|
ELEANOR ROOSEVELT AND THE SORBONNE,
PARIS, FRANCE
The Struggle for Human Rights
Go here for more about
Eleanor Roosevelt
Go here for more about
Eleanor Roosevelt's Struggle for Human
Rights Speech
Go here for more about
Human Rights
It follows a translation of the transcript of
Eleanor Roosevelt's Struggle for Human Rights
speech, delivered at the Sorbonne, Paris, France - September
28, 1948.
 |
I have come this
evening to talk with you on one of the greatest
issues of our time—that is the preservation of
human freedom. |
I have chosen to
discuss it here in France, at the Sorbonne,
because here in this soil the roots of human
freedom have long ago struck deep and here they
have been richly nourished. It was here the
Declaration of the Rights of Man was proclaimed,
and the great slogans of the French
Revolution--liberty, equality, fraternity--fired
the imagination of men. I have chosen to discuss
this issue in Europe because this has been the
scene of the greatest historic battles between
freedom and tyranny. I have chosen to discuss it
in the early days of the General Assembly
because the issue of human liberty is decisive
for the settlement of outstanding political
differences and for the future of the United
Nations.
The decisive importance of this issue was fully
recognized by the founders of the United Nations
at San Francisco. Concern for the preservation
and promotion of human rights and fundamental
freedoms stands at the heart of the United
Nations. Its Charter is distinguished by its
preoccupation with the rights and welfare of
individual men and women. The United Nations has
made it clear that it intends to uphold human
rights and to protect the dignity of the human
personality. In the preamble to the Charter the
keynote is set when it declares: “We the people
of the United Nations determined...to reaffirm
faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person, in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations
large and small, and ... to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom.” This reflects the basic premise of the
Charter that the peace and security of mankind
are dependent on mutual respect for the rights
and freedoms of all.
One of the purposes of the United Nations is
declared in article 1 to be: “to achieve
international cooperation in solving
international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in
promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all
without distinction as to race, sex, language,
or religion.”
This thought is repeated at several points and
notably in articles 55 and 56 the Members pledge
themselves to take joint and separate action in
cooperation with the United Nations for the
promotion of “universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language, or religion.”
The Human Rights Commission was given as its
first and most important task the preparation of
an International Bill of Rights. The General
Assembly which opened its third session here in
Paris a few days ago will have before it the
first fruit of the Commissions' labors in this
task, that is the International Declaration of
Human Rights.
This Declaration was finally completed after
much work during the last session of the Human
Rights Commission in New York in the spring of
1948. The Economic and Social Council has sent
it without recommendation to the General
Assembly, together with other documents
transmitted by the Human Rights Commission.
It was decided in our Commission that a Bill of
Rights should contain two parts:
1. A Declaration which could be approved through
action of the Member States of the United
Nations in the General Assembly. This
Declaration would have great moral force, and
would say to the peoples of the world “this is
what we hope human rights may mean to all people
in the years to come.” We have put down here the
rights that we consider basic for individual
human beings the world over to have. Without
them, we feel that the full development of
individual personality is impossible.
2. The second part of the bill, which the Human
Rights Commission has not yet completed because
of the lack of time, is a covenant which would
be in the form of a treaty to be presented to
the nations of the world. Each nation, as it is
prepared to do so, would ratify this covenant
and the covenant would then become binding on
the nations which adhere to it. Each nation
ratifying would then be obligated to change its
laws wherever they did not conform to the points
contained in the covenant.
This covenant, of course, would have to be a
simpler document. It could not state
aspirations, which we feel to be permissible in
the Declaration. It could only state rights
which could be assured by law and it must
contain methods of implementation, and no state
ratifying the covenant could be allowed to
disregard it. The methods of implementation have
not yet been agreed upon, nor have they been
given adequate consideration by the Commission
at any of its meetings. There certainly should
be discussion on the entire question of this
world Bill of Human Rights and there may be
acceptance by this Assembly of the Declaration
if they come to agreement on it. The acceptance
of the Declaration, I think, should encourage
every nation in the coming months to discuss its
meaning with its people so that they will be
better prepared to accept the covenant with a
deeper understanding of the problems involved
when that is presented, we hope, a year from now
and, we hope, accepted.
The Declaration has come from the Human Rights
Commission with unanimous acceptance except for
four abstentions—the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia,
Ukraine, and Byelorussia. The reason for this is
a fundamental difference in the conception of
human rights as they exist in these states and
in certain other Member States in the United
Nations.
