"Deep Perspective" Interview with Xin Haonian: On the Legitimacy of the People's Republic of China

In this episode, "In-Depth Perspective" features an exclusive interview with Xin Haonian, discussing the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China. Xin Haonian argues that the Republic of China is a modern nation-state established by the Chinese nation itself, inheriting Chinese historical and cultural traditions while promoting republican democracy, and thus possesses legitimacy; whereas the People's Republic of China is not a continuation of the Chinese nation's own traditions, but rather the transplantation of the international communist movement and the Soviet Russian political system into China, representing an autocratic restoration against the Republic of China. He puts forward judgments from multiple perspectives, including the nation-state, historical heritage, the constitution, the War of Resistance, the origin of the political regime, the Soviet model, US policy toward China, the current status of the ROC faction, and the future transition of China. He asserts that the CCP is not China, but a party-state regime established by a foreign ideology, a foreign political system, and a faith-based party. The program concludes by discussing potential pathways for China's future. Xin advocates distinguishing the CCP from China, supporting the mainland populace in opposing communism, and ending CCP rule and restoring social order and a democratic system through the approach of "leaving the government while removing the party, and peaceful transition."

Host: Historian Professor Xin Haonian, author of the book "Who Is the New China," is widely recognized as a representative of the overseas Republic of China faction. He directly challenges the legitimacy of the CCP regime. He argues that what the People's Republic of China inherits is not the Qin, Han, Tang, Song, Ming dynasties and the Republic of China, but rather the Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism of European communist religion.

In today's "In-Depth Perspective" program, Professor Xin Haonian will lead us to examine the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China from different perspectives.

Professor Xin Haonian, thank you very much for accepting this exclusive interview with Voice of America's "In-Depth Perspective."

Xin Haonian: Thank you.

Host: Professor Xin, you are the author of "Who Is the New China" and are recognized as a representative of the overseas Republic of China faction. You have also directly challenged the legitimacy of the CCP regime. In fact, the issue of legitimacy is a very crucial key for us to understand the continuous evolution of the CCP since it came to power in 1949.

May I ask you to discuss the legitimacy of the CCP regime with our listeners and viewers from the perspectives of the relations among the state, nation, history, and culture?

Xin Haonian: When we consider whether a state is legitimate or not, there are certainly many aspects to look at, such as power, system, revolution, and so on. When we consider whether a state is ultimately legitimate, what is the most important thing to affirm first? That is the relationship between this state and its nation.

If this state is the nation-state of this nation—for instance, the Republic of China is the nation-state of the Chinese nation, a country established by this nation for itself—then this state is legitimate.

After founding the state, Dr. Sun Yat-sen paid homage to the Ming Xiaoling Mausoleum, which showed that he was a descendant of the Chinese nation and that he acknowledged China's historical traditions and culture. Of course he was legitimate, right?

Therefore, the Republic of China is such a modern China produced by revolution. It acknowledged its own historical tradition while simultaneously advancing China's politics, culture, and other aspects toward progress. Of course it is legitimate.

But conversely, is the People's Republic of China legitimate? Is the People's Republic of China the nation-state of the Chinese nation? Certainly not.

Why? It is part of the international communist movement, meaning an international world revolution launched by the so-called international communist party created by Marx. And this communist party and this international revolution are a counterattack and regression against nineteenth-century Europe.

I will explain this counterattack and regression in two sentences.

What kind of Europe was nineteenth-century Europe? It was an era moving toward liberalization in thought, democratization in politics, and pluralism in culture.

However, what did the communist thought and communist party that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century want to do? In thought, they pursued monism; in politics, they pursued monism, and dictatorship was also monism; in economy, they opposed private ownership and pursued public ownership, which was still monism; in culture, they permitted only Marxist-Leninist culture and forbade the existence of any other culture, which was yet again monism.

In nineteenth-century Europe, which was developing toward pluralism, a party suddenly emerged that sought to overthrow pluralism in every aspect and return to monism—that is, return to the path of authoritarianism. Is such a party a progressive party? It is certainly a reactionary and regressive party, right?

Therefore, the communist party precisely inherited this historical tradition. This does not belong to the traditions of the Chinese nation at all. Then, the international communist party launched a revolution in China, led the revolution, directed this revolution, seized state power in China, overthrew China's legitimate nation-state, the Republic of China, and established such a country. Can this country be legitimate?

Moreover, before 1949, this country had already become a vassal state of the former Soviet Russia, called the Chinese Soviet Republic. In 1936, before the Communist Party intended to surrender to the Nationalist Government, it still held the National Congress of the Chinese Soviet Republic in Yan'an. Then it stopped using this name until changing it to the People's Republic of China in 1949.

In reality, the People's Republic of China is the expansion of the Chinese Soviet Republic, a vassal state of Soviet Russia. Can it be legitimate?

Therefore, what it inherits is not the emperors of the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties; what it inherits is Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. They themselves said so, others didn't say it for them. It is Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, whereas we are the emperors of Tang and Song—these are two different matters.

Thus, from the perspective of its name and its heritage, it is not legitimate.

Looking at history, let us look at it from the perspective of modern history. Because the Republic of China is modern China, and the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China also calls itself the state of China and calls itself modern China. Then let us see which of these two modern Chinas is legitimate and which is illegitimate.

I have already stated the legitimacy of the Republic of China; I will only discuss why the People's Republic of China is illegitimate. Where does its illegitimacy lie?

The Republic of China was created by the Xinhai Revolution. The Xinhai Revolution was the first public commonwealth established after ending China's three-thousand-year monarchical autocratic system—that is, turning the realm belonging to one family into a realm belonging to the public, which is a republican state.

