不可予夺和交易的人民主权与国家信誉！

The Sovereignty of the People and the Credibility of the Nation Are Unalienable and Non-Negotiable

——再谈“我是基督徒，我也相信佐罗”

— Reconsidering “I Am a Christian, and I Also Believe in Zorro”

钱 宏（Archer Hong Qian）

Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation（CANADA）

2026年5月25日晨于Vancouver

近代中国历史，有一个极其沉重却又无法回避的问题：

为什么一个拥有数千年文明的大国，在过去166年里，却不断陷入疆域丧失、国家信誉崩塌、人民流离失所与主权结构失衡的循环？

问题并不只是“国力强弱”，甚至不只是“制度优劣”。

更深层的问题，其实是：

谁真正把人民主权与国家信誉，当成不可交易的底线？

而谁又只是把国家、人民与疆域，当成权力博弈和地缘政治中的筹码？

很多人今天讨论海参崴（符拉迪沃斯托克）、外蒙古、西伯利亚华工惨案、台海危机，总是孤立地看待某一个事件，却忽略了它们之间，其实存在着一条完整的历史因果链。

而这条历史链条中，有几个极其关键的转折点。

一、1924：被撕毁的不只是《清室优待条件》

1912年，大清帝国退位。

这是中国历史上极少数以“和平契约”方式，完成的大规模政权转移。

清帝《退位诏书》，并不仅仅意味着一个王朝结束，更意味着：

清朝以法统形式，将“五族共和”的完整疆域，让渡给中华民国。

其中，《清室优待条件》具有极其重要的法理意义。

它不只是“善待皇室”的礼仪安排，而是国家信誉的一部分，是新旧政权和平交接的契约基础。

然而，1924年，北京政变发生了。

冯玉祥发动政变后，派鹿钟麟率兵进入紫禁城，强行驱逐溥仪。

这一事件，在今天很多人看来，只是“推翻旧时代”的象征。但真正的问题在于：

当一个手握国之器的主事者，开始公开撕毁自己已经签订的政治契约时，它摧毁的，不只是某个皇帝的待遇，而是整个国家信誉。

而国家信誉一旦崩塌，其连锁反应，往往几十年后才显现。

18岁的溥仪——作为一种“政治图腾”——被逐出紫禁城后，很快转向日本势力。

随后，日本关东军便借“恢复满洲正统”之名，扶植“满洲国”（虽然其GDP亚洲第一，超过日本本土，这个以后再说）。

很多人只看到1931年的“九一八”，却忽略了1924年的契约断裂，早已埋下政治借口。

更严重的是，这场东北地缘政治巨变，还进一步引发苏联对远东华人的全面敌视。

1936—1938年，斯大林在海参崴与远东地区发动大规模排华、清洗与强制迁徙。

延续数百年的远东华人社会，几乎被彻底抹去。

而俄罗斯历史上的扩张逻辑，也在这一过程中再次显露：

杀光、抢光、烧光、全殖民。

从1792年后的克里米亚，到1860年后的海参崴，再到1936-1938年后来的西伯利亚远东地区，其底层逻辑几乎从未改变。

二、1918：段祺瑞与“真正的国家行为”

