After the CCP Regime Collapses, What Should We Watch For? How to Bring About the CCP's Collapse? [Zhiding Lecture Hall, Robert Tsao, Miles Yu] EP178 (Part 1)
The program discusses preparations for China's transition after the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party regime, including handling local ethnic conflicts, historical truths, the liquidation of officials, and dictatorial institutions, establishing truth and reconciliation mechanisms, and moving toward constitutionalism. Miles Yu advocates for popular sovereignty, believing that the autonomy, independence, or federal arrangements of various provinces and autonomous regions should be decided by the local people, and compares these with the transition experiences of Poland, East Germany, South Africa, Germany, and Japan. The program also discusses Hunan autonomy, Chen Jiongming's "Yue people governing Guangdong," Sun Yat-sen's promotion of military unification, Soviet influence, and the relationship between warlord fragmentation and social competition.
Video link:
Full transcript:
Hello, Mr. Cao. Dr. Yu is a historian, currently serving as a professor of East Asian and military history at the United States Naval Academy, as well as the director of the China Center at the Hudson Institute and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. Dr. Yu is best known for serving as the chief China policy and planning advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during Trump's first term, having a major influence on the Trump administration's China policy. He has a deep understanding and thorough study of the Chinese Communist Party, and his published articles and works have made significant contributions to the United States and Europe in understanding the CCP and shaping their policies.
Dr. Yu's Hudson Institute is currently studying how to prepare to deal with a post-CCP China, that is, how China should respond after the collapse of the CCP. I think everyone should be very interested in this. But first, let me ask, when do you think the CCP will collapse?
Whether the CCP regime will collapse, when it will collapse, and how it will collapse are actually not the focus of our research. For any regime, a totalitarian government like the CCP has numerous possibilities and factors for collapse. As a responsible democratic society, preparations should be made. A totalitarian China is certainly very bad, but if China is completely unprepared after the sudden collapse of a totalitarian regime, it might be even worse.
This is a policy planning effort, which is actually not surprising. All successful examples of democratic country transitions had preparations made very early on. For example, during the communist period in Poland, the independent trade union was established in 1980. This Solidarity movement was actually not just a trade union; it eventually became an opportunity outside the government for social design during Poland's future post-communist period. Therefore, after Polish communism collapsed, the transition went very smoothly. The Czech Republic was the same. The preparation in the Soviet Union and Russia was insufficient, ultimately leading to desperate measures like the so-called shock therapy, and the reason was inadequate preparation.
Regarding China's situation, among people in US policy circles doing this type of research, there are many similar practices on the military side. For every country, the US has so-called war plans. After the Spanish-American War, which was after 1898, the US had already made strategic preparations, imagining a future war with Japan in the Pacific, and therefore formulated many war plans, the most famous of which was War Plan Orange. War Plan Orange began to take shape after 1898, and more than forty years later, it was used when the Pearl Harbor attack occurred. This plan does not mean that a war will definitely happen, but rather what should be done if it does happen.
In a totalitarian and autocratic society like China, once it collapses, there will be much to do and many things that could happen. For example, ethnic revenge might occur in regions like Xinjiang and Tibet. There is a great deal of social injustice throughout Chinese society; how to deal with the officials of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and how to conduct a fair and reasonable reckoning for those who have committed heinous crimes are all very important.
Chinese society also possesses many so-called machines of the dictatorship of the proletariat, including the police (Public Security), and secret service agencies. What to do with these institutions also needs to be addressed. The CCP society is built upon massive lies, obliterating the truth. It is very difficult for a society without truth to move toward a democratic, free, and open society.
After the collapse of the Communist Party in countries like East Germany, the first thing opened to the public were the secret police archives, such as the Stasi files, allowing society to have a clearer understanding of past experiences. After South Africa ended apartheid, the first thing established was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which also serves as an inspiration for China.
For instance, how many people actually died during the Great Leap Forward, who were the true culprits behind the Cultural Revolution, how many people died in Tiananmen Square, and what exactly is the origin of COVID-19—these questions all require an accounting to history, the people, and society. Only with such an accounting can society progress and move forward.
An important point of our research report is that, in addition to contingency plans for the sudden collapse of the CCP, we must also discuss transitional justice for society. The ultimate goal is to move toward constitutionalism. Constitutionalism has been the aspiration of the Chinese people since the May Fourth Movement; the May Fourth Movement spoke of "Mr. De" (Democracy) and "Mr. Sai" (Science). There is a lot of knowledge involved in how to achieve democracy.