And although this republican state still had many problems, these problems were resolved one by one as they firmly marched along the path toward the republic, and they did very well.

Then what about the Communist Party?

On this issue, whom is the Communist Party like? It is like Yuan Shikai, who was the first to attempt to overthrow the Republic of China and restore the three-thousand-year autocracy; it is like Zhang Xun and the Qing child emperor Puyi, who were the second to attempt to overthrow the Republic of China and restore the Manchu monarchical autocracy. It merely used the banner and name of revolution to restore the autocratic system, reinstate autocratic rule, and carry out a usurping rule.

Is it legitimate? Of course it is not legitimate.

The path toward the republic is the path moving from autocracy to democracy. The path of returning to autocracy is stepping back from the republic and returning to autocracy and monarchy; naturally, it is not legitimate.

From the perspective of historical development, it is the third autocratic restoration in the century since the founding of the Republic of China. It is just that, under the name of revolution—under the name of the Western progressive communist revolution—it deceived our people, causing our people to suddenly fail to see through its true nature or understand what the nature of this regime is.

However, slowly, through the reflection of the people, we have gradually become clear. This regime is a foreign regime, and its ruling ideology is a foreign ideology. Its ruling ideology is Marxism-Leninism, not the ideology of the Chinese nation, nor is it the progressive democratic ideology of the modern West; rather, it is that reactionary nineteenth-century ideology ruling present-day China.

Can it be legitimate? A regime established in China by a foreign regime, with foreign ideology ruling today's China and undergoing total Sovietization, cannot possibly be legitimate. It is not something belonging to China, after all.

Therefore, when I meet some elderly people and old intellectuals, they say with deep sorrow that this whole set-up of the Communist Party is not China at all, and China has never had such a thing. Since it has never been something of China, can it be legitimate? Of course it is not legitimate, right?

Host: So Professor Xin just now, from the relationship between the state and the nation, as well as historical and cultural heritage, expressed your view that the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China is open to question.

However, how do you view the rebuttals from some people against you? For example, the People's Republic of China is a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations. Furthermore, some prominent dissidents even say that the People's Republic of China has a constitution, and the constitution stipulates that elections can produce a government. Of course, the current one-party dictatorship of the CCP is so-called usurping power, but that does not mean the People's Republic of China is not a legitimate state. How do you respond to these rebuttals?

Xin Haonian: In history and in modern times, which rule of international law stipulates that only a state recognized by foreigners is a legitimate state, and a state not recognized by foreigners is not a legitimate state? You can search for it, and I can let these friends search for it: is there such a provision in any international law? Namely, if I do not recognize you as a state, you are not a state. Is there? Is there such a rule? There is no such rule.

The United Nations is also partial. After 1949 and after the victory of World War II, the United Nations gradually headed down a wrong path, and today it has made too many mistakes.

For example, to make concessions to the Soviet Union, it changed all occurrences of the two characters "civil rights" (民权) into "human rights" (人权). The United Nations' three major human rights covenants should actually be three major civil rights covenants. Because the communist autocratic rule does not allow the discussion of civil rights, the United Nations changed civil rights into human rights.

Would you believe such a United Nations?

The UN has done many bad things over the years, as everyone knows. Is everything it agrees with correct? Is everything it opposes wrong?

It has a constitution; of course it has a constitution. The People's Republic of China has a constitution. What did Mao Zedong say about what a constitution is? Isn't it just something I approve? What is a constitution? Isn't it just a piece of paper? If I want it, I have it; if I don't want it, I discard it.

Mao Zedong's remark is the best footnote to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. To them, the constitution is not law at all; a single word from Mao Zedong surpasses the law.

Besides, ever since the Constitution of the People's Republic of China came into existence, has the Communist Party ever obeyed its constitution, respected its constitution, or acted according to its constitution? Never.

Host: Let us look at it from a historical perspective. Many people believe that the history of the War of Resistance can actually show whether the CCP's current regime is legitimate or not.

Now Xi Jinping claims that the CCP was the mainstay of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, which is also considered by many to be a packaging technique used by the CCP to establish its legitimacy. How do you view the legitimacy of the CCP's regime from the perspective of restoring the history of the War of Resistance?

Xin Haonian: When a nation is subjected to foreign aggression, if you cannot stand up to resist, but instead collude with the aggressors to attack the national government, people, and army that are resisting and defending the nation, what does that make you? What does that make you? Can you still be legitimate?

I proposed two standards in "Who is the New China?".

One standard is that when our nation suffers foreign aggression, those who bravely stand up, strike the aggressors, repel the aggressors, and defend their own country are progressive and legitimate.

When our country is moving along the process of transition from autocracy to democratic victory, if you promoted this transition, that is legitimate and correct.

If you not only failed to promote the transition from autocracy to democracy, but instead dragged an already democratic country backward and back into an autocratic state, can you still be progressive and legitimate? Of course, you are neither progressive nor legitimate.

We use these two standards without any partisan coloring. These two standards are the fairest. One is from the perspective of the nation, and the other is from the perspective of democracy. Examining any political party from these two fundamental points: those who promote national progress and democratic progress are legitimate and correct.

If you failed to defend your own nation, and instead harmed your own nation; if you failed to promote China's democratic progress, and instead dragged China's democratic progress toward autocratic regression, are you still legitimate? Are you still progressive?

Host: If the People's Republic of China is not a legitimate country, what on earth is it?

Regarding this question, many people actually hold different views. Professor Cai Xia said that the CCP is basically a mafia, viewed from the perspective of its organization and linguistic characteristics. Some people also believe that the CCP is actually a cult, which may stem from the origin of Marxist thought. Some even compare it, saying that compared to the privileged bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union, the CCP is actually more like an interest group of elites.

