TRANSCRIPT: GINGRICH 3/29 AT BEIJING FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLLEGE
(Smooth Hong Kong transition critical for China)

Beijing -- A smooth transition to Chinese sovereignty in Hong Kong, consistent with the Joint Agreement and the Basic Law, will be "a key moment for Beijing," according to Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Reversion will test Chinese standards of governance and international conduct," Gingrich said March 29 at the Foreign Affairs College in Beijing, China. "How the transition is managed will be critical to the future of Taiwan, to China's international standing, and to China's relations with the United States."

Gingrich stressed that the United States supports the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which "governs the peaceful reversion of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China," and looks forward to "the establishment of one country, two systems."

"Mishandling reversion would endanger China's relationship with Taiwan, the region, and the broader international community," he said. "But honoring the commitments of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, on the other hand, would not only enhance economic growth in China it would also strengthen China's standing in the international community."

The effective use of "information diplomacy" will be another factor in Hong Kong's reversion to Chinese sovereignty, according to Gingrich.

"No government in the twenty-first century will be able to sustain privately a diplomacy it cannot explain publicly," he said. "The simple fact is that 'guanxi' (relations) in the twenty-first century will increasingly be shaped by the news media and the realities of the information age. Effective diplomats in the twenty-first century will seek to understand and shape information diplomacy as the first step in understanding the requirements and limitations of their governments' diplomatic goals and processes. Twenty-first century diplomats will understand that the 'guanxi' between governments is inevitably shaped and bounded by the 'guanxi' between their people. That is the inevitable reality of the information age," Gingrich said.

"'If you can't explain it, you can't do it' will be the first principle of diplomatic planning in the twenty-first century. You, the students who are here today, will play a vital role in how that principle shapes diplomacy in your lifetime. It is in that spirit of better understanding that I present these thoughts to you. As future leaders, you face the challenge of extending that understanding across the globe. I hope you will accept that challenge," he said.

Following is the official transcript of Gingrich's remarks:

(begin transcript)

NEWT GINGRICH
SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REMARKS TO THE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLLEGE

BEIJING, CHINA
MARCH 29, 1997

Thank you very, very much. It is a very great honor for me to be here, and I want to thank the students who have come out today. I look forward to your questions. I have especially looked forward to this part of my trip to China because as a college teacher, I always like a chance to come back to the classroom. I was just learning that your Vice President teaches a class on mass communications and diplomacy; I hope that this speech today will help her a little bit in convincing you that that is a very important class.

This has been a wonderful trip for us. Yesterday, in a series of meetings we had the privilege of talking with the top leaders of your country about the key issues affecting the U.S.- China relationship and to better explain America for one second, let me introduce one of the members of our delegation who is here with me today -- a very good friend, the Congressman from California, Representative Jay Kim. Jay, why don't you stand and wave to everybody.

(Applause)

Congressman Kim is a remarkable example of America. Born in Seoul, Korea, he and his family hid during the first invasion of 1950, then were able to come out in the open during the liberation, then at the second invasion of 1950, they fled, and he ended up in California. He worked as a janitor in a hospital. Today, his son is a doctor in that hospital, and Congressman Kim is the Congressman representing the district that has that hospital. In one generation, he has been able to do that, and we are very proud of him. As you can imagine, having someone who is a native-born Korean serve as your advisor when you are in Korea, is a very useful advantage. And America is the only country I know of where we can go to virtually any country in the world and have American citizens go with us who are fluent in that language, understand that culture, and try to help us better understand how we can work together. So Jay, I am glad you... and he also had to put up with my speech while flying with me for days, and going over it many times, so I am really in his debt for being here.

You know, the meetings we had with your leadership were a remarkable experience, and I want to take this opportunity, in Beijing, to thank the leaders of China for their openness in our discussions, their seriousness, and their willingness to have frank talks. Such discussions are absolutely essential if our two nations are going to find a path that will lead to greater freedom, prosperity, and safety for all people. I'm grateful for this opportunity to represent the American people, to speak about fundamental American values in this great city and in conversations with the leaders of the great people of China. I am grateful for this particular opportunity to meet with you because you are among the future Ambassadors, the future diplomats, and the future business leaders who are going to shape both of our countries and together shape the entire world.