We are based in the United States, which is one of the earliest modern democratic societies, so we hope to use the experiences of the U.S. and Taiwan to help the people of mainland China, who have suffered under Communist rule, establish constitutionalism. For example, how the constitutional committee is elected, what proportion constitutes passage, whether to adopt a simple majority or an absolute majority—these all involve many rules. The most important point is to return sovereignty to the people and let the people decide.
Some might say, is this the U.S. trying to impose American values on the Chinese people? It is not. In many cases, it requires democratic nations to unite and work together. After the sudden collapse of German fascism, Nazi Germany was rebuilt jointly by the U.S., the U.K., and France, and the issues regarding former Nazi party members were addressed. After Japan was defeated by the U.S., the U.S. represented the international community in drafting a constitution and constitutionalism for Japan, which the Japanese people fully accepted. This is an important step for a regime to transition from autocracy to democracy and for a society to open up.
Our research mainly focuses on these issues. Of course, many people misunderstand this research, thinking we are planning to overthrow the CCP immediately, but that is not the point. The CCP regime has many irrationalities, and I believe its collapse is inevitable, so we must be prepared for this inevitable collapse. I am not preparing for its collapse; whether the CCP collapses or not must be decided by the Chinese people themselves.
However, it is also necessary to instill certain concepts in the Chinese people. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights already stated that sovereignty resides with the people. Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese, Shandong should belong to the people of Shandong, and Sichuan should belong to the people of Sichuan. Didn't Flushing, New York, recently hold a "Shanghai Independence" event? Shanghai belongs to the people of Shanghai, and the concepts of popular sovereignty and self-determination should also be advocated.
Mr. Cao is absolutely right. Since the Enlightenment, the most important principle of social governance has been popular sovereignty. Whether sovereignty is decided by the people should be determined by the people themselves. This is not a very unfamiliar concept.
At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the regime was tottering. During the time of the Eight-Nation Alliance, the southern provinces once declared autonomy. Later, the most vibrant effort was in Hunan Province during the May Fourth Movement. At that time, some in Hunan advocated for Hunan autonomy, and Chen Baozhen once sought out Liang Qichao and others to discuss it. The person who advocated most strongly for Hunan autonomy was the young Mao Zedong. In 1919, Hunan proposed the establishment of the Republic of Hunan; this is a very good example of popular sovereignty.
At that time, there was a great American philosopher, John Dewey, who was Hu Shih's teacher at Columbia University. Hu Shih, who was the president of Peking University at the time, invited Dewey to China. Dewey attached great importance to the issue of Hunan autonomy. He believed that it was very possible for China at that time to form a federal system like the United States—not complete independence, but various localities jointly forming a nation. But the most important principle is popular sovereignty.
Whether Sichuan becomes independent or Shanghai becomes independent should be decided by the people of Sichuan, the people of Shanghai, and the people of Shandong themselves. This is also a global trend. In the U.K., Scotland has always had demands for independence; whether it ultimately becomes independent or not is decided by a vote. If the Scottish people vote for independence, then it becomes independent. The same applies to Quebec in Canada; all are decided through voting.
Many places in China now have independent voices, such as Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia, and Shanghai, and the Northeast does too. Recently, several people have also said that Manchuria should be independent. This is not necessarily heresy, but the ultimate goal and the final process should be decided by the local people.
In 1920, Chen Jiuming proposed "Guangdong governed by the people of Guangdong" in Guangdong, which was a relatively thorough proposition of local autonomy, followed by the formation of a confederation or federation. This means that independence must come first, and sovereignty must first return to the people. Only when the people have sovereignty do they have the right to speak.
For example, if Shandong and Hebei want to form an alliance, they must first have sovereignty, and then they can have the right to self-determination. This is like getting married: you must first reach the age of 18 and become an independent person before you are qualified to talk about marriage. Now, various provinces, cities, and autonomous regions in China should be encouraged to form parliaments, just like every state in the United States has its own parliament, and then formulate their own constitutions. In this way, it is equivalent to becoming an adult, and then deciding whether to engage in federalism and provincial autonomy with others.
Without sovereignty, one is not an adult. There is an order to this. It may be relatively slow to wait for the Chinese Communist Party to slowly disintegrate, so the Chinese people should be encouraged to fight back their own sovereignty. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the Communist Party. The Communist Party has swindled and snatched sovereignty away, and the people must take it back.
