前，我希望明确表示，他做的是他当时相信对美国人民最为有利的事情，而且他可能是对的。
他是一位出色的中国研究者、强悍的冷战勇士、而且是中国人民的仰慕者，---我想我们大家都是。
必须要充分肯定的是，他认识到中国实在太重要了，不能被忽视，即使当时的中国因为自我施加的共产暴政而处在被削弱的状态。
1967年，尼克松在《外交事务》杂志上发表的一篇非常著名的文章中解释了他的未来战略。这是他说的话。他说： “长远来看，我们根本无法承受永远让中国留在国际大家庭之外…...除非中国改变，世界不会安全。因此，在我们对事件所能影响的范围内，我们的目标应为引导改变。”
我认为这是整篇文章的关键词：“引导改变”。
因此，尼克松总统历史性的北京之行，开启了我们的接触战略。他崇高地寻求一个更为自由、更为安全的世界。他希望中国共产党会对那个承诺做出回报。随着时间的推移，美国决策者日益假定，随着中国变得更为繁荣，它会开放，对内会变得更为自由，而且对外不那么具有威胁性，更为友好。我敢肯定，一切似乎都显得如此的势在难免。
然而，势在难免的时代结束了。我们一直在追寻的那种接触政策没有在中国境内带来尼克松总统所希望引导的那种改变。
事实是，我们的政策，还有其它自由国家的政策，重振了中国失败的经济，看到的却是北京反咬喂食给它的国际之手。
我们向中国公民张开了双臂，换来的却是中共利用我们自由与开放的社会。中国派出宣传手进入我们的记者会、我们的研究中心、我们的高中和大学，甚至进入我们家长教师协会的会议。
我们把我们在台湾的朋友边缘化，台湾后来成长为一个生机勃勃的民主。
我们给予中国共产党及其政权本身特殊的经济待遇，看到的却是中共坚持要求在其践踏人权的问题上保持沉默，把这作为允许西方公司进入中国的代价。
就在前些天，奥布莱恩大使提出了几个例子：万豪、美国航空、达美和美联航都从它们的公司网站上删除了提到台湾的地方，以免触怒北京。
离此不远的好莱坞，---这个美国创意自由的中心和自封的社会公正的仲裁者，对哪怕是中国稍微不利的说法都实行自我审查。
企业界对中共的默默接受在全世界各地都在发生。
企业界的这种效忠效果如何？这种奉承得到了回报吗？我来引用司法部长巴尔上星期的演说中的一句话，他说：“中国统治者的终极企图不是与美国进行贸易。它是抢掠美国。”
中国窃取我们珍视的知识产权和商业秘密，使美国各地损失了数以百万计的就业岗位。
它从美国吸走了供应链，然后加上了奴工器具。
它使世界的关键水道对国际商贸不那么安全了。
尼克松总统曾说，他担心，他把这个世界向中共开放，创造了一个“怪物弗兰肯斯坦”。而这就是我们所处的局面。
诚信者可以辩论为什么这么多年来自由国家会允许这些坏事发生。也许我们当初对中国的共产主义毒株过于天真，或者冷战之后，我们相信自己必胜，或者我们是怯懦的资本家，或者被北京的“和平崛起”言论所蒙蔽。
无论什么原因，中国今天在国内越来越威权，而且越来越咄咄逼人地敌视世界其它地方的自由。
特朗普总统已经说了：够了。
我不认为两党中有很多人对我今天所举出的事实提出质疑。但是即使是现在，有些人还在坚持说，我们必须保留那种为了对话而对话的模式。
现在，要明确说明的是，我们会坚持对话。但是如今的交谈不一样了。几个星期前，我去檀香山见了杨洁篪。
还是老一套，话说了很多，但真的是没有提出要改变任何行为。杨的承诺，跟中共在他之前做出的很多承诺一样，是空洞的。我猜测，他的预期是，我会屈从于他们的要求，因为坦率地说，太多以往的行政当局都这样做了。我没有。特朗普总统也不会。
奥布莱恩大使阐述得很好，我们必须记住，中共政权是马克思-列宁主义政权。习近平总书记是一个破产的极权主义意识形态的真正信仰者。
他的意识形态决定了他数十年来对中国共产主义全球霸权的渴望。美国不能再忽视我们两国之间政治和意识形态的根本不同了，就像中共从来也没有忽视它们一样。
我在众议院情报委员会任职、随后担任中央情报局局长以及出任国务卿两年多来的经历让我有了这样的核心理解：
