The Dilemma Of Human Rights - 1978 Editorial

October 11, 1978"As Robert Goldwin recently emphasized, we
If only we will back off a little more on ourseem to have forgotten that our own broad
demands that Russia live up to the Helsinkidefinition of civil rights is rooted in our political and
agreement on human rights, a strategic armseconomic structure - in federalism, the separation
limitation treaty can be signed any day now.of powers, judicial review and the diffusion of
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance has given awayproperty in a private sector. In short, our civil
the B-1 bomber, cruise missile, neutron war headrights derive from the theory and practice of
and nuclear carrier. Now that all U.S. weaponslimited government.
advantages have been abandoned, the principle"Our political leaders, when they come to praise
broadly defined as human rights is under finalcivil rights in one world forum or another, do not
attack.argue in favor of limited government - perhaps
In the end we can expect that the noblebecause they no longer really believe in it. They
precepts of human rights will be accorded shortalways talk as if their mission is to persuade
shrift.authoritarian or totalitarian governments to make
Perhaps our retreat from principle is inevitable.a gift of civil rights to their people.
Human rights is, after all, a campaign catch-word"POLITICAL RIGHTS are those to participate, in
that greatly complicates the real world of powerone degree or another, in government.
politics if taken seriously.One-person-one-vote is indeed a constitutional
Other nations, friends and foes, had difficultyprinciple by which a people may govern itself. But
figuring out what we meant by human rights. Notit is not the sole such principle. Only a dogmatist
until President Jimmy Carter defined the termwould insist that it is, everywhere and always, the
more precisely - in private - and turned down thebest principle. Even the United States, after all, for
volume did our international relations smooth out.most of its history has not been governed by this
The trouble was - and still remains for theprinciple.
American public - that "human rights" has too"The proper extent of political rights in any nation
many meanings. Each hearer interprets theis not something our State Department can have
concept to suit his own convictions.a meaningful opinion about. It can only be
Irving Kristol, professor of urban values at Newdetermined by the people of that nation, who will
York University, summarized the problem somedraw on their own political and cultural
time ago in a guest analysis for the Wall Streetbackgrounds in arriving at a suitable disposition of
Journal.this matter.
"Human rights really includes four very different"We can try to set them a good example by
political ideas," said Kristol.making our democratic republic as admirable as
"HUMAN RIGHTS PROPER is the least political ofpossible - as our Founding Fathers urged. But
the four meanings, since it applies equally to allthat's about all we can do - as our Founding
governments, regardless of their political structure.Fathers recognized.
It refers to those practices of government which,"SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS were inscribed in the
in the perspective of our Judaeo-ChristianUnited Nations Charter, and the United States, in
civilization, can flatly be called abominations, that is,its folly, has duly subscribed to the principle behind
where questions of degree are irrelevant.them. The principle is that a welfare state is
Genocide, whether on a large scale or small, isalways and everywhere better than a
such an abomination. So is torture. And so arenon-welfare state; that the more comprehensive
restrictions on the right to emigrate.a welfare state, the better; and that the right to
"Though the U.S. since World War II has beena broad range of government services is
properly outspoken on the issue of genocide andabsolute, whether the nation can afford them or
torture, it has avoided making any fuss about thenot, and whether the people want them or not.
right to emigrate. The reason, to put it bluntly,"A particular and debatable version of
was fear of offending the Soviet and other20th-Century liberalism is suddenly presented to
Communists governments. The Carterus as a universal 'human right.' Since, at this late
administration seems willing to continue thisdate, it might be difficult to repudiate this absurd
particular policy of 'moral detente.'principle out right, we ought to ignore it as much
"CIVIL RIGHTS are those of an individual with hisas possible."
government, and are summed up in the phrase,Failure to recognize the several interpretations
'the rule of law,' to which even government ispossible of his campaign slogan has unnecessarily
subject.entangled President Carter in semantics. He
"It is important to emphasize, since we Americansfrequently finds himself in the embarrassing
have so parochial and impoverished a sense ofposition of lecturing our allies and looking the other
history, that such civil rights can exist even inway when our enemies commit worse violations.
non-liberal or nondemocratic societies. NeitherNow we are on the horns of a dilemma -one
Henry VIII nor Tsar Nicholas I ever presumed tolabeled SALT treaty and the other human rights.
think he had the kind of arbitrary power whichTo get one we must bury the other.
many member governments of the UnitedAnd it really doesn't make much difference which.
Nations exercise today as a matter of course.