U.S. Seeks to Balance Security, Rights in War on Terrorism
(U.S. Consul General Keith December 19 remarks in Hong Kong) (4010) While Americans were shocked by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, they have also set about with resolve to triumph in the war against terrorism, according to the United States Consul General in Hong Kong James Keith. In remarks December 19 at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Hong Kong, Keith said "controversy associated with ongoing efforts to restructure our means of dealing with terrorists" exemplifies the tension between protecting individual rights and securing the safety of larger society. The United States, he said, is reshaping its law enforcement and intelligence-gathering activities, as well as rethinking "assumptions about the balance between national security and the inalienable rights of the individual." Keith noted how all governments "are now challenged to live up to the demands of free society while at the same time preventing another September 11 or another Bali bombing." Keith quoted U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who said when he visited Hong Kong: "We will not surrender to terrorism by altering our commitment to civil liberties." The U.S. diplomat also cited New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who observed that "the chants in Iran have transformed from 'Death to America' that we all knew so well in years past to 'Death to dictatorship' in the post 9/11 world." Keith said he believed Friedman correctly ascribed significance "to the home-grown perception that true democracy is the way around the obstacles to development and evolution in the Arab Muslim world." It is becoming "increasingly difficult to carry off 'the big lie' when people are thinking for themselves, are armed with information from outside sources, and are able to express their heart-felt views," Keith said. Following is the text of Consul General Keith's December 19 remarks, as prepared for delivery, and a partial transcript of the subsequent question-and-answer session: (begin text) "September 11 Was a Powerfully Clarifying Event" Remarks by U.S. Consul General James R. Keith Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong December 19, 2002 (As prepared for delivery) Thank you for inviting me to the FCC today for this celebration of one of the world's most remarkable documents. We are here to commemorate the anniversary of the Bill of Rights, which was ratified on December 15, 1791. On this the 211th anniversary, it is appropriate that we pause and take note of the enduring value of this extraordinary document. And it is all the more important that we do so in light of the rush of events in this first year of the 21st century. The Current Context It is hard to convey to an audience overseas, removed from the daily rhythms of life in America, the profound force of the September 11 attacks. One thing is sure: the renewed sense of patriotism in the United States since 9/11 pays appropriate respect to the founders' ideas and is grounded in the defense and promotion of the inalienable rights that launched our great nation. What have we learned since September 11? One observer has written that "trauma educates." We crossed a divide and now face a new reality. As a nation we are aware of our vulnerability now, and we have grown stronger. We realized that 19 men could cause chaos in our country over the space of two hours. But in ways that we commemorated not so long ago at the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, we also united in a common purpose, and powerfully so. Winston Churchill described his overwhelming sense of relief when he finally knew that the Americans were in the Second World War. He knew immediately that the allies had won; there were battles to be fought, lives young and old to be lost, but the outcome was determined. He had seen our determination in our own civil war and our cohesion over the course of the assaults of the 20th century. Despite our varied backgrounds, religions, classes, and ethnicity, we Americans came together as one to defend and protect the fundamental values that defined us. The President, in his introduction to his National Security Strategy Report, enumerated our core values: "People everywhere want to be able to speak freely; choose who will govern them; worship as they please; educate their children-male and female; own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society." How We Got Here We came to our realization of these fundamental principles by dint of hard work borne of sometimes painful experience. The first settlers decided upon social and political organization that emphasized "just and equal" laws that were framed by leaders of their own choosing. This focus was passed down through the generations to the leaders who founded our nation. Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence that the goal of government was understood to be the protection of inalienable rights. Since these rights preceded the government, the founders believed that government may not abridge these rights in arbitrary fashion or without due respect for the law. The United States Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, was designed to provide effective self-government that would preserve and protect these inalienable rights. There was a reason, however, for debate that swirled within the confines of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Federalists favored a strong central government and ratification of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison strongly supported the Constitution as it was written. They considered a Bill of Rights superfluous and worried that enumerating the rights would result in popular assault on the moderate approach necessary to constitutional self-government. Federalists were also concerned that creating a list of rights would automatically relegate those rights not included to second-rate status. Anti-federalists, such as George Mason, feared a strong central government that might abuse its power to tax and its supremacy over state laws and legislative bodies. Mason argued that a bill of rights "would give great quiet to the people." In late 1787, over the objections of the anti-Federalists, the Constitutional Convention adjourned and sent the new Constitution to Congress. The Congress sent it to the states for ratification. In June of 1788, New Hampshire became the 9th state to ratify the Constitution, ensuring that it would replace the Articles of Confederation. New York and Virginia had yet to ratify. Massachusetts had ratified, but had proposed amendments. Virginia and New York ratified that summer, but they followed Massachusetts in submitting long lists of amendments. New York went so far as to call for a second Constitutional Convention. The Federalists continued to enjoy a majority in Congress, but public opinion began to shift in favor of the anti-Federalists and a bill of rights. Madison, although originally opposed to a bill of rights, gave primacy to securing the loyalty of the American people to the Constitution. Jefferson was serving as Minister to France by this time. He and Madison corresponded. Jefferson challenged Madison's concerns about enumerating the rights in a bill. With regard to securing liberty, Jefferson argued, "half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can." Madison also worried that a bill of rights would not stop popular majorities from enforcing their will. All the more reason, Jefferson rejoined, to provide the judiciary branch with a bill of rights to check the legislative branch. By 1789 Madison had adjusted his views and was working to convince his colleagues in Congress - most of them Federalists - that it was prudent and wise to support a bill of rights that would highlight some of America's most important freedoms without undermining the recently ratified Constitution. Finally, on August 24, 1789, a list of 17 amendments was sent to the Senate. The Senate approved 12, and Congress sent these to the states for ratification. After two years, on December 15, 1791, Virginia's state convention ratified; it was the last to do so. It was then that 10 of the 12 amendments became the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Over the course of the 18th and early 19th centuries the small federal government combined with strong respect for states' powers left the Supreme Court with little to do as far as the Bill of Rights was concerned. Henry David Thoreau observed: "This American government -- what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? ...Governments show ...how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise.... It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way." The federal government took on an increasingly prominent role in the 20th century. Since 1900, the federal government has become much more active in many areas of American life: labor and business regulation in the period 1900-1920; New Deal programs such as public works, economic subsidies, and social security in the 1930s; military strength and defense policies in the 1940s and 50s; anti-poverty programs and the space race in the 1960s; environmental regulation and education in the 1970s; the Cold War dominated through this period and came to a head with the nuclear arms race in the 1980s; and health and entitlements programs in the 1990s, not to mention the emergence of corporate governance and the war on terror that are so much a part of our lives today. The size, purpose, and significance of the federal government was transformed in the process, creating a host of challenges for the judicial branch. Where That Leaves Us Concomitant with the expansion of federal power was the diminishment of state power over the last 150 years. The Civil War rendered the states subservient to the national government, ending any state sovereignty. The Bill of Rights, the source of little controversy before 1900, gradually came to the fore and has come to occupy center stage in American society and politics. Where there is lack of consensus on important political and social questions in America today the debate seems to center on our interpretation of these inalienable rights. Standards vary among interest groups as to what "speech" consists of, what language is appropriate and reasonable. Americans disagree on what punishments are cruel or unusual; on whether protections for criminals and the accused have gone too far; whether the right to bear arms applies in modern society. And the disagreements continue. In this venue I know that you are all familiar with the controversy associated with ongoing efforts to restructure our means of dealing with terrorists. We're reshaping our law enforcement and intelligence-gathering activities, reorganizing under the homeland security department, and rethinking our assumptions about the balance between national security and the inalienable rights of the individual. The USA Patriot Act loosened some standards and updated authorities to cope with new technologies, new terrorist tactics, and new terrorist threats. These steps will continue to be the subject of robust debates. They touch on our fundamental conception of what it means to be an American, and also on the fundamental duty of our government officials, which is to uphold and defend the Constitution and to protect and serve the American