The Dilemma Of Human Rights - 1978 Editorial

October 11, 1978If only we will back off a little morereview and the diffusion of property in a private
on our demands that Russia live up to the Helsinkisector. In short, our civil rights derive from the
agreement on human rights, a strategic armstheory and practice of limited government."Our
limitation treaty can be signed any day now.Secretarypolitical leaders, when they come to praise civil rights
of State Cyrus Vance has given away the B-1in one world forum or another, do not argue in favor
bomber, cruise missile, neutron war head and nuclearof limited government - perhaps because they no
carrier. Now that all U.S. weapons advantages havelonger really believe in it. They always talk as if their
been abandoned, the principle broadly defined asmission is to persuade authoritarian or totalitarian
human rights is under final attack.In the end we cangovernments to make a gift of civil rights to their
expect that the noble precepts of human rights willpeople."POLITICAL RIGHTS are those to participate,
be accorded short shrift.Perhaps our retreat fromin one degree or another, in government.
principle is inevitable. Human rights is, after all, aOne-person-one-vote is indeed a constitutional
campaign catch-word that greatly complicates theprinciple by which a people may govern itself. But it is
real world of power politics if taken seriously.Othernot the sole such principle. Only a dogmatist would
nations, friends and foes, had difficulty figuring outinsist that it is, everywhere and always, the best
what we meant by human rights. Not until Presidentprinciple. Even the United States, after all, for most
Jimmy Carter defined the term more precisely - inof its history has not been governed by this
private - and turned down the volume did ourprinciple."The proper extent of political rights in any
international relations smooth out.The trouble was -nation is not something our State Department can
and still remains for the American public - that "humanhave a meaningful opinion about. It can only be
rights" has too many meanings. Each hearer interpretsdetermined by the people of that nation, who will
the concept to suit his own convictions.Irving Kristol,draw on their own political and cultural backgrounds in
professor of urban values at New York University,arriving at a suitable disposition of this matter."We
summarized the problem some time ago in a guestcan try to set them a good example by making our
analysis for the Wall Street Journal."Human rightsdemocratic republic as admirable as possible - as our
really includes four very different political ideas," saidFounding Fathers urged. But that's about all we can
Kristol."HUMAN RIGHTS PROPER is the least politicaldo - as our Founding Fathers
of the four meanings, since it applies equally to allrecognized."SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS were
governments, regardless of their political structure. Itinscribed in the United Nations Charter, and the United
refers to those practices of government which, inStates, in its folly, has duly subscribed to the principle
the perspective of our Judaeo-Christian civilization,behind them. The principle is that a welfare state is
can flatly be called abominations, that is, wherealways and everywhere better than a non-welfare
questions of degree are irrelevant. Genocide, whetherstate; that the more comprehensive a welfare state,
on a large scale or small, is such an abomination. So isthe better; and that the right to a broad range of
torture. And so are restrictions on the right togovernment services is absolute, whether the nation
emigrate."Though the U.S. since World War II hascan afford them or not, and whether the people
been properly outspoken on the issue of genocidewant them or not."A particular and debatable version
and torture, it has avoided making any fuss aboutof 20th-Century liberalism is suddenly presented to us
the right to emigrate. The reason, to put it bluntly,as a universal 'human right.' Since, at this late date, it
was fear of offending the Soviet and othermight be difficult to repudiate this absurd principle out
Communists governments. The Carter administrationright, we ought to ignore it as much as
seems willing to continue this particular policy ofpossible."Failure to recognize the several
'moral detente.'"CIVIL RIGHTS are those of aninterpretations possible of his campaign slogan has
individual with his government, and are summed up inunnecessarily entangled President Carter in semantics.
the phrase, 'the rule of law,' to which evenHe frequently finds himself in the embarrassing
government is subject."It is important to emphasize,position of lecturing our allies and looking the other
since we Americans have so parochial andway when our enemies commit worse violations.Now
impoverished a sense of history, that such civil rightswe are on the horns of a dilemma -one labeled SALT
can exist even in non-liberal or nondemocratictreaty and the other human rights. To get one we
societies. Neither Henry VIII nor Tsar Nicholas I evermust bury the other.And it really doesn't make much
presumed to think he had the kind of arbitrary powerdifference which.Lindsey Williams is a Sun columnist
which many member governments of the Unitedwho can be contacted at:Website: with several
Nations exercise today as a matter of course."Ashundred of Lin's Editorial & At Large articles written
Robert Goldwin recently emphasized, we seem toover 40 years.Also featured in its entirety is Lin's
have forgotten that our own broad definition of civilgroundbreaking book "Boldly Onward," that critically
rights is rooted in our political and economic structureanalyzes and develops theories about the original
- in federalism, the separation of powers, judicialSpanish explorers of America.