Universal Declaration for Human Rights, of the Helsinki Accords, and of many other international instruments must be taken just as seriously as commercial or security agreements.

This issue is important in itself. It should not block progress on other important matters affecting the security and well-being of our people and of world peace. It is obvious that the reduction of tension, the control of nuclear arms, the achievement of harmony in the troubled areas of the world, and the provision of food, good health, and education will independently contribute to advancing the human condition.

76 Dept. of State Bulletin 332–333 (1977).

For further information concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), see post, pp. 170-171.

For further information concerning the Genocide Convention (1948), see post, pp. 201–205.

For further information on the removal of restrictions on American travel abroad, see ante, Ch. 3, § 2, pp. 111-113, 115–117.

For further information on a U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, see post, pp. 188-190.

For further information concerning the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, see post, pp. 174-175.

For further information concerning the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (the Helsinki Accords of 1975), see post, pp. 175–182.

In his first public speech as Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance gave a comprehensive statement concerning human rights and U.S. foreign policy at the Law Day ceremonies at the University of Georgia in Athens on April 30, 1977:

I speak today about the resolve of this Administration to make the advancement of human rights a central part of our foreign policy.

In the early years of our civil rights movement, many Americans treated the issue as a "Southern" problem. They were wrong. It was and is a problem for all of us. Now, as a nation, we must not make a comparable mistake. Protection of human rights is a challenge for all countries, not just for a few.

Our concern for human rights is built upon ancient values. It looks with hope to a world in which liberty is not just a great cause, but the common condition. In the past, it may have seemed sufficient to put our name to international documents that spoke loftily of human rights. That is not enough. We will go to work, alongside other people and governments to protect and enhance the dignity of the individual.

Let me define what we mean by "human rights."

First, there is the right to be free from governmental violation of the integrity of the person. Such violations include torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. And they include denial of fair public trial, and invasion of the home.

Second, there is the right to the fulfillment of such vital needs as food, shelter, health care and education. We recognize that the fulfillment of this right will depend, in part, upon the stage of a nation's economic development. But we also know that this right can be violated by a government's action or inaction-for example, through corrupt official processes which divert resources to an elite at the expense of the needy, or through indifference to the plight of the poor.

Third, there is the right to enjoy civil and political libertiesfreedom of thought; of religion; of assembly; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of movement both within and outside one's own country; freedom to take part in government.

Our policy is to promote all these rights. They are all recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a basic document which the United States helped fashion and which the United Nations approved in 1948. There may be disagreement on the priorities these rights deserve. But I believe that, with work, all of these rights can become complementary and mutually reinforcing.

The philosophy of our human rights policy is revolutionary in the intellectual sense, reflecting our nation's origin and progressive values. As Archibald MacLeish wrote during our Bicentennial a year ago, "The cause of human liberty is now the one great revolutionary cause . . . .”

President Carter put it this way in his speech before the United Nations:

All the signatories of the U.N. Charter have pledged themselves to observe and to respect basic human rights. Thus, no member of the United Nations can claim that mistreatment of its citizens is solely its own business. Equally, no member can avoid its responsibilities to review and to speak when torture or unwarranted deprivation occurs in any part of the world. . . . Since 1945, international practice has confirmed that a nation's obligation to respect human rights is a matter of concern in international law.

Our obligation under the United Nations Charter is written into our own legislation. For example, our Foreign Assistance Act now reads: "a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States is to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries."

In these ways, our policy is in keeping with our tradition, our international obligations and our laws.

In pursuing a human rights policy, we must always keep in mind the limits of our power and of our wisdom. A sure formula for defeat of our goals would be a rigid, hubristic attempt to impose

our values on others. A doctrinaire plan of action would be as damaging as indifference.

We must be realistic. Our country can only achieve our objectives if we shape what we do to the case at hand. In each instance, we will consider these questions as we determine whether and how to act:

1. First, we will ask ourselves, what is the nature of the case that confronts us? For example,

-What kind of violations or deprivations are there? What is their extent?

-Is there a pattern to the violations? If so, is the trend toward concern for human rights or away from it?

-What is the degree of control and responsibility of the government involved?

-And, finally, is the government willing to permit independent, outside investigation?

2. A second set of questions concerns the prospects for effective action:

-Will our action be useful in promoting the overall cause of human rights?

-Will it actually improve the specific conditions at hand? Or will it be likely to make things worse instead?

-Is the country involved receptive to our interest and efforts? -Will others work with us, including official and private international organizations dedicated to furthering human rights? -Finally, does our sense of values and decency demand that we speak out or take action anyway, even though there is only a remote chance of making our influence felt?

