Secretary Michael R. Pompeo At the Virtual Copenhagen Democracy Summit 
美国国务院
发言人办公室
2020年6 月19 日
国务卿迈克尔·蓬佩奥（MICHAEL R. POMPEO）在哥本哈根民主峰会（Copenhagen Democracy Summit）发表讲话
加利福尼亚州（California）橙县（Orange County）
[摘译]
* * * *
国务卿蓬佩奥：
* * * * 
首先：谈谈所谓欧洲被迫在美国和中国之间进行选择的问题。我会多花一些时间谈谈这个问题。
其次：认为在你们的价值观问题上做出妥协可以不付出代价的观点。
我在所到之处—我走过的任何地方，正如与这里的同事和观众一样，谈到我们在世界上所见到的现实—特别是在中国。我在欧洲，在北极，在中亚，在非洲—在太平洋诸岛都谈到过这个问题。
多年来，西方，在一个充满期待的时代，相信我们能够改变中国共产党，同时在这个过程中改善中国人民的生活。这等于是押宝。这是一个赌注。
30年前东欧和前苏联的民主浪潮使我们相信—可能很有道理—自由不可避免地会在每一个国家传播。我们为此进行了接触。我们向一个专制政权敞开我们的胸怀，而且我们也知道这个政权敌视民主的价值。
在这个过程中，中国共产党下了一个赌注，赌的是可以利用我们的善意达到目的，同时信誓旦旦地告诉我们他们希望发展合作关系。邓小平曾说过，“隐藏实力，等待时机。”
我曾经谈到为什么会发生这种情况。其中的原委很复杂。这不是大问题。这一点并不重要。
数十年来，美国和欧洲公司以极大的热情在中国投资。我曾经营过一家小企业；我们在中国有业务。我们向深圳等地外包了我们的供应链。我们向隶属人民解放军的学生开放了我们的教育机构。我们欢迎中国在我们各国进行国家支持的投资。现在我们都深深地交织在一起。
但是，即使如此–即使如此，我们必须承认一系列实际情况，关系到我们在和谁打交道，打的是什么交道。我想我们正在看到这一点。我认为，在全世界各地，这一点已经日益明晰。
中国共产党下令结束香港的自由，违背了在联合国（UN）登记的条约和香港居民的权利—这仅仅是中国共产党违反的众多国际条约之一。
习总书记已为残酷迫害中国的穆斯林开了绿灯。自第二次世界大战（World War II）以来我们从未见到过如此大规模践踏人权的行为。
人民解放军升级了边界紧张局势—今天我们在全世界人口最多的民主国家印度看到这一点。我们注意到人民解放军在南中国海（South China Sea）进行军事化并在那里提出更多的非法索求，对重要的海上通道构成威胁，又一次违背他们的诺言。
但是中国共产党并不简单地是周边地区的一个不良角色。如果的确是这样的话，我们的想法可能会不同。它对我们都产生了影响。它在冠状病毒问题上撒谎，然后听任病毒传播到世界各地，同时对世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）施加压力，要该组织帮助隐瞒实情—顺便说一句，即使是现在，缺乏透明度的情况依然如故。目前数十万人丧生，全球经济受到摧毁。即使在疫情爆发几个月后的今天，我们仍然无法获得活性病毒，我们仍然无法进入有关设施，也无法得到12月份武汉患者的信息。
它正进一步散布假消息，加强恶意的网络活动，试图破坏我们各国政府，离间美国和欧洲，同时使发展中国家背上债务，形成依赖性。
你们都看到所有这一切。与会的每一个人都知道，中国共产党施加高压，迫使各国与华为发展业务，而华为是中共监控型国家的一个工具。它悍然侵犯欧洲的主权，从比雷埃夫斯（Piraeus）到巴伦西亚（Valencia），大肆收购港口和重要的基础设施。
我们必须看清这种以发展经济联系为障眼法的行为，认识到中国的挑战不仅仅只停留在大门口；它已经进入每一个国家的首都，进入了每一个市镇，进入了每一个省份。
对中国国营企业的每一项投资都应该以质疑的态度进行审查。
欧洲与美国，与我们的南美洲、非洲、中东和亚洲朋友们一样都面临着中国的挑战。
本星期早些时候，我在星期一有机会与我的欧盟同事们进行了交谈。我知道欧洲担心美国希望你们在我们和中国之间进行选择。
但是情况完全不是如此。强迫要求进行选择的是中国共产党。但问题并不在于是否选择美国，而在于选择自由还是暴政。
中共希望你们抛弃我们通过北约（NATO）和其他各种机制—正式和非正式的机制，在自由世界已经取得的进步—并采取一套适用于北京的新规则和惯例。
面临这样的选择，我不认为有什么专门的“欧洲方式”或者“美国方式”。另外也没有在不抛弃我们的本色的情况下对选择方案进行一进一出的跨式组合。依赖专制主义者的民主政体只能是徒有虚名。
请看，好消息是，我的欧洲朋友—甚至这个星期我也可以看到这一点。情况并不完全一致。不同的国家有不同的想法。但面对这项挑战,他们都正在觉醒。我听到他们有些人说，他们对民主的生活方式能否获胜存在疑虑。
北京对这种不确定性津津乐道。他们不应该对此确信不疑。我们正在赢得胜利。我在慕尼黑（Munich）的讲话中曾涉及你们谈到的问题。
中国共产党驻法国的一名外交官最近说，“西方某些人对自己的自由民主制度开始不自信了”。“[某些西方国家]变得心理十分脆弱“。
然而，民主并不像中国共产党认为的那么脆弱。民主坚强挺立。我们战胜了法西斯主义。我们赢得了冷战（Cold War）。
脆弱的一方是专制主义。中国共产党的宣传部门竭力控制信息和言论的传播，目的在于维护自己的权力。在电子防火墙扩大到我们各国之前，他们不会善罢甘休。在某些方面，它已经这样做了。安德斯（Anders），我们可以多谈谈这方面的问题。
