20
六月

英美外交的普世價值

作者 : 雅帆   在 邁向現代 Road to Modernity

「美國總統奧巴馬」(Barack Obama, President, United States of America) 於上月(5月)下旬訪問歐洲,當中包括5月24至26日一連三天官式訪問英國,並應英女王邀請下榻白金漢宮,又獲於「綠園」(Green Park) 及「倫敦塔」(Tower of London) 兩個皇家地方分別「鳴放禮炮」(guns salutes) 41及62響的最高致敬禮儀歡迎,足見英國隆重其事。三天緊密行程中,5月25日下午3時於倫敦「西敏宮大堂」(Westminster Hall, London;現為國會大樓),奧巴馬成為第一位在位的美國總統向英國上、下兩院議員,包括幾位前首相,發表演說,舉世矚目。

讀者 K M Lam 君於網誌229〈王室與平民〉一文的廻響中,希望介紹這篇演說。該演辭強調英美兩國歷史悠久、牢不可破的「特殊兼重要關係」(special and essential relationship);又詳述兩國繼續在彼此之間及國際舞台的合作,就此作出反應的國際輿論已多真知灼見,在此不贅。雅帆最感興趣的,卻是奧巴馬引述英國前首相「邱吉爾爵士」的一段重要說話。

「溫斯頓.邱吉爾爵士」(Sir Winston Churchill;1874年11月30日–1965年1月24日) 是英國傑出政治家、軍事家、演說家和作家,曾於1940年至1945年初度出任英國首相,任期內領導英國在第二次世界大戰聯合美國、對抗德國,取得勝利;並自1951年至1955年再度出任英國首相。邱吉爾被認為是20世紀最重要的政治領袖之一,對英國及至世界均影響深遠。此外,他在文學上也有很高的成就,曾於1953年獲諾貝爾文學獎。

邱吉爾逝世後,英女王下令安排其靈柩在西敏宮大堂停靈三日,供民眾弔唁;其後,在聖保祿大教堂舉行國葬儀式。這是英國自1914年以來,首次有非王室成員舉行如此高規格的葬禮,而自他以後,至今亦未曾舉行同等級的葬禮。另外,議會也休會三天,以示悼念。在2002年,英國廣播公司 (BBC) 舉行「最偉大的100名英國人」之調查,結果邱吉爾獲選為有史以來最偉大的英國人。

邱吉爾終其一生,曾發表無數重要演說。於1946年3月5日,當時在野的邱吉爾應「杜魯門總統」(President Truman) 之邀請,出席「美國密蘇里州富爾頓市西敏書院」(Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, USA) 發表著名的《The Sinews of Peace》(和平砥柱演說),又名《The Iron Curtain Speech》(鐵幕演說),皆因他在演辭中帶出「鐵幕」(iron curtain;指中歐及東歐一組前共產主義國家) 這個概念:

「From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. (從波羅的海邊的什切青到亞得里亞海邊的的里雅斯特,一幅橫貫歐洲大陸的鐵幕已經拉下。)」

其主題是警告西方國家有關前蘇聯的共產主義席捲中歐及東歐國家,造成極權統治;並談及英美兩國發展的「特殊關係」,將繼續強而有力、具爭議性地影響英國的外交政策。奧巴馬的英國國會演說,可見邱吉爾《鐵幕演說》的影子,深受影響,並引述其中部分,現將該部分於《鐵幕演說》中前文後理有關的兩段完整錄述如下:

「‥‥Now I come to the second of the two marauders, to the second danger which threatens the cottage homes, and the ordinary people — namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the United States and throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments to a degree which is overwhelming and contrary to every principle of democracy. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.

All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practice — let us practice what we preach.‥‥」

當中點出英美同樣無懼於捍衛「自由」及「人權」(freedom and the rights of man) 的重要原則,這些原則在英語世界歷史悠久,源出英國的《大憲章》(Magna Carta)、《人權法》(the Bill of Rights)、《人身保護令》(Habeas Corpus)、「陪審團審判」(Jury Trial) 及「普通法」(Common Law)。雅帆有興趣淺探這五項發展並體現現代自由、民主、人權與法治基礎的政治文件及理念。

《鐵幕演說》提及第一項的政治文件《大憲章》(拉丁語:Magna Carta;英語:The Great Charter),是英國於1215年訂立的政治性文件,四年後(2015年)將具八百年歷史,是當代封建貴族用來抗衡「英王約翰」(King John) 無尚權力的一份保障協議。話說當年英王約翰威望下降,遭受來自三方面的壓力:首先,他奪得王位的手法遭人非議,前任英王「獅心王理查一世」(King Richard I, the Lion Heart) 在1199年死後無子嗣,出現兩名繼承人,即理查的侄兒亞瑟;和理查的弟弟約翰。約翰將他的侄兒不列塔尼的亞瑟囚禁,之後全無音訊,很多人認為約翰將他的親人暗殺以奪取王位。第二,約翰與教皇就坎特伯雷大主教的任命發生爭執,於是教庭懲罰英格蘭,約翰被迫於1213年向教皇屈服。第三,當時法國國王佔領了英國在諾曼第的大部份土地,英國貴族要求國王奪回領土,在1214年,約翰對法國發動戰爭,卻遭遇大敗。