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

Let me say, first of all, how much our congressional delegation has learned during our short time in your country. We are awed by the pace of change in your major cities. I noted in our meeting with your president that during the six hours we will be in Shanghai tomorrow, fifteen buildings will be completed. We admire the ten percent annual economic growth that China has achieved and sustained. Frankly, I wish I could go back to America and announce that we will get ten percent economic growth for the next ten years. That would solve a lot of our problems and balance our budget while letting us do everything else we want to do. So, we're trying to learn from you, not just talk to you.

We recognize the excitement in this country as the reversion of Hong Kong approaches this summer. Because I am a history professor, I want to establish the context for some thoughts on the U.S.-China relationship. I recognize I'm speaking to students trained and schooled in the traditions of an ancient culture. You know, there may be a temptation to view me as the naive representative of a two-hundred-year-old American experiment -- a brief moment in the span of Chinese history -- but properly understood, the U.S.-China relationship is founded upon two ancient traditions. Now I must comment, by the way, your Premier yesterday caught that and went directly to it. I had just been in the Forbidden City, and I mentioned that the Forbidden City was twice as old as the United States as a government. But he promptly came back with a point I'm about to make to you.

We need to understand both of our traditions if we are going to forge a closer relationship. At the time of Confucius, Greek philosophers were laying the philosophical foundations of democracy. The Roman republic and Roman law shaped the development of the West at the same time that the Han dynasty ruled in the East. I belong to the Republican Party which comes from the Latin res publica and that is a sign of how deeply we are shaped by the Roman tradition, which was at the heart of the thinking of our founding fathers in the eighteenth century. The Great Wall of China we will visit today was being built shortly after the signing of the Magna Carta, which established the foundation of our system of limited government and the rule of law. America, like China, grew out of an ancient tradition. The foundation of American values and American priorities, therefore, are not passing priorities based on a temporary trend.

Our belief in religious liberty and political freedom is far more than a reflection of current public sentiment. We believe in religious liberty because the people who settled our country over three hundred years ago left the lands of their birth, accepting great danger and uncertainty, to gain the right to practice their religion freely. We believe in religious liberty because two thousand years ago, Christians hid in caves known as catacombs to escape persecution from the ruling Roman authorities. We believe in religious liberty because, over twenty five hundred years ago, the Jewish psalmist wept in exile because he was separated from his holy city, Jerusalem. For that reason, America cannot remain silent about the basic lack of freedom -- speech, religion, assembly, the press -- in China. Were we to do so, we would not only betray our own tradition, we would also fail to fulfill our obligations as a friend of China. For no one can be considered a true friend if that person avoids the truth.

In the most basic sense, we are simply asking for the government of China to enforce its own constitution. Article Thirty-five of the Constitution provides free speech for every citizen. Article Thirty-six guarantees the free exercise of religion. Surely, asking a government to enforce its own basic laws is legitimate. Indeed, any effort to provide a partial freedom to any people, to tell them that they can be free in one sphere but not in another, will ultimately fail. The Chinese leadership needs to understand that political freedom must accompany economic freedom. If it attempts to halt the spread of freedom, it will suffer political and economic consequences.

The historic truth is that economic vitality ultimately depends upon political freedom. As an American, I have a confidence about the future that begins with a commitment to freedom. That freedom is not the gift of any government; it is a right bestowed by our Creator. If you visit, in Washington, the memorial dedicated to our third president, Thomas Jefferson, you will find these words inscribed in the wall, and I quote: "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may destroy but cannot disjoin them." If you walk across to the Lincoln Memorial, and as future diplomats you will have a chance to visit all of these, you will find etched in stone the Second Inaugural Address which President Abraham Lincoln delivered near the end of our great civil war in 1865. It is short enough to be on one wall, yet it refers to God twelve times. If you read our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, you will find the fundamental belief that our Creator has given us the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As Americans, we still recognize today that we cannot be successful if we do not recognize that our rights come from our Creator. This American system of Creator-endowed rights, based on self-evident truths, is as current as Microsoft, biotechnology and the space shuttle; however, its roots go back to our founding fathers, to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the creation of Roman law three hundred years before Christ, the rise of Greek democracy five hundred years before Christ, and ultimately, the statement of God's law given to Moses in the earliest period of recorded history.

