Is there a faithful compliance with the objectives of the Charter if some countries continue to curtail human rights and freedoms instead of to promote the universal respect for an observance of human rights and freedoms for all as called for by the Charter?

The field of human rights is not one in which compromise on fundamental principles are possible.

The development of the ideal of freedom and its translation into the everyday life of the people in great areas of the earth is the product of the efforts of many peoples. It is the fruit of a long tradition of vigorous thinking and courageous action.

In the United States we have a capitalistic economy. That is because public opinion favors that type of economy under the conditions in which we live. But we have imposed certain restraints; for instance, we have antitrust laws. These are the legal evidence of the determination of the American people to maintain an economy of free competition and not to allow monopolies to take away the people’s freedom.

I have great sympathy with the Russian people. They love their country and have always defended it valiantly against invaders. They have been through a period of revolution, as a result of which they were for a time cut off from outside contact. They have not lost their resulting suspicion of other countries and the great difficulty is today that their government encourages this suspicion and seems to believe that force alone will bring them respect.

I think the best example one can give of this basic difference of the use of terms is “the right to work.” The Soviet Union insists that this is a basic right which it alone can guarantee because it alone provides full employment by the government. But the right to work in the Soviet Union means the assignment of workers to do whatever task is given to them by the government without an opportunity for the people to participate in the decision that the government should do this. A society in which everyone works is not necessarily a free society and may indeed be a slave society; on the other hand, a society in which there is widespread economic insecurity can turn freedom into a barren and vapid right for millions of people.

The Declaration has come from the Human Rights Commission with unanimous acceptance except for four abstentions -- the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia. The reason for this is a fundamental difference in the conception of human rights as they exist in these states and in certain other Member States in the United Nations. In the discussion before the Assembly, I think it should be made crystal clear what these differences are and tonight I want to spend a little time making them clear to you. It seems to me there is a valid reason for taking the time today to think carefully and clearly on the subject of human rights, because in the acceptance and observance of these rights lies the root, I believe, of our chance of peace in the future, and for the strengthening of the United Nations organization to the point where it can maintain peace in the future.

The place to discuss the issue of human rights is in the forum of the United Nations. The United Nations has been set up as the common meeting ground for nations, where we can consider together our mutual problems and take advantage of our differences in experience.

The world at large is aware of the tragic consequences for human beings ruled by totalitarian systems. If we examine Hitler’s rise to power, we see how the chains are forged which keep the individual a slave and we cans e many similarities in the way things are accomplished in other countries.

It is my belief, and I am sure it is also yours, that the struggle for democracy and freedom is a critical struggle, for their preservation is essential to the great objective of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information, freedom of assembly -- these are not just abstract ideals to us; they are tools with which we create a way of life, a way of life in which we can enjoy freedom.

It is true that they have been many cases where newspapers in the U.S.S.R. have criticized officials and their actions and have been responsible for the removal of those officials, but in doing so they did not criticize anything which was fundamental to Communist beliefs.

For instance, the U.S.S.R. will assert that their press is free because the state makes it free by providing the machinery, the paper, and even the money for salaries for the people who work on the paper. They state that there is no control over what is printed in the various papers that they subsidize in this manner, such, for instance, as a trade-union paper. But what would happen if a paper were to print ideas which were critical of the basic policies and beliefs of the Communist government.? I am sure some good reason would be found for abolishing the paper.

The U.S.S.R. Representatives assert that they already have achieved many things which we, in what they call the "bourgeois democracies" cannot achieve because their government controls the accomplishment of these things.

There are basic differences that show up even in the use of words between a democratic and a totalitarian country. For instance "democracy" means one thing to the U.S.S.R. and another the U.S.A. and, I know, in France. I have served since the first meeting of the nuclear commission on the Human Rights Commission, and I think this point stands out clearly.

In the preamble to the Charter the keynote is set when it declares: "We the people of the United Nations determined...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and...to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

The decisive importance of this issue was fully recognized by the founders of the United Nations at San Francisco. Concern for the preservation and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms stands at the heart of the United Nations.