Professor Xin Haonian, if it is not a legitimate country, what on earth is the CCP?

Xin Haonian: What on earth is the CCP? You asked this question so well. What on earth is the CCP?

Why has our people, a portion of our people, once been deceived, hoodwinked, and defrauded by it, and even regarded it as revolutionary and progressive?

First, more than a hundred years ago, the eastward dissemination of Western learning began, and Western progressive doctrines, science, and technology started to be transmitted to China. We Chinese believed—the Chinese people at that time, the Chinese intellectuals at that time believed—that everything coming from the West was progressive. Because at that time we lacked the ability to judge whether any thought, theory, science, or technology transmitted from the West to China—through the eastward dissemination of Western learning—was progressive, or not progressive, or even reactionary. We lacked the ability to judge.

Therefore, Marxism, an extremely reactionary thought, theory, revolution, and movement in the 19th century, was regarded as progressive. Thus, a minority of Chinese intellectuals, whose scholarship could be said to be not profound, regarded it as a panacea to save China. This in itself is a historical tragedy and a key source of China's suffering under the CCP's rule for more than seventy years over the past century.

The second issue is that the CCP's revolution actually succeeded in China. Of course, there are various reasons for this, and there are many reasons for this success. But one point is that after this revolution succeeded, it actually gained a foothold on the Chinese mainland and has ruled for 74 years up to the present day—about to complete 74 years—which is about the same duration as the Soviet rule.

I ask, why is it that to this day, we still cannot figure out what on earth the CCP is?

That is because we cannot understand the CCP. For many years, we could not understand what kind of revolution the CCP's revolution was, we could not understand what kind of regime the CCP's regime was, and we could not understand what kind of government and state the CCP's government and state were.

I am telling you now, I am also researching this issue. Like many friends, today I thought it was this way, and tomorrow I thought it was that way, but none of us found the root.

Host: Yes, we have all thought about these questions.

Xin Haonian: These issues are all well-spoken, but none of them answered what on earth the CCP is. Its essence is what I have said: from the relationship between the state and the polity, the CCP is not a state in China. The country of China has always existed; the CCP did not create a China. It simply established a regime in Beijing, China.

And this regime was established based on the system of polity brought by the CCP.

What is this polity? Let me say a few brief words.

First, the polity established by the CCP in China in 1949 was a complete copy and transplantation of the Moscow Soviet-Russian polity. Completely transplanted, without a single aspect being different. It was the CPSU—its father, or its big brother—that taught it hand in hand and transplanted it over.

On this point, among people in China who are slightly older, not a single person thinks otherwise. Everyone knows it in their hearts: China's system is the Soviet system, completely copied.

The question again is, what kind of system was the Soviet system?

To understand this, I will say a couple more words.

One thing is, what was the polity of Tsarist autocratic rule? It is generally believed that Tsarist rule was also a monarchical rule, a monarchical autocracy, right? But this monarchical autocracy was different. This monarchical autocracy was the union of church and state.

That is to say, the Eastern Orthodox Church, a branch of Christianity, was combined with the Tsar's political rule. During the era of the Tsar, the Eastern Orthodox Church helped the Tsar exercise ideological control over the Russian people, and even served the ideological propaganda tasks assigned to it by the Tsar—which is what the Communist Party's propaganda department does, and what the Communist Party's United Front department and national security departments do. It actually reported secretly to the Tsar on the ideological conditions of intellectuals and the dynamics of the people, checking whether anyone intended to oppose Tsarist Russia.

Therefore, it was an organization of the union of church and state. Throughout the entire 700-year Tsarist era, it was an organization combining church and state.

The Soviet Russians overthrew the Tsarist system, but they did not inherit the Tsarist union of church and state; instead, they inherited another form of church-state rule from Christianity—where the church comes first and the state comes second, which is the church-state rule of the Roman Curia.

That is, religion is above, and the government is below; the government must obey religion, must obey the church.

Host: The CCP must obey the party.

Xin Haonian: Exactly. You see, the Soviet Union had the party leading the government, and the CCP also has the party leading the government. What kind of party is this party? Today, for the first time, I am stating outwardly—my book is about to be published—that this party is a faith-based political party.

The Communist Party is a faith-based political party. The Communist Party says, we have faith, you know this sentence. We have Marxist faith, we have communist faith, we are going to build a communist earthly paradise, right?

What is a faith-based political party? It is a political organization established under communist faith, and this political organization is called a political party.

Then I ask you, what is religion? Religion is a faith organization established under the faith of a god, and this faith organization is called religion.

Host: So now Xi Jinping is creating a god.

Xin Haonian: Therefore, any organization built upon faith was called religion in ancient times, and in modern times, when engaged in politics, it is called a political party. Their essence is the same; they are both churches.

The Roman Curia is the fusion of church and state. The Eastern Orthodox Church, passed down from the Byzantine Empire to Tsarist Russia, is the union of church and state. One has the church on top and the state below, while the other has the state on top and the church below.

However, the so-called success of the Soviet revolution, after overthrowing the Tsarist system, did not inherit the state-on-top-church-below model; instead, it inherited the Roman Curia's church-on-top-state-below model, which is the party-on-top-state-below model.

Host: This seems to be—I remember Professor Yu Yingshi saying—it is party-state.

Xin Haonian: Right, it is party-state. The so-called rightist critics of the Communist Party for five thousand years cursed the Communist Party as a party-state.

Moreover, Xi Jinping is now creating a god. It is not only a party-state; a faith-based political party is meant for creating gods. How can there be faith without a god? The god of Marxism-Leninism is Marx and Lenin, right?