This commitment to freedom carries great advantages: our country reacts faster to crises, rectifies its mistakes more rapidly, and maintains a more dynamic national consensus precisely because it has a freely elected government based upon we, the people. Those three words are the first three words of our Constitution and they frame our view of government. People who are free to work anywhere come to America because they know that America offers great opportunity. People who are free to study anywhere come to America because they know there is more creative research going on in our universities and corporations than any other country in the world. This freedom and creativity lies at the root of the political and economic system that has made us a great nation.

The legislature invented by America's founding fathers is a wonderful protection from any government that would attempt to ignore or thwart the will of the people. That's why the Constitution begins, in Article One, by establishing the branch of government closest to the people -- the United States Congress. Let me make that clear, Article One of the Constitution is the Congress -- not the presidency, not the courts. That branch is closest to the people because it is most sensitive to any change that might infringe upon our liberty. Because the founding fathers feared dictatorship, they deliberately created a system that divided the power of the federal government. They recognized that while God gives us freedom, governments, all too often, are ready to take that freedom away.

America's history has been one of permanent tension between order and freedom, between government and the individual, between selfishness and our selflessness, between idealism and cynicism. For over two hundred years, Americans have worked, fought, sweated and bled to preserve and extend freedom to all people, of all backgrounds, from all races and every country of the world. Look around the world today, those of you who will be diplomats will be out there, you'll be working in it, we're in the third decade of a global democratic revolution. From Portugal and Spain in the mid-1970s, to Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union and its satellites, the old oppressive regimes have been replaced with new democracies. In some cases, the political change preceded the creation of free markets, while in others, there was a substantial transformation of the economic system before political freedom gained root. But at the end of the day, they found that freedom was indivisible. It was not possible to grant one form of freedom, whether political or economic, without finally granting it all. We find that reality exciting. We do not see our insistence on freedom -- an insistence driven by our own experience -- as an inappropriate intrusion into another country's internal affairs. We see it as the greatest gift we can offer the world. We cannot imagine having any successful bilateral relationship that ignores that fundamental value.

During my time in China, we have tried to emphasize the importance we see in the reversion of Hong Kong to China this July. We respect the justifiable pride China feels in the restoration of sovereignty over Hong Kong. We could imagine how strongly Americans would feel if Savannah or San Francisco was returned to our control after a hundred and fifty years of foreign domination. So we join you in the pride you feel at ending a period of pain and humiliation and understand that on July 1, there will be great joy among all people everywhere of Chinese origin. We support the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which governs the peaceful reversion of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China, and we look forward to the establishment of one country, two systems. A smooth transition in Hong Kong, consistent with the Joint Agreement and Basic Law, will be a key moment for Beijing. Reversion will test Chinese standards of governance and international conduct. How the transition is managed will be critical to the future of Taiwan, to China's international standing, and to China's relations with the United States.

I am told that the Chinese word for crisis combines the characters for danger and opportunity. In that sense, the reversion of Hong Kong poses a crisis for China. Mishandling reversion would endanger China's relationship with Taiwan, the region, and the broader international community. But honoring the commitments of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, on the other hand, would not only enhance economic growth in China it would also strengthen China's standing in the international community. You are preparing for leadership at an exciting moment. China faces dramatic challenges as we enter the next century, but it also has dramatic potential.

The message I bring to you today is simple. If you truly understand the American commitment to freedom, you will not only expand the context of the U.S.-China relationship, you will open up far greater opportunities for your country and your people. As students in diplomacy, you may wonder why I dwelt upon public core values. You might think that diplomacy is defined solely by secret negotiations in small rooms. And now, I going to go into an advertisement for your course. I'm sure you've studied the great achievements of past diplomats. For virtually all of human history, diplomacy has been an elite art practiced by sophisticated people in small groups. For most of history, diplomacy has been quiet, hidden, and often secret. Your generation of diplomats will discover that the information age has revolutionized diplomacy just as it has revolutionized so much of our life.

