The U.S. Was Once Played by the CCP, Now the U.S. Is United Against China | A Conversation with Miles Yu [Zhiding Lecture Hall, Robert Tsao] EP46

This episode invites Miles Yu and Robert Tsao for a conversation, deeply analyzing the evolution of U.S. policy toward China and the philosophy behind it. Miles Yu pointed out that the engagement-centric U.S. policy toward China during the Nixon era, although originally intended to change China, was ultimately influenced by the strategies of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and failed to achieve its goals. He emphasized that recognizing "the CCP is not equal to the Chinese people" is crucial, and advocated renaming China as the "CCP State" to expose its true nature. The program also explored the shift in U.S. policy toward China during the Trump administration and the negative perception of the CCP among the American public. In addition, the analysis of the situation in Hong Kong occupied a significant portion; Miles Yu expressed sorrow over the loss of freedom in Hong Kong and placed hope in the spirit of resistance of the younger generation.

Video link:

Full text:

The aggression of the CCP is not just targeting Taiwan; the aggression of the CCP is consistent. The nature of communism is aggression, why? It must constantly create myths of victory and success. This is why George Kennan, when analyzing the root causes of the fundamental principles of Soviet behavior, didn't say the Soviet Union did it to build a security buffer, no; it was because a country like the Soviet Union must prove that its party is invincible, must prove that the power of Marxism-Leninism is boundless, and that socialism is superior. To demonstrate this, it must conquer other countries. China is the same.

You have had a very significant impact on the change in U.S.-China policy. The three major principles are: first, abandoning playing the China card, meaning Nixon's approach of uniting with China to counter the Soviet Union, the China card. Abandoning the engagement-centric approach, and recognizing that the CCP is not equal to the Chinese people. These things are not necessarily my three major principles, I have no grand principles, I am just a teaching professor, a scholar who worked in the U.S. government for a long time. So these principles, I absorbed the essence from many friends. There are many in Taiwan, they are called political commentators, and you are one of them, so I learned a lot from watching your program, I learned a lot from watching Mr. Ming Chu-cheng, and I also learned a lot from watching Mr. Wang Hao's program in Taiwan.

When you talk about this now, it means, first of all, playing the China card reflects a distortion of American political ideals. Because the most active promoter of playing the China card, starting with Nixon, had some leisure time before he was elected president and after his electoral defeat in 1962, during which he spent a few years pondering the world situation. Nixon's thoughts were quite profound. Around 1967 and 1968, he felt that China was truly a maddened country at the height of the Cultural Revolution, declaring war on the entire world and wanting to export world revolution. Therefore, he felt that an isolated China posed a very serious threat to world peace. Then he wanted to engage with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and his purpose was to change China. As a result, after being elected president in 1968, he wanted engagement, but forgot his initial intention to change it. So Nixon should learn to "never forget why you started." That is to say, he solely relied on and emphasized engagement, but forgot this goal and turned to pragmatism. Then, engaging with China meant he hoped that through this engagement, the CCP might see some actual benefits of free capitalism. However, the CCP was also very cunning. Nixon thought he was playing the CCP around his finger, but in reality, the CCP played Kissinger and Nixon even more skillfully. Therefore, when formulating policies at the time, the CCP said: "Do you want to change me? I do not want to change you, but we can have engagement. As for engagement, you must engage according to my conditions." How to engage? The CCP said: "We demand to seek common ground while reserving differences. We both only have common interests, not common values." Nixon thought about it for a long time, and this seemed somewhat wrong, but later there was nothing he could do.

Because when Nixon went to China in 1972, when was it? 1972 was an election year, and an election year meant Nixon wanted to be re-elected. During his first election, his promise to the American people was that he would lead the United States out of the quagmire of Vietnam. By 1971 and 1972, not only was this not achieved, but the United States sank deeper and deeper. Therefore, he needed an achievement in the middle of the Vietnam War, so he correctly recognized that the CCP was a very important key. Thus, his sole purpose in going to China was to have China help the United States get out of the Vietnam quagmire. This was transactional. When China saw this, it said: "I will make a trade. If you want me to help you with the Vietnam issue, then you must make commitments to me on other issues." What commitments? Hey, you must withdraw troops on the Taiwan issue, and we will also establish diplomatic relations. Therefore, Nixon and Kissinger not having principles meant just that—lacking principles on major issues of right and wrong, and for their own selfish interests and re-election, they abandoned some of the most fundamental national policies of the United States and their ultimate initial intentions. Instead of changing China, they let the CCP change them.