In the discussion before the Assembly, I think
it should be made crystal clear what these
differences are and tonight I want to spend a
little time making them clear to you. It seems
to me there is a valid reason for taking the
time today to think carefully and clearly on the
subject if human rights, because in the
acceptance and observance of these rights lies
the root, I believe, of our chance for peace in
the future, and for the strengthening of the
United Nations organization to the point where
it can maintain peace in the future.
We must not be confused about what freedom is.
Basic human rights are simple and easily
understood: freedom of speech and a free press;
freedom of religion and worship; freedom of
assembly and the right of petition; the right of
men to be secure in their homes and free from
unreasonable search and seizure and from
arbitrary arrest and punishment.
We must not be deluded by the efforts of the
forces of reaction to prostitute the great words
of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the
struggle. Democracy, freedom, human rights have
come to have a definite meaning to the people of
the world which we must not allow any nation to
so change that they are made synonymous with
suppression and dictatorship.
There are basic differences that show up even in
the use of words between a democratic and a
totalitarian country. For instance “democracy”
means one thing to the U.S.S.R. and another to
the U.S.A. and, I know, in France. I have served
since the first meeting of the nuclear
commission on the Human Rights Commission, and I
think this point stands out clearly.
The U.S.S.R. Representatives assert that they
already have achieved many things which we, in
what they call the “bourgeois democracies”
cannot achieve because their government controls
the accomplishment of these things. Our
government seems powerless to them because, in
the last analysis, it is controlled by the
people. They would not put it that way - they
would say that the people in the U.S.S.R.
control their government by allowing their
government to have certain absolute rights. We,
on the other hand, feel that certain rights can
never be granted to the government, but must be
kept in the hands of the people.
For instance, the U.S.S.R. will assert that
their press is free because the state makes it
free by providing the machinery, the paper, and
even the money for the salaries for the people
who work on the paper. They state that there is
no control over what is printed in the various
papers that they subsidize in this manner, such,
for instance, as a trade-union paper. But what
would happen if a paper were to print ideas
which were critical of the basic policies and
beliefs of the Communist government? I am sure
some good reason would be found for abolishing
that paper.
It is true that there have been many cases where
newspapers in the U.S.S.R. have criticized
officials and their actions and have been
responsible for the removal of those officials,
but in doing so they did not criticize anything
which was fundamental to Communist beliefs. They
simply criticized methods of doing things, so
one must differentiate between things which are
permissible, such as criticism of any individual
or of the manner of doing things, and the
criticism of a belief which would be considered
vital to the acceptance of Communism.
What are the differences, for instance, between
trade-unions in the totalitarian states and in
the democracies? In the totalitarian state a
trade-union is an instrument used by the
government to enforce duties, not to assert
rights. Propaganda material which the government
desires the workers to have is furnished to the
trade-unions to be circulated to their members.
Our trade-unions, on the other hand, are solely
the instruments of the workers themselves. They
represent the workers in their relations with
the government and with management and they are
free to develop their own opinions without
government help or interference. The concepts of
our trade-unions and those in totalitarian
countries are drastically different. There is
little mutual understanding.
I think the best example one can give of this
basic difference of the use of terms is “the
right to work”. The Soviet Union insists that
this is a basic right which it alone can
guarantee because it alone provides full
employment by the government. But the right to
work in the Soviet Union means the assignment of
workers to do whatever task is given to them by
the government without an opportunity for the
people to participate in the decision that the
government should do this. A society in which
everyone works is not necessarily a free society
and may indeed be a slave society; on the other
hand, a society in which there is widespread
economic insecurity can turn freedom into a
barren and vapid right for millions of people.
We in the United States have come to realize it
means freedom to choose one’s job, to work or
not to work as one desires. We, in the United
States, have come to realize, however, that
people have a right to demand that their
government will not allow them to starve because
as individuals that cannot find work of the kind
they are accustomed to doing and this is a
decision brought about by public opinion which
came as a result of the great depression in
which many people were out of work, but we would
not consider in the United States that we have
gained any freedom if we were compelled to
follow a dictatorial assignment to work where
and when we were told. The right of choice would
seem to us an important, fundamental freedom.
I have great sympathy with the Russian people.
They love their country and have always defended
it valiantly against invaders. They have been
through a period of revolution, as a result of
which they were for a time cut off from outside
contact. They have not lost their resulting
suspicion of other countries and the great
difficulty is today that their government
encourages this suspicion and seems to believe
that force alone will bring them respect.