真正改变共产中国的唯一方式就是以中国领导人如何表现而不是说什么为基础来采取行动。你可以看到美国的政策对这个结论做出回应。里根总统说，他本着“信任但要核实”跟苏联打交道。对中共，我的说法是：“我们必须不信任，而且要核实。”
我们这些世界上热爱自由的国家，必须引导中国做出改变，就像尼克松总统所要的那样。我们必须以更具创造性而且更为强势的方式引导中国做出改变，因为北京的所作所为威胁着我们的人民与我们的繁荣。
我们必须从改变我国人民与合作伙伴对中国共产党的看法开始。我们必须说实话。我们不能像对待其他国家一样，把这个中国的化身当作一个正常的国家。
我们知道，与中国进行贸易不像与一个正常、守法的国家进行贸易。北京把国际协议视为建议，作为获得全球主导地位的渠道。
但是，通过坚持公平条款，就像我们的贸易代表在达成第一阶段贸易协议时所做的那样，我们可以迫使中国正视其盗窃知识产权和伤害美国工人的政策。
我们也知道，与中共支持的公司做生意与一家公司、比如一家加拿大公司做生意是不一样的。他们不听从于独立的董事会，而且很多公司是国家赞助的，不需要追求利润。
一个好的例子就是华为。我们已经不再假装华为是一个无辜的电信公司，它只是来确保你能和你的朋友交谈。我们以它本来的面目来称它 --- 一个真正的国家安全威胁 ---而且我们采取了相应的行动。
我们也知道，如果我们的公司在中国投资，他们可能有意或无意地支持共产党对人权的严重侵犯。
我们的财政部和商务部因此对中国领导人以及正在伤害和侵犯世界各地人民基本权利的实体进行制裁并将他们列入黑名单。好几个政府部门合作制定了一个商业咨询公告，以确保我们的首席执行官了解他们的供应链在中国境内的运作情况。
我们也知道，并不是所有的中国学生和雇员都是来这里只是为了多挣一点钱或者多为自己积累一些知识的正常学生或工作人员，他们中有太多的人是来盗窃我们的知识产权并它们带回自己的国家。
司法部和其他部门已经在大力寻求惩罚这些罪行。
现在我们知道，中国人民解放军也不是一支正常的军队。它的目的是维护中国共产党精英的绝对统治，拓展中华帝国，而不是保护中国人民。
因此，美国国防部加强了在东中国海、南中国海以及台湾海峡的自由航行行动。我们建立了太空军来帮助阻遏中国侵略太空这个最后边疆。
坦率地说，我们在国务院也建立了一套与中国打交道的政策，推动特朗普总统的公平对等的目标，改写几十年来不断增加的失衡。
就在本星期，我们宣布关闭中国在休斯顿的领事馆，因为那里是间谍活动和知识产权盗窃的中心。
两个星期前，我们逆转了八年来在有关南中国海国际法问题上的那种右脸被打转过左脸的做法。
我们已经呼吁中国使其核能力符合我们这个时代的战略现实。
国务院在各个层级而且在世界各地与我们的中国同行进行接触，只是为了要求公平和对等。
但我们的作法不能只是一味强硬。这不大可能达到我们想要的结果。我们还必须与中国人民进行接触，并赋予他们力量，---他们是充满活力、热爱自由的人民，与中国共产党完全不同。
这要从面对面的外交开始。无论走到哪里，我都遇到了才华横溢、勤奋努力的中国男性和女性。
我见过从新疆集中营逃出来的维吾尔人和哈萨克族人。我和香港的民主领袖们交谈过，从陈枢机主教到黎智英。两天前，我在伦敦与香港自由斗士罗冠聪会面。上个月，我听到了天安门广场幸存者的故事。其中一位今天就在这里。
王丹是一名关键的学生，他从未停止为中国人民的自由而斗争。王先生，请站起来，我们好认出你来。
今天和我们在一起的还有中国的民主运动之父魏京生。他因为倡导民主而在中国的劳改营里度过了几十年。魏先生，请站起来，好吗？
我在冷战时期长大并在陆军服役。如果我学到了什么的话，那就是，共产党人几乎总是撒谎。他们撒的最大的一个谎言是，要认为他们是在为14亿被监视、压迫和恐吓得不敢说出真相的人民说话。
恰恰相反。中共对中国人民诚实意见的恐惧甚于任何敌人。除了失去对权力的掌控之外，他们没有理由恐惧。