我不认为民主有任何脆弱的时候，但民主需要得到认真的管理并经常保持警觉。最近我与欧洲盟国的一些不公开谈话使我很受鼓舞。他们正在认真履行自己的职责。我刚才已经谈到，本星期早些时候我们进行了热烈的交谈。我们对民主政体应该从事的使命进行了辩论。这正是我们所做的工作。这恰恰是我们应该进行的辩论。会谈进行得很好。我们将继续与欧洲就中国问题进行对话。
与此同时，积极的步骤层出不穷。新成立的“中国问题跨国议会联盟”（Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China）– 有众多欧洲领导人参加—-每星期都有新成员加入。丹麦已经果敢地对抗中国共产党试图审查丹麦报刊的行动。为了保障本国网络安全，英国正逐步采取措施防备华为。捷克正在抗击中华人民共和国的高压外交。瑞典已经关闭了境内所有的孔子学院。北约盟国也承诺从现在开始到2024年增加防务经费，累积可达4,000亿美元。
安德斯在布鲁塞尔（Brussels）的继任者，秘书长斯托尔滕贝格（Stoltenberg）最近就联盟的使命发表了具有远见的讲话，强调“维护建立在自由和民主基础上的世界”，抗击中国在亚洲-太平洋（Asia-Pacific）地区的恶劣影响。
我想就此结束，可以让安德斯发表讲话。众所周知，我们对此都有体验—民主并非一帆风顺，形势错综复杂。全世界都可以看见我们如何进行激烈的辩论，正如我国当前面临的局面。但是这样的斗争体现了对基本价值的承诺和我们为实现更完美的联邦一贯进行的努力。
我希望我能听到欧洲对中国构成的挑战发表更多公开的声明，因为我们全体人民都应该有所了解。美国随时准备支援你们。让我们做出明确的表示，更重要的是，让我们拿出果断的行动。让我们对选择暴政还是民主做出毫不含糊的决定。
安德斯，我期待我们进行的交谈。愿上帝保佑诸位。
拉萨穆森先生：非常感谢你，迈克。谢谢，国务卿先生。也很感谢你愿意回答一些提问。我的第一个问题是关于中国。几天前，你与中国杨国务委员会晤，他被认为是中国外交政策的设计师之一。中国新闻机构新华社对这个会晤做了正面渲染。他们的报道说，双方“充分表明了他们的态度，一致认为这是一次建设性的对话”，并且你同意保持接触和联系。
当我读到这样的文字时，我可能会认为有某种动态。所以我问你的问题是：美国和中国是不是有可能在秘密准备一些新的行动倡议以缓解紧张，而同时在公开场合你仍保持强硬姿态？听众当中有人问，我们会不会期待美国针对中国提出一些新行动倡议？
国务卿蓬佩奥：安德斯，那是个早就应该举行的会晤。会议时间很长。我们会晤了6个小时左右。各方都表明了我认为各自相当熟悉的立场。就我而言，我那天所阐述的与我今天早上在这里阐述的完全一样。美国正在以美国过去20年来不曾有的方式对中国共产党及嚣张态势作出反应。这不是政治性的。我们有过共和党总统，民主党总统，他们都让中国享有深度非对等的关系，不仅是在贸易方面——这当然是这样，但我们对他们的军事——动用军事力量的反应是后撤。我们对他们运用外交胁迫的反应是后退。唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）将不允许那样，我们表明了这点。
你提到一些说法。那些是说法。我用大量时间同杨洁篪谈的是根本观念，即我们只是在看行动。仅听中国共产党在说什么已经不够了。我们能够看到他们的行动。我列举了其中一些：香港、西藏、新疆，他们正在印度的行动，他们沿菲律宾和马来西亚和印度尼西亚和越南的经济区的所作所为，对澳大利亚的胁迫——他们竟厚颜要求调查这个病毒是如何从武汉到米兰（Milan），这个病毒是如何从武汉到德黑兰（Tehran），这个病毒是如何从武汉到俄克拉何马城（Oklahoma City），到比利时和到西班牙，损害全球经济。
我们必须——我们是——那是非常坦率的谈话。我们仍然没有得到医学专业人员，流行病学家迎战这一挑战所需要的答案。如果中国共产党不能做到那点——不用在意他们说什么——如果他们达不到那个水平，即每个民主国家对在我们国家开始的病毒都会采取的相应做法，我们会参与国际的反应，从中公开分享信息，我们共同学习，我们共同解决这个问题集。然而，他们用的是专制政权的做法：他们致使医生失踪，他们把信息掩藏起来，他们不让国际社会获得应对这种病毒所需要的有可能大大降低风险和代价的准入机会。
这就是我们会谈的性质。我认为，作为美国最高外交官，共同在一个房间，进行交谈和分享（听不清）一向是有益的。
拉萨穆森先生：（进行中）——你暗示美国有可能取消香港的特殊地位。你想象会有哪些举措，有关贸易、旅行、货币兑换，等等？香港会被像中国所有其他城市一样对待吗？
国务卿蓬佩奥：这看来是中国的意图。我一向——当我听到我们欧洲的同事说，我们不想作选择，我总是提醒他们，另一方也要作选择。所以，当你问香港是否会被像中国任何其他城市一样对待，这将与中国选择对待它的程度有关。我还没有看昨夜发生了什么情况，但是中国共产党看来有意通过一项国家安全法，把中国共产党曾经承诺香港人将延续50年的自由权大大剥夺。
九月将有一系列选举。我们都应密切注视。距离现在并不很远。我们都应非常密切注视，看这些选举是否被允许以自由和公正的方式举行。如果那些选举被耽搁、取消，或者不是以公正和公开的方式对待，我认为那就将让我们对中国共产党在香港自由上的意图尽然皆知。特朗普总统——就我们的政策来说，特朗普总统表示得非常、非常明确，如果中国共产党对待香港如同对待深圳和上海一样，我们也将同样对待。美国和香港之间有许多特殊协议，与我们同北京的是区别开来和不同的。我们将会撤出每一个这样的协议。
那么第二，总统也明确表示，我们也有责任要求中国国内未能履行这些协议的人承担责任。因此，我们正在进行一个决策过程，确定哪些人是决策者以及有什么样的适当机制使他们承担责任。我们不想伤害香港人民。他们是热爱自由的人民，我们的目的是要让他们得到他们与英国达成的协议的惠益。只要中国共产党剥夺这点，我们有责任要相关方承担责任。
