From the Archives: Newt on the US-China Relationship and human rights in China

The text of Newt's speech in March 1997 to the Foreign Affairs College in Beijing. More than a decade later, Newt's analysis is still insightful and relevant.

Address to the Foreign Affairs College
Speaker Newt Gingrich
March 28, 1997

Thank you. I’ve especially looked forward to this part of my trip to China. As a former professor, I always enjoy a chance to return to the classroom, both to challenge you with my ideas and to let you challenge me.

Yesterday, in a series of meetings, I had the privilege to talk with the top leaders of your country about the key issues affecting the U.S.-China relationship.

Those meetings were a remarkable experience. I want to take this opportunity to thank the leaders of China for their openness, their seriousness, and their willingness to have frank discussions. Such discussions are absolutely essential if our two nations are going to find a path that will lead to greater freedom, prosperity, and safety for all people.

I am grateful for this opportunity to represent the American people, to speak about fundamental American values in this great city and in conversations with the leaders of this great people. And I am grateful for the opportunity today to meet with you, the future leaders of China.

I hope what I say today will stimulate your thoughts about how the relationship between our two countries can mature. You may not agree with everything I say. You may find some of what I say foreign to your experience. But any stable and enduring relationship depends upon an honest dialogue, one that is frank enough and tough enough to overcome differences and establish a deeper understanding.

Let me begin by saying how much our congressional delegation has learned during our short time in your country. We are awed by the pace of change in your major cities. I noted in our meeting with your President that during the six hours we are in Shanghai tomorrow, fifteen buildings will be completed. We admire the ten percent annual economic growth that China has achieved and sustained.   And we recognize the excitement in this country as the reversion of Hong Kong approaches this summer.

Because I am a history professor, I want to establish the context for some thoughts on the U.S.-China relationship. I recognize I am speaking to students trained and schooled in the traditions of an ancient culture. There may be a temptation to view me as the naive representative of a 200-year-old American experiment, a minor moment in the span of Chinese history.

But, properly understood, the U.S.-China relationship is founded upon two ancient traditions, and we need to understand each other’s traditions if we are going to forge a closer relationship.

At the time of Confucius, Greek philosophers were laying the philosophical foundation of democracy. The Roman republic and Roman law shaped the development of the West at the same time that the Han dynasty ruled the East.

The Great Wall of China we will visit today was being built shortly after the signing of the Magna Carta, which established the foundation of our system of limited government and the rule of law.

America, like China, grew out of an ancient tradition. The foundation of American values and American priorities, therefore, are not passing priorities based on a temporary trend.

Our belief in religious liberty and political freedom is far more than a reflection of current public sentiment.

We believe in religious liberty because the people who settled our country over 300 years ago left the land of their birth--accepting great danger and uncertainty--to gain the right to practice their religion freely.

We believe in religious liberty because, two thousand years ago, Christians hid in caves known as catacombs to escape persecution from the ruling Roman authority.

We believe in religious liberty because, over 2500 years ago, the Jewish psalmist wept in exile because he was separated from his holy city, Jerusalem.

For that reason, America cannot remain silent about the basic lack of freedom   speech, religion, assembly, the press in China. Were we to do so, we would not only betray our own tradition, we would also fail to fulfill our obligations as a friend of China. For no one can be considered a true friend if that person avoids the truth.

In the most basic sense, we are simply asking for the government of China to enforce its own constitution. Article 35 of the Constitution provides free speech for every citizen; Article 36 guarantees the free exercise of religion. Surely, asking a government to enforce its own basic law is legitimate.

Indeed, any effort to provide a partial freedom to any people, to tell them that they can be free in one sphere but not in another, will ultimately fail. China needs to understand that political freedom must accompany economic freedom. If it attempts to halt the spread of freedom, it will suffer political and economic consequences. The historic truth is that economic vitality ultimately depends upon political freedom.

As an American, I have a confidence about the future that begins with a commitment to freedom. That freedom is not the gift of any government. It is a right bestowed by our Creator.

If you visit in Washington the memorial dedicated to our third President, Thomas Jefferson, you will find these words inscribed on the wall: “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them.”

If you walk across to the Lincoln Memorial, you will find etched in stone the Second Inaugural Address, which President Abraham Lincoln delivered near the end of our great civil war in 1865. It’s short enough to be on one wall, yet it refers to God twelve times.