试想一下，假如我们能够听到武汉医生们的声音，假如他们被允许对一种新型的冠状病毒的爆发发出警报，全世界，更不要提中国境内的人，会好得多。
在太长的时间里，我们的领导人忽视或淡化勇敢的中国异见人士的言论，他们就我们面临的这个政权的性质警告过我们。
我们不能再忽视它了。他们和任何人一样清楚，我们永远不可能回到现状了。
但是，改变中国共产党的行为不可能仅仅是中国人民的使命。自由国家有捍卫自由的工作要做。这绝不是轻而易举的事情。
但我有信心我们能做到。我有信心，因为我们以前做过。我们知道事情会怎么发展。
我有信心，因为中国共产党正在重复苏联曾经犯过的一些错误---疏远潜在的盟友，在国内外破坏信任，拒绝接受产权和具有可预见性的法治。
我有信心。我有信心是因为我看到其他国家的觉醒，他们知道我们不可能回到过去，就像我们在美国一样。从布鲁塞尔到悉尼到河内，我都听到这个信息。
最重要的是，我有信心我们能够捍卫自由，因为自由本身就是一种甜美的吸引力。
在中国共产党加强对香港这座骄傲的城市的控制时，看看那些争相着要移民海外的香港人吧。他们挥舞的是美国国旗。
的确是有差异。与苏联不同的是，中国已经深深地融入了全球经济。但北京对我们的依赖比我们对他们的依赖更大。
我拒绝这样的看法，即我们生活在一个势在难免的时代，某些“陷阱”是命中注定的，共产党的主宰地位是未来。我们的做法并非注定要失败，因为美国并没有在衰落。正如我今年早些时候在慕尼黑所说的，自由世界仍在获胜。我们只需要相信这一点，知道这一点，而且对此感到自豪。
世界各地的人们仍然希望来到开放的社会。他们来这里学习。他们来这里工作，他们来这里为他们的家庭开创美好的生活。他们并不急于在中国定居。
现在是时候了。今天很高兴来到这里。时机很好。现在是自由国家采取行动的时候了。不是每个国家都会以同样的方式应对中国的挑战，他们也不应该如此。每个国家都必须自己悟出如何保护自己的主权、如何保护自己的经济繁荣以及如何保护它的理念不被中共的触角所染指。
但我呼吁每一个国家的每一位领导人开始做美国已经在做的事情，---那就是坚持从中国共产党那里得到对等、透明和问责。他们是一小伙统治者，远非铁板一块。
这些简单但强有力的标准将会产生巨大的效果。我们让中共来制定接触条件的时间已经太久了。已经不再是这样了。自由国家必须设定基调，我们必须在同样的原则上运作。
我们必须划定不会被中共的讨价还价和甜言蜜语所冲洗掉的共同底线。事实上，美国最近就是这么做的…我们一劳永逸地拒绝接受中国在南中国海海的非法声索…同时，我们敦促各国成为洁净国家，这样他们公民的私人信息就不会落入中国共产党的手中。我们通过设定标准来做到这一点。
的确，这是困难的。对于一些小国来说，这是困难的。他们害怕被一一干掉。因为这个原因，一些国家此刻根本就没有能力或是勇气与我们站在一起。
的确，我们的一个北约盟国在香港问题上没有以应有的方式挺身而出，因为他们害怕北京会限制他们进入中国市场。这种胆怯将导致历史性的失败。我们不能重蹈覆辙。
我们不能重复过去几年的错误。面对中国的挑战，需要欧洲、非洲、南美、特别是印度-太平洋地区的民主国家使出力气，投入精力。
如果我们现在不行动，最终，中国共产党将侵蚀我们的自由，颠覆我们各国社会辛辛苦苦建立起来的基于规则的秩序。如果我们现在屈膝，我们的子孙后代可能会受中国共产党的摆布，他们的行动是当今自由世界的首要挑战。
中国的习总书记注定不会永远在中国内外施行暴政，除非我们允许这种情况发生。
这不是关于遏制。不要相信这个。这是关于我们从未面对过的一个复杂的新挑战：苏联当时与自由世界是隔绝的。共产中国已经在我们的境内了。
所以我们不能独自面对这个挑战。联合国、北约、七国集团、20国集团，如果我们有明确的方向和巨大的勇气，我们的经济、外交和军事力量的结合肯定足以应对这一挑战。
也许是时候建立一个志同道合国家的新联盟了，一个新的民主联盟。
我们有工具。我知道我们能够做到。现在我们需要的是意志。我要引用《圣经》里的一句话来问：“我们的心灵固然愿意，肉体却软弱了?”