與此同時,英王約翰、教皇及封建貴族對王室的權力出現意見分歧,因而制定《大憲章》,要求王室:放棄部分權力;尊重司法過程;及同意王權必須接受法律的限制。《大憲章》於是開啟了英國建立「憲法政治」的長遠歷史過程。

1215年6月10日,英格蘭的封建貴族在倫敦聚集,挾持英王約翰,約翰被迫贊成貴族提出的《男爵法案》(Articles of the Barons)。同年6月15日,約翰在「蘭尼美德」(RunnyMede) 為法案蓋簽王室印章,貴族在4日後(6月19日)重申效忠約翰。最後王室秘書將國王與貴族間的協議正式登錄,即成為《大憲章最初版》。

內容源自亨利一世時期所頒佈的《自由憲章》(Charter of Liberties),《大憲章》確立了英國貴族享有的政治權利與自由,保障了教會不受國王的控制;同時亦改革了法律和司法,限制了國王及王室官員的行為。

《大憲章》的主題是「限制權力的濫用」和「推行法治的實施」;其最初版有63條條款,當中大部分是針對十三世紀的狀況而制訂,例如限制王室狩獵範圍等。它是一部非常講求實用的文件,完全以解決問題為出發點,用辭務實,逐條列明補救濫權舞弊的具體辦法。條文聚焦整體社會的普遍性問題,包括解決公正執行法治、對官員權限的約束、個人與政府之間的關係等。因此,這份文獻能成為人類自由的來源之一,歷久彌新。

其中最重要的條文是第六十一條,即所謂「安全法」。根據該條文規定,由25名貴族組成的委員會有權隨時召開會議,具有否決國王命令的權力;並且可以使用武力,佔據國王的城堡和財產。這種權力出自中古時期的一種法律程序,但加之於國王卻是史無前例。

再者,當中影響最深遠的是第三十九條,它衍生了「人身保護」的概念:「除非經過由普通法官進行的法律審判,或是根據法律行事,否則任何自由的人,不應被拘留或囚禁、或被奪去財產、被放逐或被殺害」。根據該條文規定,國王若要審判任何一個人,祇能依據法律,而不能以他的私人喜好來進行,王權因而受到限制。

《大憲章最初版》祇維持了數星期,目前亦祇餘下開始數句、中間3條條文及結束語仍然有效,其餘34條都已被廢除;但1297年發佈的《大憲章》,至今還是英國法律的一部分。毋庸置疑,根據《大憲章》內容經多次修訂而制成的法律,卻能成為永久的法律及日後英國政治秩序的基石,保障更多的權利和涵蓋更多的人民,最後演化成現代的「君主立憲」(constitutional monarchy)。今天,《大憲章》的實際法律效用已很微小,祇在司法過程中偶而被控辯雙方和法官引用;但不少日後編成的政府憲法,包括《美國憲法》,皆起源自《大憲章》。以前每次英王發佈《大憲章》,都會抄送多份到各地,某些抄本被帶到北美殖民地,保存至今。

《鐵幕演說》提及第二項的政治文件《權利法案》(Bill of Rights 1689),全稱《國民權利與自由和王位繼承宣言》(An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown),是英國國會於1689年12月16日通過並由「威廉三世」簽署的一部重要政治法案,建基於由當代英國政治哲學家「約翰.洛克」(John Locke) 提出並迅速普及全國的一些人權理念。

根據這部《權利法案》,英國人民擁有不可被剝奪的民事與政治權利,包括:

(1) 國王不得干涉法律;

(2) 沒有議會同意,國王不得徵稅;

(3) 人民有向國王請願的權利;

(4) 人民有配帶武器用以自衛的權利;

(5) 人民有選舉議會議員的權利;

(6) 國王不得干涉議會的言論自由;

(7) 人民有不遭受殘酷與非常懲罰的自由;

(8) 人民有在未審判的情況下不被課罰金的自由;

(9) 國王必須定期召開議會。

當時英王「詹姆斯二世」的一些行為,已經違反上述約定,因「光榮革命」而逃離英國,詹姆斯二世被宣布退位,威廉與瑪麗是詹姆斯二世的繼承人。而威廉三世被宣布為「光榮革命」之後英國國王的前提,就是必須接受由議會所提出的這部《權利法案》。《權利法案》是英國歷史上自《大憲章》以來最重要的一部法案,既是英國憲法的重要組成部分,也被認為是美國《獨立宣言》及《美國憲法》的前身(可參閱網誌138〈人權天賦?〉)。

1701年,英國議會又通過了一部《王位繼承法》(Act of Settlement),被視為《權利法案》的補充,這兩項法案確立了「議會至上」原則,標誌着君主立憲制基本的確立,議會成為國家的最高權力機關,不斷加強對王權的限制、國會的公民代表性和公民權利的保障,使英國成為近代第一個民主國家。