In this case, such a framework of seeking common ground while reserving differences ended up with what? Playing the China card. That is to say, for half a century, ever since Nixon, the fundamental purpose of the United States has been that the CCP is fundamentally not the ultimate goal of its diplomacy; rather, it uses the Chinese state to achieve its more important so-called strategic goals. For example, jointly fighting the Soviet Union, allying with the CCP to strike against the regional hegemony of that time, Vietnam after 1979 when China and Vietnam turned hostile, and then the United States and China cooperating to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. Therefore, China has never received extreme and heavy emphasis in U.S. diplomacy. So during the Trump administration, we felt this was a major problem, because of seeking common ground while reserving differences, accompanied by technology exchanges and student exchanges. However, the differences—ideology, human rights, intellectual property rights, regional peace and security—could not be discussed. The CCP could not talk about these things. The Trump administration was actually not the most radical administration. What we needed to do with China was to discard this stuff of seeking common ground while reserving differences, and then frank discussions with the CCP on all major issues in U.S.-China relations—we had to talk about everything, we had to engage on everything. The CCP refused to do this, which is why U.S.-China relations were very tense during the Trump period; the cause was by no means the United States, but entirely the CCP.

So, this is seeking common ground while reserving differences. You just mentioned other things; there are two more. The CCP is not equal to the Chinese people, right? The CCP is not equal to the Chinese people. In fact, in the Chinese-speaking world, when has the CCP ever been recognized by the people through voting, elections, and genuine electoral recognition? The Communist Party itself considers its administrative logic to be the so-called historical logic; they are the proletarian vanguard, which are very hollow theories. Therefore, as soon as we point this out, the CCP is terrified, because this is its fatal weakness (hitting a snake seven inches from its head), since its rule is built upon raising the banner of the people.

Yes, that is why I have been advocating that the People's Republic of China, or China for short, is a scam. We should call it the CCP state, because by calling it the CCP state, we can expose its true nature. Mr. Pompeo once asked me a question. He said, 'Miles (Yu Maochun), how should I address this Xi Jinping?' Because at that time, many people called him President Xi Jinping, or Chairman, or General Secretary. In fact, in the legal documents of the CCP, there is no such position as 'President'; there is the Chairman of the Communist Party and the Chairman of the Central Military Commission. So I told him, I said, 'You should not call him President, and you should not call him Chairman. You should just call him General Secretary.' Why? Because this is his most important official title. In American history, when dealing with these hostile countries, the person who handled titles most appropriately was President Reagan with Gorbachev. He never called him Chairman Gorbachev, nor did he call him President Gorbachev. In the interactions with the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was always General Secretary Gorbachev. Since then, Mr. Pompeo consistently referred to Xi Jinping as General Secretary Xi Jinping for nearly three years, which is completely correct. Although 'General Secretary' and 'President' might sound a bit awkward and many people are not used to it, Mr. Pompeo did it, and I deeply admire Mr. Pompeo's political courage and his adherence to principles.

There are many problems in the relationship between China and the United States, and this has been the case for decades. Everyone says they want to solve them, but every time they want to solve a problem, the first thing they think about is how angry the CCP will be at our measures to reform, and how unhappy they will appear. During the Trump era, we felt that regardless of whether the CCP was angry or not, Trump's fundamental national policy was to do what he said he would do. That's right, and that is why American international credibility soared during the Trump era. During the Obama era, Obama told the Russians, 'This is our red line regarding ISIS in Syria; if you take military action, the US will not care.' There was no credibility. So during the Trump era, American prestige was very high. Many people are unhappy with President Trump, and the reason they are unhappy is that the US now does what it says it will do, fulfilling its obligations. So I think it is really, really dangerous for hypocritical politicians to become president.