We, in the democracies, believe in a kind of
international respect and action which is
reciprocal. We do not think others should treat
us differently from the way they wish to be
treated. It is interference in other countries
that especially stirs up antagonism against the
Soviet Government. If it wishes to feel secure
in developing its economic and political
theories within it territory, then it should
grant others that same security. We believe in
the freedom of people to make their own
mistakes. We do not interfere with them and they
should not interfere with others.
The basic problem confronting the world today,
as I said in the beginning, is the preservation
of human freedom for the individual and
consequently for the society of which he his a
part. We are fighting this battle again today as
it was fought at the time of the French
Revolution and at the time of the American
Revolution. The issue of human liberty is as
decisive now as it was then. I want to give you
my conception of what is meant in my country by
freedom of the individual.
Long ago in London during a discussion with Mr.
Vyshinsky, he told me there was no such thing as
freedom for the individual in the world. All
freedom of the individual was conditioned by the
rights of other individuals. That, of course, I
granted. I said: “We approach the question from
a different point of view; we here in the United
Nations are trying to develop ideals which will
be broader in outlook, which will consider first
the rights of man, which will consider what
makes man more free: not governments, but man.”
The totalitarian state typically places the will
of the people second to decrees promulgated by a
few men at the top.
Naturally there must always be consideration of
the rights of others; but in a democracy this is
not a restriction. Indeed, in our democracies we
make our freedoms secure because each of us is
expected to respect the rights of others and we
are free to make our own laws.
Freedom for our peoples is not only a right, but
also a tool. Freedom of speech, freedom of the
press, freedom of information, freedom of
assembly—these are not just abstract ideals to
us; they are tools with which we create a way of
life, a way of life in which we can enjoy
freedom.
Sometimes the processes of democracy are slow,
and I have known some of our leaders to say that
a benevolent dictatorship would accomplish the
ends desired in a much shorter time than it
takes to go through the democratic processes of
discussion and the slow formation of public
opinion. But there is no way of insuring that a
dictatorship will remain benevolent or that
power once in the hands of a few will be
returned to the people without struggle or
revolution. This we have learned by experience
and we accept the slow processes of democracy
because we know that short-cuts compromise
principles on which no compromise is possible.
The final expression of the opinion of the
people with us is through free and honest
elections, with valid choices on basic issues
and candidates. The secret ballot is an
essential to free elections but you must have a
choice before you. I have heard my husband say
many times that a people need never lose their
freedom if they kept their right to a secret
ballot and if they used that secret ballot to
the full.
Basic decisions of our society are made through
the expressed will of the people. That is why
when we see these liberties threatened, instead
of falling apart, our nation becomes unified and
our democracies come together as a unified group
in spite of our varied backgrounds and many
racial strains.
In the Unites States we have a capitalistic
economy. That is because public opinion favors
that type of economy under the conditions in
which we live. But we have imposed certain
restraints; for instance, we have anti-trust
laws. These are the legal evidence of the
determination of the American people to maintain
an economy of free competition and not to allow
monopolies to take away the people’s freedom.
Our trade-unions grows stronger because the
people come to believe that this is the proper
way to guarantee the rights of the workers and
that the right to organize and to bargain
collectively keeps the balance between the
actual producer and the investor of money and
the manager in industry who watches over the man
who works with his hands and who produces the
materials which are our tangible wealth.
In the United States we are old enough not to
claim perfection. We recognize that we have some
problems of discrimination but we find steady
progress being made in the solution of these
problems. Through normal democratic processes we
are coming to understand our needs and how we
can attain full equality for all our people.
Free discussion on the subject is permitted. Our
Supreme Court has recently rendered decisions to
clarify a number of our laws to guarantee the
rights of all.
The U.S.S.R. claims it has reached a point where
all races within her borders are officially
considered equal and have equal rights and they
insist they have no discrimination where
minorities are concerned.
This is a laudable objective but there are other
aspects of the development of freedom for the
individual which are essential before the mere
absence of discrimination is worth much, and
these are lacking in the Soviet Union. Unless
they are being denied freedoms which they want
and which they see other people have, people do
not usually complain of discrimination. It is
these other freedoms—the basic freedoms of
speech, of the press, of religion and
conscience, of assembly, of fair trial and
freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment,
which a totalitarian government cannot safely
give its people and which give meaning to
freedom from discrimination.