拉斯姆森先生：是的。如果这项安全法在秋季导致民主活动人士遭到监禁等情况将会怎样？你能设想怎么做吗？
国务卿蓬佩奥：安德斯，我不想谈及具体决定——我不想排除总统可能选择做什么或不做什么的任何可能性。我们仍在这一进程中推进。但可以考虑两点。一点是：香港人民将会怎么做？我们一直在关注他们。他们仅仅是要求中国大陆履行已作出的承诺。我们现在处于一项50年协议的第27年。你不会接受。你签署了一项50年的协议，有人却半路走开，你不会高兴——或是第23年，我想是的。
因此，看看香港人民，而且坦率地说还有大陆那些热爱自由的人民，做何反应，将是有意义的。他们也在看。永远不要忘记，当我们看到中国共产党一成不变的面孔时，那些15亿人民也有不同的想法，而且他们也将关注这如何发展。我知道台湾人民肯定在关注这如何发展。
第二，至于美国将做何反应，我想留有一系列可能性，但总统已经阐明：如果香港被中国共产党仅仅视为中国大陆的又一部分来对待，那么美国也没有给予他们任何不同待遇的理由。而且我们还有一项有此规定的法律。
拉萨穆森先生：你还提到了台湾。我想我们都认为台湾是一座民主的灯塔，同大陆的共产党中国形成鲜明对比。你认为我们能够更多地做哪些努力来捍卫台湾的民主？而且台湾难道不应当被允许加入比如世界卫生组织（WHO），以及可能还有其他国际组织吗？
国务卿蓬佩奥：众所周知，很多国家，包括美国在内，多么努力不懈地想让台湾政府至少作为一名观察员参加最近的一次世界卫生大会（World Health Assembly）。还有一次会议定于11月举行。我认为他们这样做不仅是合适的，而且可能更重要的是，非常有帮助。他们掌握大量知识。他们处理这场冠状病毒危机的方式非常、非常好；他们拥有高端技术和高端药物能力，以及高端科学家。我们认为让他们参与有关全世界将如何应对这场持续流行的疫情的对话将是非常有帮助的。
至于我们如何对待台湾，美国一直有一套明确的政策，可以追溯到——取决于你想从何时算起——回到1990年代初期是一个合理的起点。特朗普总统一直遵循这些承诺并将继续这样做。我们——它们阐述得非常清楚，而且我们将继续遵守它们。
*             *             *             *
拉萨穆森先生：我们很经常地看到中国政府使用分而治之的策略，他们点出个别国家进行惩罚，如果这些国家不听北京的话、不服从北京的指令或与北京背道而驰。我要问你：全世界的民主体难道不应当结成一条统一阵线，一个能够抗击独裁政府、相互保护并促进自由和繁荣的民主体的联盟吗？
国务卿蓬佩奥：安德斯，这是一个极其重要的问题。我有几个想法，但我要首先说这一点：你记得——你说过我们是否应当建立一条统一战线。统一战线是中国的名称。这是在你们的国家的（听不清）统一战线。因此我们可能将选择一个稍微有所不同的名称，但你从概念上一语中的。你说得完全正确。我认为，对于民主体以及热爱自由的人们而言的大好消息是，我看到这正在发生。我可以告诉你当我同中方对等官员会谈时，当我们坐在房间里时他能看到这正在发生。在我们会谈期间，所有7国集团（G7）发布了一份有关香港的声明。我想要说这个时机是有意安排、经过深思熟虑的，但事实是我们仅仅是在做热爱自由的人民所做的事，继续要求日益广泛的对自由的孕育，并尽我们所能迫使其他国家遵守他们已做出的承诺。
因此，你说的核心一点——中国的目的实际上是将矛头单独指向而且的确是更直接地单独指向。这不仅是欧洲国家。我们已经看到他们在中东这样做。我们已经看到他们在非洲这样做。我们已经看到他们在东南亚这样做，离他们自己的国家更近。我在担任国务卿两年半的时间里已经开始看到的是，全世界对于这种威胁正在觉醒。现在，很多关于你所说的问题的对话正与我私下展开。这些来电说：“嗨，迈克，这是我们观察到的中国共产党在这里所做的事。你能提供什么帮助？”我们竭尽所能在每种情况下为他们提供最有意义的那种帮助。
我们需要将其提高到另一种高度，达到有关国家做好准备并能够以公开方式应对这些事情的程度。当我们这样做时，中国共产党将会更加孤立，而且我希望——因为我的目的不是希望坏事发生在中国人民身上——我希望中国共产党将开始认识到如果他们想要崛起，如果他们希望继续建设他们的国家，他们就需要基于一套西方准则来做，这套准则尊重法治并尊重自由及尊重主权。如果他们能够改弦易辙，如果他们能够做出这种改变，因为全世界其他国家都要求他们这样做，正如我们对其他任何一个我们与之互动的国家的做法一样——这并非独一无二；这仅仅是对等。我们不会要求中国政府做任何我们不要求比利时政府做的事。只要做到尊重主权、践行法治、在世界各地公平竞争而且不给国有企业补贴——如果他们能做到这些，那我认为整个世界就将变得更好，如果热爱自由的国家能够安享他们的自由的话。
*             *             *             *

MR RASMUSSEN:  It’s a great pleasure for me to welcome our next speaker, the American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.  Good morning, Mr. Secretary.  I think it’s morning in your time zone.