In the past, diplomats left their countries on long missions without the ability to communicate with their government. Diplomats had to send messages by human messenger and, as late as 1840, all communication moved at the speed of transportation. Very important to remember: until the invention of the telegraph, and I am going to get into a brief moment with the exception of extraordinary systems of communication, using smoke, mirrors, or towers, many of which existed in China, with more elegance and more power than any other country, virtually all communication was limited by the speed of a runner, rider, or sailor. You will discover that in your generation, no diplomat is beyond a telephone call, a fax, or an e-mail. You have three great ambassadors here: two from your country, one from mine. Afterwards, if you can see them in private, ask them how far away have they ever been from their government? Not very. Very different from 200 years ago.

You will discover, when you are a diplomat, that the head of your government can find you on a cellular phone, while he or she is watching live on CNN the crisis you are dealing with. And it changes everything. The invention of the telegraph began this process of instant communication 150 years ago. And now the emerging world-wide, real time communications grid is completing the process of drawing every diplomat and citizen into a global information network.

The information revolution is transforming not only the intimacy and speed of communication, but the very nature of diplomacy. Whereas the art of diplomacy once excelled in secrecy, it will be forced in the twenty-first century to excel in public relations. Whereas diplomats once were an almost clandestine group, you will find yourselves increasingly on television and in the newspapers. Whereas governments traditionally sought to control events by hiding them from their people, in the information age, people will increasingly control governments through the flow of news and the nature of public communications. All of us, every one of us, are in the middle of this revolution, from negotiations between governments to communications between peoples. All of us now accept the fact that the world-wide news media is itself a force, shaping the news as much as simply reporting it. All twenty-first century diplomats must wake up every morning vividly focused on the news media and aware of what it is doing to shape the very events it covers. You'll do no good to complain about the biases and inadequacies of the news media. You can educate reporters as much as possible. You can inform editors and producers as much as possible. You can work hard each day to rethink your strategies and your activities in the light of each day's news. What you can't do is hide from or ignore the news media, because it is increasingly a world force.

There's much talk today of information warfare, which ranges from protecting your own technology to dismantling that of your opponent. While most nations are focusing their efforts on developing the technology of warfare, the successful use of public information has actually been the greatest change in the competition among nations. It creates the context in which the entire struggle occurs. The great British historian, Macauley, recognized the emergence of the news media as a fourth estate in an 1828 essay. Yet few diplomats and virtually no diplomatic colleges have recognized this revolution in the nature of diplomacy, and I commend you for your course on this topic. We need a system of information diplomacy to parallel and, hopefully, make obsolete the art of information warfare. We need a generation of young diplomats schooled in information diplomacy, who can help governments understand the world of the news media within which they operate. We need diplomats who know the impact of the world, how it changes understanding among peoples and how it defines relationships between governments.

The People's Republic of China will be forced to study the new information diplomacy when Hong Kong reverts on July 1. This is a great event for the people of China, and a source of legitimate pride for all people of Chinese origin throughout the world. Yet the key to the success of Hong Kong's reversion, and the implementation of the potentially brilliant formulation of two systems one country will depend not only on the fulfillment of commitments, but also on the effective use of information diplomacy. No government in the twenty-first century will be able to sustain privately a diplomacy it cannot explain publicly. We came to Beijing to seek "you hao hezuo guanxi" -- and I apologize for not saying it very well -- "friendly, cooperative relations". The simple fact is that "guanxi" in the twenty-first century will increasingly be shaped by the news media and the realities of the information age. Effective diplomats in the twenty-first century will seek to understand and shape information diplomacy as the first step in understanding the requirements and limitations of their governments' diplomatic goals and processes. Twenty-first century diplomats will understand that the "guanxi" between governments is inevitably shaped and bounded by the "guanxi" between their people. That is the inevitable reality of the information age.

"If you can't explain it, you can't do it" will be the first principle of diplomatic planning in the twenty-first century. You, the students who are here today, will play a vital role in how that principle shapes diplomacy in your lifetime. It is in that spirit of better understanding that I present these thoughts to you. As future leaders, you face the challenge of extending that understanding across the globe. I hope you will accept that challenge, I appreciate your paying attention, and if we have a few minutes, I would like to take questions.

Q: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us this speech. I am very honored to have the chance to ask you a question about Hong Kong. It is well-known that Hong Kong is an issue between China and the British Government until July 1. After that, it will be an internal affair of China.