如果自由世界不改变共产中国，共产中国肯定会改变我们。不能仅仅因为过去的做法舒服或方便就回到这些做法。
从中国共产党手中确保我们的自由是我们这个时代的使命，而美国处于领导这个使命的最佳位置，因为我们的建国原则给了我们这个机会。
正如上星期我定睛站在费城独立厅时所解释的那样，我们的国家建立在这样的前提上，即人人拥有某些不可剥夺的权利。
保障这些权利是政府的职责。这一简单而有力的事实已使美国成为包括中国在内的全世界人民所向往的自由灯塔。
理查德•尼克松在1967年写道：“ 除非中国改变，世界不会安全。”他说的太对了。现在要靠我们来听从他的话了。
今天，危险显而易见。
今天，觉醒正在发生。
今天，自由世界必须做出回应。
我们永远也不能回到过去。
愿上帝保佑你们每一个人！
愿上帝保佑中国人民！
愿上帝保佑美利坚合众国的人民！
谢谢大家!
GOVERNOR WILSON: Well, thank you very much, Chris. Most generous. I’m not sure your grandfather would have recognized me.
I have the great pleasure – in addition to welcoming all of you to the Nixon birthplace and library, I have the great pleasure of introducing to you an extraordinary American who is here at an extraordinary time. But the fun of it is in introducing our honored guest, I also am welcoming him not just to the Nixon Library, but I’m welcoming him back home to Orange County. (Applause.) That’s right. Mike Pompeo was born in Orange. (Applause.)
He attended Los Amigos High School in Fountain Valley, where he was an outstanding student and athlete. In fact, I have it on good authority that among the fans of glory days of Lobo basketball, a reverent hush descends upon the crowd whenever the name “Pompeo” is mentioned. (Laughter.)
The Secretary was first in his class at West Point. He won the award as the most distinguished cadet. He won another award for the highest achievement in engineering management. He spent his active duty years, his Army years, in West Germany, and as he put it, patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In 1988 – excuse me – retiring with a rank of captain, he went on to Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Law Review. In 1988, he returned to his mother’s home state of Kansas and began a stunningly successful business career. He was elected to the House of Representatives from Kansas in 2011, where he soon gained great respect for a reputation as one of the most diligent and astute members of the House Arms – excuse me, the House Intelligence Committee.
In 2017, President Trump nominated him to be the director of Central Intelligence. And in 2018, he was confirmed as our 70th Secretary of State.
You have to admit, that’s quite an impressive resume. So it’s sad there’s only one thing missing, prevents it from being perfect. If only Mike had been a Marine. (Laughter.) Don’t worry, he’ll get even.
Mike Pompeo is a man devoted to his family. He is a man of faith, of the greatest patriotism and the highest principle. One of his most important initiatives at the State Department has been the creation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights where academicians, philosophers, and ethicists advise him on human rights grounded in America’s founding principles and the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Rights.
He is here today for a very special reason. The epitaph on President Nixon’s gravestone is a sentence from his first inaugural address. It says, quote, “The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker.” Richard Nixon received that title. He won that honor not only because he was acknowledged even by his critics to be a brilliant foreign policy strategist, but it was far more because he earned it. He learned as congressman, senator, president, and every day thereafter as a private citizen ambassador that peace is not achieved by signing documents and declaring the job done. To the contrary, he knew that peace is always a work in progress. He knew that peace must be fought for and won anew in every generation.
It was President Nixon’s vision, determination, and courage that opened China to America and to the Western world. As president and for the rest of his life, Richard Nixon worked to build a relationship with China based upon mutual benefits and obligations that respected America’s bedrock national interests.
Today, we in America are obliged to assess whether or not President Nixon’s labors and his hopes for such a relationship have been met or whether they are being undermined.