people, including by doing our utmost to ensure their security. In these turbulent times, it can be hard to discern a reason to maintain a positive outlook. It is easier to give in to dire predictions and the cynicism that seems to be such a ubiquitous sentiment in the modern era. But I would point to some bright rays of hope. The columnist Thomas Friedman recently noted that the chants in Iran have transformed from "Death to America" that we all knew so well in years past to "Death to dictatorship" in the post 9/11 world. Friedman acknowledges that the demonstrators have scant power and can be easily crushed in Iran. Nevertheless, I believe he rightly ascribes significance to the home-grown perception that true democracy is the way around the obstacles to development and evolution in the Arab Muslim world. It becomes increasingly difficult to carry off "the big lie" when people are thinking for themselves, are armed with information from outside sources, and are able to express their heart-felt views. This is the legacy that the Bill of Rights has bequeathed to the 21st century. So all governments are now challenged to live up to the demands of free society while at the same time preventing another September 11 or another Bali bombing. As Attorney General Ashcroft remarked when he was in Hong Kong recently, "we will not surrender to terrorism by altering our commitment to civil liberties." The Attorney General was re-stating a principle that goes back to the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson said in a 1787 letter to James Madison that "a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." I congratulate the FCC for providing the occasion to resurrect the foundations for our common conviction that we must stand up for our inalienable rights, that our societies are better off for our doing so. In conclusion, I would like to quote our President in his September 12 address to the United Nations Security Council: "We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand." Thank you. (end text of remarks) (begin transcript of Q&A session) Q&A session Following remarks to the FCC by U.S. Consul General James R. Keith Thursday, December 19, 2002 Q: (Keith Bradsher, New York Times): Since you talk about the Bill of Rights, maybe a question on Article 23 for some of the local concerns -- a surprising question, yes. Three questions: One, I guess the State Department did have just those three sentences about a month ago on Article 23. Are you in a position to elaborate on that? Does the United States think that there should be a white bill, as some other governments have begun calling for? Do you perceive an economic threat, including to U.S. businesses? And how, if at all, has the United States expressed this concern directly to Beijing or Hong Kong? Consul General Keith: Well, there are an awful lot of questions embedded there, Keith. Thank you for bringing up the subject. I'm not surprised that you did, and am glad that you did. I appreciate having an opportunity to go a little more into detail. Everyone here is familiar with the American statement, which of course is of a piece with statements by other governments that have interests here in Hong Kong, and by various chambers, not to mention various sectors of society. To skip to your second question -- I believe it was -- first, clearly, those representatives of the economic sectors and commercial sectors and financial sectors that are of interest here in Hong Kong should speak for themselves. I think they have done so, and in fact, I think, looking back over the consultation period, one might take a step back and think about where we are. That is, Hong Kong is seeing a vigorous debate. It's unfettered, and people are commenting with their uncensored views. This is the kind of environment that people have known for a long time in Hong Kong, and it is precisely in order to sustain that kind of environment that people are speaking up. Without putting words in the mouths of those who are already speaking, I think it is clear from an international community perspective that the government, through its consultation document, not only got the attention of the international community, but as we have said in various statements - either through the American government statement, the American Chamber, or others who are interested - there are some concerns about the fundamental issues that have been raised. Unfortunately, it is hard to go into much more detail than that, because there isn't much more detail upon which to comment. Ideally, we would not be talking about a consultation document but about the law itself. Until we have the law itself, it will be hard to either confirm or dismiss worst-case scenarios. Certainly our interest, and the history of our interaction since I've been here, is in getting out into the public hands at the earliest opportunity the law itself. That's the kind of development that could perhaps help this move to a more productive phase. At this point, people are talking about principles. I think the principles are well understood on both sides. What needs to happen now is for people to be able to understand those details that everyone has focused on as being critical to whether the government hits the target of doing the minimal necessary to meet the demands of the Basic Law. or exceeds those bounds. One can take the Solicitor General's words at face value. In recent commentary, he's made it clear that that's their intention, is to hit that target. I don't think anyone can really draw a final conclusion or evaluate how well the government has done in advancing that goal until we have the law before us. Thus, the request from all quarters, it seems, for