然而，历史并不总是黑暗。

就在整个中国最混乱、最贫弱、最分裂的时候，却出现了近代中国极少数真正像“现代国家”一样行动的时刻。

1918年，段祺瑞政府出兵海参崴与西伯利亚。

很多人今天谈北洋政府，只记得军阀混战，却忽略了：

就在列强环伺、俄国内战爆发、远东秩序崩溃之际，北洋政府却做出了近代中国少见的主权行为。

段祺瑞派遣海军与陆军精锐赴远东。宋焕章、苏炳文等将领，与海军协同行动，在陆路上打通并死守华工华侨撤离通道。

那不是口号。

那是真正拿命换命的武装撤侨。

那是中国近代第一次真正意义上的海外军事护侨行动。

同时，段祺瑞与徐树铮抓住俄国内战形成的战略窗口，于1919年兵不血刃收复外蒙古。

今天很多人喜欢用“弱国无外交”“落后就要挨打”解释一切。

可北洋政府当时比后世很多时期都更弱。

问题不在于弱。问题在于：

有没有骨气？

有没有担当？

有没有把国家信誉、疆域与人民，当成真正不可放弃的东西？

顺便说一句，抗战中的国民政府也不强大，但经过顾维钧等外交努力，1943年1月11日，《中美关于取消美国在华治外法权及处理有关问题条约》在华盛顿签字，《中英平等新约》在重庆签字。随后比利时、挪威、加拿大、瑞典、荷兰、法国、瑞士、丹麦、葡萄牙等九国相继与国民政府签订了相似的新条约。在英美签订前两天，日本竟也与汪伪政权订约交还租界和废除法外治权。同年，意大利和法国维希政府也交还租界和废除法外治权。我做中学历史课教师（1980-1982）时，就很遗憾如此重大的历史事件，居然在我们的历史教科书上“选择性遗忘、遗失了！”

然而，很多时候，历史最残酷的地方就在于：

没有比较，就没有伤害。

三、1949之后：失地确认与飞弹政治

1949年之后，两岸进入长期分治。

而真正具有历史讽刺意味的，是所谓“反攻大陆”与“解放台湾”都成为过眼烟云后，发生的两件事。

其一，是1990年代到2004年间，北京当局主事者先后与苏联、俄罗斯签署边界协定，从法理上正式确认了俄方占领的大量历史失地边界。

这意味着：

海参崴以及约150多万平方公里土地的历史争议，被彻底法理化终结。

而与此同时，另一件事却发生了。

1996年3月23日，中华民国在台湾举行第一次总统直选。

这是华人社会第一次践行“主权在民”民主宪政，真正完成现代国体转型之历史时刻。

然而，北京方面对此的回应，却是向台湾周边海域发射导弹，制造了“第三次台海危机”（3月8日至3月15日向台湾基隆和高雄外海——部分落点距离台湾海岸仅二三十海里——发射了多枚DF-15短程弹道导弹，封锁了两大国际港口航道。随后，又在福建沿海集结超10万兵力，举行了大规模的三军联合两栖登陆演习）。

于是，一个极其强烈的历史反差出现了：

一边，对外正式确认历史失地边界；

一边，对内却以飞弹恐吓华人同胞的民主直选。

这种反差，让很多历史观察者产生极大的震动。

因为它暴露了一个问题：

真正让一些权力集团——Chinese Reproductive Officialdom（中国特色殖官主义）恐惧的，未必是外部强权，而是是否“主权在民”的镜鉴。

四、为什么中国人仍然呼唤“英雄”？

所以，我越来越觉得：

中国人今天真正缺的，不只是制度，不只是财富，不只是技术，而是英雄气概。

不是喊口号的英雄。

不是“宏大叙事”的英雄。

而是真正敢于：

捍卫常识、契约、人民与国家信誉的人。

这也是为什么，我越来越认同一句话：

“我是基督徒，我也相信佐罗。”（I Am a Christian, and I Also Believe in Zorro. 参看 http://symbiosism.com.cn/12215.html）

很多人初听这句话，会觉得奇怪。

其实，它恰恰代表了现代文明最深层的一种精神结构。

因为，人类文明真正健康的时候，往往同时需要三种力量。

第一种，是基督（Christ）所代表的力量。

那不是简单的宗教符号，而是文明为什么存在的根基。它回答的是：

什么是善恶？

什么是公义？

为什么权力必须受到约束？

为什么人的生命尊严高于国家、资本与暴力？

《Holy Bible》真正伟大的地方，不只是信仰，而是“约”的观念。也就是说：

人不能高于真理；

权力不能高于公义；

国家不能高于人。

所以，基督精神真正重要的，不是软弱，而是：即使面对十字架，仍不放弃真理与爱的勇气。

这是文明的灵魂之锚。

没有这一层，再强大的国家，也可能重新滑回弱肉强食，让人民沦为“人矿”或“炮灰”。

然而，仅仅有价值与真理，还不够。因为现实世界，并不会自动正义。

法律可能沉默；

制度可能腐化；

契约可能被撕毁；

人民可能无力反抗。

于是，人类文明便会周期性地呼唤第二种力量：佐罗（Zorro）。

佐罗真正伟大的地方，不是武功，而是：他明明可以安全地做一个上层人士，却愿意戴上面具，为普通人承担风险。他不是为了征服世界，不是“枪杆子里面出政权”，而是为了阻止邪恶失控，还人民以安居乐业的生活。

