176. Editorial Note
Following their December 6, 1978, meeting on human rights (see Document 175), President Jimmy Carter, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs Zbignew Brzezinski, and Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Patricia Derian participated in a White House East Room ceremony commemorating the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Approximately 250 representatives from domestic and international human rights organizations attended the ceremony, which took place from 11:58 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. (Carter Library, Presidential Materials, President’s Daily Diary)
After a short statement by Vance, Brzezinski indicated that he would devote his remarks to the introduction and development of three basic propositions regarding human rights. Brzezinski’s first two propositions focused upon the historical inevitability of human rights and the centrality of human rights in America’s relevance in a “changing world.” In describing the third—the indication of progress in the enhancement of human rights—Brzezinski asserted:
“Last year has seen some tangible progress in the human condition. There are different ways of assessing that progress. There are different groups which, from time to time, make estimates. Collating some of these reports together, we do have the impression that not because of our efforts, either alone or at all, but because of this increasing relevance of the human rights condition which we have helped to stimulate, there has been progress in a number of countries.
“It is difficult to measure it but as a rough approximate estimate I would say in at least 40 countries around the world in which two and a half billion people live there has been tangible progress—in some cases more, in some cases less, in some cases certainly not enough, but progress nonetheless. And it has expressed itself in even greater respect for rights or less oppression of political opposition or in the release of victims or in a generally more sensitive attitude toward established procedures.
“This is something of which we can be proud, though of which we should not take credit. We are part of the process. We are part of a political and historical process, and we live in a time which is often short in hopeful perspectives in the future. I would submit to you that this is one of the more important reassuring ones because it tells us something about what a human being is. It tells us that ultimately the human being in whatever the social, economic, or cultural conditions, yearns for something transcendental, yearns for some self-definition with respect to his uniqueness, yearns for something which dignifies him as a spiritual being. And if that, in fact, is increasingly the human condition, it ought to be a source of tremendous pride and reassurance to us as Americans.” (Department of State Bulletin, January 1979, pages 5–6)
Derian attempted to address four major questions associated with human rights policy, including the rationale for policy, means of implementation, achievements, and sincerity of conviction. In discussing the question of policy implementation, Derian sketched out the various mechanisms employed by the United States, noting:
“Our approach has not been limited to quiet diplomacy. We have practiced vigorous diplomacy in which all available instruments are used. They include symbolic affirmations of our concern. The President says something, the Secretary says something, it is in a speech, it is in a press conference, it is in a press release, it is in a casual comment, it is in a letter, it is whatever way you can find at some point when it seems like the right instrument to have a strong public gesture. When there is no response to quiet expression of human rights concerns and when there is no response to a symbolic speaking out, our law and our policy demand that we examine our assistance relationships, both economic and military.
[Page 556]“We will continue to assert human rights concerns as vigorously as we have during the past 2 years in our dealings with all governments. The fundamental objective of this policy is to do what we can as a government and as a people to improve the observation of human rights by governments toward their people. That is essentially what it is that this policy is to do, and we do that in all the ways that you know.
“At the same time, the human rights policy has another important effect; it strengthens our position and influence in the world. Human rights is an area where our ideals and our self-interest strongly coincide.
“The fact of it is that that is a side effect and the only way we really get that side benefit is to be as straight as it is possible to be with our policy implementation. That is our intention. That is our endeavor. That is our constant struggle, because I don’t need to tell anyone in this room that it is also incredibly complex to balance all of the things that are of great concern to the United States with all the other things. Human rights now sits at the table and that is a change.
“Our well-being and security are enhanced when there is greater respect for human rights in the world. Our policy is important to the health and integrity of this society within the United States. Support for or indifference to oppression in other countries weakens the foundation of our democracy at home.
“We have increased awareness of and concern for human rights among governments and peoples throughout the world and in international organizations such as the United Nations.