Now, Hong Kong's reversion to China is of deepest concern in this country. We appreciate what you said in your speech that the return of Hong Kong's reversion to China is not only a joy to the Chinese people but also to the American people. Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Hong Kong Reversion Act. Now Mr. Speaker, do you think it is proper for the United States to involve itself in something which is purely China's internal affairs? And, do you think that is helpful to Hong Kong's smooth reversion to China?

SPEAKER GINGRICH: That's a very good question, and I appreciate your asking. Let me say first of all, and I know your government doesn't agree with this, so I'm saying this in a college setting because I think it's useful. We had very frank discussions yesterday about this. I believe it is impossible in the information age to avoid commenting on each other's internal affairs. I am told by, for example, Chinese leaders on occasion, "Well, you have a problem with drug dealers." My answer is "Yes, I'm glad you noticed it, and you're right, we should fix it." Or, "You have a problem with racism." My answer is "Yes, I'm glad you noticed it, we should fix it." But in the modern world as you will discover, since everything is on television, everyone is in everyone's living room in a sense, and it's almost unavoidable.

Second, if you'll notice the actual language of the Reversion Act in the House, it is the Basic Law in the Sino-British Agreement, the Declaration. We're simply saying, "This is what China has said it will do, we certainly hope China will do what it said." Now, you can say legally, and you're right, that if China, once it has recovered Hong Kong, wants to eliminate all freedom, China has that right. We then have the right to react to that. We have the right to say that wasn't the agreement, and it pushes Taiwan further away. Taiwan may decide to join voluntarily "one country, two systems" if they see the two systems working in Hong Kong. They may say, "This could work." But if they see Hong Kong lose its freedom, lose its elections, lose its rule of law, lose its civil service, lose its ability to have free press, I think then they're going to say, "Whoops, let's back up." So, it is true, just as we legally have the right to do things in our own country, we will be commented on, there will be speeches at the UN, it will show up on television, people will talk to us if we do things. Similarly, you have the right, I think, to do things in your own country. But there are consequences to exercising that right.

And we emphasized all day yesterday that we come as friends, we don't come as judges. We are here to say we really think it's important that the reversion work. We really think it's important that the two systems work. And we will do everything we can as friends to help make it work. And that's the framework we're approaching this as, in the friendliest, and most open, and frankest of ways. And that's how the conversations have been here on both sides, and I think they've been very, very helpful.

Q: Mr. Speaker, sorry, I cannot agree with you completely. (Laughter) As we know, China and the United States have different social systems, and they do differ in views on some issues. But, fundamentally speaking, to have a stable and constructive relationship is in the fundamental interests of both countries. So, as a sovereign state, I think that both sides should and must abide by the principle of non-interference. So, as a sovereign state, I think that China's sovereignty should be respected. Thank you.

SPEAKER GINGRICH: We respect your sovereignty and respect that we cannot legally impose on you, but we also reserve the right to talk. Let me give you an emotional example. If I came here and said, and by the way, I think it's healthy to disagree. I don't think there's anything wrong with somebody respectfully saying, "I heard you, but that's not what I think." That's the nature of a free country, is to say, "I don't agree." If all we can do is, I get up here and say something and you write it down and say, "Well, it must be true if the Speaker said it," then my whole speech is wrong. The goal is to say, "We're going to talk, we're going to discuss." Let me give you an emotional version. If I came here and said you should not emotionally be proud that you're getting back Hong Kong, you would all say to me, "You don't understand China at all, you don't understand the last two hundred years. You don't understand the Opium Wars, you don't understand the whole history. We feel very strongly, we feel passionately, we are proud. There's a clock on Tiananmen Square. We're going to have a huge celebration." I am told the biggest fireworks display in history will be in Hong Kong at midnight. When those flags go down, and the new flags go up, there will be people crying. There will be people who have a tremendous sense of joy. There will be pride not just inside China, but with every overseas Chinese community. Am I right?