《鐵幕演說》提及第三項的政治文件《人身保護令》(拉丁語:Habeas Corpus),是在「普通法」體系下由法官所簽發的手令,命令將被拘押之個人送交法庭,由法庭決定對該個人的拘押是否合法,任何人士必須遵守法庭的裁決。保護令是以法律程序保障基本人權,是一項保障個人自由的重要手段。任何人士若果被拘押,皆可以由自己或他人向法院挑戰拘押的合法性,並迅速獲得裁決。在某些地方,《人身保護令》在國家緊急狀況下可以被暫停使用。

《人身保護令》源自中世紀的英國,目前在許多國家都有類似的司法安排。遠在公元十二世紀,「英王亨利二世」(King Henry II) 時期便有簽發類似效用的法庭手令。據邱吉爾所述,亨利二世給予人民接受皇室裁判的機會。倘若有人被貴族法庭所拘押,英王可以向貴族發出手令,將受押者交予皇室法庭,受英王的審判。1640年,英國首次通過《人身保護法例》。1679年,正式通過的《人身保護條例》定下簽發保護令的細節。《人身保護令》除了可向政府發出外,亦可向私人發出。1771年,英國曾向被拘押的奴隸發出《人身保護令》,並下令將該奴隸釋放。

《鐵幕演說》提及第四項的政治理念「陪審團審判」,是指一種司法制裁程序,包括從一般市民中隨機選出若干名,委派其出任某一案件的陪審員,參與刑事訴訟或民事訴訟的審理。陪審團通常由6至12名陪審員組成,整體在刑事案件中會就被告人有罪或無罪作出判斷,而在民事訴訟中則會就被告有無責任或損害賠償金額等作出判斷。目前陪審制用於英國、美國、香港等主要普通法國家及地區。

陪審制起源的一種說法,可以追溯到公元9世紀初法蘭克帝國內的「Frankish Inquest」,這是一種為了確認國王之權利而由地方重要人物提供證言的制度。公元829年,查理大帝之子路易一世規定,在判斷國王之權利時,應由當地最具名望的12位人物經宣誓後做陳述。據研究,這一制度在「諾曼征服」(Norman Conquest;威廉一世於1066年征服英格蘭建立諾曼王朝)後傳入英國。此外,另有一種學說則認為,與從歐洲大陸傳來的上述制度不同,於997年前後,英格蘭國王「埃塞爾雷德二世」(King Ethelred II) 制訂了一部法律,規定由12名騎士面對聖物,宣誓「不對任何無辜者進行追訴,也不放過任何有罪的人」,這也構成了陪審制的一個來源。

無論如何,大多數歷史學家都認同:在現代陪審制的形成過程中,12世紀的英格蘭國王亨利二世時期的制度及1215年《大憲章》產生關鍵作用。據稱,亨利二世為了加強國王對司法制度的支配力而啟用陪審制。當時,亨利二世創立了解決土地及繼承糾紛的巡迴訴訟,在該類型訴訟中,由12位有自由身份和法定資格的男性公民組成一個小組,在宣誓後,對於誰是土地真正的所有者或繼承人等問題,發表各自的觀點,這就是現代民事陪審制的雛型。刑事審判方面,1166年,亨利二世在克拉倫敦法令中,創設了與日後大陪審團制度類似的追訴陪審制度,由具有法定資格男性公民組成的團體,在宣誓後報告犯罪的嫌疑者。當時,以這種方式被起訴的被告將被進行神明裁判。

1215年,《大憲章》第三十九條規定,在未經同輩組成的陪審團判決,保障不得被處罰的權利。這一條文是當代貴族為了限制王權而迫使國王約翰給予承認的結果。同年,第四次拉特朗大公會議上,教皇諾森三世宣布禁止神職人員參與神明裁判,陪審制因此取代了難以進行的神明裁判,並得到廣泛施行。

最初陪審團的職責,僅是作為證人陳述自己的知識和觀點;而根據證據對事實進行認定的現代陪審制,則是14世紀至15世紀期間才出現。但是,直至17世紀,陪審員仍然可以在法庭上提供證據之外根據個人的知識進行評議和裁決,卻並沒有現代陪審制所強調的客觀中立性。

1670年,英格蘭發生「蒲式耳事件」(Bushel’s Case)。話說當時的貴格會人物「威廉.佩恩」(William Penn) 與「威廉.米德」(William Mead) 被起訴犯有煽動集會罪,但12名陪審員拒絕對此作出有罪裁決,竟因此被法院監禁兩晚,其間不獲提供任何食物或水。然而陪審員們堅持不肯撤回無罪裁決,被判處繳納罰金。其中以「愛德華.蒲式耳」(Edward Bushel) 為首的4名陪審員拒絕上繳罰金,提出《人身保護令》之申訴。最後,英格蘭高等法院皇座法庭庭長作出具劃時代意義的判決,宣示陪審員在認定事實的過程中,不應受到外界的干擾,並釋放了蒲式耳等人。

陪審制具有下列價值和意義:

(一) 反映公民的常識或價值觀–舉例來說,很多人認為在民事案件中,對被告是否有責任以及損害賠償額的判斷,以及刑事案件中對「正當防衛」或「合理懷疑」等法律概念的適用時,陪審制可以反映具代表性的社會觀點。

(二) 對公權力或體制的限制功能–美國聯邦最高法院的判決文曾指出:「通過授予被告人接受其同類人的陪審審理的權利,可以使得其免受不正當的或者過於激進的檢察官,以及那些迎合(檢察官)、或脫離常識或存有偏見的法官的不公正裁決」。

