骆家辉人大演讲 中英文版
多谢您，朱教授。
我很高兴在我作为美国驻华大使的任期结束前重返人民大学。我在中国最令人难忘的一些经历就是访问各大学。我感到特别高兴得是，去年能在这里举办模拟法庭竞赛（Moot Court competition）期间发表讲话。
你们有些人可能已经知道，我将很快回美国与家人团聚，这样我的两个大孩子能在那里完成高中学业。把整个家搬回美国不是一个容易的决定，但这是我和我的家人一起作出的决定。我妻子和孩子们对于离开这里感到难过；中国人民一直非常热情和友好。我们一家人对我们祖先的国度有了一些了解和探索，令人感到欣喜和激动。
在离开中国前，我想谈谈一些对我和中国都特别重要的话题：法治和言论自由对形成不断进步和稳定的社会具有重要意义。
法治和言论自由共同有助于美国成为如此成功、如此具有创造力、如此充满活力和稳定的社会，吸引了并继续吸引世界各地的人。
让我先谈谈法治。大家可能都知道，我从做一名律师开始，在我的家乡华盛顿州西雅图（Seattle, Washington）当了4年的刑事检察官。我负责起诉被控犯有入室盗窃、抢劫、贩运毒品和谋杀的人。
我对法律的热情继续贯穿我职业生涯的始终。我曾短期当过兼职法官。作为华盛顿州州长，我的工作经常涉及法律事务。
根据美国的刑事司法系统，不论是入室盗窃的小案件，还是涉及生死的检控，任何人在被证明有罪前都假设无罪。此外，所有的人——大人物和小人物、富人或穷人、名人或无名之辈——都享有公平的机会，受到平等对待。
小人物的权利正是美国法律系统的基石。早在18世纪，很少有人想到大西洋（Atlantic Ocean）彼岸13个殖民地平民百姓组成的松散联盟能够摆脱大不列颠（Great Britain）的统治获得独立。但是这些殖民地的确获得了胜利。随着年轻的美国继续努力创建新国家的基业，我们的建国之父要求我们的宪法保证捍卫小人物的权利。
经过世世代代的努力，我们美国的法院已确立，无人可凌驾于法律之上，即使美利坚合众国总统也是如此。在1974年美国诉尼克松（Nixon）一案中，最高法院（Supreme Court）不顾尼克松总统的竭力反对，命令白宫（White House）公布在总统办公室内录制的谈话录音带。这些录音带披露的信息使白宫掩盖非法活动的行为昭然若揭，最终导致尼克松总统辞职。我们的法律和政治体系再一次证明，没有人可凌驾于法律之上，即使美国最有权势的人也不例外。
中国本身的法律传统和历史远比我们悠久，在很多方面与美国不同，但也纳入了法律面前人人平等的观念。远在公元前4世纪的秦国，著名的中
国政治家和改革派商鞅在《商君书》中阐述了他的法律哲学。他确立的最重要的学说之一体现为他的一句名言：“王子犯法与庶民同罪”。因此，在2,300多年前的中国，法律面前人人平等的原则就已经提出并得到公认。
美国宪法（United States Constitution）是我国法律体系的基础。这个体系已被证实具有宝贵的价值，原因之一是它可以适应随着时间的推移必然发生的社会变化。在这个意义上，它具有自我修正的能力。我们不时修正宪法，以便更准确地反映我国的价值观，并让更多的人得到保护——纳入过去被排除在外的人。美国非洲裔直到我国建国近100年后通过了三条宪法修正案，才被认为是享有全部权利和自由的美国公民。同样，妇女直到1920年通过第19条修正案后才被允许投票。2008年巴拉克·欧巴马（Barack Obama）当选为我国第一位美国非洲裔总统，为我们取得的进步提供了又一个证明。
根据我自己的国家的经验，法治为政府提供了更大的合法性，因为人们相信有公平和透明的渠道纠正各种问题。法治不一定保证某一个人获得有利的结果。在法院败诉的一方不会同意案件的结果，但是他们离开时认为他们得到在法院申辩的机会——公平的申辩机会。他们离开时相信法律程序具有基本的诚信。
这和体育活动一样，你不可能永远同意裁判的裁决，但是如果大家都遵守规则，如果大家都相信裁判是公正的，运动员和球迷们都能够接受比赛的结果，即使他们支持的一方失利。但不能接受的是，裁判无视规则或者歪曲规则，采取偏向某一方或某位球员的做法。