I know you’ve been traveling from Hawaii where you met a high-ranking Chinese official.  Earlier this year I listened to your speech at the security conference in Munich, and I enjoyed your upbeat message that the free world is winning.  So we look very much forward to listening to you today.  Please, join me in welcoming the 70th United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Anders, thank you very much.  Thanks for that warm greeting.  It’s great to be with you all today, and hello to the Copenhagen Democracy Summit.  It’s an honor to be with you and with Secretary General Rasmussen, a friend of freedom-loving people all across the world.
I don’t know if you all know this, but when it comes to strengthening transatlantic relations, Anders really walks the walk.  His son and three beautiful grandchildren live here in the United States.  They’re United States citizens.  Glad to have Rasmussen on both sides of the Atlantic bringing us together.  Thanks for having me today.
When Anders sent the invitation to me, I said yes immediately.  So many of these conferences that you all participate in talk about what’s wrong with the world.  I want to focus on what’s going right in the world today, what we’ve got right, and that’s democracy, and we know it.  It’s how to preserve it that is the challenge.  There is no nobler goal for all of us.
I spent a few years of my life – it’s been decades, when I was a young soldier serving in Germany – patrolling along the Iron Curtain.  I’ve seen tyranny firsthand, and I have dealt with all manner of unfree regimes in my previous role as director of the CIA and now in my current role as Secretary of State of the United States of America.
First principle:  There’s nothing brave or visionary about oppressing your fellow men or women.  Democracy is the only system of government that honors human dignity and personal freedom and progress for mankind.  The corollary is that capitalism is the greatest anti-poverty program in all of history.
I want to make a few brief remarks and then I’m looking forward to taking questions.
First: the idea that Europe is being forced to choose between the United States and China.  I want to talk about that at some length.
Second: the belief that it’s costless to compromise your values.
Everywhere I go – everywhere I go, I talk to my counterparts and audiences like this about the reality of what we see in the world – especially in China.  I’ve done it in Europe, done it in the Arctic, done it in Central Asia, done it in Africa – I’ve done it in the Pacific islands.