That is why it is of such great significance that our honored guest, Secretary Pompeo, has chosen the Nixon Library from which to deliver a major China policy statement. It will, I promise you, be a statement of complete clarity delivered with force and with belief because it is of critical importance.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor and pleasure to welcome to this podium and to this audience our honored guest, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, the honorable and really quite remarkable – honorable Michael R. Pompeo. (Applause.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: 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.)
MR HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Please be seated. I’m Hugh Hewitt, the president of the library, and Secretary Pompeo graciously invited some questions as I was listening. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Secretary, at the Nixon Library.
My first question has to do with the context of the president’s visit in 1972. You mentioned the Soviet Union was isolated, but it was dangerous. He went to the People’s Republic of China in 1972 to try and ally and combine interests with them against the Soviet Union; it was successful.
Does Russia present an opportunity now to the United States to coax them into the battle to be relentlessly candid about the Chinese Communist Party?
SECRETARY POMPEO: So I do think there’s that opportunity. That opportunity is born of the relationship, the natural relationship between Russia and China, and we can do something as well. There are places where we need to work with Russia. Today – or tomorrow, I guess it is, our teams will be on the ground with the Russians working on a strategic dialogue to hopefully create the next generation of arms control agreements like Reagan did. It’s in our interest, it’s in Russia’s interest. We’ve asked the Chinese to participate. They’ve declined to date. We hope they’ll change their mind.
It’s these kind of things – these proliferation issues, these big strategic challenges – that if we work alongside Russia, I’m convinced we can make the world safer. And so there – I think there is a place for us to work with the Russians to achieve a more likely outcome of peace not only for the United States but for the world.
MR HEWITT: President Nixon also put quite a lot of store in personal relationships over many years with individuals. That can lead wrong. President Bush famously misjudged Vladimir Putin and said so afterwards. You have met President Xi often. Is the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party someone with whom we can deal on a transparent and reliable basis, in your opinion, based on your personal diplomacy with him?
SECRETARY POMPEO: So the meetings that I’ve had and the meeting that the President – we’ve had – they’ve been good, frank conversations. He is the most powerful leader of China since Mao. He has also in many ways deinstitutionalized the Chinese Communist Party, thus giving him even more capacity and more power.
But Hugh, I think the way to think about it is how I spoke about this today: It’s about actions. And so how one evaluates one’s counterparts sitting across the table from them – it’s important to think about how you can find common understandings and make progress. But in the end, it’s not about what someone says or the agreement that they sign, but are they prepared to lead, to do the things that they committed to? Are they prepared to fulfill their promises?
And we’ve watched – we’ve watched this China walk away from their promises to the world on Hong Kong, we watched their – General Secretary Xi promised President Obama in the Rose Garden in 2015 that he wouldn’t militarize the South China Sea. And Google the South China Sea and arms; you’ll see another promise broken.
So in the end, from my perspective, it’s much more important to watch how leaders behave and how they lead than what it is you think when you have a chance to talk to them on the phone or meet them in person.
MR HEWITT: Mr. Secretary, you said this is not containment. I heard that very clearly. I have read the three previous speeches by Ambassador O’Brien, Director Wray, Attorney General Barr, and now listened to you very closely. It isn’t containment, but it is a fairly comprehensive, multidimensional, relentlessly objective candor. Is that dangerous in a world that’s not used to speaking clearly about delicate subjects?
SECRETARY POMPEO: My experience, and I think President Trump’s experience too in his life as a businessman, is the best policy is always true candor, identifying the places that you have a redline, identifying places that you have a real interest, making clear if there’s places where you don’t, and there’s things that you can work on alongside each other.
I think the real danger comes from misunderstandings and miscommunication and the failure to be honest about the things that matter to you, because others will move into that space and then conflict arises. I think the world is a heck of a lot safer when you have leaders who are prepared to be honest about the things that matter and prepared to talk about the things their nation is prepared to do to secure those interests. And you can reduce risk by these conversations so long as you’re honest about it.
So I – no, I don’t think it’s dangerous. I think it’s just the opposite of that.
MR HEWITT: You also said – and I’m sure the speech will be known as the “distrust but verify” speech – when you distrust but verify, that still premises verification is possible. It is still possible to do agreements and to verify them; correct?