Therefore, under such a premise, we can understand what the Communist Party is.

Now we can briefly answer: the polity established by the Communist Party demonstrates the fundamental nature of the Communist Party.

. Its fundamental nature is exactly the same as that of the Soviet regime and political system. What was the nature of the Soviet political system? It was the unity of church and state, just like the medieval Roman Curia.

Host: Professor Xin has explained this point. Your explanation of the essence of the CCP regime is that it was entirely transplanted from the Soviet Union, with no differences whatsoever, they are identical.

Now, many people believe that the process of packaging the CCP as China today, of turning the CCP into China, involved not only the Soviet Union, but was a joint undertaking of the US and the Soviet Union. Because the US and Western countries also bear part of the responsibility. Even many people think that the CCP as we see it today has been nurtured and grown by the US and the West. How do you view such claims?

Xin Haonian: Let me add one sentence to what I just said, a sentence that needs to be said.

We Chinese people, as I just mentioned, more than a hundred years ago, our intellectuals lacked the ability to judge whether everything coming from the West was good, assuming it was all progressive, and we made a mistake. Our mistake lay in misrecognizing Marxism as a progressive Western thought as well.

Secondly, in the thousands of years of our Chinese history, what every single person in our Chinese nation should be most proud of is that there has never been religious rule in Chinese history, never been the unity of church and state, and never been the unity of politics and religion. There has always been freedom of religion and freedom of belief; belief and religion did not interfere with politics, and politics was not allowed to interfere with belief and religion.

This is the most pride-worthy point in our Chinese history and the history of the Chinese nation before the whole world, and it is the most remarkable thing.

When China was already practicing the separation of church and state five thousand years ago, the West only began to harbor the desire for the separation of church and state around 1648. We were ahead of them by more than four thousand years.

It is precisely under this premise that I can now answer your question.

Just now you asked, in the process of the CCP transforming into China, were the West and the US really no different from the Soviet Union?

First, do not forget that the communist trend of thought is an international trend of thought. The international communist trend is actually a variant of the medieval clericalist trend. It eroded many countries around the world, especially countries with relatively progressive capitalist development.

Secondly, this trend of thought also eroded Western democratic countries led by the United States, especially with the establishment of the Communist International.

Third, the establishment of the Communist International once extended its claws not only to the East, but even more so to the West. Communist organizations existed in the United States and various European countries. Moreover, because of Western political party freedom, their political parties achieved free existence, development, and growth under conditions of freedom. Therefore, under such circumstances, the strength of the Communist Party in the West was not very weak.

By the end of World War II, around 1945, even the Secretary of State and Under Secretary of State of the US Department of State were Russian spies. Even US Vice President Henry A. Wallace had a wife who was a communist. Even our great President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that the Chinese Communist Party was practicing a socialist mode of production that saved the people. They simply did not understand.

Host: Influenced by Edgar Snow.

Xin Haonian: Yes, influenced by Edgar Snow.

So under such circumstances, influenced by the West, they developed a natural sympathy for the Communist Party, thinking that they spoke for the workers and peasants. In the US and Western democratic countries, workers and peasants had the same status as everyone else. But in an underdeveloped country that still bore the remnants of despotism, the status of workers and peasants was low. Showing a sympathetic attitude and stance toward workers and peasants is respectable.

Therefore, starting from President Roosevelt and extending to government officials in every Western democratic country, many people sympathized with the so-called workers and peasants of despotic countries. Consequently, they believed that the Communist Party was going to carry out land reform and help workers and peasants walk the path to wealth and freedom. This tremendous error, this absolute error in perception, influenced them.

Thirdly, ever since China's Xinhai Revolution, the West's China policy for a century has been fraught with errors. Not long after I came to the United States, around 2012, I gave a lecture in the US Congress. The title of my lecture was "The Major Errors of US China Policy Over the Past Century," and that video still exists.

What did I talk about?

The Xinhai Revolution broke out on October 10, 1911. On the morning of the 11th, which was the next day, in Beijing, the Four-Power Consortium held a meeting. The US, Germany, Russia, France, and Japan as an observer, held a meeting.

At the meeting, the wife of the head of a delegation said something. She said, "Maintaining a corrupt government in China is beneficial to all of us."

Think about it, a corrupt government must rely on Western support to survive. Conversely, the West can conduct its capital transactions on the land ruled by this corrupt government, turning it into a market, especially a market as large as China, with such a huge population, making it one of the largest countries in the world.

Therefore, for a hundred years, in the eyes of Western democratic countries, they looked down on China, and they looked down on the entire East as well. The so-called Eurocentrism is still rampant to this day.

For example, Huntington's clash of civilizations theory. Civilizations can only be progressive or backward; how can there be a clash or confrontation of civilizations? There are only progressive civilizations, backward civilizations, and civilizations of different forms. Why say things like that? That is all the ideology of Eurocentrism playing mischief.

Host: Now the West is also changing. Seeing the rise of the CCP's China, and Xi Jinping shouting slogans like the East is rising and the West is declining, it now feels like the entire Western world led by the US is also waking up, discovering that, as you just said, the China policy of the past century may have involved some major mistakes, and that they have nurtured a tiger that will turn on them.

How do you view the current awakening of the West and the US? Do you think the current China strategies of the West and the US, including decoupling and so on, are moving in the right direction now?

Xin Haonian: Exactly. Everything I just mentioned belongs to the past, but the past is not without influence on today.

We have watched with our own eyes how the CCP has infiltrated the United States, and how the CCP has infiltrated the US and Western countries in various aspects such as politics, economy, and culture.