If you read our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, you will find the fundamental belief that our Creator has given us the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As Americans, we still recognize today that we cannot be successful if we do not recognize that our rights come from our Creator.

This American system of Creator endowed rights based on self evident truths is as current as Microsoft, biotechnology, and the space shuttle. However, its roots go back through our Founding Fathers to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the creation of Roman law 300 years before Christ, the rise of Greek democracy 500 years before Christ, and, ultimately, to the statement of God’s law given to Moses in the earliest period of recorded history.

This commitment to freedom carries great advantages. Our country reacts faster to crises, rectifies its mistakes more rapidly, and maintains a more dynamic national consensus precisely because it has a freely elected government based upon “We the People.” Those three words are the first three words of our Constitution, and they frame our view of government.

People who are free to work anywhere come to America because they know that America offers greater opportunity. People who are free to study anywhere come to America because they know that there is more creative research going on in our universities and corporations than in any other country in the world. This freedom and creativity lies at the root of the political and economic system that has made us a great nation.

The legislature invented by America’s founding fathers is a wonderful protection from any government that would attempt to ignore or thwart the will of the people. That’s why the Constitution begins in Article I by establishing the branch of government closest to the people, the United States Congress.

That branch is closest to the people because it is most sensitive to any change that might infringe upon our liberty. Because the founding fathers feared dictatorship, they deliberately created a system that divided the power of the federal government. They recognized that while God gives us freedom, governments all too often are ready to take that freedom away.

America’s history has been one of permanent tension between order and freedom, between government and the individual, between selfishness and selflessness, between idealism and cynicism. For over 200 years, Americans have worked, fought, sweated and bled, to preserve and extend freedom to all people of all backgrounds from all races and every country of the world.

Look around the world today. We are in the third decade of a global democratic revolution. From Portugal and Spain in the mid seventies, to Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union and its satellites, the old oppressive regimes have been replaced with new democracies.

In some cases, the political change preceded the creation of free markets, while in others there was a substantial transformation of the economic system before political freedom gained root.

But at the end of the day, they found that freedom was indivisible. It was not possible to grant one form of freedom   whether political or economic   without finally granting it all.

We find that reality exciting. We do not see our insistence on freedom, an insistence driven by our own experience, as an inappropriate intrusion into another country’s internal affairs; we see it as the greatest gift we can offer the world. We cannot imagine having any successful bilateral relationship that ignores that fundamental value.

During our time in China, we have tried to emphasize the importance we see in the reversion of Hong Kong to China this July.

We respect the justifiable pride China feels in the restoration of sovereignty over Hong Kong. We could imagine how strongly Americans would feel if Savannah or San Francisco was returned to our control after 150 years of foreign domination.

We support the Sino British Joint Declaration which governs the peaceful reversion of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China, and we look forward to the establishment of “one country, two systems.”

A smooth transition in Hong Kong, consistent with the Joint Agreement and Basic Law, will be a key moment for Beijing. Reversion will test Chinese standards of governance and international conduct. How the transition is managed will be critical to the future of Taiwan, to China’s international standing, and to China’s relations with the United States.

I am told that the Chinese word for crisis combines the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.” In that sense, the reversion of Hong Kong poses a “crisis” for China. Mishandling reversion would endanger China’s relationship with Taiwan, the region, and the broader international community. Honoring the commitments of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, on the other hand, would not only enhance economic growth in China; it would also strengthen China’s standing in the international community.

You are preparing for leadership at an exciting moment. China faces dramatic challenges as we enter the next century, but it also has dramatic potential. The message I bring to you today is simple. If you truly understand the American commitment to freedom, you will not only expand the context for the U.S.-China relationship; you will open up far greater opportunity for your country and your people.

As students in diplomacy, you may wonder why I dwelt upon public, core values. You might think that diplomacy is defined solely by secret negotiations in small rooms.

I’m sure you have studied the great achievements of past diplomats. For virtually all of human history, diplomacy has been an elite art practiced by sophisticated people in small groups. For most of history, diplomacy has been quiet, hidden, and often secret.

Your generation of diplomats will discover that the information age has revolutionized diplomacy, just as it has revolutionized so much of our life. In the past, diplomats left their countries on long missions without the ability to communicate with their government. Diplomats had to send messages by human messenger and as late as 1840 virtually all communication moved at the speed of transportation.

With the exception of extraordinary systems of communication using smoke, mirrors, or towers (many of which existed in China with more elegance and more power than any other country), virtually all communications was limited by the speed of a runner, rider or sailor.

