Human Rights and Human Freedom:
An American View
Eleanor Roosevelt
I realize that the other delegates
speak from different points of view and I understand why
to them this seems different from what it does to me.
I cannot remember a political or a
religious refugee being sent out of my country since the
Civil War. At that time I do remember that one of my own
relatives, because he came to this country and built a
ship that ran contraband to the South, was not included
in the amnesty. But since then this has not been a
question that has entered into my thinking.
Europe has had a succession of wars and
changes in population, as well as changes in ownership of
land; and therefore it is natural that we approach the
question from a different point of view; but we here in
the United Nations are trying to frame things which will
be broader in outlook, which will consider first the
rights of man, which will consider what makes man more
free: not governments but man.
I happen to come from the United
States. I used in the committee an example: I am going to
use it again; it is purely hypothetical. We happen to
have an island in the Caribbean called Puerto Rico. Now
in Puerto Rico there are several factions. One faction
would like to become another State. Another faction would
like to be entirely free. Another faction would like to
stay just the way they are in their relation to the
United States.
Suppose, just for the sake of
supposing, that we had a refugee camp. We belong to the
United Nations, but are we going to say that the Puerto
Ricans, who happen to want to be free from the United
States, shall receive no-letters from home, none of their
home papers, no letters perhaps from people who have gone
to live in other places or information from other places?
I think that we can stand up under having them free to
get whatever information comes their way and make up
their own minds. They are free human beings.
What is propaganda? Are we so weak in
the United Nations, are we as individual nations so weak
that we are going to forbid human beings to say what they
think and fear whatever their friends and their
particular type of mind happens to believe in? Surely we
can tell them, their own Governments can tell them, all
we want to tell them. We are not preventing them from
hearing what each country wants them to hear, but we are
saying, for instance, that in the United States we have
people who have come there from war-torn Europe. They are
in two different camps. They will write their relatives
as they hear they are in different camps in Europe and
they may not always say things that are exactly polite or
in agreement with the United Nations. They may even say
things against the United States, but I still think it is
their right to say them and it is the right of men in
refugee camps and women to hear them and to make their
own decisions.
I object to "no propaganda against
the United Nations or any member of the United
Nations." It is like saying you are always sure you
are going to be right. I am not always sure my Government
or my nation will be right. I hope it will be and I shall
do my best to keep it as right as I can keep it, and so,
I am sure, will every other nation. But there are people
who are going to disagree and I think we aim to reach a
point where we on whole are so right that the majority of
our people will be with us and we can always stand having
among us the people who do not agree, because we are sure
that the right is so carefully guarded among us and the
freedom of people is so carefully guarded that we will
always have the majority with us.
For that reason I oppose including in a
report which we have to accept, this amendment, which I
consider restrictive of human rights and human freedom.
The New York Times Magazine,
March 24, 1946, p. 21. From a debate between Eleanor
Roosevelt and Soviet delegate Andrei Y. Vishinsky, at the
UNO General Assembly.
As edited by Allida M. Black. See her
collection, What I Hope to Leave Behind: The
Essential Essays of Eleanor Roosevelt. (Carlson
Publishing, Inc., 1995)
|