关于人们对我国法律体系的这种信心和信念，最近的一个例子是2000年的美国总统大选——乔治·布什州长与副总统阿尔·戈尔（Governor George Bush v. Al Gore）的角逐。总统选举的结果最后仅由9个人——9位美国最高法院（U.S. Supreme Court）大法官投票决定，堪称美国有史以来第一次。他们必须决定应采用什么程序点票，从而重新计算佛罗里达（Florida）州的一些非常令人困惑的选票——鉴于双方在该州的得票非常接近，当时所有人都知道这一决定可以确认谁当选美国总统。对于如何计算佛罗里达州有争议的选票，他们的决定有利于乔治·布什，尽管有些群体相信副总统阿尔·戈尔事实上在佛罗里达赢得更多的选票，因此应被宣布为下一届总统。
不过，尽管最高法院的决定引起了极为强烈的争议，副总统戈尔和他的支持者仍接受法院的裁决，因为他们相信我国法律机构和法律程序具有诚信，需要做出最后的决定。在很多其他国家，总统大选的成败如此接近，竞争如此激烈，会导致愤怒的暴
民走上街头，引发革命，甚至由军队夺取政权。美国人民接受法院关于谁成为下一届总统的决定，清楚地证明了强大的法治具有重要意义，可作为稳定的力量发挥作用。
美国社会中的另一个发挥稳定作用的力量是言论自由。我们视言论自由为一种普世权利，已被纳入我国宪法。实际上中国宪法也规定了言论自由。言论自由是美国宪法第一修正案（First Amendment）不可分割的一部分，规定我们享有言论自由、宗教信仰自由和集会自由等基本权利。
第一修正案中对言论自由的保护不仅适用于反映多数意见或政府立场的言论，更重要的是保护不代表主流而且经常是不受欢迎的思想的表达。然而，社会极大地受益于这些观点的公开发表。这些言论可引发就重要话题开展亟需的讨论。这些讨论可以促进和影响多数人的意见，同时在这个过程中实现改善社会的政策变革。
这在美国历史上一再发生。请让我给大家举两个近期的例子。
第一个是民权运动（Civil Rights Movement）。尽管林肯总统（President Lincoln）在1863年发布了给予奴隶自由的《解放奴隶宣言》（Emancipation Proclamation），但在其后的100年里美国大部分地区仍处于隔离状态。很多南方州直接违抗我国宪法和林肯发布的宣言，批准了限制美国非洲裔权利的法律。这些州利用法律条文实行种族隔离，并限制美国非洲裔的公民权利。
民权领袖们运用宪法所保障的表达自由权在20世纪50年代和60年代雄辩有力地阐明，一个现代的、民主的社会绝不容许隔离。其中影响力最大的是马丁·路德·金牧师（Reverend Martin Luther King Junior），他在著名的题为《我有一个梦想》的演讲中描述了这样一个时代，用他的原话就是，“有一天，我的四个年幼的孩子将生活在一个不是以他们的肤色，而是以他们的品格作为评判标准的国家里。”
这篇演讲的道德力量感召了整个国家，并力促政治人士采取行动。在此后的两年之内，国会（Congress）通过了历史性的公民权和投票权立法，并宣告主要的歧视形式为非法。
言论自由在现代美国历史上发挥关键作用的第二个实例是反对越南战争（Vietnam War）的抗议活动。美国人民运用他们的表达自由质疑把年轻人送到越南丛林，去打一场他们认为不必要的战争是否明智。
国务卿约翰·克里（Secretary of State John Kerry）是最雄辩有力地反对这场战争的人士之一。1971年，他代表“越战退伍军人反战组织”（Vietnam Veterans Against the War）在国会听证会上发言。他的证词中有一句话如今已成为名言：“你们怎能要求一个人最后在越南丧失生命？你们怎能要求一个人最后为一个错误丧失生
命？”
我可以向大家保证，这不是尼克松总统和我们的军队领袖想听的话。但是年轻的约翰·克里及成千上万的抗议人士通过运用自己的表达自由并有力地说明反对越战的理由，帮助促使政府改变了路线，结束了这场战争。