Just now we mentioned President Reagan. President Reagan has the Reagan Presidential Foundation. It seems that for the past five years, they have conducted a National Defense Survey every year. In November 2023, they released figures showing that 77% of Americans consider the CCP an enemy, and 64% consider Taiwan an ally. The most interesting part is that 72% of people believe that if the CCP attacks Taiwan, the US should immediately grant Taiwan formal diplomatic recognition. If we look at these polling numbers, what kind of impact do they actually have on the two parties or American politics? Mr. Cao, these numbers are very important. Why? In China, everything is 100%. The CCP claims that Mr. Lai's election is illegitimate because he only received over 40% of the vote, unlike me, Xi Jinping, who had a 100% 'democratic' process, even more impressive than Kim Jong Un. So, this is a very absurd claim. In American society, democracy is fully expressed. If a person wins the general election with 50.1% or 50.0-something percent, that is a huge victory. We often say that the US is a 50-50 country, meaning it is split down the middle. Indeed, between the two parties, roughly half the people support the Democratic Party and half support the Republican Party; that is roughly the probability. So, to have over 60% of people in agreement on a major foreign policy issue is a remarkable number.

Let me add this: you just mentioned the issue of bipartisan consensus. Nowadays, there is basically no disagreement between the two parties regarding the claim that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses the number one threat to the United States. Therefore, the CCP should have some self-awareness and stop thinking that it can always demand the U.S. to admit its mistakes. These actions by the CCP have caused tremendous harm to the U.S. So, it should look in the mirror and see what responsibility it actually bears for the state of U.S.-China relations. It seems that now it just keeps repeating some very useless, worn-out clichés, like "whoever started the trouble should end it," or that the U.S. needs to recognize its errors and mend its ways. These diplomatic platitudes of the CCP are extremely outdated, and the more the U.S. hears them, the more annoyed it becomes. It is not just the U.S.; the CCP has no real allies in the world. The more countries deal with the CCP, the stronger their resentment toward it becomes. The negative sentiment among the American public toward the CCP-ruled China is 81%, and it is even higher in Japan—over 90%. Any country that has had extensive dealings with the CCP—many in the world that were once very friendly and never sought trouble—has been bullied by China. Consequently, the status of Chinese people in these countries is very low. Look at the countries surrounding the CCP; what friends does it have? None. Even Pakistan might not be reliable; Pakistan was bought with bribes.

Xi Jinping acts like a mobster, staring down the Canadian Prime Minister and lecturing him. Yes, that scene was a bit terrifying. Leaders elected in democratic countries have self-awareness; any voter can point a finger at them and scold them, and they remain humble, saying, "You are right, I will consider it," and that is it. Xi Jinping is a monster produced by an autocratic, dictatorial country, and this monster has become normalized, so it is no longer even strange. All day long, he thinks about how amazing his system is and that he wants to point out the direction for the world, talking about a "community with a shared future for mankind." In reality, when Xi Jinping says this, there is a term in English called "laughing stock"—people just treat him as a joke. So, for the CCP as a country to lack self-awareness is extremely dangerous.