所以，佐罗其实是：

当制度失灵时，对公义的现实承担者。

他让抽象的价值，变成现实中的保护。

而今天这个时代，还出现了第三种文明现象：超级英雄（Superheroes）。

从钢铁侠、蜘蛛侠、美国队长，到蝙蝠侠与复仇者联盟，现代社会为什么越来越沉迷“超级英雄”？

因为现代人越来越感到：

现实制度的运行速度，已经赶不上文明危机的速度。

核武器、生化武器、金融资本、全球组织、AI、信息战争、生物科技……人类第一次面对如此巨大的系统性力量。

于是，大众文化开始不断创造“超级英雄”。

这不仅是幻想，它其实反映了现代文明的一种深层焦虑：

当人拥有越来越强大的力量后，是否还能承担越来越大的责任？

因此，这三种形象，并不是互相冲突的。

而是文明英雄精神的三层递进：

Christ（价值根基）

回答的是：“为什么而战？”

Zorro（现实担当）

回答的是：“谁愿意站出来？”

Superheroes（未来能力）

回答的是：“人在拥有巨大力量后，如何不失去人性？”

而今天中国社会真正缺失的，恰恰是：

既相信更高价值，又敢在现实中承担责任而富有爱之智慧（Amorsophia）的人。

五、“主权在民”不是比较级，而是绝对问题

所以，我始终认为：“主权在民”，不是一个比较级问题。

不是可以讨价还价的问题,而是绝对的问题。

一个政府首先必须对本国人民负责。

一个国家必须守信用。

一个政权不能把枪口与飞弹，对准追求自由与民主的同胞。

这些，不需要复杂理论。

这只是常识。

而在一个连人之常情、常理、常识都可能被扭曲的时代，坚持常识本身，就已经是一种英雄主义。

这也是为什么，今天越来越多中国人，内心深处仍然在呼唤：

真正的英雄。

甚至——超级英雄。

因为人们终于发现：

只有真正建立在“主权在民”、法治与国家信誉基础上的国家，才可能真正挺起脊梁。

否则，再宏大的叙事，也终究只是虚张声势恃强凌弱的懦夫和追逐特殊利益交换灵魂的犬儒行为。

六、尊重历史，放下包袱，面对数位时代的挑战

当代中国人民，当然应该尊重历史。

因为不尊重历史，一个民族就无法理解自己为何一路跌跌撞撞走到今天。

但尊重历史，并不意味着煽动仇恨。

真正成熟的文明，不会永远停留在历史创伤之中。

同样地，放下历史包袱，也并不等于背叛祖先。

因为真正重要的问题，从来不只是：

谁曾失去什么；

而是：

未来的人类文明，究竟还能否避免继续重复同样的悲剧。

因此，比“仇恨”更重要的，是走向未来。

而面向未来，真正的大德硬道理，不再是：

征服谁；

压倒谁；

消灭谁。

而是：

让生产回归生活，

让生活呈现生态，

让生态激励生命。

在数位文明时代，人类第一次同时面对：

• LIFE（生命形态）
• AI（智能形态）
• TRUST（组织形态）

三者深度耦合的历史跃迁。

如果仍然停留在过去那种：

• 强权逻辑；
• 零和逻辑；
• 敌我逻辑；
• 工具理性；

人类文明终将被自身制造出的巨大系统力量反噬。

因此，真正的出路，只能是：

将“LIFE-AI-TRUST”重新置于“Intersubjective Symbiosism（交互主体共生）”的新文明范式之中。

唯其如此：

人才不会重新沦为工具；

AI才不会异化为失控力量；

TRUST才不会退化为操控机器。

而文明，也才能真正从：

“谁征服谁”的旧时代，

走向“生且共生，生生不息”的新文明阶段。

历史最终会记住：

谁在关键时刻守护人民；

谁在关键时刻守护国家信誉；

谁在关键时刻，真正像一个现代国家那样行动。

而时间越久，答案就越清楚。

（如果把历史人物段祺瑞，还有顾维钧，拍一部电影，或做一部动漫，或一款玩家游戏，都会很有看头，且意味深长！）

The Sovereignty of the People and National Credibility Must Neither Be Subject to Arbitrary Disposal Nor Political Bargaining

— Reconsidering “I Am a Christian, and I Also Believe in Zorro”

Archer Hong Qian
Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation (CANADA)
Vancouver · Morning of May 25, 2026

Modern Chinese history presents a profoundly painful yet unavoidable question:

Why has a great civilization with thousands of years of history repeatedly fallen, over the past 166 years, into cycles of territorial loss, the collapse of national credibility, the displacement of its people, and structural distortions of sovereignty?