像约翰·克里那样对当权者说出真相并不是美国独有的品格。中国自己有句古语可以追溯到2000多年前，那就是“忠言逆耳利于行”。这句话说的是在刘邦于公元前207年攻克秦国都城后，张良向他进言一事。刘邦一心想住进刚刚夺取的宫殿，享用其中的财宝和美女，但是张良告诉他，如果这么做，他就有可能被视为一个助桀为虐的人。刘邦只得听取了张良的劝告，从而赢得了百姓的支持。
当然，表达自由不仅仅是发表令人难忘的演讲。它还包括信息的自由流通。不受约束、不受限制地获取信息对社会的现代化和发展进步至关重要。在中国这里，我们在过去几年已看到信息的自由流通对社会的现代化发展所能起到的重要和积极的作用。
让我们首先看看环境问题。在北京，大家都知道空气质量很差，但不知道到底有多差。住在这里的美国人对此感到关切，并想要了解有关他们所呼吸的空气质量的信息。为此，美国大使馆（U.S. Embassy）开始提供PM 2.5小时读数，供居住在北京的美国人使用。这一信息最终达及更广泛的受众，并帮助中国民众在网上及通过其他渠道就他们的国家应该做些什么来改善空气质量展开公开讨论时做到知情。
不久后，北京和中国其他主要城市相继开始监测并公布自己的PM2.5数据。在最近几个月，中央政府和北京政府还为此进一步制定了改善空气质量的综合性计划。
信息的自由流通还对改善治理，特别是打击腐败祸患至关重要。我对普通中国公民在过去几年中利用因特网举报涉嫌的腐败事件印象特别深刻。在美国，我们也通过要求政府官员每年公开申报其资产来打击贪污行为。要求必须提供这一信息使收贿受贿和其他腐败行为更难以藏匿。
在中国这里，一直有人呼吁对中国官员提出类似的要求。美国政府尤其关注呼吁变革的人中有些人现在正受到起诉，他们遭到打击报复是因为他们公开努力揭露腐败，而且因为他们以和平方式表达自己的观点。
我们还知道，观点的多样性和思想的自由流通对一个国家的成功从未像在今天这个因特网时代这般重要，这个时代尤其适于创造和创新。副总统拜登（Biden）上个月在北京说过，创新在人民能够自由呼吸、自由讲话并能挑战正统的地方会生机勃勃。它在报纸能够无后顾之忧地报道真相的地方会生机勃勃。我们现在在上述一些问题上存在很多分
歧，其中包括对待美国新闻记者的方式。但是，我和世界各地的很多人都相信，如果中国尊重普世人权，它将会更加强大、更加稳定、更具创新力。
随着越来越多的人上网，自由发表他们的想法，网络对所有人，对使用者和社会都更具价值。但如果人们不能自由地充分表达自己的想法或参加网上讨论，那么因特网的潜能将永远不会全部得到发挥。因此，重要的是，每个人都应当能够在因特网上表达他们的想法，并利用因特网进行辩论及讨论话题，即使他们所说的话可能不受欢迎，即使他们所说的话可能被一些团体或个人视为敏感言论。
网上信息的自由流通在一个全球化的世界里已变得日益重要。在这样的世界里，最紧迫的问题不受国界限制；当任何一个国家设置壁垒时，所有国家都会受到损害。在处理国际问题时尤其是这样，例如可能快速地从一个国家传播到另一个国家的传染性疾病，以及在这个全球贸易时代的食品安全问题。
总而言之，法治和言论自由对各国向前推进及取得进步至关重要。身为一个美国人令我感到自豪的诸多因素之一是，美国人民通过我国世代人民的努力，不断地争取使美国更接近达到我国宪法序言中所阐明的缔造“一个更完美的联邦”的理念。
言论自由和法治是这一理念的主要支柱。它们有助于造就团结、爱国、坚信自己的权利而且投入于自己国家的未来的一国人民。
中国前程似锦，但要发挥其全部潜能将取决于保持中立并受到尊重的司法体制、活跃且克尽职守的律师、明智的领导层，以及对法治的尊重。这还将取决于对宪法所保障的所有人的言论自由的尊重、开放的因特网，以及广泛知情并愿意就如何最好地为中国建设一个稳定且不断进步的未来而展开不受限制的对话的公民。一个充满活力的思想市场对于任何一个国家的健康和进步都至关重要。
请让我祝愿大家马年好运、快乐。
Thank you very much, Professor Zhu.
