ambassador speeches

U.S. Perspective on Freedom of Speech and Human Rights in the Age of Terrorism

March 29, 2006 at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Thank you for including me in this conference to discuss the very timely and important topic of “Freedom of Speech and Human Rights in the Age of Terrorism.”  I would like to share with you today the U.S. perspective on the delicate balancing act we have witnessed recently as our societies struggle with how to uphold certain fundamental rights and values in a multi-cultural world, and how this issue has been twisted by extremists who would use violence and intimidation to prevent the spread of those very values around the world. 

There are basically three main principles under which the U.S. government has approached the question of the role of free speech and respect for human rights in the context of today’s global war on terror.  These are:  (1) that democracy is the system best equipped to combat terrorism and reconcile the values of freedom, tolerance and justice in a society; (2) the principles of a free press and freedom of expression are fundamental to a democratic society and cannot be compromised, although there is a corollary issue of press responsibility that goes with these rights; and (3) as a society we embrace freedom of assembly and democratic debate; protests are legitimate, but violence, threats and intimidation can never be excused or accepted as a justifiable means of dissent.

To begin, the U.S. is one of the largest supporters of democracy around the world.  We firmly believe that it is only under a democratic system that the values of tolerance, mutual respect and fundamental freedoms can be protected in a pluralistic world.  Without these vital values, we would not be able to co-exist in a world of so many different peoples and religions.  My own country is a living example of this:  In America, we welcome people of all faiths, races, and ethnic origins, and we have enshrined in our constitution the principles of religious freedom and equality that promote tolerance and understanding. 

I’ll be the first to admit that the United States has faced many challenges during its history that threatened the exercise of these fundamental principles, and we have learned from our own mistakes.  From the discriminatory laws segregating races after the end of slavery, to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s that persecuted those suspected of Communist sympathies, to impediments to equality of the sexes in the workplace, there have been many instances in my own country where one group sought to protect its own beliefs, rights or status at the expense of another, frequently less powerful group.  At its extreme, civil war in the 1860’s nearly tore the U.S. in two over the question of slavery and human rights.  Fortunately, the democratic framework that our founding fathers created was able to survive and provide the means to overcome these threats – whether by public ballot, appeal to the judicial system, new legislation or even constitutional amendment – to ensure that all peoples and beliefs are accorded equal rights under the law. 

From our own history we recognize that democracy is an evolving concept, one in which we continually strive to improve our own system of rights and their protections and to assist other countries in doing so as well.  We don’t expect all countries and societies to reflect our own democratic model, but we do hope to encourage the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms around the world, as the basis for a more peaceful global co-existence.  Unfortunately, this is exactly what terrorists seek to repress.  Democratic reform is in itself a very potent weapon that prevents the spread of extremist and violent ideologies.  The mutual efforts of many countries to promote international peace, long-term stability, democracy building, humanitarian relief, and human rights will do much to improve the conditions in many countries where repression and poverty allow terrorist ideologies to flourish.  The Czech Republic is an outstanding example of such efforts, as its work in places like Belarus, Burma and Cuba attest.  Participation of a population in their political and economic life ensures that feelings of insecurity, powerlessness, hate and marginalization do not find fertile ground.  As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan once said, "When the founders of the United Nations met in San Francisco more than half a century ago, they knew that no foundation of peace would be sturdier than democratic government." These words are even more true today as terrorists strive to impose their own dictatorships and eliminate the freedoms and respect for democracy that have taken root around the world. 

Secondly, the U.S. is a strong proponent of freedom of the press.  It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development, and it means that the decision of what to publish is a decision for newspapers, not a decision for governments.  Let me repeat: Governments should not tell newspapers what to publish.  In the recent case involving the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, the Danish government didn’t tell the newspapers what to publish and this should be the case for any free society.  In free societies, newspaper editors make this decision without pressure from the ruling party. 
That said, we also believe that with press freedom comes a certain responsibility.  More than 100 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that freedom of speech is not an unlimited freedom, stating that, “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a panic.”  This is the yardstick by which we measure all questions of appropriate exercise of freedom of speech.  All of our senior leaders, from President Bush to Secretary Rice, have been very clear about reminding people of this important corollary to freedom of speech.  It is also important to bear in mind that the right to free speech must be exercised in conjunction with respect for other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of religion.  In countries that accept freedom of religion as a founding principle, it logically means that people have to exist in that same country and respect each others religious traditions and sensibilities.  A responsible free press should take these issues into consideration when making judgments about what to publish. 

Thus, we categorically reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press.  No one has the right to express outrage in a way that kills or injures the innocent, and violence, threats and intimidation can never be considered an acceptable means of protest.  The burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies (and corollary damage to the Chilean and Swedish embassies) in Damascus earlier this year was inexcusable.  Rather, outrage and disagreement can legitimately be expressed peacefully, through non-violent demonstrations, petitions, media campaigns or other appropriate venues.  Allowing differences of opinion to spin out of control is a failure of good government, which is better deployed to stop violence, encourage mutual respect and to protect the property and lives of those within its borders.

Finally, I believe that no speech on this topic would be complete without a mention of the new UN Human Rights Council.  Since the United Nations was created in 1945, it has been an important voice on protection of human rights.  This voice is no less important today as many nations cooperate with one another to encourage global peace and understanding and alleviate human suffering against a backdrop of terrorist networks that are doing their best to sabotage this good work. 

While the United States did not join consensus on the General Assembly resolution to reform the discredited Human Rights Commission and transform it into a more credible body, we remain committed to work cooperatively with other Member States to make the Council as strong and effective as it can be.  We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look forward to a serious review of the Council’s structure and work.  We remain committed to support the UN’s historic mission to promote and protect the basic human rights of all the world’s citizens.  The real test will be the quality of membership that emerges on this new Council, and whether it takes effective action to address serious human rights abuse cases like Sudan, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Belarus and Burma. 

As always, our commitment to support all institutions that advance democracy and human rights remain a high priority.  We recognize that in this pluralistic world of ours, disagreements can and will happen and tensions may rise, but when that does occur we stand with our friends and allies in urging a constructive and peaceful dialogue as the best means of resolution.  Thank you for your attention