The issue is not merely one of “national strength versus weakness,” nor simply a matter of “better or worse institutions.”

At a deeper level, the real question is this:

Who truly regarded the sovereignty of the people and national credibility as inviolable bottom lines?

And who merely treated the nation, its people, and its territory as bargaining chips in power struggles and geopolitical transactions?

Today, many discussions about Haishenwai (Vladivostok), Outer Mongolia, the massacres of Chinese laborers and migrants in Siberia, or the Taiwan Strait crises tend to isolate each event from the others. Yet these events are in fact connected through a continuous chain of historical causality.

Within that chain, several turning points stand out as especially decisive.

I. 1924: What Was Torn Apart Was More Than the “Articles of Favorable Treatment”

In 1912, the Qing Empire abdicated.

This was one of the very few large-scale transfers of political power in Chinese history accomplished through a form of peaceful covenant.

The Emperor’s Edict of Abdication signified more than the end of a dynasty. It meant that the Qing court, through legal continuity, transferred the full territorial framework of the “Republic of Five Peoples” to the Republic of China.

Within this process, the “Articles of Favorable Treatment of the Great Qing Emperor after His Abdication” carried profound constitutional significance.

They were not merely ceremonial arrangements for the imperial household. They formed part of the nation’s credibility itself — the contractual foundation for a peaceful transition between old and new regimes.

Yet in 1924, the Beijing Coup erupted.

After Feng Yuxiang launched the coup, he ordered Lu Zhonglin to enter the Forbidden City by force and expel Puyi.

Many people today see this merely as a symbolic act of overthrowing the old era.

But the deeper issue was this:

When those who hold the instruments of state begin publicly tearing up political covenants that they themselves had already signed, what they destroy is not merely the treatment of one emperor, but the credibility of the nation itself.

And once national credibility collapses, the chain reactions often emerge decades later.

The eighteen-year-old Puyi — functioning as a kind of political totem — soon turned toward Japanese power after being expelled from the Forbidden City.

Subsequently, the Japanese Kwantung Army used the slogan of “restoring Manchurian legitimacy” to establish the puppet state of Manchukuo.

Most people only see the Mukden Incident of 1931, while overlooking the fact that the political pretext had already been planted through the contractual rupture of 1924.

Even more seriously, the geopolitical upheaval in Northeast Asia further triggered the Soviet Union’s growing hostility toward Chinese communities in the Russian Far East.

From 1936 to 1938, Stalin carried out large-scale anti-Chinese purges, deportations, and forced relocations in Vladivostok and surrounding regions.

The Chinese communities that had existed there for centuries were nearly wiped out completely.

At the same time, Russia’s historical logic of expansion revealed itself once again:

Kill all, seize all, burn all, colonize all.

From Crimea after 1792, to Vladivostok after 1860, and later to the Siberian Far East during the purges of 1936–1938, the underlying logic scarcely changed.

II. 1918: Duan Qirui and “Real Statecraft”

Yet history is not always darkness.

At the very moment when China was at its weakest, poorest, most fragmented, and most chaotic, one of the rarest moments of genuine modern state behavior emerged.

In 1918, Duan Qirui’s government dispatched forces to Vladivostok and Siberia.

Today, when people discuss the Beiyang Government, they usually remember only warlord conflict and internal division.

What they often overlook is this:

At the moment when foreign powers surrounded China, the Russian Civil War erupted, and order in the Far East collapsed, the Beiyang Government nonetheless carried out one of the rare sovereign actions in modern Chinese history.

Duan Qirui dispatched elite naval and army units to the Russian Far East.

Commanders such as Song Huanzhang and Su Bingwen coordinated with the navy to open and defend evacuation corridors for Chinese laborers and overseas Chinese refugees fleeing the chaos.

This was not rhetoric.

It was armed evacuation at the cost of human lives.

It was the first truly large-scale overseas military protection operation for Chinese civilians in modern Chinese history.

At the same time, Duan Qirui and Xu Shuzheng seized the strategic opening created by the Russian Civil War and recovered Outer Mongolia in 1919 without major bloodshed.

Today, many people explain everything through slogans such as “a weak nation has no diplomacy” or “backwardness invites aggression.”