I am so pleased to be back at Renmin University before my tenure as United States Ambassador to China ends. Some of my most memorable experiences in China have been visits to universities, and I particularly enjoyed speaking at the Moot Court competition here last year.
As some of you may know, I will soon be rejoining my family back in the U.S. so that my two oldest children can complete their high school education there. Moving the family back to the U.S. was not an easy decision, but it was one that my family and I made together. My wife and children were sad to leave; the Chinese people have been so warm and friendly. Our family had some great and exciting learning about and exploring the country of their ancestors.
Before leaving China, I wan
t to say a few words about a couple of topics of particular importance to me and China: the importance of rule of law and freedom of expression to the formation of a progressive and stable society.
Together, rule of law and freedom of speech have been responsible for making America such a successful, innovative, dynamic and stable society, one that has attracted and continues to attract people from all around the world.
Let me first say a few words about rule of law. As you may know, I got my start as a lawyer working for four years as a criminal prosecutor in my hometown of Seattle, Washington. I prosecuted people charged with burglary, robbery, drug trafficking and murder.
My passion for the law has continued throughout my career. I briefly served as a part-time judge. As governor of the State of Washington my work often involved matters of the law.
In America’s criminal justice system, whether a minor break-in or a life-and-death prosecution, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And moreover, everyone – big guys and little guys, rich or poor, famous or unknown – has a fair shot and is treated equally.
The rights of the little guy are the very foundation of the American legal system. Back in the 1700s, few people would have predicted that a rag-tag coalition of 13 colonies on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean could somehow gain their independence from Great Britain. But those colonies prevailed. And as a young America went on about the hard work of forming a new nation, our founding fathers ensured that our constitution protected the rights of the little guy.
Through the generations, our courts in America have established that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. In 1974 in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ordered the White House, over President Nixon’s strenuous objections, to release audiotapes of recorded conversations taken inside the President’s Office. Information revealed in the tapes led to the discovery of a cover-up of illegal activities in the White House, which eventually led to the resignation of President Nixon. Once again, our legal and political system proved that no one, not even the most powerful person in America, was above the law.
This concept of equality before the law is found in China’s own legal traditions and history, which go back much farther than ours and differ in many ways from America’s. As far back as the 4th Century BC in the state of Qin, a famous Chinese statesman and reformer named Shang Yang elaborated on his legal philosophy in the Book of Lord Shang. One of the most important doctrines he established was reflected in his well-known saying, “When the prince violates the law, the crime he commits is the same as that of the common people.” So more than 2,300 years ago in China, the principle that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law was already put forth and well recognized.
