Nowadays, words are often seen as a source of instability. The violent reactions last year to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper saw a confused Western response, with governments tripping over their tongues trying to explain what the media should and should not be allowed to do in the name of political satire. Then Iran trumped the West by sponsoring a conference of Holocaust deniers, a form of speech punished as criminal almost everywhere in Europe.
As Turks well know, it is dangerous to take a position on the Armenian genocide of 1915. The most recent Nobel laureate in literature, Orhan Pamuk, was prosecuted in Istanbul for denying Turkey's official history by saying that the Armenian genocide actually occurred. Other Turks have faced prosecution in Western Europe for saying that it did not.
So words are now clearly a battlefield in the cultural conflict between Islam and the West. The West has learned that, simply as a matter of self-censorship, not legal fiat, newspapers and other media outlets will not disseminate critical pictures of Mohammed, and the pope will no longer make critical comments about Islam. But these gestures of cooperation with Muslim sensibilities have not been met by reciprocal gestures.
Instead, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. The Israeli Foreign Ministry now seeks prosecution of Ahmadinejad for incitement to commit genocide -- a violation of international law.
But the Israeli press is also bellicose. Israeli newspapers regularly carry stories about why Israel may need to attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring an arsenal of nuclear weapons. US President George W. Bush has made similarly ominous, if more vague, statements about Iran. In Germany, preparing and calling for preemptive military strikes from within the government are subject to criminal sanctions.
The world's different legal systems have never been in much agreement about the boundaries of free speech. Even between good neighbors like Canada and the US, there is little agreement about punishing hate speech. Canadians punish racial insults, but Americans do not, at least if the issue is simply one of protecting the dignity of racial minorities.
But threatening violence is more serious. Many countries are united in supporting the principle that if, say, Ahmadinejad does meet the criteria for incitement of genocide, he should be punished in the International Criminal Court. Indeed, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda punished radio station operators who made aggressive public broadcasts urging Hutus to pick up their machetes and murder Tutsis.
A decade ago there would have been a good argument in international law that the Hutu-Tutsi example supports prosecution only after the damage has been done. All the international precedents -- from Nuremberg to the present -- concern international intervention after mass atrocities. Domestic police may be able to intervene to prevent crime before it occurs, but in the international arena there is no police force that can do that.
It follows that the crime of incitement should apply only to cases like Rwanda, where the radio broadcasts actually contributed to the occurrence of genocide. In cases where bellicose leaders make public threats to "bury" another country or to wipe it off the map, the courts should wait, it was said, until some harm occurs.
But the international community has become ever more intrusive in using legal remedies against persons who engage in provocative and dangerous speech.
In September 2005, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1624 -- paradoxically, with US approval -- calling upon all member states to enact criminal sanctions against those who incite terrorism.
The model of incitement they had in mind is the same one that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly invoked: Muslim leaders standing up in their mosques and urging their congregations to go out and kill infidels.
Americans have traditionally said that, absent a risk of immediate unlawful violence, this form of speech should be protected under the First Amendment. US courts reasoned that it is better to allow the release of hateful sentiments than to call attention to them by showcasing them in court. But when it comes to terrorism in today's world, most countries are not as tolerant as they used to be.
So the traditional liberal position in support of giving wide scope to freedom of speech, even for extremists, is losing ground everywhere. When it comes to fighting terrorism and the prospect of genocide, the world is now becoming afraid of dangerous words.
George Fletcher is Cardozo professor of jurisprudence at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.