For many years, the West, in an era of hope, believed we could change the Chinese Communist Party and improve the lives of the Chinese people along the way.  That was the bargain.  That was the bet.
The rising tide of democracy in Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union 30 years ago made us believe – perhaps reasonably – that the spread of freedom in every nation was inevitable.  So we engaged.  We opened ourselves to an authoritarian regime that we knew was hostile to democratic values.
Along the way, the Chinese Communist Party made a bet.  It bet that it could take advantage of our goodwill while assuring us they wanted a cooperative relationship.  As Deng Xiaoping said, “Hide your strength,” and “bide your time.”
I’ve talked about why this has happened.  It’s a complicated story.  Fault is not material here.  It’s not important.
Over decades, Americans and European companies invested in China with enormous optimism.  I ran a small business; we had an operation in China ourselves.  We outsourced our supply chains to places like Shenzhen.  We opened our education institutions to PLA-affiliated students.  We welcomed Chinese state-backed investment in our own countries.  Now we’re deeply intertwined.
But even so – even so, we must acknowledge a set of facts about who and what we’re dealing with, and I think we’re seeing this.  I think all across the world this is becoming more apparent each and every day.
The Chinese Communist Party decreed an end to freedom in Hong Kong, violating a UN-registered treaty and the rights of its citizens – one of just many international treaties that the Chinese Communist Party has violated.
General Secretary Xi has greenlighted a brutal campaign of repression against Chinese Muslims, a human rights violation on a scale we have not seen since World War II.
The PLA has escalated border tensions – we see it today in India, the world’s most popular – populous democracy.  And we watch as it militarizes the South China Sea and illegally claims more territory there, threatening vital sea lanes, a promise they broke again.
But the CCP isn’t just a rogue actor in its own neighborhood.  If it was, we might think differently about it.  It impacts us all.  It lied about the coronavirus, and then let it spread to the rest of the world while pressuring the World Health Organization to assist in a coverup campaign – by the way, a failure of transparency that continues even today.  Now hundreds of thousands of people have died and the global economy is decimated.  Even now, months into the pandemic, we don’t have access to a live virus, we don’t have access to facilities, and information about patients in December in Wuhan remains unavailable.
It’s pushing disinformation and malicious cyber campaigns to undermine our governments to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe, and is saddling developing nations with debt and dependency.
You’ve seen this all.  Everyone in this room knows that the Chinese Communist Party strongarms nations to do business with Huawei, an arm of the CCP’s surveillance state.  And it’s flagrantly attacking European sovereignty by buying up ports and critical infrastructure, Piraeus to Valencia.
We must take off the golden blinders of economic ties and see that the China challenge isn’t just at the gates; it’s in every capital, it’s in every borough, it’s in every province.
Every investment from a Chinese state-owned enterprise should be viewed with suspicion.
Europe faces a China challenge, just as the United States does, and as – just as our South American, African, Middle Eastern, and Asian friends do too.
And I had a chance earlier this week on Monday to speak with my EU counterparts.  I know that there’s fear in Europe that the United States wants you to choose between us and China.
But that’s simply not the case.  It’s the Chinese Communist Party’s that’s forcing this choice.  The choice isn’t between the United States; it’s between freedom and tyranny.
The party wants you to throw away the progress we in the free world have made, through NATO and other institutions – both formal and informal institutions – and adopt a new set of rules and norms to accommodate them within Beijing.
I don’t believe that there’s a uniquely “European” or “American” way to face this choice.  There’s also no way to straddle these alternatives without abandoning who we are.  Democracies that are dependent on authoritarians are not worthy of their name.
Look, the good news is my European friends – even this week I could see it.  It’s not uniform.  There are different thoughts of different countries.  But they’re waking up to this challenge.  And I heard some of them, they questioned whether the democratic way of life can win.
And Beijing relishes this uncertainty.  They shouldn’t be confident.  We’re winning.  This is what you talked about in my remarks in Munich.
One CCP diplomat in France recently said, quote, “Some Westerners are beginning to lose confidence in liberal democracy,” end of quote, and “some [Western countries] have become psychologically weak.”
But democracy isn’t fragile in the way the Chinese Communist Party believes it is.  Democracy is strong.  We defeated fascism.  We won the Cold War.
It is authoritarianism that is fragile.  CCP propagandists work hard to control information flows and speech to maintain their grip on power.  They won’t be satisfied until the digital firewall extends to our nations too.  In some ways, it already does.  We could talk about this at some length, Anders.
While I do not believe for a moment democracy is fragile, it does require careful stewardship and constant vigilance.  I’ve been encouraged recently in private conversations with European allies who are taking their responsibilities seriously.  We had a vigorous discussion earlier this week, as I mentioned earlier.  We debated what democracies ought to be engaged in, and that’s what we do.  That’s precisely the kind of debate we should have.  It was a good meeting, and we’ll continue our dialogue with the Europeans on China.