(三) 參與型民主主義–在美國,陪審制被認為是實現民主主義的重要制度。法國政治思想家及歷史學家「亞歷西斯.托克維爾」(Alexis de Tocqueville) 在其著作《民主在美國》(De la démocratie en Amérique;Democracy in America) 中,將陪審制視為實現人民自治的重要方法。

(四) 對公民的教育功能–陪審制不僅對參加該過程的公民產生普及司法制度知識之功效,而且通過反映陪審審理題材電視節目或電影的耳濡目染,也增進一般國民對司法制度的理解。

(五) 提高審判效率–通過集中審理和短時間內得出結論的方式,避免了審判過程的長期化。

另一方面,陪審制亦具缺點。陪審團審理要耗費大量的人力、物力,並且程序複雜繁瑣,審理時間冗長,不利於迅速解決糾紛,同時也增加司法程序的成本。故此陪審團審理多為比較嚴重的刑事案件,普通的刑事和民事案件一般不適用於陪審團。由於陪審團不具備法律專業知識,無法保證他們對證據和實事的認定,或能夠符合法律的規定和精神,因此也有觀點懷疑陪審員對事實認定和適用法律的能力。基於陪審制的缺點,有關陪審團的存廢問題,一直是英、美、法等國家爭論激烈的話題。根據目前趨勢,對陪審團審理案件的適用條件加以嚴格限制,以保證這種有限的司法資源,能在最需要的地方發揮作用。

《鐵幕演說》提及第五項的政治理念「普通法」,又稱「習慣法」,其立法精神在於:除非某一項目的法例因為客觀環境之需要,或為解決爭議而需要以「成文法」(statute;legislation) 制定,否則祇需根據當地過去對於該項目的習慣而評定誰是誰非。英國與美國是「英美法系」的主要代表國家,採取「不成文法」(unwritten constitution),包括:「普通法」和「判例法」(case law),強調「遵循先例」原則。審判中採取當事人進行主義和陪審團制度,對於司法程序比較重視;法律制度和法學理論的發展,往往依賴司法實務人員(尤其是高等法院法官)的推動,即法官實質上通過作出判決而產生司法的效果。

在十八世紀,英國法庭頒佈「衡平法」(equity law),以填補普通法在體制上不足之處。衡平法源起古代英國,當時大部份法院均以普通法審理案件,由於普通法十分注重程序,很多人單是因為未能符合程序,例如過了期限入稟起訴,而得不到公正對待。於是大不列顛大法官設立一法院,以較為寬鬆的態度處理案件,這就是衡平法的來源。若與普通法比較,衡平法較為着重事實公正,較少拘泥於形式。再者,衡平法的法律體制在普通法之上,當案件違反普通法但同時符合衡平法,則以衡平法為主;換言之,衡平法凌駕普通法,兩者有矛盾時以衡平法為準。

以前,普通法和衡平法的案件必須由不同法庭處理。同一件案件,在普通法審理敗訴後,原告人可以將案件向衡平法法庭申請用衡平法審理。為解決不便問題,英國通過《Judicature Acts 1873-1875》,合併普通法和衡平法法庭,同一法庭已可同時應用普通法和衡平法審理。

在《鐵幕演說》中,邱吉爾總結當代世界形勢的兩項重要工作:儘速在所有國家永遠防止戰爭的發生及建設自由與民主的條件 (But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. );而該演說提及的五項政治文件及理念,也是發展並體現自由與民主的基石。

1989年開始,東中歐鐵幕國家發生政治劇變:波蘭共產黨失勢;柏林圍牆倒下帶來東西德重歸統一;捷克天鵝絨革命並二分;南斯拉夫五裂;匈牙利、保加利亞、阿爾巴尼亞的自由選舉推翻共產政權;羅馬尼亞流血革命;其後前蘇聯亦解體,冷戰結束。

時至今日,邱吉爾上述的兩項工作卻繼續在進行中;奧巴馬在英國國會的演說,仍強調必須透過發展並體現人類的「普世價值」(universal values),包括:「自由、民主、人權、法治」,才可達到「世界和平、國家豐盛、社會公義」(peace、prosperity、just) 的三大目標。奧巴馬並表明兩國將繼續為世界各國人民爭取並維護「普世價值」;換言之,「普世價值」仍然是今後兩國向發展中國家及極權國家不斷重彈的舊調。

雅帆在網誌141〈人權的國情與共識〉曾訴說:

「‥‥《國際人權公約》現在泛指經聯合國通過以保障人權為目標 — 包括《世界人權宣言》、《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》及《經濟、社會及文化權利國際公約》 — 的三份人權文件。

中國評論人權問題的「缺乏共識」,應該是指國際間對《國際人權公約》包括三份人權文件所涵蓋內容的理解和實施未能達致共識。再者,持「陰謀論」觀點的人們更批評當年擬定《國際人權公約》的目的,就是以美歐為首的已發展國家,透過人權狀況的議題,堂而皇之的欺壓發展中國家,故此公約內容一面倒傾斜向已發展國家所持的人權概念,完全不利於發展中國家對人權的理解和實施。