The United States Const
itution is the foundation of our legal system. It has proven so invaluable in part because it is adaptable to the social changes that will inevitably occur over time. In that sense, it is self-correcting. From time to time we have amended our Constitution to more accurately reflect our country’s values and to bring more people under its protection – people who have been previously excluded. African-Americans were not considered full and free citizens of the United States until the passage of three constitutional amendments almost 100 years after the founding of our nation. Similarly, women were not allowed to vote until the approval of the 19th Amendment in 1920. And as further evidence of how far we have come, in 2008 Barack Obama was elected as our first African-American president.
In my own country’s experience, the rule of law gives the government greater legitimacy because people have confidence that there are fair and transparent ways to redress concerns. Rule of law does not necessarily ensure a favorable outcome for any particular individual. Losing parties in a court case won’t agree with the outcome of the case, but they walk away believing they had their day in court – a fair day in court. They walk away with confidence in the basic integrity of the legal process.
Just as a sporting event, you might not always agree with the decision of the referee, but players and fans can accept the outcome of the game, even if their side loses, if everyone plays by the rules and if everyone believes that the referees have been fair. What isn't accepted, however, is when referees ignore the rules or bend them in favor of one side or one player.
A recent example of this confidence and faith in our legal system took place during the 2000 U.S. presidential elections – in the case of Governor George Bush v. Vice President Al Gore. For the first time in American history the outcome of a presidential election came down to just nine votes – the votes of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. They had to decide what procedures should be followed to count and recount some very confusing ballots in Florida – a decision that everyone knew at the time would determine the Presidency of the United States, given how closely the vote was divided in that state. Their decision on how to count the disputed ballots in Florida favored George W. Bush, even though some groups believed that Vice President Al Gore actually received more votes in Florida and thus should have been declared the next President.
But while the Court’s decision was extremely controversial, Vice President Gore and his supporters accepted the Court’s decision because they believed in the integrity of our legal institutions and our legal process and the need for finality. In many other countries, such a close and hotly contested presidential election would have resulted in angry mobs in the streets, revolution, or even the military seizing power. The American peop
le’s acceptance of the Court’s determination of who would be the next president is a clear testament to the value and stabilizing power of a strong rule of law.
Another force of stability in American society is freedom of speech. We view freedom of expression as a universal right, and indeed it is enshrined in China’s constitution as well as our own. It is an integral part of the American Constitution’s First Amendment, which sets forth our basic freedoms of speech, religious belief and assembly.
The protection of free speech offered by the First Amendment is not just for speech that reflects majority opinion or the government position. More importantly, it protects the expression of ideas that do not represent the mainstream, and that are often unpopular. Yet society benefits greatly from the airing of those views. They can provoke much-needed discussion of important topics. They can inform and influence the opinions of the majority, and in doing so they can bring about policy changes that improves society.
This has happened time and again in American history. Let me give you two recent examples.
First, the Civil Rights Movement. Although President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves was issued in 1863, much of the country remained segregated over the next 100 years. Many southern states had passed laws limiting the rights of African-Americans in direct defiance of our Constitution and Lincoln’s Proclamation. These states used legal provisions to impose racial segregation and restrict the civil rights of African-Americans.
Using our constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression, civil rights leaders in the 1950s and 1960s eloquently argued that segregation had no place in a modern, democratic society. Most influential of all was the Reverend Martin Luther King Junior, who in his famous “I Have a Dream Speech” spoke of a time when, in his words, “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
The moral force of that speech moved a nation and helped force politicians to act. Within two years, historic civil rights and voting rights laws were enacted by Congress, outlawing major forms of discrimination.
A second example of the critical role of free speech in modern American history is the protests against the Vietnam War. Americans used their freedom of expression to question the wisdom of sending young men into the jungles of Vietnam to fight a war they thought unnecessary.
Among those who spoke most eloquently against the war was Secretary of State John Kerry. In 1971, as a representative of the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he spoke at a congressional hearing. His testimony included the now famous quote: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
I can assure you, those were not
words that President Nixon and our military leaders wanted to hear. Yet by exercising their freedom of expression, and by making a compelling case against the war, a young John Kerry and thousands of other protestors helped force the government to change course and end the fighting.