Meanwhile, positive steps abound.  The new Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China – substantially comprised of European leaders – is adding new members weekly.  Denmark has bravely stood up to the CCP’s attempts to censor Danish newspapers.  The United Kingdom is moving towards securing its networks from Huawei.  The Czechs are standing up to the PRC’s coercive diplomacy.  The Swedes have closed all of their Confucius Institutes that reside on their soil.  And our NATO allies have committed to increase defense spending by a cumulative $400 billion between now and 2024.
And Anders’s successor in Brussels, General Secretary[1] Stoltenberg, recently gave visionary remarks about the alliance’s mandate to “stand up for a world built on freedom and democracy” and to counter China’s malign influence in the Asia-Pacific region.
I’ll end here so Anders can speak.  We all know – we’ve lived it – democracy’s not easy.  It’s messy.  The whole world can see how we have tough debates, like my country’s having right now.  But that struggle reflects commitment to fundamental values and our constant striving towards a more perfect union.  It’s who we are, and we share those values with our European friends.
I hope I’ll hear more public statements from Europe about the China challenge, because all of our people deserve to know about it, and America is ready to stand with you.  Let’s speak clearly, and more importantly, let’s act decisively.  Let’s not leave any confusion about the choice between tyranny and freedom.
Anders, I look forward to our conversation.  God bless you all.
MR RASMUSSEN:  Thank you very much, Mike.  Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I also appreciate your willingness to answer some questions.  My first question is regarding China.  A few days ago, you met with the Chinese State Councilor Yang, who is considered one of the architects of China’s foreign policy.  China’s news agency, Xinhua, put a positive spin on the meeting.  They wrote both sides “fully elaborated on their stances, agreeing that this was a constructive dialogue,” and you agreed to maintain contact and communication.
When I read texts like this, I might be thinking something is going on.  So my question to you is:  Could it be that the United States and China secretly are preparing new initiatives to reduce tensions while publicly you are maintaining a tough stance?  And one in the audience has asked the question whether we could expect the U.S. to take new initiatives vis-a-vis China.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  So Anders, it was a long overdue meeting.  It was a long meeting.  We met for some six hours or so.  Each side staked out what I think for each was pretty familiar positions.  As for me, I articulated that day just exactly what I articulated here this morning.  America is engaging in a response to Chinese Communist Party and aggression in a way that America has not done for the past 20 years.  It’s not political.  We’ve had Republican presidents, Democrat presidents who simply allowed China to have deeply nonreciprocal relationships, not just on trade – which of course is true, but we responded to their military – use of military force by moving back.  We responded to their use of diplomatic coercion via retreating.  Donald Trump is not going to permit that, and we made that clear.
You referenced statements.  Those are statements.  What I spent a good deal of my time speaking with Yang Jiechi about was the fundamental idea that we’re just watching actions.  It’s no longer enough to listen to what the Chinese Communist Party is saying.  We can see their actions.  I ticked through a few of them: Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, what they’re doing in India, what they’ve done in the economic zones along the Philippines and Malaysia and Indonesia and Vietnam, the coercion on Australia – when they had the audacity to demand that there would be an investigation of how this virus got from Wuhan to Milan, how this virus got from Wuhan to Tehran, how this virus got from Wuhan to Oklahoma City, and to Belgium and to Spain, and decimating the global economy.
Look, we had to – we were – it was a very frank conversation.  We still don’t have the answers the medical professionals, epidemiologists need to take on this challenge.  If the Chinese Communist Party can’t rise to that – forget what they say – if they can’t rise to that level, what every democratic nation would have done in response to a virus that began in our nation, we would have participated in a global response where we shared information openly, we learned together, and we resolve the problem set together.  Instead, they did what authoritarian regimes do: they disappeared doctors, they squirreled information away, and they denied the world the access it needed to respond to this virus in a way that could have reduced a lot of risk and a lot of costs.
That’s the nature of the conversation that we had.  I think, as America’s most senior diplomat, that it is always useful to be in a room together, to have a conversation, and to share the (inaudible).
MR RASMUSSEN:  (In progress.) – you indicated that the United States might consider to withdrawal the special status for Hong Kong.  Which measures could you imagine regarding trade, travel, currency exchange, et cetera?  Will Hong Kong be treated like all other Chinese cities?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Well, it appears that that’s China’s intention.  And I always – when I hear my European counterparts say, well, we don’t want to choose, I always remind them the other side gets to choose, too.  So when you ask, will Hong Kong be treated as any other Chinese city, it will be to the extent that the Chinese choose to treat it that way.  Look, I haven’t seen what happened overnight, but the Chinese Communist Party appeared intent on passing a national security law that will deny significant amount of freedoms that the Chinese Communist Party had promised to the people of Hong Kong would last 50 years.