假若中國國民對聯合國擬定《國際人權公約》的目的存疑,確實不利向國民推介公約中的人權概念和標準。反之,若更換另一角度審視這個問題,美歐國家向該國國民釐定的人權宣言,其目的必然純為其國家及國民利益而出發,完全沒有欺壓其他國家的企圖。若此立論正確,則中國是否可以借鑑美歐國家該國的人權宣言為藍本,再配合中國國情,作為擬定中國人權的基礎,並藉此拉近中國人權狀況與《國際人權公約》所宣示的人權概念和標準?‥‥」

雅帆進一步思考,現在英美兩國所奉行的「普世價值」,源出邱吉爾及奧巴馬分別在上述兩篇演說所引述的五項政治文件及理念 — 《大憲章》、《人權法》、《人身保護令》、「陪審團審判」及「普通法」;而這五項政治文件及理念,郤是為針對當年英國社會的流弊而相應產生,比邱吉爾或奧巴馬的年代更早出現,絕非為「欺壓發展中國家」而確立。若然如此,則中國是否可以借鑑該五項政治文件及理念為藍本,再配合中國國情,作為擬定中國人權的基礎,並藉此拉近中國與歐美國家對釐定「普世價值」之概念和標準的分野?

美國總統奧巴馬在英國國會向兩院議員致辭全文,現轉載如下,提供讀者參考:

Remarks by Mr Barack Obama the US President to Parliament in London, United Kingdom on 25 May 2011 at the Westminster Hall, London, United Kingdom

My Lord Chancellor, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, my lords, and members of the House of Commons:

I have known few greater honors than the opportunity to address the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster Hall. I am told that the last three speakers here have been the Pope, Her Majesty the Queen, and Nelson Mandela — which is either a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke. (Laughter.)

I come here today to reaffirm one of the oldest, one of the strongest alliances the world has ever known. It’s long been said that the United States and the United Kingdom share a special relationship. And since we also share an especially active press corps, that relationship is often analyzed and overanalyzed for the slightest hint of stress or strain.

Of course, all relationships have their ups and downs. Admittedly, ours got off on the wrong foot with a small scrape about tea and taxes. (Laughter.) There may also have been some hurt feelings when the White House was set on fire during the War of 1812. (Laughter.) But fortunately, it’s been smooth sailing ever since.

The reason for this close friendship doesn’t just have to do with our shared history, our shared heritage; our ties of language and culture; or even the strong partnership between our governments. Our relationship is special because of the values and beliefs that have united our people through the ages.

Centuries ago, when kings, emperors, and warlords reigned over much of the world, it was the English who first spelled out the rights and liberties of man in the Magna Carta. It was here, in this very hall, where the rule of law first developed, courts were established, disputes were settled, and citizens came to petition their leaders.

Over time, the people of this nation waged a long and sometimes bloody struggle to expand and secure their freedom from the crown. Propelled by the ideals of the Enlightenment, they would ultimately forge an English Bill of Rights, and invest the power to govern in an elected parliament that’s gathered here today.

What began on this island would inspire millions throughout the continent of Europe and across the world. But perhaps no one drew greater inspiration from these notions of freedom than your rabble-rousing colonists on the other side of the Atlantic. As Winston Churchill said, the “…Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

For both of our nations, living up to the ideals enshrined in these founding documents has sometimes been difficult, has always been a work in progress. The path has never been perfect. But through the struggles of slaves and immigrants, women and ethnic minorities, former colonies and persecuted religions, we have learned better than most that the longing for freedom and human dignity is not English or American or Western –- it is universal, and it beats in every heart. Perhaps that’s why there are few nations that stand firmer, speak louder, and fight harder to defend democratic values around the world than the United States and the United Kingdom.

We are the allies who landed at Omaha and Gold, who sacrificed side by side to free a continent from the march of tyranny, and help prosperity flourish from the ruins of war. And with the founding of NATO –- a British idea –- we joined a transatlantic alliance that has ensured our security for over half a century.

Together with our allies, we forged a lasting peace from a cold war. When the Iron Curtain lifted, we expanded our alliance to include the nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and built new bridges to Russia and the former states of the Soviet Union. And when there was strife in the Balkans, we worked together to keep the peace.

Today, after a difficult decade that began with war and ended in recession, our nations have arrived at a pivotal moment once more. A global economy that once stood on the brink of depression is now stable and recovering. After years of conflict, the United States has removed 100,000 troops from Iraq, the United Kingdom has removed its forces, and our combat mission there has ended. In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum and will soon begin a transition to Afghan lead. And nearly 10 years after 9/11, we have disrupted terrorist networks and dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader –- Osama bin Laden.

Together, we have met great challenges. But as we enter this new chapter in our shared history, profound challenges stretch before us. In a world where the prosperity of all nations is now inextricably linked, a new era of cooperation is required to ensure the growth and stability of the global economy. As new threats spread across borders and oceans, we must dismantle terrorist networks and stop the spread of nuclear weapons, confront climate change and combat famine and disease. And as a revolution races through the streets of the Middle East and North Africa, the entire world has a stake in the aspirations of a generation that longs to determine its own destiny.