Speaking truth to those in power, as John Kerry did, is not an exclusively American trait. China itself has a saying that dates back more than 2,000 years that “honest advice, though unpleasant to the ear, benefits conduct.” This saying refers to Zhang Liang’s counsel to Liu Bang after he had conquered the capital of the state of Qin in 207 BC. Liu desperately wanted to stay in the newly captured palace with its valuable treasures and beautiful women, but Zhang told him that in doing so he risked being perceived as a vulgar person. Liu reluctantly listened to Zhang and won the support of the people.
Of course, freedom of expression is not just about making memorable speeches. It also includes the free flow of information. This unfettered unrestricted access to information is essential for societies to modernize and advance.Here in China we have seen in recent years the important and positive role that the free flow of information can have on modernizing society.
Let’s first look at the environment. In Beijing, everyone knew the air quality was bad, but they did not know just how bad it was. Americans living here were concerned, and wanted information about the quality of the air they breathed. In response, the U.S. Embassy began to offer hourly PM 2.5 readings for the use of Americans living in Beijing. This information ultimately reached a wider audience, and helped inform a public discussion amongst Chinese -- online and elsewhere -- about what their country should do to improve its air.
Before long, Beijing and other major Chinese cities began monitoring and publishing their own PM2.5 data. In recent months, the central and Beijing governments have further responded with comprehensive plans to improve air quality.
The free flow of information also is critical to improving governance, particularly to fighting the scourge of corruption. I have been especially impressed by how ordinary Chinese citizens in recent years have taken to the Internet to report suspected corruption. In the U.S., we also fight graft by requiring government officials to publicly report their assets every year. Requiring the release of this information makes bribery and other corrupt behaviors far more difficult to conceal.
Here in China there have been calls for similar requirements for Chinese officials. The U.S. government is especially concerned that some of the people calling for change are now facing prosecution, in retaliation for their public campaigns to expose corruption and because they peacefully expressed their views.
We also know that diversity of opinion and the free flow of ideas have never been more crucial to a country’s success than today
– the age of the Internet – a time particularly suited for creativity and innovation. Vice President Biden said in Beijing last month that innovation thrives where people breathe freely, speak freely and are able to challenge orthodoxy. It thrives where newspapers can report the truth without fear of consequences. We have many disagreements on some of those issues right now, including the treatment of U.S. journalists. But I and many around the world believe that China will be stronger, more stable and more innovative if it respects universal human rights.
As more people go on line, freely contributing their ideas, the more valuable the network becomes to everyone, both to the users and to society. But if people aren’t free to fully express their thoughts or participate in online discussions, then the full potential of the Internet will never be realized. So it is important that everyone should be able to express their ideas on the Internet, and to use the Internet to debate and discuss topics, even if what they say might be unpopular, even if what they say might be viewed as sensitive by some groups or individuals.
This free flow of information online has become increasingly important in a globalized world where the most pressing problems know no national boundaries, where all nations suffer when any country puts up barriers. This is particularly true when it comes to dealing with international problems such as communicable diseases, which can quickly spread from one country to another, or with food safety issues in an era of global trade.
In summary, the rule of law and free speech are essential for countries to move forward and make progress. One of the many things that makes me proud to be an American is how, through the generations of our history, Americans have continually worked to bring the United States closer to the ideal of forming “a more perfect union,” as the preamble to our Constitution says.
Free speech and the rule of law are the main pillars of this ideal. They help build a people who are united, patriotic, confident in their rights, and invested in their own country’s future.
China has a great future ahead of it, but reaching its full potential will depend on a neutral and respected judiciary, active and dedicated lawyers, wise leadership, and reverence to the rule of law. It also will depend on respect for the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech for all, an open Internet, and a well-informed citizenry willing to engage in an unrestricted dialogue on how best to build a stable and progressive future for China. A vibrant marketplace of ideas is essential to the health and progress of any country.
Let me wish you all good luck and a happy year in this year of the horse.