There are a set of elections scheduled for September.  We should all watch closely.  That’s not that far off now.  We should all watch very closely whether those elections are permitted to take place in a free and fair fashion.  To the extent those elections are delayed, postponed, canceled, or somehow not treated in a way that is fair and open, I think that will tell us everything we need to know about the Chinese Communist Party’s intentions with respect to freedom in Hong Kong.  President Trump – as for our policy, President Trump has made very, very clear to the extent that the Chinese Communist Party treats Hong Kong as it does Shenzhen and Shanghai, we will treat them the same.  We have many agreements that are unique between the United States and Hong Kong, separate and different from those we have with Beijing.  We will move away from every one of those.
And then second, the President’s made clear, too, we have a responsibility to hold accountable those inside of China who fail to live up to those agreements as well.  So we are working our way through a decision-making process to determine who those decision-makers were and what the appropriate mechanism is to hold them accountable.  We don’t want to harm the people of Hong Kong.  They’re freedom-loving people that we aim to get the benefit of the bargain they made with the United Kingdom.  To the extent the Chinese Communist Party denies that, we’re responsible to hold the relevant parties accountable.
MR RASMUSSEN:  Right.  What will happen if the security law leads to imprisonment of democracy activists, et cetera, in the autumn?  What could you imagine to do?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Anders, I just don’t want to get into particular decisions – I don’t want to foreclose anything that the President may choose to do or not do.  We’re still working our way through that process.  Two things to think about, though.  One is:  What will the people of Hong Kong do?  We’ve watched them.  They’ve simply asked for the mainland Chinese to live up to the commitments that were made.  We’re on year 27 of a 50-year deal.  You wouldn’t take that.  You signed up for a deal for 50 years, somebody walks away at the halfway point, you’d not be happy – or year 23, I guess it is.
So it will be interesting to see how the people of Hong Kong respond, and frankly the people – the freedom-loving people in the mainland as well.  They’re watching, too.  Never forget that while we see a unitarian face from the Chinese Communist Party, that that billion and a half people also have ideas that are different and they will be watching how this transpires as well.  I know the people of Taiwan are certainly watching how this transpires.
And second, as for how the United States will respond, I want to leave open the range of possibilities, but the President has made clear:  To the extent Hong Kong is treated by the Chinese Communist Party as just another piece of mainland China, there’s no reason for the United States to treat them any differently as well.  And we have a law that requires that as well.
MR RASMUSSEN:  You also mentioned Taiwan.  I think we agree that Taiwan is a beacon of democracy, a real contrast with mainland communist China.  What more do you think we could do to defend the Taiwanese democracy?  And shouldn’t Taiwan be allowed, for instance, to join WHO and maybe other international organizations?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  So it’s widely known how hard many countries, the United States amongst them, worked diligently to allow the Taiwanese Government to participate at least as an observer as part of this most recent World Health Assembly.  There’s another scheduled for November.  We think it both appropriate for them to do so, and perhaps even more importantly, very useful.  They have a great deal of knowledge.  They handled this coronavirus very, very well; they have high-end technology and high-end pharmaceutical capabilities, high-end scientists.  We think it would be very useful for them to be part of the conversation that surrounds how the world is going to respond to the continuing pandemic.
As for how we deal with Taiwan, the United States has had a clear set of policies that extend back to – depending where you want to start to clock – back to the early 1990s is a reasonable place to start.  President Trump has adhered to those commitments and will continue to do so.  We – they’re set out very clearly and we will continue to abide by them.
MR RASMUSSEN:  If I may, let’s turn to Europe.  The White House has announced an intention to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Germany.  May I ask you:  Will a possible reduction in Germany be compensated by an increase in the U.S. presence in Eastern Europe, for instance in Poland?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  So as for troop deployments and numbers, I will leave that to my colleague Secretary Esper to talk about.  I try to maintain these boundaries.  But as for U.S. policy, I can speak to that very clearly.  I’ve been here as the Secretary of State now for just over two years.  I’ve been part of the administration since the beginning.  We set out back in early 2018 – excuse me, back in early 2017, in the spring of 2017 – to evaluate our entire – the entire structure about how engaged in the world.  And that certainly has a component about troop stationing, where we will put people, how we will deploy them.
It has two dimensions.  One, their location, and second, a dimension of should these be permanent bases or are we better off in a more modern world to have rotational deployments where we can get the right equipment at the right time.  We always think about soldiers on the ground; much, much of modern conflict today involves things disconnected from – I was a tanker; I was a Army guy.  I loved that dearly.  I wish the whole world just revolved around M1 tanks.  It would make me happy.  But it doesn’t.  It now revolves around big air forces, big cyber capabilities, big capabilities that are in different pockets.  We’ve tried to – we’re trying to make sure we get all of this right.  So it’s no longer reasonable just to think about hey, do we have a thousand soldiers or 5,000 soldiers or 10,000 soldiers, but what’s the threat that’s posed to the United States of America and our friends and allies, and how is it that we collectively can best respond.