The decisive importance of this issue was fully recognized by the founders of the UnitedNations at San Francisco. Concern for the preservation and promotion of human rights andfundamental freedoms stands at the heart of the United Nations.

Is there a faithful compliance with the objectives of theCharter if some countries continue to curtail human rights and freedoms instead of to promotethe universal respect for an observance of human rights and freedoms for all as called for bythe Charter?

The development of the ideal of freedom and its translation into the everyday life of thepeople in great areas of the earth is the product of the efforts of many peoples. It is the fruitof a long tradition of vigorous thinking and courageous action.

I think the best example one can give of this basic difference of the use of terms is “the rightto work.” The Soviet Union insists that this is a basic right which it alone can guaranteebecause it alone provides full employment by the government. But the right to work in theSoviet Union means the assignment of workers to do whatever task is given to them by thegovernment without an opportunity for the people to participate in the decision that thegovernment should do this. A society in which everyone works is not necessarily a free societyand may indeed be a slave society; on the other hand, a society in which there is widespreadeconomic insecurity can turn freedom into a barren and vapid right for millions of people.

In the United States we have a capitalistic economy. That is because public opinion favors thattype of economy under the conditions in which we live. But we have imposed certainrestraints; for instance, we have antitrust laws. These are the legal evidence of thedetermination of the American people to maintain an economy of free competition and not toallow monopolies to take away the people’s freedom.

The Declaration has come from the Human Rights Commission with unanimous acceptanceexcept for four abstentions -- the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia. The reasonfor this is a fundamental difference in the conception of human rights as they exist in thesestates and in certain other Member States in the United Nations.In the discussion before the Assembly, I think it should be made crystal clear what thesedifferences are and tonight I want to spend a little time making them clear to you. It seems tome there is a valid reason for taking the time today to think carefully and clearly on thesubject of human rights, because in the acceptance and observance of these rights lies theroot, I believe, of our chance of peace in the future, and for the strengthening of the UnitedNations organization to the point where it can maintain peace in the future.

It is true that they have been many cases where newspapers in the U.S.S.R. have criticizedofficials and their actions and have been responsible for the removal of those officials, but indoing so they did not criticize anything which was fundamental to Communist beliefs.

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press,freedom of information, freedom of assembly -- these are not just abstract ideals to us; theyare tools with which we create a way of life, a way of life in which we can enjoy freedom.

The U.S.S.R. Representatives assert that they already have achieved many things which we,in what they call the "bourgeois democracies" cannot achieve because their governmentcontrols the accomplishment of these things.

In the preamble to the Charter the keynote is set when it declares: "We the people of theUnited Nations determined...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity andworth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large andsmall, and...to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."

For instance, the U.S.S.R. will assert that their press is free because the state makes it free byproviding the machinery, the paper, and even the money for salaries for the people who workon the paper. They state that there is no control over what is printed in the various papersthat they subsidize in this manner, such, for instance, as a trade-union paper. But what wouldhappen if a paper were to print ideas which were critical of the basic policies and beliefs of theCommunist government.? I am sure some good reason would be found for abolishing thepaper.

There are basic differences that show up even in the use of words between a democratic and atotalitarian country. For instance "democracy" means one thing to the U.S.S.R. and anotherthe U.S.A. and, I know, in France. I have served since the first meeting of the nuclearcommission on the Human Rights Commission, and I think this point stands out clearly.

The place to discuss the issue of human rights is in the forum of the United Nations. TheUnited Nations has been set up as the common meeting ground for nations, where we canconsider together our mutual problems and take advantage of our differences in experience.

I have great sympathy with the Russian people. They love their country and have alwaysdefended it valiantly against invaders. They have been through a period of revolution, as aresult of which they were for a time cut off from outside contact.

The field of human rights is not one in which compromise on fundamental principles arepossible.

The world at large is aware of the tragic consequences for human beings ruled by totalitariansystems. If we examine Hitler’s rise to power, we see how the chains are forged which keepthe individual a slave and we cans e many similarities in the way things are accomplished inother countries.

It is my belief, and I am sure it is also yours, that the struggle for democracy and freedom isa critical struggle, for their preservation is essential to the great objective of the UnitedNations to maintain international peace and security.