These challenges come at a time when the international order has already been reshaped for a new century. Countries like China, India, and Brazil are growing by leaps and bounds. We should welcome this development, for it has lifted hundreds of millions from poverty around the globe, and created new markets and opportunities for our own nations.

And yet, as this rapid change has taken place, it’s become fashionable in some quarters to question whether the rise of these nations will accompany the decline of American and European influence around the world. Perhaps, the argument goes, these nations represent the future, and the time for our leadership has passed.

That argument is wrong. The time for our leadership is now. It was the United States and the United Kingdom and our democratic allies that shaped a world in which new nations could emerge and individuals could thrive. And even as more nations take on the responsibilities of global leadership, our alliance will remain indispensable to the goal of a century that is more peaceful, more prosperous and more just.

At a time when threats and challenges require nations to work in concert with one another, we remain the greatest catalysts for global action. In an era defined by the rapid flow of commerce and information, it is our free market tradition, our openness, fortified by our commitment to basic security for our citizens, that offers the best chance of prosperity that is both strong and shared. As millions are still denied their basic human rights because of who they are, or what they believe, or the kind of government that they live under, we are the nations most willing to stand up for the values of tolerance and self-determination that lead to peace and dignity.

Now, this doesn’t mean we can afford to stand still. The nature of our leadership will need to change with the times. As I said the first time I came to London as President, for the G20 summit, the days are gone when Roosevelt and Churchill could sit in a room and solve the world’s problems over a glass of brandy -– although I’m sure that Prime Minister Cameron would agree that some days we could both use a stiff drink. (Laughter.) In this century, our joint leadership will require building new partnerships, adapting to new circumstances, and remaking ourselves to meet the demands of a new era.

That begins with our economic leadership.

Adam Smith’s central insight remains true today: There is no greater generator of wealth and innovation than a system of free enterprise that unleashes the full potential of individual men and women. That’s what led to the Industrial Revolution that began in the factories of Manchester. That is what led to the dawn of the Information Age that arose from the office parks of Silicon Valley. That’s why countries like China, India and Brazil are growing so rapidly — because in fits and starts, they are moving toward market-based principles that the United States and the United Kingdom have always embraced.

In other words, we live in a global economy that is largely of our own making. And today, the competition for the best jobs and industries favors countries that are free-thinking and forward-looking; countries with the most creative and innovative and entrepreneurial citizens.

That gives nations like the United States and the United Kingdom an inherent advantage. For from Newton and Darwin to Edison and Einstein, from Alan Turing to Steve Jobs, we have led the world in our commitment to science and cutting-edge research, the discovery of new medicines and technologies. We educate our citizens and train our workers in the best colleges and universities on Earth. But to maintain this advantage in a world that’s more competitive than ever, we will have to redouble our investments in science and engineering, and renew our national commitments to educating our workforces.

We’ve also been reminded in the last few years that markets can sometimes fail. In the last century, both our nations put in place regulatory frameworks to deal with such market failures — safeguards to protect the banking system after the Great Depression, for example; regulations that were established to prevent the pollution of our air and water during the 1970s.

But in today’s economy, such threats of market failure can no longer be contained within the borders of any one country. Market failures can go global, and go viral, and demand international responses.

A financial crisis that began on Wall Street infected nearly every continent, which is why we must keep working through forums like the G20 to put in place global rules of the road to prevent future excesses and abuse. No country can hide from the dangers of carbon pollution, which is why we must build on what was achieved at Copenhagen and Cancun to leave our children a planet that is safer and cleaner.

Moreover, even when the free market works as it should, both our countries recognize that no matter how responsibly we live in our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. And so part of our common tradition has expressed itself in a conviction that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security -– health care if you get sick, unemployment insurance if you lose your job, a dignified retirement after a lifetime of hard work. That commitment to our citizens has also been the reason for our leadership in the world.

And now, having come through a terrible recession, our challenge is to meet these obligations while ensuring that we’re not consuming — and hence consumed with — a level of debt that could sap the strength and vitality of our economies. And that will require difficult choices and it will require different paths for both of our countries. But we have faced such challenges before, and have always been able to balance the need for fiscal responsibility with the responsibilities we have to one another.

And I believe we can do this again. As we do, the successes and failures of our own past can serve as an example for emerging economies -– that it’s possible to grow without polluting; that lasting prosperity comes not from what a nation consumes, but from what it produces, and from the investments it makes in its people and its infrastructure.

And just as we must lead on behalf of the prosperity of our citizens, so we must safeguard their security. Our two nations know what it is to confront evil in the world. Hitler’s armies would not have stopped their killing had we not fought them on the beaches and on the landing grounds, in the fields and on the streets. We must never forget that there was nothing inevitable about our victory in that terrible war. It was won through the courage and character of our people.

Precisely because we are willing to bear its burden, we know well the cost of war. And that is why we built an alliance that was strong enough to defend this continent while deterring our enemies. At its core, NATO is rooted in the simple concept of Article Five: that no NATO nation will have to fend on its own; that allies will stand by one another, always. And for six decades, NATO has been the most successful alliance in human history.

