19 December 2002
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
|
|
|