(Audience: Yes)

Now, that's emotional. You can identify your own emotions, right? This is important to understand. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree that it has consequences, but you should at least understand: we feel that deeply about religious and political freedom. It is who we are. We're not defined by being white, or being Asian, or Colin Powell being black, we're defined by freedom. It is to be American. So if you say to me, "Let's have a good relationship but please don't talk about freedom," I can't speak. I have nothing to say. So, that doesn't mean I have the right to come in and say to you, I want you to do these twelve things by noon tomorrow. But to be good neighbors, you can say to me, "Please understand my pride in Hong Kong's reversion," and I can say to you, "Please understand how passionately I feel about religious and political freedom," and now we can talk as neighbors. And I think that's what we're trying to learn to do. Because our two peoples have no natural conflict. Our governments occasionally have a reason to argue. Our two peoples have a reason to talk, but no reason to have conflict, in my judgment.

Q: Mr. Gingrich, I have a personal question for you. We all know that you were a university professor of history. Now, you are the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Have you found differences between these two careers? (Laughter)

SPEAKER GINGRICH: Well, there are a lot of differences between the two careers. You work much, much harder if you are the Speaker of the House than if you are a professor. And you probably get attacked a lot more, if you're the Speaker of the House than if you're a professor. Although the politics of a university, at least in America, I don't know about China, but in America, the politics of a university can be fully as nasty as public politics in terms of personality. That's probably not true here, but it's true in the United States. The people maneuver and argue and do many things that are under the professors.

But I tried yesterday, and I do want to share this one thing with you because I've now done this for a long time, and I've thought about it a long time, there is no better training for trying to lead people than to immerse yourself in history. The more you study history, the more you know about what people have done, the better you can lead yourself. It's the most powerful educational framework for being a leader that I know of, is to read every history you can find, read every biography you can find, read novels that are historic, get into the minds of other people, how did they think, what did they do, why did they do it, and you will learn an immense amount. You should read widely, read about your own country, read about other countries. Get a feel for, in this situation faced with this problem how did that person solve it? And I really do think that you'll find it useful for the rest of your life.

Q: Mr. Gingrich, no two people see things the same way. I think that is exactly what makes life fun and communication more interesting. We have different opinions on current issues, such as the reversion of Hong Kong and also disagree on history. When discussing an incident from the 1950's, you used the word "invasion." I am afraid to say we disagree. (Laughter)

SPEAKER GINGRICH: Don't be afraid to say it.

Q: Our understanding is different but there's no time for argument. Putting these differences aside, the students are curious to know will go back and say to your old friend, Mr. Clinton, and to the American people after you go back. This week, we have Vice President Gore and you both in Beijing. Would you like to tell us what you think will be the impact of this visit on the improvement of Sino-U.S. relations?

SPEAKER GINGRICH: You said many different things. So I'm going to try to comment, and if I get one wrong, I'm going to give you a second chance, all right?

First of all, I don't think we disagree about the reversion of Hong Kong. We are excited that Hong Kong will become part of China. We think it is the right thing, we think that it is your property, your sovereignty, and that you have every right. We are concerned only about the delicacy, I described it yesterday as a giant holding an orchid. Hong Kong is a very delicate flower. It's remarkable. It is maybe the most remarkable city in the world in the achievement of human beings to create that prosperity with no raw materials and no natural resources. But it's like a very delicate orchid. And there's always a danger if you're like me and you're clumsy, that when you hold an orchid wrong and you bruise it, or you crush it. And so our concern is, we are with you on the reversion. We are happy for China. Our concern is to learn how to handle the orchid without crushing it. And we believe that that will then teach the rest of the world a new view of China and a new way of thinking. If the giant has learned to hold the orchid, then in fact, you will be seen very differently everywhere in the world. And "two systems, one country," which is Deng Xiaoping's model -- now this is not an American model, I'm not interfering, I'm holding your last leader accountable -- his model will have worked.

Second, on invasion, I tried to use the word very carefully. I may be wrong, but I think that probably your schools now teach that on June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded. They may not teach that now, I think they will be teaching it soon if they don't now. I don't think anybody who has looked at all the documents seriously believes that the Republic of Korea picked a fight with Kim Jung Il, I mean Kim Il Song. Kim Jung Il wasn't around to fight with yet. (Laughter)

So I tried to describe the difference, I deliberately did not describe who in fact occupied, if you will accept the word occupation rather than invasion for the second event, which is what I tried to use. It was in fact the People's Liberation Army in a brilliant winter campaign which I have studied a great deal and have the greatest respect for. I understand what your government's version of that would be, that we had threatened and come too close to their border, and they were simply engaged in a protective activity designed to secure Chinese territory against the danger of United Nations invasion. I don't think we have to argue that case, but I think I at least understand there are two sides to it.

