69.Eleanor Roosevelt - U.N. Addres
Mr. President, fellow delegates:
The long and meticulous study and debate of which this Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is the product means that it reflects the composite views of the many men and
governments who have contributed to
its formulation. Not every man
nor every government can have what
he wants in a document of this kind. There are of course particular provisions
in the Declaration before us with which we are not fully satisfied. I
have no doubt this is true
of other delegations, and it would still be true if
we continued our labors over many years.
Taken as a whole the Delegation of the United States believes that this is a good document
even a great document and we propose to give it our full
support. The position of the United States on
the various parts of the Declaration is a matter of record in the Third
Committee. I shall not burden the Assembly, and particularly my colleagues of the Third
Committee, with a restatement of that position here.
I should like to comment
briefly on the amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation. The
language of these amendments has been dressed up somewhat, but the substance is the
same as the amendments which were offered by the Soviet delegation
in committee and rejected after exhaustive discussion. Substantially the same amendments have been
previously considered and rejected in the
Human Rights Commission. We in the United States
admire those who fight for their convictions, and the Soviet delegation
has fought for their
convictions. But in the older democracies we have learned that sometimes we bow to
the will of the majority.
In doing that, we do
not give up our convictions. We continue sometimes to persuade, and
eventually we may be successful. But we know
that we have to work together and we have to
progress. So, we believe that when we have made a good fight, and the majority is against
us, it is perhaps better tactics to
try to cooperate.
I feel bound to say that I
think perhaps it is somewhat of an
imposition on this Assembly to
have these amendments offered again here, and I am confident
that they will be rejected
without debate.
The first two paragraphs of the amendment
to article 3 deal with the question of minorities,
which committee 3 decided
required further study, and has recommended, in a separate
resolution, their reference to
the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights
Commission. As set out in the Soviet amendment, this provision clearly states "group," and
not "individual," rights.
The Soviet amendment
to article 20 is obviously a very restrictive statement of the right
to freedom of opinion and expression. It
sets up standards which would enable any state
practically to deny all
freedom of opinion and expression without
violating the article. It introduces the terms "democratic view," "democratic systems," "democratic state," and
"fascism," which we know all too well
from debates in
this Assembly over the past two years
on warmongering and related subjects are liable to
the most
flagrant abuse and diverse
interpretations.
The statement of the Soviet delegate here tonight is a very good case in point on this. The
Soviet amendment of article 22
introduces new elements into
the article without improving
the committed text and again introduces specific reference to "discrimination."As was
repeatedly pointed out
in committee 3, the question of discrimination is comprehensively
covered in article 2 of the Declaration, so that
its restatement elsewhere is completely unnecessary and also
has the effect of weakening the comprehensive principles stated in
article 2. The new article proposed by the Soviet delegation
is but a restatement of State
obligation, which the Soviet delegation attempted to
introduce into practically every article in
the Declaration. It would convert the Declaration
into a document stating obligations on
states, thereby changing completely its character as a statement of principles to
serve as a common standard of achievement for the members of the United Nations.
The Soviet proposal for deferring consideration
of the Declaration to the 4th session of the
Assembly requires no comment. An identical
text was rejected in committee 3 by a vote of 6
in favor and 26 against. We are all agreed, I am sure, that
the Declaration, which has been worked on with such great effort and devotion, and over such a long period of time, must be approved by this Assembly at
this session.
Certain provisions of the Declaration are stated in such broad terms as to be acceptable only
because of the provisions in article 30 providing for limitation on
the exercise of the rights for
the purpose of meeting the requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare.
An example of this is the provision
that everyone has the right
to equal access to the public
service in his country.
The basic principle of equality and of nondiscrimination as to public employment
is sound, but
it cannot be accepted without
limitation. My government, for example, would consider that
this is unquestionably subject
to limitation
in the interest of public order and the general
welfare. It would not consider that
the exclusion from public employment of persons holding
subversive political beliefs and not loyal
to the basic principles and practices of the
constitution and laws of the country would in any way infringe upon
this right.
Likewise, my government has made it
clear in the course of the development of the
Declaration that it does not consider that
the economic and social and cultural
rights stated in the Declaration imply an obligation on governments to assure the enjoyment of these rights
by direct governmental action. This was made quite clear in the Human Rights Commission
text of article 23 which served as a socalled
"umbrella" article to the articles on economic and
social rights. We consider that
the principle has not been affected by the fact
that this article
no longer contains a reference to
the articles which follow
it. This in no way affects our wholehearted
support for the basic principles of economic, social, and cultural rights set forth
in these articles.
In giving our approval
to the Declaration today it is of primary importance that we keep
clearly in mind the basic character of the document. It
is not a treaty. it is not an
international
agreement. It is not and does not purport
to be a statement of law or of legal obligation. It is
a Declaration of basic principles of human rights and freedoms, to be stamped with
the approval of the General
Assembly by formal vote of its members, and to serve as a common
standard of achievement for all peoples of all
nations.
We stand today at
the threshold of a great event both
in the life of the United Nations and in
the life of mankind. This Universal Declaration of Human
Rights may well become the
international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General
Assembly will be an event comparable to
the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of
Man by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the
United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in other
countries.
At a time when there are so many issues on which we find it difficult to reach a common basis
of agreement, it is a significant fact that 58 states have found such a large measure of
agreement in the complex field of human
rights. This must be taken as testimony of our
common aspiration first voiced in
the Charter of the United Nations to
lift men everywhere to
a higher standard of life and to a greater enjoyment of freedom. Man’s desire for peace lies
behind this Declaration. The realization that the
flagrant violation of human rights by Nazi and
Fascist
countries sowed the seeds of the last world war has supplied the impetus for the work
which brings us to
the moment of achievement
here today.
In a recent
speech in Canada, Gladstone Murray said:
"The central fact
is that man
is fundamentally a moral being, that the
light we have is imperfect does not
matter so long as we are always
trying to improve it … we are equal in sharing the moral
freedom that distinguishes us as men. Man’s status makes each individual an end in
himself. No man
is by nature simply the servant of the state or of
another man … the ideal and fact of freedom and
not
technology are
the true distinguishing marks of our civilization."
This Declaration
is based upon the spiritual
fact that man must
have freedom in which
to develop his full stature and through
common effort to raise the level of human dignity. We
have much to do to fully achieve and to assure the rights set
forth in this Declaration. But
having them put before us with the moral backing of 58 nations will be a great step forward.
As we here bring to fruition our labors on
this Declaration of Human Rights, we must at the
same time rededicate ourselves to the unfinished task which
lies before us. We can now move
on with new courage and inspiration to the completion of an
international covenant on human
rights and of measures for the implementation of human rights.
In conclusion, I feel that I cannot do better than to repeat the call
to action by Secretary Marshall
in his opening statement to this Assembly:
"Let this third regular session of the General Assembly approve by an
overwhelming majority the Declaration of Human Rights as a
standard of conduct for all. and let us, as Members of the United
Nations, conscious of our own shortcomings and imperfections, join
our effort in good faith to live up to this high standard."