You will discover that in your generation no diplomat is beyond a telephone call, a fax, or an e-mail. You will discover that the head of your government can find you on a cellular phone while he or she is watching live on CNN the crisis you are facing.

The invention of the telegraph began this process of instant communications 150 years ago, and now the emerging, worldwide, real-time communications grid is completing the process of drawing every diplomat--and citizen--into a global information network.

The information revolution is transforming not only the intimacy and speed of communication but the very nature of diplomacy. Whereas the art of diplomacy once excelled in secrecy, it will be forced in the 21st century to excel in public relations. Whereas diplomats once were an almost clandestine group, you will find yourselves increasingly on television and in the newspapers. Whereas governments traditionally sought to control events by hiding them from their peoples, in the information age people will increasingly control governments through the flow of news and the nature of public communications.

All of us are in the middle of this revolution, from negotiations between governments to communication between peoples. All of us now accept the fact that the worldwide news media is itself a force, shaping the news as much as simply reporting it. All 21st-century diplomats must wake up each morning vividly focused on the news media and aware of what it is doing to shape the very events it covers.

It will do no good to complain about the biases and inadequacies of the news media. You can educate reporters as much as possible. You can inform editors and producers as much as possible. You can work hard each day to rethink your strategies and your activities in the light of each day’s news. What you can’t do is hide from or ignore the news media, because it is increasingly a world force.

There is much talk today of information warfare, which ranges from protecting your own technology to dismantling that of your opponent. While most nations are focusing their efforts on developing the technology of warfare, the successful use of public information has actually been the greatest change in the competition among nations. It creates the context in which the entire struggle occurs.

The great British historian Macauley recognized the emergence of the news media as a “Fourth Estate” in an 1828 essay. Yet few diplomats and virtually no diplomatic colleges have recognized this revolution in the nature of diplomacy.

We need a system of “information diplomacy” to parallel and hopefully make obsolete the art of “information warfare.” We need a generation of young diplomats schooled in information diplomacy, who can help governments understand the world of the news media within which they operate. We need diplomats who know the impact of that world, how it changes understanding among peoples and how it defines relations between governments.

The People’s Republic of China will be forced to study the new information diplomacy when Hong Kong reverts on July 1. This is a great event for the people of China and a source of legitimate pride for all people of Chinese origin throughout the world.

Yet the key to the success of Hong Kong’s reversion and the implementation of the potentially brilliant formulation of “two systems, one country,” will depend not only on the fulfillment of commitments but also on the effective use of information diplomacy. No government in the 21st century will be able to sustain privately a diplomacy it cannot explain publicly.

We came to Beijing to seek yohao hezuo guanxi (friendly, cooperative relations). The simple fact is that guanxi in the 21st-century will increasingly be shaped by the news media and the realities of the information age. Effective diplomats in the 21st century will seek to understand and shape information diplomacy as the first step in understanding the requirements and limitations of their government’s diplomatic goals and processes.

Twenty-first century diplomats will understand that the guanxi between governments is inevitably shaped and bounded by the guanxi between their people. This is the inevitable reality of the information age.

“If you can’t explain it, you can’t do it” will be the first principle of diplomatic planning in the 21st-century. You will play a vital role in how that principle shapes diplomacy in the 21st century.   It is in that spirit of better understanding that I present these thoughts to you. As future leaders, you face the challenge of extending that understanding across the globe. I urge you to accept the challenge. Thank you very much.

Tag |

Email |

Print |

Comments

By ericrobinson @ Friday, June 19, 2009 7:48 PM

My God! When the world hears Newt speak, and then looks at who's occupying the White House today, they must think the American people are completely crazy. In Newt, we have an intellect on par with any of the founding fathers. In Obama, a demented national media convinced the American people that a completely average individual, someone truly no more than a well-sold Jesse Jackson, was some kind of visionary messiah. What a joke!
I'm sure the Chinese were scratching their heads when they heard this speech, and then watched Obama on the nightly news, giving another one of his mindless ACORN gabs.

By James Dyer @ Friday, June 19, 2009 5:07 PM

God bless you, Mr Speaker:
You truly were (are) a visionary. I visited China in 1987 and came away with a clear view of a great people whose potential was being unleashed by free enterprise and capitalism. Other freedoms will flow from that. While their freedoms are being gained, we are losing ours. Pray for a huge turn-out of teaparty patriots on 7/4.

Click Here to post a comment