How famous Western metropolises—such as Paris, London to a lesser extent, the capitals of many European countries, including major American cities—have fallen one by one to the CCP's ideological and cultural infiltration, we have witnessed with our own eyes.

But is this awakening too late now? Will it be too late?

It is not too late, but the awakening requires determination.

Because you once sympathized with it, you once needed it. Today, your capitalists and your national strength still hope to exchange for wealth there. Can you truly awaken in these three aspects and sever any ties and collusion with the CCP?

Because ever since the CCP came to power—actually it was already doing so before coming to power, though we count from 1949—that famous Shen Chong case, the so-called US military rape of a Chinese female student, was entirely fabricated by the CCP, it was fake.

After 1949, on the surface, the relationship between the CCP and the US was as warm as lake water, but behind the scenes, there was not a single day it did not call on us to oppose American imperialism and be vigilant against the peaceful evolution instigated by American imperialism.

Yet today, after the American people allowed China to enter the WTO and granted China most-favored-nation treatment, they made a mistake. They did not expect that the CCP would begin a peaceful evolution against the West.

The first step of the CCP's peaceful evolution against the West was comprehensive infiltration, conducting ideological and cultural infiltration into the United States. The second move was to go head-to-head with the US. The so-called powerful CCP has now become the greatest threat to the US.

Just as you said, the CCP's reform and opening-up was meant to save its own life, and you mistakenly believed that as long as it underwent reform and opening-up and developed its economy, it would move toward democracy. You were wrong. If the CCP lacked strength, would it not oppose you? Since the CCP has strength, would it not want to eliminate you? This is a fundamental measure of grand strategy.

In fact, Chinese people, even a middle school student in China could see this, yet our American presidents could not. It's not surprising, they cannot be blamed.

Why? Advanced countries look at backward countries dismissively and without deep attention. Backward countries look at advanced countries attentively because they need to learn.

So today, within the CCP's ruling group, how many people thoroughly understand the United States, understand American politics, economy, and culture, and understand how the US government, the White House, and its presidents operate?

Yet let me ask you, in today's America, from the president to officials to ordinary people, how many understand how the Chinese Communist Party operates? Even fewer, how many truly understand the actual social sentiment of the people in mainland China?

Host: It is indeed necessary to study the essence of the CCP more deeply.

Xin Haonian: Therefore, I admit that the US has indeed awakened. Some government personnel in the US today have genuinely awakened.

Host: After awakening, what about policy?

Xin Haonian: But policy is still in a stage of ambiguity.

Why do I say it's in an ambiguous stage? Because there is still something it cannot sever. The past sympathy has not yet extinguished, and the realistic desire for profit has not yet withered away.

If the realistic desire for profit is completely severed, and the historical error of its sympathy is corrected, I think the United States will be thoroughly awakened.

And what is the action of a thorough awakening? The action of a thorough awakening is to resolve the CCP regime, rather than just shouting every day about protecting Taiwan, helping Taiwan today, and tomorrow

Improving Taiwan's international status, the day after tomorrow selling weapons to Taiwan, and now simply giving weapons and money to Taiwan.

Host: So you think this is not enough, and that [Taiwan] should directly in diplomacy...

Xin Haonian: No, this is a terribly wrong thing to do. To protect Taiwan, you use all of America's strength to try and save Taiwan, why not get to the root of the problem? As long as the CCP Beijing regime is resolved, won't Taiwan be completely safe?

Taiwan has only one enemy, the CCP. As long as the CCP does not attack Taiwan, Taiwan will always be safe, right?

Then why not resolve the CCP regime? When you are clear about what kind of regime the CCP actually is, why not resolve it?

And what is the best way to resolve the CCP regime? The cheapest way, the most suitable way, is not the method of defending Taiwan. What is the method? Supporting the mainland Chinese people's anti-communist resistance.

Host: You just mentioned that the CCP regime was transplanted from the Soviet Union, and that it was not inherited from the entire traditional Chinese nation. Then how do you view Xi Jinping's use of slogans like the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" since taking office, to revive traditional Chinese culture and whitewash or cover up his lack of ruling legitimacy?

Some believe this is like the CCP attaching itself to Chinese culture. How do you view this? He has recently participated in a series of methods, including commemorating...

Xin Haonian: Actually, this question is very simple. Those who understand the Communist Party—and I am talking not only about the Chinese Communist Party, but all Communist Parties in the world—those who understand Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, I can solve this problem in one sentence.

In the eyes and hands of communists, nationalism is merely a means, simply a tool. When it is needed, this means is used; when it is not needed, it is eliminated.

For example, in 1914, to win World War I, US President Woodrow Wilson proposed the slogan of national self-determination. His purpose was to awaken the ethnic minorities within the Central Powers countries and have them overthrow the reactionary rule of the Central Powers.

However, this statement had a huge impact on Marx, Lenin, and Stalin (Marx was already dead at the time, so Lenin). Lenin took this phrase, took national self-determination, and used it for what? To overthrow those so-called bourgeois countries, to incite national revolutions within so-called bourgeois democratic countries, and to overthrow bourgeois governments.

In countries like China, it was meant to incite our border ethnic minorities—Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet—to rise up, break away from China, and weaken China's power.

However, after Stalin ruled the Soviet Union and unified the entire so-called Soviet Empire, what did his nationalism turn into? It turned into unification, no national self-determination, no national division, and the forced suppression of ethnic minorities, even altering ethnic customs and languages. Just like Stalin ordered Mao Zedong to change Chinese characters.

Where did simplified characters come from? Stalin's order to change Chinese characters; when it wasn't successfully changed that way, this simplified script was created.