Yet the Beiyang Government at that time was weaker than many later Chinese regimes.

The issue was never weakness itself.

The issue was:

Did they possess backbone?

Did they possess responsibility?

Did they truly regard national credibility, territory, and the people as things that could not be abandoned?

Incidentally, the Nationalist Government during the War of Resistance against Japan was also not strong. Yet through diplomatic efforts led by figures such as Wellington Koo, the Treaty for the Relinquishment of Extraterritorial Rights in China was signed between China and the United States on January 11, 1943, while the new Sino-British Equal Treaty was signed in Chongqing.

Subsequently, Belgium, Norway, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Denmark, Portugal, and others signed similar agreements with the Republic of China.

Ironically, two days before the Anglo-American treaties were signed, Japan itself signed agreements with the Wang Jingwei regime to relinquish concessions and abolish extraterritorial rights. The Vichy French and Italian governments did likewise later that same year.

And yet, perhaps the cruelest truth in history is this:

Without comparison, there can be no sense of injury.

III. After 1949: Territorial Recognition and Missile Politics

After 1949, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait entered a prolonged division.

But the truly ironic historical contrast emerged after both “retaking the mainland” and “liberating Taiwan” had already become historical ghosts.

The first development was that, from the 1990s through 2004, the Beijing authorities successively signed border agreements with the Soviet Union and later Russia, formally recognizing the legality of vast territorial losses occupied by Russia.

This meant that the historical disputes over Vladivostok and approximately 1.5 million square kilometers of territory were conclusively settled in legal terms.

Yet at the same time, another historic event unfolded.

On March 23, 1996, the Republic of China on Taiwan held its first direct presidential election.

For the first time in Chinese history, a Chinese society truly practiced constitutional democracy grounded in the principle that sovereignty belongs to the people.

It was a historic moment of modern constitutional transformation.

Yet Beijing’s response was to launch missiles into the waters surrounding Taiwan, triggering the Taiwan Strait Crisis.

From March 8 to March 15, multiple DF-15 short-range ballistic missiles were fired into waters near Keelung and Kaohsiung, with some impact zones lying only a few dozen nautical miles from Taiwan’s coast. Major international shipping lanes were effectively blockaded. Meanwhile, over one hundred thousand troops gathered along the Fujian coast for large-scale amphibious exercises.

Thus emerged a striking historical contrast:

On one side, formal legal recognition of historical territorial losses abroad;

On the other, missile intimidation directed at democratic elections among fellow Chinese people.

This contrast profoundly shocked many observers of history.

Because it exposed a deeper reality:

What certain ruling structures — what may be called Chinese Reproductive Officialdom (CRO) — truly fear is not necessarily external great powers, but the mirror presented by “popular sovereignty.”

IV. Why Do Chinese People Still Long for Heroes?

This is why I increasingly feel that what Chinese society lacks today is not merely institutions, wealth, or technology.

What it lacks is heroic spirit.

Not slogan-driven heroes.

Not heroes of grandiose propaganda.

But people genuinely willing to defend common sense, covenant, the people, and national credibility.

This is why I increasingly resonate with one sentence:

“I Am a Christian, and I Also Believe in Zorro.”

At first hearing, many people may find this strange.

Yet it actually reflects one of the deepest spiritual structures of modern civilization.

For when civilization is truly healthy, it generally requires three different kinds of strength simultaneously.

The first is the force represented by Christ.

This is not merely a religious symbol.

It is the foundation for why civilization exists at all.

It asks:

What is good and evil?

What is justice?

Why must power be restrained?

Why is human dignity greater than the state, capital, or violence?

The greatness of the Holy Bible lies not merely in faith, but in the idea of covenant.

That is:

Human beings cannot stand above truth.

Power cannot stand above justice.

The state cannot stand above the human person.

Thus, what truly matters about the spirit of Christ is not weakness, but the courage to refuse to abandon truth and love even in the face of the Cross.

This is the spiritual anchor of civilization.

Without it, even the strongest states may descend once more into the law of the jungle, reducing people into extractable “human resources” or disposable cannon fodder.

Yet values and truth alone are still not enough.

Because the real world does not automatically become just.

Law may fall silent.

Institutions may decay.

Covenants may be torn apart.

The people may become powerless.

And so civilization periodically calls for a second force:

Zorro.

What makes Zorro truly great is not swordsmanship.