In Leninist terms, Mr. Cao is truly the vanguard of the proletariat, promoting good things to happen.
The Chinese Communist Party actually understands these truths as well. Its state-governing principles and entire political structure go to great lengths to prevent the rise of local democratic sentiment. The National People's Congress is called a rubber stamp by everyone, and indeed it is. But the biggest mechanism of the rubber stamp is that representatives from various provinces go to Beijing for meetings, lasting two weeks every year. People from Fujian go to the Fujian Hall, people from Shanghai go to the Shanghai Hall, and people from Sichuan go toজনের Sichuan Hall. The Chinese Communist Party strictly prevents them from contacting and networking with each other.
Because once everyone networks, any issue can become a nationwide issue. The Chinese Communist Party cares very much about this. A country must have a so-called body politic, which is to let people across the country jointly discuss important issues of the country. This is what the Chinese Communist Party fears the most, so it controls the National People's Congress, and one of its mechanisms is to separate everyone.
Peng Dehuai did not understand this principle back then, so he went to various places to network, and after networking, he was in bad luck. Another mechanism is the so-called Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is a permanent institution, dominated by those few people or dozens of people in Beijing.
Reading the History of the Republic of China now, I think Mao Zedong was right in 1919 when he talked about Hunan's independence, and Chen Jiuming was also right when he talked about "Guangdong governed by the people of Guangdong." However, the person who brought the concept of military reunification to China was Sun Yat-sen. Sun Yat-sen talked about military reunification every day, and was later driven away by Chen Jiuming, who even shelled Sun Yat-sen.
If Sun Yat-sen had not promoted military reunification, the partition of northern warlords might not have been a bad thing. The warlord era produced many great masters. Hu Shi was a person of the warlord era during the May Fourth Movement. Warlords were actually relatively free, and education was valued very much at that time, and university professors were treated very well. Sun Yat-sen, however, insisted on military reunification.
In addition to Sun Yat-sen, there was also the force of Soviet Russia at that time. Soviet Russia believed that there were warlords in various parts of China, the provinces were basically autonomous, and there were imperialist forces within them, so it hoped that China would establish a unified, pro-Russian and pro-Soviet regime. These two forces combined, frankly speaking, Sun Yat-sen invited the wolf into the house. The Whampoa Military Academy used Russian money and Russian instructors. The principal of the Whampoa Military Academy was Chiang Kai-shek, the dean of education was Zhou Enlai, and I heard that Mao Zedong also served as an instructor there. Many of these trained high-ranking officials, including Communist generals, came from the Whampoa Military Academy.
This view makes some sense. Unification, autonomy, or independence doesn't matter much to me; the key is to let the people speak and let the people decide. Who ultimately decides on unification? Is it unified by force, or do ordinary people vote and decide through their own expression?
Warlords are certainly not good things, but warlords after all formed forces opposing each other, forming a competitive relationship, that is, a competitive state system, similar to the situation in Europe. The rise of modern Europe in the past 500 or 600 years is largely due to the competition among various countries. You must improve your economy, improve your military, attract talent, and surpass others in all aspects.
For example, Yan Xishan in Shanxi was a model governor and did a very good job. Of course, there were also many bad warlords, but generally speaking, Zhang Zuolin and Zhang Xueliang also did a pretty good job in the Northeast. Warlords after all came from a military background, with many barbaric factors relying on force, but they also formed a pattern.
I taught at the Naval Academy for decades, and one of the courses that left the deepest impression on me was the Beiyang warlord period. That was a dozen years, although not comparable to the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, it was very interesting. There were many ideas at that time, and there were also many advanced talents.
There is a very famous professor at Fudan University who wrote a book titled "Under Heaven: Unity, Division, and Chinese Politics," which discusses the history of unity and division in China over thousands of years, as well as the degree of social progress. The conclusion is quite astonishing: during periods of great unification, society stagnates.
I even know why. After a great unification, there is a need for governance. The first requirement is to make the common people stupid so they do not think too much. The imperial examination system forces people onto the path of seeking official positions, while literary inquisitions are used to kill off dissenters among the populace and control the people. The more foolish and stupid people are, the easier they are to control. Therefore, after a great unification, the policy of keeping the people ignorant for the sake of control results in a decline in human intelligence. I believe this logic is already very clear.