Therefore, nationalism is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it represents national pursuits and aspirations; on the other hand, it is a means, a knife, depending on whose hands it is held in.

This knife in the hands of the Communist Party can perform all kinds of stances and behaviors. When nationalism needs to be suppressed, the Communist Party suppresses nationalism and savagely cracks down on ethnic minorities.

To this day, in Tibetan Lama temples, people must first read Marxist-Leninist books in the morning before they can read their scriptures.

Yet today, naturally, when conducting United Front work toward Taiwan and overseas, they must raise the great banner of nationalism high.

20 years ago, I said how foolish the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was. The more you fuss about Taiwan independence, the more cheerfully the Communist Party raises the great banner of nationalism, deceiving more Taiwanese and overseas people. You are essentially handing the banner of nationalism over to the Communist Party on a silver platter for them to wave, aren't you?

So in a word, nationalism in the hands of communists is merely a means, simply a tool.

Host: Having discussed the nature of the CCP regime and its tools as you just explained, I want to ask you: why does something like the CCP and its regime, lacking legitimacy, always have this demonic luck, surviving crisis after crisis and somehow enduring?

What exact method does it use to continue relying on tricks to sustain this regime? If possible, can we identify its fatal vulnerability for dismantling it?

Xin Haonian: Look, when the CCP seized power in mainland China, who were its main helpers?

First, Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia gave the CCP one-third—$3.3 billion worth of weapons—out of the $103 billion in weapons that the United States provided to help it fight Germany during World War II, handing them all over to the CCP. The CCP did not win the civil war with millet plus rifles; the CCP won with the most modern American-style airplanes and artillery.

Second, the Soviet Union combined Inner Mongolia (Outer Mongolia), North Korean, and Russian troops into an allied force, launching an aggression against the Republic of China. This is the so-called civil war.

Therefore, historical reflection today holds that this was not a civil war. The success of the People's Republic of China in China was an international consequence caused by remnant nations of the Third International, led by the Soviet Union, joining forces to invade the Republic of China.

This is the highest point of understanding reached by the people of mainland China today. That is why the Chinese Communist Party is called "Huang E"—do you know this name? Huang E, meaning Yellow Russians.

Third, the United States, for the many reasons I just mentioned, delivered a final kick to the Republic of China at the crucial moment. Not only did the US stand by after the Soviet Union gave $3.3 billion in military resources to the CCP, but the Americans withdrew the mere $700 million in resources meant for the Republic of China, making it impossible for the Nationalist government to continue fighting.

I won't even mention that during the War of Resistance, the United States could support the Soviet Union with $10.3 billion, yet throughout the entire War of Resistance on Chinese soil—where the Chinese helped it fight and resist Japan—it only gave China $400 million, and under Marshall's control, every single expense had to be accounted for and reimbursed.

There is even more that I prefer not to talk about, because talking too much does not fit our friendly relations with the United States. Because we still deeply respect and are grateful to the Americans. Once China becomes democratic in the future, it will undoubtedly join the US-led democratic world; that is beyond doubt.

However, personally, I believe that on the issue of the Republic of China, Americans should review historical issues. Because the defeat of the Republic of China in mainland China in 1949 and its retreat to Taiwan had a huge, huge connection to the United States. More materials are coming to light now, and it is inconvenient for me to elaborate here.

That is point one.

Secondly, toward the People's Republic of China after 1949, the United States has always harbored tender feelings and continuously transfused blood into it.

Take 1989 for example: if the US had not transfused blood and provided help, the CCP would not have gotten past that hurdle.

Take the three years of the Great Chinese Famine starting in 1960, where the most conservative figure is 43 million deaths, and now according to figures investigated by Yang Shangkun, it is 97 million. When the CCP couldn't make it through, had it not been for covert US support, the CCP wouldn't have made it through either.

At the end of the Cultural Revolution, when China was facing an era of peasant uprisings, had it not been for covert US support, the CCP wouldn't have made it through either.

Every time the CCP was in a tight spot and running out of blood, the Americans would transfuse blood.

I know Americans are full of sympathy for the Chinese people. But you must know that in the eyes of the CCP regime, the Chinese people are zero. People are zero in the eyes of this government. All the opinions you support on behalf of the Chinese people are swallowed into the bellies of this greedy and cruel government. That is where the tragedy lies.

Host: Let's talk about the current state of the ROC faction (Republic of China faction) as you understand it. How do you perceive the current situation of the ROC faction?

I know there were so-called ROC supporters a while ago, but now it seems fewer and fewer people are talking about it.

Xin Haonian: Perhaps fewer people are talking about it within your circle, but in reality, the ROC faction is becoming increasingly formidable. Now, as long as you casually mention the ROC faction on websites, it gets tens of millions or hundreds of millions of views and interactions.

Let me tell you, in recent years, the Communist Party's crackdown on the ROC faction domestically has been ferocious.

What incidents have occurred when the ROC faction was outwardly developing most vigorously? Let me tell you a few things.

Look, there was a girl in her 30s, quite pretty, looks a bit like you, wearing glasses. She took a photo in front of Tiananmen Square. There were two slogans on the wall in front of Tiananmen Square: "Long live the People's Republic of China" and "Long live the great unity of the peoples of the world." In her photo, right behind her was "Long live the People's Republic of China," and her two fingers in the snapped photo happened to turn "Long live the People's Republic of China" into "Long live the Republic of China," which spread all over the world. Her photo showed "Long live the Republic of China"; the character for "People's" (ren) was blocked by her fingers, and the character for "Republic" (gong) was also blocked.