SECRETARY POMPEO: It is, yeah, you can still do it. Each nation’s got to be prepared for a certain amount of intrusiveness connected to that. And it is not in the nature of communist regimes to allow transparency inside of their country. And so it’s been done before. We’ve had – we had arms control agreements with the Soviet Union that we got verification that was sufficient to ensure that we protected American interests. I believe we can do it again. I hope that we can do this on these – I mean, the Chinese Communist Party has several hundred nuclear warheads. This is a serious global power. And to the extent we can find common ground, a common set of understandings to reduce risk that there’s ever a really bad day for the world, we ought to do it, and it’s going to require agreement and verification.
MR HEWITT: Ambassador Richard Haass, who is now chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, said very recently – it may have been yesterday, it might have been this morning; I saw it this morning preparing – quote, “Secretary Pompeo doesn’t speak of China but of the Chinese Communist Party as if there were a China apart from the party. This is meant to antagonize and make diplomacy impossible. Quite a stance for America’s chief diplomat to take unless his goal is to ensure diplomacy fails.” Is that your goal?
SECRETARY POMPEO: (Laughter.) Ah, goodness. Hard to begin. Here’s where I’ll begin: It’s a bit patronizing to the people of China to make such an assertion that they are not free-thinking beings, that they’re not rational people who were given – I mean, they too were made in the image of God, right. They have all the capacity that anybody in the world does. So to somehow think that we ought to ignore the voices of the people of China seems to me the wrong approach. It is true the Chinese Communist Party is a one-party rule. And so we will deal with the Chinese Communist Party as the head of state for China, and we need to, and we need to engage in dialogue. But it seems to me we would dishonor ourselves and the people of China if we ignored them.
MR HEWITT: Now, Ambassador O’Brien, whose speech you referenced, put heavy emphasis on the ideology of Marxist-Leninism. It was almost quaint to hear that conversation again; it’s gone from our vocabulary. Does the American people, and especially American media, need to reacquaint itself with what Marxist-Leninists believe, because the CCP genuinely does believe it?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I always get in trouble, Hugh, when I comment on the media. So I’ll say this much: For those of us who have lived and seen and observed, there are other Marxist-Leninist nations today as well – and have seen – they believe – they have an understanding, a central understanding of how people interact and how societies ought to interact. And it is certainly the case today that the leadership in China believes that.
We should acknowledge that, and we should make sure that we don’t for a moment think that they don’t believe it. It’s what Ambassador O’Brien’s speech was about. It was the fact – it was acknowledging that they believe it and recognizing that we have to respond in a way that reflects our understanding of the way they view the world.
MR HEWITT: Let’s not talk about the American media. I want to talk about the Chinese media for a moment. They are aggressive, to say the least, and right now they are aggressively defending, for example, TikTok. A small question within a large question: Is TikTok capable of being weaponized? Is that an example of what’s going on? And generally, Chinese media has become far more aggressive than I’ve seen in 30 years since I was at the library the first time of watching it. Is that something you’ve noticed as well?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, they’re very aggressive. Two pieces to this, one you hit upon. One is I’ll describe as their technology medium. Without singling out any particular business, our view of these companies is we’re neither for or against the company; we’re about making sure that we protect the information that belongs to each of you – your health records, your face if it’s a facial recognition software, your address. All the things that you care that you want to make sure the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t have, we have a responsibility to make sure that the systems that you’re using don’t give them access to that. And so whether it’s the efforts we’ve made against Huawei or the work that we’re doing on other software firms, the American task is to protect the American people and their information.
The second piece of this has to do with their – what I’ll call the state-sponsored media of China and their disinformation. You should know – and this is where I am concerned about the American media, too – these are state-sponsored media organizations that take their messaging from the Chinese Communist Party each day. When American institutions pick up those storylines and carry them forward, they are, in fact, propagating Chinese propaganda, and we all ought to be wise to that.
There was an editorial in The New York Times yesterday by someone who had a clear view that was antithetical to the American way of life. The New York Times ran it straight-up without comment, forwarding – although albeit in the opinion section, but propagating Chinese propaganda. That is certainly not instructive when they’re telling senators from Arkansas they can’t simply talk about America and American freedom in that same media outlet.