the government to put the text, the specifics, of the legislation out into the public hands at the earliest opportunity. As far as describing our interaction, I think it is clear from the public remarks we've made, without going into the details of government-to-government conversations, that the international community - and speaking for the American part of that - has registered both publicly and privately with the Hong Kong government our concern that "One Country, Two Systems" is important, that we care about Hong Kong's success, and that we care about the success of "One Country, Two Systems." That is an element of what's at stake here. One wants to see the Basic Law fulfilled in its call for Hong Kong to enact, on its own, this legislation, which I think brings the whole question of "One Country, Two Systems" into the equation. Q: (Francis Moriarty, RTHK): Just an observation and a question. You mentioned the Articles of Confederation. When researching the precedents put forward by the Hong Kong government for some of its proposals in the consultation paper, it was interesting to see that some of them - one that pops to mind is misprision of treason - was citing the Massachusetts law, which was taken from the British law at the time of the Articles of Confederation and is now being cited as a law. So the history kind of lives on. My question is this: As somebody who has spent a long time in Hong Kong, and who knows the community pretty well, you have a pretty good idea what it takes to get thousands of people out in the street on an issue. You've just seen a crowd of 12,000 to 60,000 people in the street. The solution of people marching on their feet, trying to address these issues.... What thoughts go through your mind? Consul General Keith: As I alluded to in my answer to Keith's question, in the first instance you see a robust civil society at work. This is in some ways a good thing, that is, you have an orderly demonstration - and we have them in the United States, too, in a mature democracy with "Million Man" marches and any other kind of orderly process that allows people to express peacefully their personal or political views. That's a good thing as far as it goes, but - and Secretary Powell has addressed this issue in the past - in America, we don't believe we have all the answers. I think as the previous question indicates, there are certainly areas where vigorous debate is not only welcome but completely justified, because these are tough decisions that we are making in the balance, in the post-September 11 world, between public order and liberty. But one advantage we have in the United States is, if the American people are completely with the kinds of decisions we've made after September 11th, you can simply vote the bums out. I think that's a much healthier way of dealing with dissatisfaction with government than spilling tens of thousands of people onto the street. Not to criticize what happened. I think it was an orderly process and expressed very sincere, deeply held views, and is something that I am sure the government will sit up and take notice of. That said, this ought to be a supplement to a democratic process that allows people to exercise their voice at the ballot box. It ought not to be the only or the preferred means of expressing popular opinion, it seems to me. Therefore, as we have argued in our public papers and as I've said many times publicly before, ultimately on Article 23, for example - to take the most prominent and recent example - the issue is about trust in government, and trust in government's ability to implement new legislation. The best means of governing that and guaranteeing good implementation, it seems to me, is further progress towards democratization that is called for in the Basic Law. .... Q: (Keith Bradsher, New York Times): Coming back to Article 23, though, one last time: When you say that the government should take the opportunity to get the actual law itself out as soon as possible, are you saying it should be done - does the U.S. position go to the extent of saying it should be put out as a consultation document or as an actual blue bill? That is, in what form should it be put out as soon as possible: Should it be put out in the form in which it is not yet legal language that is going through the legislative process? Consul General Keith: I am not an expert on the mechanism of a white bill versus a blue bill. What I think out to happen is, as soon as practicable, the text of the preliminary law - that is, the text of the law that the government intends to promote - ought to be put in the hands of the public for public digestion. That is, there ought to be plenty of opportunity, and there ought not to be restrictions on the public's ability to respond to and debate about those specific provisions of the law. What mechanism the government chooses is something for the Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong government to decide. It is no more for the United States than it is for any other outside entity to determine how Hong Kong does this on its own. It's up to the Hong Kong authorities in consultation with the Hong Kong people to do that. My instinct is - it's pure common sense that drives this - my instinct is that there is a way to do it, whether it is by means of one of these mechanisms that you've just addressed or some other, I am confident that there is a means to put the law in the hands of the public and give the public - including Legislative Council members - plenty of time to digest, debate and deliberate over the specifics of the text. Thank you all very much. (end transcript of Q&A session) (end text) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