A primary school principal—the one I told you about the day before yesterday—dressed in the Republic of China flag uniform at the start of the semester and told all the students in the school: We are true primary school students of the Republic of China, we are not students of Communist China. That was incredible.

Host: I have two questions. Given the situation you just pointed out, won't there be extremely severe crackdowns under Xi Jinping?

Secondly, among those in mainland China known as the ROC faction, what percentage are young people? I'd like to know.

Xin Haonian: I will answer you in three sentences.

First

sentence. Five years ago, at Yan'an Pagoda Mountain—this is the dragon vein of the Chinese Communist Party—on Pagoda Mountain, two youths fearlessly and with their own lives used the largest Republic of China flag they made themselves, stood on Pagoda Mountain, and unfurled the flag of the Republic of China.

The CCP sent a full company of troops to surround them.

At the same time, at the Huanghuagang Mausoleum, namely the Huanghuagang Mausoleum in Guangzhou, several Republic of China civil flags surrounded the entire Huanghuagang Memorial Pavilion, and then the military arrived again.

Now, wherever there is a commemoration of the Xinhai Revolution, the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, all areas commemorating the martyrs and forerunners of the Republic of China, commemorative parks, and in front of commemorative buildings, there are CCP plainclothes police standing guard.

On January 1st of this year, 30,000 people flocked to Xinjiekou in downtown Nanjing to pay their respects to the bronze statue of Sun Yat-sen, and were blocked by the police. Eventually, the police were knocked down, and all 30,000 people surrounded the Premier's statue. * I am telling you, the fact that such a situation can emerge in recent years is terrifying.

Why? Because the Communist Party, considering its united front work against the Republic of China (Taiwan), has not been open enough in its suppression of the ROC faction, resorting instead to secret arrests and secret trials. The sentencing terms are three to four times higher than those for ordinary pro-democracy activists and Falun Gong practitioners. Moreover, when raiding homes and arresting ROC faction members in Beijing, they would trample Sun Yat-sen's portrait underfoot right in front of them, tear up the works of the Three Principles of the People in front of them, and tear up the flag of the Republic of China.

Yet I am telling you, right now, precisely right now, in Shanghai, Chongqing, Shaanxi, and Guizhou, there are people opening their apartment windows and hanging out the flag of the Republic of China, and they are still doing it to this day.

There are some things I cannot say here, and I cannot disclose certain things. But I just want to tell you that in 2005, the Kuomintang of China was already rebuilt inside mainland China.

For so many years, every October 10th, in the past—before Xi Jinping tightened his suppression—inside restaurants, you could see groups of people sitting around tables with a cake on top, and stuck into the cake was a small flag of the Republic of China.

Host: But Professor Xin, now that even Peng Lifa hangs a banner on Sitong Bridge and faces such a fate, do you think the ROC faction really still has hope and potential?

Xin Haonian: You must understand, it is not about what you have done, it is about the people's hearts.

This is what I am saying: whether it is Taiwan, the United States, or the West, none of them understand the hearts of the people in mainland China. What people are thinking in their hearts is the most terrifying thing.

Think about it: starting from the historical reflection in 1985, first reflecting on the War of Resistance, then the Northern Expedition, and then the Xinhai Revolution and the Republic of China. Then the CCP launched a movement to smear Sun during this stage, do you know that? I can see you all don't know.

The Communist Party launched a 25-year smear-Sun movement. What was this 25-year smear-Sun movement for? It was specifically to criticize Sun Yat-sen.

Overseas pro-democracy figures openly wrote on websites things like "whip the corpse of Sun Yat-sen," "overthrow Sun Yat-sen," "Yuan Shikai is the true founding father," and "Sun Yat-sen is a national thief." I am telling you, all these materials still exist.

None of them have managed to suppress the ROC faction.

It all rests on the people's hearts. As long as the people's hearts are prepared, isn't action just a matter of an opportunity?

I will tell you one more thing: recently in mainland China, up to this day, ordinary mainland citizens are still collecting flags of the Republic of China—large ones, small ones, especially small ones.

Before last year, in the second half of last year, the CCP carried out a massive raid and smashed all the shops that secretly sold Republic of China flags. That was last year.

Yet now, flags are still being mailed from the United States and Taiwan, and they are still available for purchase on the mainland.

In Taiwan, right now the flag of the Republic of China...

What are the people thinking? Do you know what the people's mindset is today?

When that day comes and the opportunity arrives, when the people all take to the squares, holding up large and small flags of the Republic of China everywhere in their hands, what will that look like? The contagion will arrive, and that is inevitable.

I will tell you one sentence: you must believe in the laws of history. * After the collapse of the Soviet Communist Party and the collapse of all Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, every single country returned to the original country that had been overthrown by the Communist Party.

Why?

Because the Communist Party does not want the nation. Every country that overthrew the Communist Party wanted the nation first. Second, the Communist Party does not want democracy, and every country wanted to return to its original First Republic.

Whenever a First Republic is subverted by the Communist Party, once the Communist Party collapses, it will certainly return to the First Republic. Who is our China's First Republic? The Republic of China founded by the Xinhai Revolution, that is the true First Republic.

Host: Actually, as Professor Xin Haonian touches upon the laws of history here, I would also like to ask you.

It is very interesting that just now you kept saying that the CCP regime was transplanted from the Soviet Union, so the CCP is actually extremely apprehensive and fearful of repeating the fate of the collapse of the Soviet Communist Party that you just mentioned.

Many people under Xi Jinping are studying how to avoid a collapse like the one in the Soviet Union back then.