Yes, I think that last year, the House of Representatives passed the Taiwan International Solidarity Act. It mainly states that the UN Resolution 2758 has been abused and misused to wrongly obstruct Taiwan from joining the international community. Although this act has been passed by the House, it has not yet been passed by the Senate. What would be the actual impact of this act? This is a very important topic. The diplomatic decision-making power of the United States basically belongs to the executive branch; the President has the prerogative power to decide whether or not to grant diplomatic recognition to a country, which is stipulated by the Constitution. However, in many very special circumstances, Congress has its own power. The most obvious example in this regard is the most significant interference by the U.S. Congress in the executive branch's diplomatic recognition: the Taiwan Relations Act passed 45 years ago. It is U.S. domestic law, and it represents Congress's resistance—a complete rebuttal—to the Carter administration's abuse of executive power and its unfriendly treatment of an ally. It was precisely because of this that the U.S. Congress reacted to the Carter administration's actions—not necessarily because what they did was wrong, but because they did not consult Congress and handled it very clumsily. Furthermore, they only informed Congress a few hours before publicly announcing it to the whole world. So Congress was very dissatisfied with the procedural aspect; just like the protests by the Taiwanese people today, they are also dissatisfied with the procedural aspect. Therefore, the U.S. Congress created the Taiwan Relations Act, which took two or three months to draft, and it was signed into law in April. The Carter administration had no choice but to sign it. In this way, the Taiwan Relations Act ultimately determined that for a country like Taiwan, whether or not to grant diplomatic recognition must be decided through consultation between the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress. Because at that time, another issue was involved: there was still a Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and Taiwan, the Republic of China. This treaty had to be approved or rejected by the Senate to become effective or ineffective. At that time, there was a senator who was very friendly to Taiwan named Barry Goldwater, as we all know. He sued the U.S. executive branch, saying that they were unconstitutional because the effectiveness of a treaty requires Senate approval, and the termination of a treaty must also be approved by the Senate; by unilaterally scrapping the Mutual Defense Treaty, they were violating the Constitution. In fact, his legal logic was very successful, but unfortunately, the Senate was too busy at the time, so it did not follow the legal procedure to formally challenge the Carter administration's termination of the Mutual Defense Treaty. In the end, the court said, 'Since you in the Senate have not collectively challenged me, I do not have the qualification to review this case.' So, unfortunately, this was a very important historical opportunity.

So you just mentioned, does this new congressional proposal regarding Resolution 2758 have any effect? Of course it does, especially since there is a precedent in the Taiwan Relations Act. It can exert significant pressure on the executive branch, forcing it to consult with Congress to resolve these issues. Now, Resolution 2758 is quite strange. In the environment of that time, it recognized the People's Republic of China's representative seat at the United Nations and also gave the permanent member seat to the CCP. In the U.S. political sphere, there was no controversy over this; it was seen as an irresistible trend, and everyone felt it couldn't be won back. However, the fundamental U.S. policy at the time was to grant the CCP the right to represent China while simultaneously preserving Taiwan's representative rights at the UN. At the time, George H.W. Bush, who was the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, made a huge mistake; he didn't see how cunning the other side was. This "other side" wasn't necessarily the CCP—the CCP didn't have the power yet—but the CCP could bribe African countries, and the British were also very underhanded. Why? According to normal logic, the Nixon administration thought that to expel a UN member state, you needed a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly. But the British were very devious; they changed the strategy, arguing that we didn't need two-thirds, just a simple majority. Wow, it was an irresistible trend, and in the end, perhaps due to considerations regarding Hong Kong, this was also closely related to the role Henry Kissinger played at the time. Because when the UN Resolution 2758 was being voted on, Kissinger was actually in China, remote-controlling things from there. I am currently looking for this document; if I find it, I could write a book. The resolution also had a specific phrasing: at the time, China issued a statement saying, "We want the People's Republic of China to obtain representative rights, and we want to remove the representative rights of the Chiang Kai-shek clique." They (the Communist Party) assumed what? They assumed that the Kuomintang was just a political party at the time. But that Kuomintang regime has long since ceased to exist. The Kuomintang has changed leadership many times since 2000 and hasn't been in power continuously. Therefore, the CCP's language was framed in terms of a political party. Now, Resolution 2758 needs to be addressed in terms of a state. Taiwan does not belong to the Kuomintang, nor to the Chiang Kai-shek "bandit gang"; it belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan, with a completely different political party directing the country's major policies. So, there are many legal aspects to this. I think if we organize a very strong legal team, Taiwan should be able to gain a lot of sympathy in international forums. You also know that I recently feel that in Taiwan, many people say, "I want Taiwan independence," or "I want to join the UN." But actually, I think the key is to let the world know that you do not belong to China. If everyone thinks you belong to China, and it (the PRC) is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is naturally very difficult to join many international organizations. So, what I am doing now is, just as Mike Pompeo said, to counter the claim that Taiwan is Chinese territory; we must reject that. Of course, thank you. We held a seminar at the Hudson Institute on May 15th, which you hosted. Oh, that was only right. It provided us with some inspiration and gave us some very timely support. In Washington, I think we should be discussing these very important topics regarding U.S.-China relations. Yes, the biggest problem is that we don't discuss the key issues of U.S.-China relations; instead, we spend every day trying to maintain and manage a bilateral relationship that has serious design flaws, treating it like a treasure to be preserved, like a ship with many holes, just patching it up over and over, rather than dragging the ship to shore and redesigning it. In this sense, I think this effort to set things right is very important. So, Mr. Cao, we are happy to see the conference you are supporting against the "Anti-Secession Law," and the more of these, the better. Next time, we might even hold one in Taiwan to give the Taiwanese people a greater opportunity to participate.