3. We will ask a third set of questions in order to maintain a sense of perspective:

-Have we steered away from the self-righteous and strident, remembering that our own record is not unblemished? -Have we been sensitive to genuine security interests, realizing that outbreak of armed conflict or terrorism could in itself pose a serious threat to human rights?

-Have we considered all the rights at stake? If, for instance, we reduced aid to a government which violates the political rights of its citizens, do we not risk penalizing the hungry and poor, who bear no responsibility for the abuses of their government?

If we are determined to act, the means available range from quiet diplomacy in its many forms, through public pronouncements, to withholding of assistance. Whenever possible, we will use positive steps of encouragement and inducement. Our strong support will go to countries that are working to improve the human condition. We will always try to act in concert with other countries, through international bodies.

In the end, a decision whether and how to act in the cause of human rights is a matter for informed and careful judgment. No mechanistic formula produces an automatic answer.

It is not our purpose to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but as the President has emphasized, no member of the United Nations can claim that violation of internationally protected human rights is solely its own affair. It is our purpose to shape our policies in accord with our beliefs, and to state them without stridency or apology, when we think it is desirable to do so. Our policy is to be applied within our own society as well as abroad. We welcome constructive criticism, at the same time as we offer it.

We are embarked on a long journey. But our faith in the dignity of the individual encourages us to believe that people in every society, according to their own traditions, will in time give their own expression to this fundamental aspiration.

76 Dept. of State Bulletin 505-508 (1977).

*

In his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on May 22, 1977, President Carter outlined the objectives of his foreign policy and described America's commitment to human rights as the first of five cardinal principles upon which U.S. policy rests. Portions of President Carter's address, including the segment devoted to human rights, follow:

[I] want to speak to you today about the strands that connect our actions overseas with our essential character as a nation. I believe we can have a foreign policy that is democratic, that is based on fundamental values, and that uses power and influence which we have for humane purposes..

Our policy must be open; it must be candid: it must be one of constructive global involvement, resting on five cardinal principles.

First, we have reaffirmed America's commitment to human rights as a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy. In ancestry, religion, color, place of origin, and cultural background, we Americans are as diverse a nation as the world has ever seen. No common mystique of blood or soil unites us. What draws us together, perhaps more than anything else, is a belief in human freedom. We want the world to know that our nation stands for more than financial prosperity.

This does not mean that we can conduct our foreign policy by rigid moral maxims. We live in a world that is imperfect, and which will always be imperfect; a world that is complex and confused, and which will always be complex and confused.

I understand fully the limits of moral suasion. We have no illusion that changes will come easily or soon. But I also believe that it is a mistake to undervalue the power of words and of the ideas that words embody. In our own history, that power has ranged from

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, "I Have a Dream."

In the life of the human spirit, words are action, much more so than many of us may realize who live in countries where freedom of expression is taken for granted. The leaders of totalitarian nations understand this very well. The proof is that words are precisely the action for which dissidents in those countries are being persecuted.

Nonetheless, we can already see dramatic worldwide advances in the protection of the individual from the arbitrary power of the state. For us to ignore this trend would be to lose influence and moral authority in the world. To lead it will be to regain the moral stature that we once had.

The great democracies are not free because we are strong and prosperous. I believe we are strong and influential and prosperous because we are free.

Throughout the world today, in free nations and in totalitarian countries as well, there is a preoccupation with the subject of human freedom, human rights, and I believe it is incumbent on us in this country to keep that discussion, that debate, that contention alive. No other country is as well-qualified as we to set an example. We have our own shortcomings and faults, and we should strive constantly and with courage to make sure that we are legitimately proud of what we have.

President Carter listed the other four cardinal principles as follows:

Second, we have moved deliberately to reinforce the bonds among our democracies.

Third, we have moved to engage the Soviet Union in a joint effort to halt the strategic arms race

Fourth, we are taking deliberate steps to improve the chances of lasting peace in the Middle East .

Fifth, we are attempting, even at the risk of some friction with friends, to reduce the danger of nuclear proliferation and the worldwide spread of conventional weapons

76 Dept. of State Bulletin 621-625 (June 13, 1977).

On July 29, 1977, Patricia M. Derian, then Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and subsequently the first Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, gave an address at the graduation ceremonies of the American Institute for Free Labor Development in which she reviewed U.S. human rights policy throughout the world and summarized the key aspects of that policy in the Western Hemisphere. Portions of Ms. Derian's address follow:

* *

As part of its human rights policy, the Carter Administration is determined to abide by the United Nations Charter requirement that internationally recognized human rights be afforded without regard to sex, race, language, or religion.