It is my belief, and I am sure it is also yours,
that the struggle for democracy and freedom is a
critical struggle, for their preservation is
essential to the great objective of the United
Nations to maintain international peace and
security.
Among free men the end cannot justify the means.
We know the patterns of totalitarianism—the
single political party, the control of schools,
press, radio, the arts, the sciences, and the
church to support autocratic authority; these
are the age-old patterns against which men have
struggled for three thousand years. These are
the signs of reaction, retreat, and
retrogression.
The United Nations must hold fast to the
heritage of freedom won by the struggle of its
peoples; it must help us to pass it on to
generations to come.
The development of the ideal of freedom and its
translation into the everyday life of the people
in great areas of the earth is the product of
the efforts of many peoples. It is the fruit of
a long tradition of vigorous thinking and
courageous action. No one race and no one people
can claim to have done all the work to achieve
greater dignity for human beings and greater
freedom to develop human personality. In each
generation and in each country there must be a
continuation of the struggle and new steps
forward must be taken since this is preeminently
a field in which to stand still is to retreat.
The field of human rights in not one in which
compromise on fundamental principles are
possible. The work of the Commission on Human
Rights is illustrative. The Declaration of Human
Rights provides: “ Everyone has the right to
leave any country, including his own.” The
Soviet Representative said he would agree to
this right if a single phrase was added to
it—“in accordance with the procedure laid down
in the laws of that country.” It is obvious that
to accept this would be not only to compromise
but to nullify the right stated. This case
forcefully illustrates the importance of the
proposition that we must ever be alert not to
compromise fundamental human rights merely for
the sake of reaching unanimity and thus lose
them.
As I see it, it is not going to be easy to
attain unanimity with respect to our different
concepts of government and human rights. The
struggle is bound to be difficult and one in
which we must be firm but patient. If we adhere
faithfully to our principles I think it is
possible for us to maintain freedom and to do so
peacefully and without recourse to force.
The future must see the broadening of human
rights throughout the world. People who have
glimpsed freedom will never be content until
they have secured it for themselves. In a true
sense, human rights are a fundamental object of
law and government in a just society. Human
rights exist to the degree that they are
respected by people in relations with each other
and by governments in relations with their
citizens.
The world at large is aware of the tragic
consequences for human beings ruled by
totalitarian systems. If we examine Hitler’s
rise to power, we see how the chains are forged
which keep the individual a slave and we can see
many similarities in the way things are
accomplished in other countries. Politically men
must be free to discuss and to arrive at as many
facts as possible and there must be at least a
two-party system in a country because when there
is only one political party, too many things can
be subordinated to the interests of that one
party and it becomes a tyrant and not an
instrument of democratic government.
The propaganda we have witnessed in the recent
past, like that we perceive in these days, seeks
to impugn, to undermine, and to destroy the
liberty and independence of peoples. Such
propaganda poses to all peoples the issue
whether to doubt their heritage of rights and
therefore to compromise the principles by which
they live, or try to accept the challenge,
redouble their vigilance, and stand steadfast in
the struggle to maintain and enlarge human
freedoms.
People who continue to be denied the respect to
which they are entitled as human beings will not
acquiesce forever in such denial.
The Charter of the United Nations is a guiding
beacon along the way to the achievement of human
rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the
world. The immediate test is not only the extent
to which human rights and freedoms have already
been achieved, but the direction in which the
world is moving. Is there a faithful compliance
with the objectives of the Charter if some
countries continue to curtail human rights and
freedoms instead of to promote the universal
respect for an observance of human rights and
freedoms for all as called for by the Charter?
The place to discuss the issue of human rights
is in the forum of the United Nations. The
United Nations has been set up as the common
meeting ground for nations, where we can
consider together our mutual problems and take
advantage of our differences in experience. It
is inherent in our firm attachment to democracy
and freedom that we stand always ready to use
the fundamental democratic procedures of honest
discussion and negotiation. It is now as always
our hope that despite the wide differences in
approach we face in the world today, we can with
mutual good faith in the principles of the
United Nations Charter, arrive at a common basis
of understanding. We are here to join the
meetings of this great international Assembly
which meets in your beautiful capital city of
Paris. Freedom for the individual is an
inseparable part of the cherished traditions of
France. As one of the Delegates from the United
States I pray Almighty God that we may win
another victory here for the rights and freedoms
of all men.
More History
|
|