Taiwan's government also has many reservations, because as you just mentioned, the US has many reservations regarding China, and it forces Taiwan to follow the same rules. Therefore, didn't people talk about the (US government's) guidelines on contacts with Taiwan in the past, which were later abolished by you guys? That was essentially based on the various rules and promises the US made to China, which were also imposed on Taiwan. Hey, I now feel that the advantage Taiwan has is that I am a private citizen, and I can have a different path from the government's official line. Now the government might say, oh, look, you went and refuted the Anti-Secession Law, and you are stirring up Taiwan independence and making trouble again. So I think the government doesn't need to do it; I will do it. If the Taiwan government is afraid that the US will say you are challenging this Anti-Secession Law and making trouble, then the government doesn't need to step forward; we, the ordinary people, will do it, right? This is a perfectly normal logic. But in the CCP's logic, it doesn't see it that way. The CCP is a government with an extremely strong sense of conspiracy; it thinks everyone is working together to overthrow it. Therefore, Mr. Cao, you might be secretly funded by the Taiwan government to carry out these separatist activities—despite how absurd such a claim against Mr. Robert Tsao is. You see, in a democratic society versus an autocratic society—well, in a democratic society, there are many such non-governmental organizations and civil organizations that act spontaneously. Therefore, the CCP says every day, "We hope to develop exchanges between the peoples of the US and China," which is a lie. The CCP's greatest skill in ruling China is that it monopolizes all channels and opportunities for its people to engage in foreign exchanges. That's right, so you see, these US non-governmental organizations, which have nothing to do with the government, go to China to interact with Chinese citizens, but it is entirely controlled by the CCP. Therefore, you see the CCP acting like this: it says it hopes other American students will come to China, but it won't issue visas to you and creates various security inconveniences. It says visits to Tibet and Xinjiang are welcome, but without a visa, you can't go either. This is propaganda; the CCP is just like this, saying one thing and doing another, being two-faced.

After the enactment of Article 23 in Hong Kong, any casual contact between a Hong Kong group and a foreign group is very dangerous. You are colluding with external forces, so this is quite dangerous and very pitiful. I feel that in Hong Kong now, following the enactment of Article 23, the civil and political rights of Hong Kong citizens are virtually lost; their freedom of speech, freedom of publication, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of demonstration are all gone. A very sad thing is what? It is that Hong Kong, a Western colony ruled by Britain for over 150 years, was closely integrated with many key institutions and mechanisms around the world. Hong Kong was the most open cosmopolitan city, but after being messed with like this by China, it has now become one of the most closed cities.

More than 120 years ago, China had the Boxers, and the Boxers were xenophobic. Now, this xenophobia of the Boxers was a very bad thing at the time, but you can have some explanation for it, because China was a country that had closed its doors to the world; for one or two thousand years it considered itself the Celestial Empire, so at this time, to have a group of very unwise people being xenophobic and opposing Western culture is somewhat understandable. Japan had it too; before the Meiji Restoration, there were over a dozen years of various movements like "Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians" (Sonnō jōi), stemming from a traditional xenophobic sentiment born of national isolationism. This kind of xenophobia can be relatively easily eliminated. But the Communist Party's xenophobia—this kind of xenophobia—is something deeply reinforced in terms of ideology. Why? Because Communism believes it is waging the most noble, greatest, and sacred crusade in human history. Consequently, anti-communist forces are extremely powerful, so it views any difficulties it encounters internationally as a conspiracy. Its xenophobia and exclusionary sentiment are theorized, weaponized, highly organized, highly unified, and equipped with a completely thorough set of countermeasures. Therefore, China's opposition to the West is not just opposition to the United States; it opposes the openness and globalization practices of the entire world. Thus, this is an extremely dangerous country.