It is the fact that he could safely remain a privileged elite, yet willingly chooses to wear a mask and assume risks for ordinary people.

He does not seek to conquer the world.

He does not believe that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Rather, he seeks to prevent evil from spiraling out of control and to restore peaceful life to ordinary people.

Thus, Zorro represents:

The practical bearer of justice when institutions fail.

He transforms abstract values into real-world protection.

And now, in our own era, a third civilizational phenomenon has emerged:

Superheroes.

From Iron Man and Spider-Man to Captain America, Batman, and the Avengers, why has modern society become increasingly obsessed with superheroes?

Because modern humanity increasingly senses that the speed of institutional response can no longer keep pace with the speed of civilizational crisis.

Nuclear weapons, bioweapons, financial capital, global organizations, AI, information warfare, biotechnology…

Humanity is confronting systemic forces on an unprecedented scale.

And so popular culture continuously creates superheroes.

This is not merely fantasy.

It reflects a profound anxiety within modern civilization:

Once human beings possess ever-greater power, can they still bear ever-greater responsibility?

Thus, these three figures are not mutually contradictory.

Rather, they represent three ascending layers of heroic civilization:

Christ (Foundation of Values)
Answers: “Why do we fight?”

Zorro (Practical Responsibility)
Answers: “Who is willing to stand up?”

Superheroes (Future Capacity)
Answer: “How can humanity wield immense power without losing its humanity?”

And what Chinese society truly lacks today is precisely this:

People who both believe in higher values and possess the courage — guided by Amorsophia, the Wisdom of Love — to assume responsibility in reality.

V. “Popular Sovereignty” Is Not Comparative — It Is Absolute

For this reason, I have always believed:

“Popular sovereignty” is not a comparative question.

It is not something open to negotiation.

It is an absolute principle.

A government must first and foremost be responsible to its own people.

A nation must keep its word.

A regime must never direct guns or missiles toward fellow citizens pursuing freedom and democracy.

None of this requires complicated theories.

It is simply common sense.

And in an age where even common human feeling, common reason, and common sense can be distorted, insisting upon common sense itself becomes a form of heroism.

This is why increasing numbers of Chinese people continue, deep within themselves, to long for:

Real heroes.

Even superheroes.

Because people are finally beginning to realize:

Only a nation truly grounded in popular sovereignty, the rule of law, and national credibility can genuinely stand upright.

Otherwise, even the grandest narratives eventually become nothing more than cowardly displays of bullying power and cynical exchanges of conscience for special interests.

VI. Respect History, Lay Down Burdens, and Face the Challenges of the Digital Age

Contemporary Chinese people should, of course, respect history.

For without respecting history, a nation cannot understand why it arrived where it stands today.

But respecting history does not mean inciting hatred.

A mature civilization cannot remain forever trapped within historical trauma.

Likewise, laying down historical burdens does not mean betraying one’s ancestors.

Because the truly important question is no longer merely:

Who once lost what?

Rather, it is this:

Can human civilization still avoid repeating the same tragedies in the future?

Thus, more important than hatred is the ability to move toward the future.

And in facing the future, the deepest civilizational imperative is no longer:

To conquer others;

To crush others;

To eliminate others.

Rather, it is:

To let production return to life;

To let life reveal ecology;

To let ecology inspire life.

In the age of digital civilization, humanity is confronting for the first time the profound coupling of:

• LIFE (forms of life)
• AI (forms of intelligence)
• TRUST (forms of organization)

If humanity remains trapped within:

• power politics,
• zero-sum logic,
• enemy-versus-self thinking,
• and purely instrumental rationality,

then civilization will ultimately be devoured by the immense systemic forces it has itself created.

Therefore, the only genuine path forward is to reposition LIFE–AI–TRUST within the new civilizational paradigm of:

Intersubjective Symbiosism.

Only in this way:

Will human beings avoid becoming mere tools once again;

Will AI avoid degenerating into an uncontrollable force;

Will TRUST avoid collapsing into systems of manipulation.

And only then can civilization truly move from the old era of:

“Who conquers whom”

toward a new civilizational stage of:

“Live and let live — life and symbiosis flourishing endlessly.”

History will ultimately remember:

Who protected the people at decisive moments;

Who defended national credibility at decisive moments;

And who, at decisive moments, truly acted like a modern state.

And the longer time passes, the clearer the answers will become.