Today, we confront a different enemy. Terrorists have taken the lives of our citizens in New York and in London. And while al Qaeda seeks a religious war with the West, we must remember that they have killed thousands of Muslims -– men, women and children -– around the globe. Our nations are not and will never be at war with Islam. Our fight is focused on defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies. In that effort, we will not relent, as Osama bin Laden and his followers have learned. And as we fight an enemy that respects no law of war, we will continue to hold ourselves to a higher standard -– by living up to the values, the rule of law and due process that we so ardently defend.

For almost a decade, Afghanistan has been a central front of these efforts. Throughout those years, you, the British people, have been a stalwart ally, along with so many others who fight by our side.

Together, let us pay tribute to all of our men and women who have served and sacrificed over the last several years -– for they are part of an unbroken line of heroes who have borne the heaviest burden for the freedoms that we enjoy. Because of them, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum. Because of them, we have built the capacity of Afghan security forces. And because of them, we are now preparing to turn a corner in Afghanistan by transitioning to Afghan lead. And during this transition, we will pursue a lasting peace with those who break free of al Qaeda and respect the Afghan constitution and lay down arms. And we will ensure that Afghanistan is never a safe haven for terror, but is instead a country that is strong, sovereign, and able to stand on its own two feet.

Indeed, our efforts in this young century have led us to a new concept for NATO that will give us the capabilities needed to meet new threats — threats like terrorism and piracy, cyber attacks and ballistic missiles. But a revitalized NATO will continue to hew to that original vision of its founders, allowing us to rally collective action for the defense of our people, while building upon the broader belief of Roosevelt and Churchill that all nations have both rights and responsibilities, and all nations share a common interest in an international architecture that maintains the peace.

We also share a common interest in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Across the globe, nations are locking down nuclear materials so they never fall into the wrong hands — because of our leadership. From North Korea to Iran, we’ve sent a message that those who flaunt their obligations will face consequences -– which is why America and the European Union just recently strengthened our sanctions on Iran, in large part because of the leadership of the United Kingdom and the United States. And while we hold others to account, we will meet our own obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and strive for a world without nuclear weapons.

We share a common interest in resolving conflicts that prolong human suffering and threaten to tear whole regions asunder. In Sudan, after years of war and thousands of deaths, we call on both North and South to pull back from the brink of violence and choose the path of peace. And in the Middle East, we stand united in our support for a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine.

And we share a common interest in development that advances dignity and security. To succeed, we must cast aside the impulse to look at impoverished parts of the globe as a place for charity. Instead, we should empower the same forces that have allowed our own people to thrive: We should help the hungry to feed themselves, the doctors who care for the sick. We should support countries that confront corruption, and allow their people to innovate. And we should advance the truth that nations prosper when they allow women and girls to reach their full potential.

We do these things because we believe not simply in the rights of nations; we believe in the rights of citizens. That is the beacon that guided us through our fight against fascism and our twilight struggle against communism. And today, that idea is being put to the test in the Middle East and North Africa. In country after country, people are mobilizing to free themselves from the grip of an iron fist. And while these movements for change are just six months old, we have seen them play out before -– from Eastern Europe to the Americas, from South Africa to Southeast Asia.

History tells us that democracy is not easy. It will be years before these revolutions reach their conclusion, and there will be difficult days along the way. Power rarely gives up without a fight -– particularly in places where there are divisions of tribe and divisions of sect. We also know that populism can take dangerous turns -– from the extremism of those who would use democracy to deny minority rights, to the nationalism that left so many scars on this continent in the 20th century.

But make no mistake: What we saw, what we are seeing in Tehran, in Tunis, in Tahrir Square, is a longing for the same freedoms that we take for granted here at home. It was a rejection of the notion that people in certain parts of the world don’t want to be free, or need to have democracy imposed upon them. It was a rebuke to the worldview of al Qaeda, which smothers the rights of individuals, and would thereby subject them to perpetual poverty and violence.

Let there be no doubt: The United States and United Kingdom stand squarely on the side of those who long to be free. And now, we must show that we will back up those words with deeds. That means investing in the future of those nations that transition to democracy, starting with Tunisia and Egypt -– by deepening ties of trade and commerce; by helping them demonstrate that freedom brings prosperity. And that means standing up for universal rights -– by sanctioning those who pursue repression, strengthening civil society, supporting the rights of minorities.

We do this knowing that the West must overcome suspicion and mistrust among many in the Middle East and North Africa -– a mistrust that is rooted in a difficult past. For years, we’ve faced charges of hypocrisy from those who do not enjoy the freedoms that they hear us espouse. And so to them, we must squarely acknowledge that, yes, we have enduring interests in the region -– to fight terror, sometimes with partners who may not be perfect; to protect against disruptions of the world’s energy supply. But we must also insist that we reject as false the choice between our interests and our ideals; between stability and democracy. For our idealism is rooted in the realities of history -– that repression offers only the false promise of stability, that societies are more successful when their citizens are free, and that democracies are the closest allies we have.

It is that truth that guides our action in Libya. It would have been easy at the outset of the crackdown in Libya to say that none of this was our business -– that a nation’s sovereignty is more important than the slaughter of civilians within its borders. That argument carries weight with some. But we are different. We embrace a broader responsibility. And while we cannot stop every injustice, there are circumstances that cut through our caution -– when a leader is threatening to massacre his people, and the international community is calling for action. That’s why we stopped a massacre in Libya. And we will not relent until the people of Libya are protected and the shadow of tyranny is lifted.