But the first one I believe probably, and again you might want to check your most recent textbook, I think, probably, even your schools now are saying that the North Korean attack was an attack, and that the first time Jay Kim had to learn about war -- you aren't quite old enough to remember the Japanese occupation, I don't think -- so the first chance you got to understand the war was because of the North Koreans. I would be glad to not blame anybody; we can talk later about the history of that period. All I'll say on your side is it was a brilliant winter campaign. And if you are interested in military history, you'd do very well to read that campaign. I have the greatest respect for it, and it's useful for anybody who thinks China is not capable to study that campaign at length.

You mentioned that everyone disagrees a little bit. I can tell you that my wife shares that sentiment with you. Both of my daughters -- I have two daughters who are 33 and 30 -- they both share this sentiment with you. I often find it perplexing that at the very moment I have been totally correct, people near me don't agree. (Laughter) And so I think that's exactly right, and it's very painful to me at times. Some of the males in this room, this may not be a Chinese problem, but my experiences that males often find it hard to listen carefully, as things change. So moods, and attitudes, and going to dinner with my wife. Sometimes she wants Italian food, and sometimes wants Chinese food. I try to predict it. She has said to me, "Ask, don't predict. Ask. I may change." And I think, again this may not be a Chinese problem as you talk with each other, but certainly in America it seems to be a problem. And of course we're different. That's why earlier I talked about freedom. So we could be different. Now what did we learn here?

It is, I believe, impossible to come to China and not be impressed with three things that are overwhelming. The first is, that you are now dramatically freer than you were 25 years ago. Just look at the clothing in this room. That's very important. A people who get to pick their own clothing are freer than a people who look like they all wear the same thing. A people who get to pick where they go at night, the fact that you have karaoke, the fact that you have disco, the fact that you have McDonald's. I'm not saying any of them are good or bad, I'm just saying, and I don't want that to be interpreted as a commercial endorsement of McDonald's. (Laughter) Probably somebody back in the States will file some charges. You see a world-wide news media. The fact is, the very existence of these things is different than the memory we have of the interim China between the end of the Confucian world and Deng Xiaoping's beginning to create what I think will be the twenty-first century China.

The second thing that hits me is what everybody says: look at the amount of construction. One of our members is a real estate agent, he's seriously considering staying. Resign from the Congress, make money, build housing, and, you know, be part of the... The economic dynamism, I don't think you should exaggerate. You are not going to have 50 years of 10 percent a year growth. Fifteen years ago -- and you can all go to the library and I think you'll find these books -- fifteen years ago Japan was going to replace us as the number one country. You can find book after book of "The Coming Japanese Superpower,." the coming this or that.

Japan is a country the size of California, 80% of which is mountains. It wasn't going to happen. The people project linearly. People say: if the chart looks like this, you must go up forever. If the chart looks like this... That's not how life works. You are getting much richer than you were; you are going to get even richer than you are now; you are going to be a very important and powerful country. You have the greatest human potential of any country in the world because you have more humans. I mean, if you're like me and you believe all humans are competitive, whether you are a bushman from the Kalahari or you are a Nobel prize-winning physicist from Sweden, or you are an Italian or you are Chinese or Latin American, or African, I believe everybody has enormous potential inside themselves. Well, guess what? That means you have potentially more potential than anybody else. Which is good, it's not a danger. It's a good thing.

The third thing, I think that becomes pretty obvious, is that, and this I really want to commend your leadership who were very serious yesterday. I have never had a better day of serious, intense conversation. And I will tell all of you as future diplomats, they did a very smart thing we don't do as well as they do. They set up somebody who was very open to our ideas as the first person. Then, they had us go do something while they briefed each other on the meeting. Then, they set up the second meeting, which was a wonderful working lunch. Then, they had us go do something at the Forbidden City while they briefed each other on the meeting. And you could see the progress all day, as they got it. They said, "Now, Gingrich is like this..."