MR HEWITT: You mentioned that a lot of corporate America – and you mentioned specifically Hollywood – have got deep intertwinement with the Chinese economy. So I don’t want to talk about soft power; I want to talk about soft appeasement. One of my favorite sports figures, LeBron James, falls silent when China comes up. In the new Top Gun movie, the Taiwan and Japanese patches are taken off Maverick’s jacket. They’re not going to be in Top Gun 2; they were in Top Gun 1. What do you say not to those individuals, but to everyone who has an American spotlight about their responsibility to be candid about the People’s Republic of China?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Here’s our ask: Our ask is if you claim that you care about human rights or social justice or these things, if you make that part of your corporate theology, then you ought to be consistent. And you can’t be consistent if you’re operating there in China without talking about and acknowledging what the Chinese Communist Party is doing in certain parts of their country – the oppression that’s taking place. Look, every business leader has got to make decisions for themselves. They’ve got to be able to live with the decisions that they make. You highlighted a few.
I’d simply ask this: If you run an entity and the United States Government were to tell you you couldn’t do something, put a particular symbol in your movie or put a particular name on your menu – if we were to tell you that, you’d say nope, that’s not appropriate, and it, of course, would not be appropriate. It seems to me that if you permit the Chinese Communist Party to limit you in that way, it’s got to be difficult for you to go home at night.
MR HEWITT: Two more questions, Mr. Secretary. (Applause.) Because it is hot and it is warm, and everyone out here has been in the sun for a while. You’re a West Point graduate, and as Governor Wilson noted, number one, so this might be tough for you. But we are an, like Athens was, a naval power. America is a naval power. And as like Sparta is, China is a land power. Do we not have to change how we approach defense spending to put more emphasis on our naval resources than on our Army resources?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Oh, that’s tough for an Army guy to say. (Laughter.)
MR HEWITT: I know.
SECRETARY POMPEO: You’re killing me. Look, I’ll leave to Secretary Esper the details of this, but I can – here’s what I can say. When President Trump set out our National Security Strategy early on in the administration, for the first time we identified China in a way that was fundamentally different than we had done – this isn’t partisan – for decades.
That was important because that was a signal to all of us, whether it’s the State Department or the Defense Department, that we needed to reoriented our – reorient our assets. And so yes, you’ve seen the Department of Defense begin to do that. These are big things to turn. These budgets are multiyear. It takes a while.
But if you look at how Secretary Esper and President Trump are positioning our military capabilities – not just the tactical, operational, and strategic capabilities, but our cyber capabilities, our space capabilities – if you look at how we’re thinking about this and spending resources in year two, three, four, and five, I think you’ll see that our focus has shifted pretty dramatically.
It’s not to say that our efforts to protect America from terrorism are behind us. We still have work to do there. But I think this great power challenge that presents itself is something that we have recognized and we begin to make sure that we allocate your money – our taxpayer resources that we have – to the appropriate ends to achieve American security.
MR HEWITT: My last question has to do with a former secretary of state who was also an Army man, George Marshall. He gave a speech in 1947 at your alma mater, Harvard, in which he called on all the nations of the world to recognize that the world was in crisis and to choose a side. And he assured them in that famous address that if you chose the American side in (inaudible) Europe, you could count on America.
So as you make the appeal you did today, not just to Europe, where it’s relatively easy to be outspoken, though Norway has found it not to be outspoken, but to Taiwan and Japan and Vietnam and all of the – Australia, all of the nations of that region – can they rely on America in the way that people opposing the Soviet Union could rely on George Marshall’s assurance in 1947?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Undoubtedly, undoubtedly, Hugh. The only thing I’ll say is when – this language of “pick a side” does make sense to me, but I think about picking a side differently than picking America or picking China. I think the sides, the division – the shirts and skins, if you will – is between freedom and tyranny. I think that’s the decision that we’re asking each of these nations to make. (Applause.)
And here’s the good news of this. The good news is it does take American leadership often in these cases. To your point, they need to know that America will be there for them. I’ve seen the tide turn. In just – in just these three and half years of our administration, I’ve watched other nations have less timidity, become more prepared to stand up for their freedoms and for the freedoms of their people. We don’t ask them to do this for America. We ask them to do it for their country and for their nation – the freedom and the independence and to protect the rights of their people.
And when we do that and we tell them that America will be there, I am very confident in the end that this is a world that with the hard work applied will become one that is governed by a rules-based order, and the freedom of the American people will be secured.
MR HEWITT: Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us here today.
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you.
MR HEWITT: Please join me in thanking the Secretary. (Applause.)
SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you all.
没有评论:
发表评论