We will proceed with humility, and the knowledge that we cannot dictate every outcome abroad. Ultimately, freedom must be won by the people themselves, not imposed from without. But we can and must stand with those who so struggle. Because we have always believed that the future of our children and grandchildren will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren are more prosperous and more free -– from the beaches of Normandy to the Balkans to Benghazi. That is our interests and our ideals. And if we fail to meet that responsibility, who would take our place, and what kind of world would we pass on?

Our action -– our leadership -– is essential to the cause of human dignity. And so we must act -– and lead -– with confidence in our ideals, and an abiding faith in the character of our people, who sent us all here today.

For there is one final quality that I believe makes the United States and the United Kingdom indispensable to this moment in history. And that is how we define ourselves as nations.

Unlike most countries in the world, we do not define citizenship based on race or ethnicity. Being American or British is not about belonging to a certain group; it’s about believing in a certain set of ideals — the rights of individuals, the rule of law. That is why we hold incredible diversity within our borders. That’s why there are people around the world right now who believe that if they come to America, if they come to New York, if they come to London, if they work hard, they can pledge allegiance to our flag and call themselves Americans; if they come to England, they can make a new life for themselves and can sing God Save The Queen just like any other citizen.

Yes, our diversity can lead to tension. And throughout our history there have been heated debates about immigration and assimilation in both of our countries. But even as these debates can be difficult, we fundamentally recognize that our patchwork heritage is an enormous strength — that in a world which will only grow smaller and more interconnected, the example of our two nations says it is possible for people to be united by their ideals, instead of divided by their differences; that it’s possible for hearts to change and old hatreds to pass; that it’s possible for the sons and daughters of former colonies to sit here as members of this great Parliament, and for the grandson of a Kenyan who served as a cook in the British Army to stand before you as President of the United States. (Applause.)

That is what defines us. That is why the young men and women in the streets of Damascus and Cairo still reach for the rights our citizens enjoy, even if they sometimes differ with our policies. As two of the most powerful nations in the history of the world, we must always remember that the true source of our influence hasn’t just been the size of our economies, or the reach of our militaries, or the land that we’ve claimed. It has been the values that we must never waver in defending around the world — the idea that all beings are endowed by our Creator with certain rights that cannot be denied.

That is what forged our bond in the fire of war — a bond made manifest by the friendship between two of our greatest leaders. Churchill and Roosevelt had their differences. They were keen observers of each other’s blind spots and shortcomings, if not always their own, and they were hard-headed about their ability to remake the world. But what joined the fates of these two men at that particular moment in history was not simply a shared interest in victory on the battlefield. It was a shared belief in the ultimate triumph of human freedom and human dignity -– a conviction that we have a say in how this story ends.

This conviction lives on in their people today. The challenges we face are great. The work before us is hard. But we have come through a difficult decade, and whenever the tests and trials ahead may seem too big or too many, let us turn to their example, and the words that Churchill spoke on the day that Europe was freed:

“In the long years to come, not only will the people of this island but…the world, wherever the bird of freedom chirps in [the] human heart, look back to what we’ve done, and they will say ‘do not despair, do not yield…march straightforward’.”

With courage and purpose, with humility and with hope, with faith in the promise of tomorrow, let us march straightforward together, enduring allies in the cause of a world that is more peaceful, more prosperous, and more just.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

備註:美國總統奧巴馬在英國國會向兩院議員致辭全文,轉載自美國白宮網頁,謹此鳴謝。另外,本文部份資料,參考自《維基百科–自由的百科全書》,亦在此鳴謝。

這篇文章發表 於 星期一, 六月 20th, 2011 1:13 上午 在 邁向現代 Road to Modernity. 你可以回應這篇文章透過 RSS 2.0 feed. 你可以 留下回覆, 或 引用 從你的個人網站.

2 comments so far

Mr K M Lam
 1 

萬分感激作者雅帆是篇文章詳盡介紹美總统奥巴馬在英的演辭,亦啓蒙了小弟有關英國偉人邱吉爾的豐功偉績。

無庸諱言,現時美英奉行和倡議的「普世價值」是受很多人認同。小弟亦同意作者雅帆所提出的可行性問及中國在配合其國情下,可否彷傚英美而改善人權、收窄與歐美所釐定的「普世價值」標準。

就近日,中國總理温家寶在歐洲三國行中,於英國訪問時,也曾在英皇家學會演講(27/6/2011日)。其內容也觸及「未來中國走向」。温總的坦誠演說會否給予人們一些啓示吧!(恕怪小弟在此方面沒有甚麼見地。) 謝謝!

六月 28th, 2011 at 7:14 下午
David Cheng
 2 

Thanks for your succinct but exuberant introduction to the concepts of “Magna Carta", “Bill of Rights", “Habeas Corpus", “Jury Trial" and “Common Law" which should be invaluable references to students taking up liberal studies in their senior secondary curriculum.

七月 6th, 2011 at 4:02 下午

留下回覆

Name
Mail (will not be published)
URI
廻響