We had this very funny story, I'll probably get into trouble for telling you this but it's a true story. One of our members, who I won't name, came up to me after the first meeting and said, "You were too direct. Chinese like a more gracious, slower, more cautious..." We really had a discussion. We got together with our Embassy people; the Ambassador wasn't available because he was with the Vice President. We got together; I was trying to learn how to do it right. I thought this was a very important thing. So, I went into my second meeting, which was with your National Security Advisor, and I was prepared to be gracious, genuine, indirect, all these things that people in the West tell other people Chinese are like, often without having spent a lot of time with Chinese. I walked into the meeting, I sit down. We chat for about twelve seconds, very wonderful. I start to sip my tea. The National Security Advisor says, "Now, about Taiwan. There are nine points." (Laughter) In between the first meeting and the second meeting somebody said, "Gingrich likes directness." And so, while I was being told, don't be so direct, your leaders were being told, be direct.

But what I got out of it was, first of all, the seriousness of this. Your leadership was taking our delegation very seriously and trying very hard to understand our messages, and to think through what did they want us to understand. Communicating. I was kidding a while ago about my wife and my daughters but I think you'll agree with this: communicating between people is hard. It's hard with your parents. I'm going to ask an American question: how many of you have ever had an argument with your parents? Is this a question I'm allowed to ask in China? Is it inappropriate for you to argue with your parents? If you don't mind, raise your hand if you ever had an argument with your parents. I just want to see, look around the room. Slowly, gradually, people are raising their hands. The point I'm making is... how many of you have brothers or sisters you've had an argument with? Anyone? How many of you have people you date you've had an argument with? (Laughter) My point is this, if it is hard for two Chinese both living in one town to always communicate, because of your emotions, you get tired, you say something you didn't mean, or they heard something you didn't say. Think how hard it is for two great peoples, with different patterns, to communicate.

My whole point in coming to you today, is I'm going to go back and say to the President, I'll say it now so the press can cover it, so when I call him he'll know. And I'll say yes, I did these five things, and he'll say "Yes, I bet you're going to tell me these things." We have a chance, particularly if we focus on making the reversion successful, if the two systems emerge and are real, and by the summer of 1998 people believe it's real, the world will see China differently and it will never be the same again. That's how big this is. We have the chance to dialogue, to learn from you, and to have you learn from us, and then by being together, to create things together we could never have created as independents. And we have the chance to create the future. And I was thrilled to come here today, partly to convince every one of you to take her course in study, to convince you that ultimately, across the world, information diplomacy is going to be an art form we all have to learn.

But also to share with you openly, because, you know, I think we together going to create the twenty-first century. And I think we are going to work with the other 4.5 billion people around the planet. And between our two great peoples and all the other peoples we can connect with, we're going to give our grandchildren a world that is free, and safe, and prosperous; where anyone can travel anywhere; where anyone can make money anywhere; where there's a sense of excitement in pursuing happiness together; and when we argue occasionally, we'll argue. But we won't be afraid, and we won't fight. We'll just keep talking, and I think that world is worth your lifetime, and it is worth our lifetime, and we'll dedicate ourselves to it.

Think about it, and let's close with this, but I want you to understand: the China of 1940, or 1930, or 1920, or 1910 was a different world. You have an immense amount to be proud of. Your parents and your grandparents not only helped drive the Japanese out, helped unify the country, helped end the medieval traditions, helped create a new world, helped begin economic progress, helped create an environment where you can wear any clothing you want to, you're not trapped in a village, you're not owned by a landlord, you're not oppressed by a system, you're feet aren't bound, there is no slavery. You go back and look at medieval China and you look at the last 150 or 200 years: no one is now in a position to humiliate you; the most powerful nation in the world comes to China with respect; and you look at what your parents and grandparents have created.

Now, if you can now for a generation build on that momentum, then think of what China has to offer the human race, and think about how we can go into the future together. And I came here because I think we stand at the hinge of history. We have the chance to make all that happen. I really look forward to working with you. When you come to the United States as ambassadors, come see me. I look forward to each of you doing that. I'm not sure how many of you will make it to Ambassador, but I'm sure these two (professors) will be glad to share with you later how you can get it done and how you do it. Thank you very, very much.

(end transcript)