“Finally, besides growing awareness, there are indications of concrete progress for many regions. The U.S. Government is careful not to claim credit for influencing specific steps. When a country is making improvements, it is the result of decisions made by its government and people. And how many events would have occurred in the absence of U.S. human rights policy, we have no idea. But the policy has helped to create a climate in which such changes are more likely.” (Ibid., pages 6–7)
Following Derian’s remarks, President Carter reaffirmed his previous public statements regarding human rights, asserting: “As long as I am President, the Government of the United States will continue, throughout the world, to enhance human rights. No force on Earth can separate us from that commitment.” After highlighting his administration’s redoubled focus on rights, Carter expressed his hope that Congress, during the next legislative session, would ratify the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, noting that the United Nations had adopted it at the same time it adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that 83 nations had ratified it during the intervening 30 years. The President also [Page 557] pledged to support Indochinese and Lebanese refugees and Cuban political prisoners. Describing the accomplishments related to the centrality of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, Carter opined:
“The effectiveness of our human rights policy is now an established fact. It has contributed to an atmosphere of change—sometimes disturbing—but which has encouraged progress in many ways and in many places. In some countries, political prisoners have been released by the hundreds, even thousands. In others, the brutality of repression has been lessened. In still others there’s a movement toward democratic institutions or the rule of law when these movements were not previously detectable.
“To those who doubt the wisdom of our dedication, I say this: Ask the victims. Ask the exiles. Ask the governments which continue to practice repression. Whether in Cambodia, or Chile, in Uganda or South Africa, in Nicaragua or Ethiopia or the Soviet Union, governments know that we in the United States care; and not a single one of those who is actually taking risks or suffering for human rights has ever asked me to desist in our support of basic human rights. From the prisons, from the camps, from the enforced exiles, we receive one message—speak up, persevere, let the voice of freedom be heard.
“I’m very proud that our nation stands for more than military might or political might. It stands for ideals that have their reflection in the aspirations of peasants in Latin America, workers in Eastern Europe, students in Africa, and farmers in Asia.
“We do live in a difficult and complicated world—a world in which peace is literally a matter of survival. Our foreign policy must take this into account. Often, a choice that moves us toward one goal tends to move us further away from another goal.
“Seldom do circumstances permit me or you to take actions that are wholly satisfactory to everyone. But I want to stress again that human rights are not peripheral to the foreign policy of the United States. Our human rights policy is not a decoration. It is not something we’ve adopted to polish up our image abroad or to put a fresh coat of moral paint on the discredited policies of the past.
“Our pursuit of human rights is part of a broad effort to use our great power and our tremendous influence in the service of creating a better world—a world in which human beings can live in peace, in freedom, and with their basic needs adequately met. Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy. And I say this with assurance, because human rights is the soul of our sense of nationhood.” (Ibid., pages 1–2)
The President concluded his remarks by referencing the 1978 Bill of Rights Day and comparing the 187-year history of the Bill of Rights with the 30-year history of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, underscoring:
[Page 558]“I do not draw this comparison because I want to counsel patience. I draw it because I want to emphasize, in spite of difficulties, steadfastness and commitment.
“One hundred and eighty-seven years ago, as far as most Americans were concerned, the Bill of Rights was a bill of promises. There was no guarantee that those promises would ever be fulfilled. We did not realize those promises by waiting for history to take its inevitable course. We realized them because we struggled. We realized them because many sacrificed. We realized them because we persevered.
“For millions of people around the world today the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is still only a declaration of hope. Like all of you, I want that hope to be fulfilled. The struggle to fulfill it will last longer than the lifetimes of any of us; indeed, it will last as long as the lifetime of humanity itself. But we must persevere. And we must persevere by insuring that this country of ours, leader in the world which we love so much, is always in the forefront of those who are struggling for that great hope, the great dream of universal human rights.” (Ibid., page 2; the President’s remarks are also printed in Public Papers: Carter, 1978, Book II, pages 2161–2165)