So what you saw the President announce the other day was part of that review process.  It is extensive.  It extends not only to Europe but throughout the Middle East.  We’re thinking – you’ve seen decisions the President has made there about how it is that we can do the right things to meet the challenges of the day.
And then lastly, this very much connects up to the topic I spoke about today.  Make no mistake about it:  The United States does believe that it has a real responsibility to show that we have the capability and the capacity to challenge any threat that the Chinese Communist Party should make militarily to the United States of America.  So we are constantly thinking about how we engage diplomatically, economic, and militarily to meet that challenge.  So as the President thinks about Europe and the Middle East and our soldiers that are stationed in Africa, we are ever mindful that a free and open Indo-Pacific matters to all of us, including to Europe, and we want to make sure that we have allocated resources appropriately to address those concerns.
MR RASMUSSEN:  I got a question from the audience.  I’ll read it:  “Do you understand if European friends and allies see a threat to democracy generate from the U.S. due to a slow and dangerous breakdown of state institutions and democratic principles?”
SECRETARY POMPEO:  No.
MR RASMUSSEN:  That’s a clear answer.  (Laughter.)
SECRETARY POMPEO:  No, I – look, 200-plus years on, we have the most – and I should be careful because I tend to want to brag about the United States – but this is a democracy that has withstood enormous challenges throughout its history and our institutions have withstood enormous challenges.  And as the world changes, I am confident we will still have challenges.  But I know this:  Our founders nailed it.  Our founders got it right.  The principles, the laying down a set of God-given rights for the American people, saying that the United States government is designed and purposed to preserve those rights, has provided both a textual and a structural mechanism for democracy in the United States to survive each and every one of these challenges.
Doesn’t mean it happens automatically.  I now as the Secretary of State am a steward for this very set of rights.  I have a responsibility, a duty to ensure that I do everything every day to be part of furthering the capacity for our republic to continue to remain strong.  But if you ask the question can I understand how anyone would stare at this and think that American democracy was at risk, it’s a really simple answer.
MR RASMUSSEN:  Very often we see the Chinese Government use divide and rule tactics where they single out individual countries for punishment if they don’t listen to Beijing, follow the instructions from Beijing, or are going against Beijing.  I will ask you:  Shouldn’t the world’s democracies form a united front, an alliance of democracies that can stand up against the autocracies, protect each other, and promote freedom and prosperity?
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Anders, it’s an incredibly important question.  A number of thoughts, but I’ll start with this:  You’ll recall – you said should we create a united front.  This is China’s name, the united front.  This is what is in your countries (inaudible) united front.  So maybe we’ll choose just a slightly different name, but conceptually you nailed it.  You’ve got it exactly right.  And I think the wonderful news for democracies and freedom-loving peoples is that I see that happening.  I can tell you that when I met with my Chinese counterpart, he could see it happening while we were sitting in the room.  While we were meeting a statement from all G7 members came out about Hong Kong.  The timing I’d love to claim was intentional and very well thought out, but the truth of the matter is we were just doing what freedom-loving peoples do, continuing to demand an ever more expansive conception of freedom and forcing as best we can other countries to honor commitments that they’ve made.
So your core point – China’s objective is in fact to single out and indeed to threaten to single out more directly.  It’s not just European countries.  We’ve seen them do it in the Middle East.  We’ve seen them do it in Africa.  We’ve seen them do it in Southeast Asia, closer to their own nation.  What I have begun to see over my two and a half years as Secretary of State is the world awakening to this threat.  Right now, many of these conversations about just what you described are happening to me privately.  The calls are, “Hey, Mike, here’s what we’re observing the Chinese Communist Party engaged in here.  How can you help?”  We do our best in each case to provide them the type of assistance that makes most sense.
We need to raise this to another level, to where countries are prepared and in position to respond to these things in a public way.  When we do that, the Chinese Communist Party will be more isolated, and I hope – because my objective isn’t bad things for the Chinese people – I hope that the Chinese Communist Party will begin to recognize that if they want to rise, if they want to continue to build out their nation, that they need to do so on a Western rule set, a rule set that honors the rule of law and honors freedom and respect for sovereignty.  If they can flip, if they can make that difference because the rest of the world demands that of them, just like we do of every other nation with which we interact – it’s not unique; it’s simply reciprocal.  We don’t ask the Chinese Government to do anything we don’t ask the Belgian Government to do.  Just honor sovereignty, engage in the rule of law, compete fairly around the world without subsidization of state-owned enterprises – if they will do those things, then I think the world will be in a better place if freedom-loving nations could be secure in their freedoms.
MR RASMUSSEN:  Thank you.  Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.  Thank you, Mike, for taking time to talk to us.  It’s a very important conclusion of two days democracy summit here in Copenhagen.  We appreciate very much your support for freedom and democracy and your dedication to American leadership, so I feel confident that my three grand – American grandchildren will be raised in a much better world.  Thank you very much.
SECRETARY POMPEO:  Anders, thank you very much, sir.  And thanks to everyone for giving me this time.  So long.
[1] Secretary General