So, for example, Hong Kongers now—I see our Hong Kong friends, they are very nervous. They say that as soon as they land in Taiwan from Hong Kong, they feel so relaxed, because they are tense while in Hong Kong. Why? You have to look left and right when you speak, checking if anyone is eavesdropping. It's like taking a taxi; you don't dare to respond to whatever the driver says. It has become like this, quite pitiful. Regarding the issue of Hong Kong, Mr. Pompeo and I, we are both very saddened when we talk about it, you know? The seven or eight million people in Hong Kong are, in a strict sense, essentially political refugees fleeing from China. Hong Kong may not have had democracy under British rule, but it had freedom, the rule of law, and a guaranteed independent judiciary; there were guarantees for basic human rights and freedoms. In Hong Kong, there were many protests, and they had a profound influence on their own rights. The people of Hong Kong—I know many friends—they cherish their freedom very, very much, because just over a dozen kilometers away is another nation, one that is completely the opposite. So you see Hong Kong citizens taking to the streets to defend their own freedom; the scene was very spectacular. I was there, yes, I know. President Trump, after seeing this, especially with Hong Kong people waving American flags and singing the American national anthem, naturally, as the American president, he felt very proud. But indeed, what he awakened was not just the pride of Americans; he awakened the soul of ordinary people and their pursuit of freedom.

So, this is why, even though we were engaged in trade negotiations with the CCP, I know that President Trump, through his Twitter, stated that he must prevent the CCP from bloodletting in Hong Kong, like the Tiananmen incident. So the President actually made a very stern statement behind the scenes, you know? When the students and citizens were protesting in Hong Kong, the CCP had assembled a large number of troops and military vehicles right there at the Lo Wu Bridge, so we issued a stern warning to them. Many people may not know this, but the fall of Hong Kong, the collapse of Hong Kong, happened in the blink of an eye. This is a very tragic event in human history. But I know, and I now recognize, many young people in Hong Kong who are being hunted by the Hong Kong government—I see hope and the future in these people. These people are young, like they have lost their own parents, but they have not given up their pursuit. I admire these people very much.

The last Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, wrote a book called The Hong Kong Diaries, which was later translated into Chinese in Taipei. He asked me to write the preface, and I did. I was very sad, saying that what happened in Hong Kong is a tragedy unimaginable in the 21st century. How could such a thing happen in the 21st century, when things are so progressive? A place that was free and protected by the rule of law suddenly lost everything. The impact on human conscience is enormous. Mr. Pompeo told me personally, more than once, that he shed tears over the loss of freedom in Hong Kong. He really cried. I think everyone should not view the fall of Hong Kong as a light matter; this is a major challenge to human civilization, a major challenge, and a major tragedy. So the Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office, Zhang Xiaoming, said something like, 'For these protesters, the fact that we let you live already represents the magnanimity of our country.' You feel really angry when you hear that; it's like a feudal emperor speaking, 'I grant you death, I grant you a privilege, I let you die.' The CCP state, it feels that the people are just things in its palm, that it is their master. You know, this is very ironic. What is the first line of the national anthem of the People's Republic of China? 'Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves.' I am now advocating that people of conscience in China should print this sentence on T-shirts or use it as a couplet at their doors. This song is truly something everyone should sing. This was used to deceive the common people in the past. The Chinese Communist Party, its brainwashing of the people uses these very simple, constantly repeated propaganda things. The national anthem, back in the day, was 'The East is Red.' This couplet might not match, but the Spring Festival is coming. For the left line, you could say this: 'Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves.' This is from the national anthem. For the right line, you could say this: 'To create human happiness, it all depends on ourselves.' This is from the national anthem. And for the banner, you could say this: 'This is called democracy and freedom.' This is a joke. Alright, let's stop here for today. Thank you very much. The Zhixing Lecture Hall is very scholarly, but I think it should really be called the 'Knowledge and Action' Lecture Hall, the unity of knowledge and action. For a person to achieve the unity of knowledge and action, that is the highest state of human spiritual life. So I admire you very much, and thank you very much for letting me share some thoughts with you. Thank you, thank you. Let's keep in touch often in the future and I will consult you from time to time. Thank you, thank you. Thank you everyone.