Actually, if we calculate, the CCP is now in its 74th year of rule, as you just mentioned. The Soviet Union also collapsed after 70-some years. Do you think now, if you look at this historical law as a historian and make a prediction, what kind of form will the disintegration of the CCP take? Will it be in the form of a Soviet-style collapse, a form of sudden rupture? What is your prediction?

Xin Haonian: I believe the main form will be a sudden rupture, but not as simple as the Soviet Union.

For one, the CCP is far more obstinate and cruel. For instance, the CCP repeatedly releases threats: if you want China to not have a good time, none of you will have a good time. That is still considered civilized. The uncivilized part is: if you want our Communist Party to die, the whole world must die with us. This is what the former Communist Chief of Staff said.

There are differences between the CCP and Western, including Soviet, communist regimes.

Why? First, it shares the common communist essence. Second, for more than 30 years, it has absorbed the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet and East European communists. It has passively absorbed this lesson to ensure that every rebellion is strangled, strangled in the cradle. * China now has 1.4 billion people and 2.8 billion surveillance cameras; every single person is controlled by two cameras. As soon as you step out the door, the Communist Party knows what you are doing, right?

So how to solve the CCP problem? Will the CCP definitely collapse? We can say with certainty that there is no eternal regime. Which dynasty has lasted forever? Impossible, this is an axiom, a universal axiom.

That's the first point.

Second, the Chinese people have had enough. Xi Jinping's perversities have further pushed the Chinese people into a fire pit.

You know, although today China has tens of millions of people living very comfortably and very wealthily, even their hearts are now filled with anxiety. Not to mention that there are at least 1 billion people living in extremely painful aspirations.

The number of people with an income of less than 1,000 RMB a month has reached 930 million, according to recent figures from Beijing Normal University. China's youth unemployment rate has broken through 20%.

Host: Right.

Xin Haonian: You say when young people have no jobs and nowhere to go, what will they do? Revolution, of course.

When people have nothing to eat, a family of three—a mother with two sons and daughters—tied themselves together with ropes and committed suicide by fire just three days ago. Another woman tied her two sons with ropes and hanged herself from the wall of a bridge.

Look, I often see children in China's mountainous regions and children of China's urban commoners on Twitter, that kind of pain, that kind of starving appearance. I shed tears; I cannot bear to look, my heart aches.

Host: This is truly pitiful.

Xin Haonian: In a country that is rich, extremely rich, and rich illegitimately; in a country that is poor, extremely poor, and so poor that people can no longer survive, the sharp social contradiction between the rich and the poor has only one solution: revolution. There is no second path.

But how do we make revolution? Do we make revolution like the Communist Party? Murder and arson? No, we cannot.

I have come up with something. Based on its sensitivity, the Communist Party is never foolish. It is hard to solve it using our usual methods of revolution, or rather, it is hard to solve it using a single, conventional revolutionary method.

What should we adopt? We should call it a comprehensive revolution, a comprehensive revolution.

For example, let me give an example. For instance, we must first break through the peace, rationality, and non-violence that overseas pro-democracy movements have praised as a Bible for thirty years.

Peace, rationality, and non-violence is the Bible of the overseas pro-democracy movement that seeks to preserve the communist regime through reform. Anyone who opposes the CCP, as long as they have actions and behaviors opposing the CCP, they will say you are not peaceful, rational, and non-violent, and they will begin to suppress you.

They do not ask how the Communist Party has raped our people; they do not allow the people to resist. This principle is now slowly being broken through. This irrational shackles are being broken through.

So what is it that we want?

We do not voluntarily abandon any form of revolution. Any form of revolution, as long as it is conducive to ending the CCP, can be executed by us. * Why? When the Communist Party is employing and blindly believing in violent suppression, why can't we violently overthrow the CCP? Why? Is it only allowed for the Communist Party to use violence to kill the people, while the people are not allowed to use violence to overthrow it? Where is that logic? There is no such logic. This is called rationality, this is not irrationality.

Second, on the one hand, we do not voluntarily abandon any form of revolution. If the CCP does not use violence, we resolutely do not use violence. If the CCP does not use armed suppression, we will not

We will never engage in armed revolution. If the CCP uses violence, we will certainly use violence. If the CCP uses armed suppression, we will certainly engage in armed revolution.

However, in order to prevent the country from descending into major chaos, to spare the people from suffering, and to ensure that those who are able to abandon the Communist Party still have a future—not to kill every communist, not for revenge—we must still adopt a gradual revolution.

Five years ago, I proposed a concept called "removing the party while retaining the government, peaceful transition." You can check it out.

What is "removing the party while retaining the government"?

All the disasters and sins in mainland China today originate from this party. Within this party, there are also contradictions between the party and politics, which are sometimes extremely fierce.

Even administrative cadres are Communist Party members, but those engaged in the party's organizational leadership and those engaged in political and administrative work are still two different things.

Therefore, as long as the organization of this party is dissolved—dissolving the CCP's party organizations from the central government down to local levels and across all industries—and leaving the administrative part to serve as a transitional government to maintain the government, keep foreign diplomacy unchanged, and maintain internal order management, we will be able to stabilize a basic social order first during the process of overthrowing the CCP.

Then, starting from the county level, elections will be held from the bottom up.

This is very important.

After I proposed this, my manuscript was 35,000 words. At that time, I spoke for three hours. Many high-ranking CCP officials wrote to me. Do you know what they wrote?

Xin Haonian, you truly oppose the CCP, but you truly love your country. The CCP and China still need to be separated.

Host: Alright, today we are very grateful to Professor Xin Haonian for accepting this exclusive interview with Voice of America's "In-Depth Perspectives" program to discuss the legitimacy of the CCP regime and China's future. Thank you very much for your interview.

Xin Haonian: Thank you.