Essay Introduction

In "Human Rights and the United Nations," Russell J. Clinchy provides a critical analysis of the United Nations' proposed "Covenant on Human Rights." Clinchy argues that the Covenant represents a dangerous shift from the American concept of inherent, God-given rights to a statist philosophy where rights are grants from the government. He warns that if ratified as a treaty, the Covenant would become the supreme law of the land, potentially overriding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Through a detailed examination of specific articles regarding religion, the press, labor, and social security, Clinchy contends that the Covenant confuses "rights" with material "desires." He concludes that attempting to guarantee these economic benefits as legal rights inevitably requires a totalitarian system to enforce them, thereby destroying true freedom.

Human Rights and the United Nations

by Russell J. Clinchy

FOR many months the United Nations organization has been trying to enforce its decision in Korea. The results would seem to show quite clearly that this organization of national governments is incapable of forcing its ideas upon any unwilling nation—even a small one or a "backward" one. And any attempt of the United Nations to use coercion upon us in this country to accept a form and concept of government that are completely alien to our experience and tradition would also be readily resisted. Yet such a change is being undertaken through the indirect and little-understood method of domestic legislation by international treaties, and through the questionable manipulation of public opinion by those who fear an adverse decision on the part of the people.

This fact can be seen most clearly in an examination of the International Covenant on Human Rights which the United Nations will submit to the various member nations for ratification. If adopted, it will become the "over law" of the adopting nations. In the case of the United States, it will become the national law because the American Constitution provides that a treaty adopted by the Senate shall become the supreme law of the land and of the states. Students of liberty, therefore, are presented with a mandate for the study of this Covenant on Human Rights; for by adopting it, we would change our form of government without the consent—or even the knowledge—of the people.

The Term Defined

Since we are here discussing human rights rather than political rights, let us attempt to define the term. Human rights are founded upon considerations of justice and morality; they are ordained by natural law. And while they may be defended by political law, no government brought them into existence; human rights existed before formalized government and are superior to it. Thus, no government can grant them, and no government can legitimately abolish them. The sole purpose of government should be to defend them.

In speaking of rights, we are here concerned with rights in the sense of relationships between individuals in society—rights of individuals which will be acknowledged, accepted, and defended by other individuals. More precisely, we are concerned about the morality of persons, because there alone can be found a firm foundation for any concept of rights and justice. In the final analysis, the laws of nature are comprehended—and the resulting laws of man are perfected and respected—only within the general framework of the moral standards of those individuals who find themselves living together in society.

America is a religious nation; the overwhelming majority of the people recognizes the concept of God. Our present form of government was devised by men whose understanding of natural law and moral philosophy made it obvious to them that all men are endowed by their Creator with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While their idea was "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men," they rejected the old-world concept that rights of individuals are grants from government. As we study the proposed United Nations Covenant on Human Rights, let us note the moral philosophy of those who designed that document.

Differing Concepts

It is on record in the debates of the Commission on Human Rights that scores of compromises had to be made to secure the assent to the Covenant by nations which radically vary one from the other in their concepts of the purpose of human activity. These compromises have resulted in the grafting of qualifications on to each declaration of a right in such a way as to obscure or nullify the intended right.

The provisions of the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights follow the pattern of thought found in the constitutions of dictatorial governments. For purposes of comparison, consider this sample from the Russian Constitution:

"Art. 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law: (a) Freedom of speech; (b) Freedom of the press; (c) Freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; (d) Freedom of street processions and demonstrations.

"These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights."

A Second Glance

At first glance this seems to be as complete as any devotee of freedom could wish. But the words say that the freedoms are granted, guaranteed, and insured by decree of the government. You can assemble and speak in a hall—but only in a hall which the state has decided to give. You can travel—but only in facilities supplied by the government. You can express your thoughts in a book or a newspaper—but only if the state consents to your using its printing presses and its paper.

The Soviet Constitution is explicit in the expression of the belief that human rights are—and by right ought to be—the gift of the state. The members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights seem to have operated on this same theory. What kind of a moral philosophy underlies such a concept? Surely it is not the faith that rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are personal endowments from God. Persons who understand and believe in liberty know that their government does not have, and cannot have, any legitimate power to grant or to abridge the freedom of man to be a person and to express the meanings of his personality, because such freedom exists solely in the nature of man.

The unique contribution of America is not dynamic expansion, the use of natural resources, technological ability, nor creative insight in art or literature. All nations and peoples of history have had more or less comparable experiences. The uniqueness lies in the precept upon which America was founded; persons possess freedom and natural rights at birth—before they become part of any government—and these rights are not merely part of the biological process but are implanted in the soul of man as a birthright. Inherent rights belong to the people, not to government; for the state has only functions which are granted to it in limited measure by the consent of free people. The American concept is that government cannot grant nor abridge these natural rights; it can only protect them. If this fundamental concept should be denied, or even diminished, the true meaning of the American Revolution would disappear.

Freedom Of Religion

The articles of the United Nations Covenant relating to the freedom of religion and of the press are most pertinent for our discussion. Article 13 of the Covenant states:

"(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion . . . (2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief shall be subject only to such limitations as are pursuant to law and are reasonable and necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others."

Study carefully the list of limitations. A person may manifest (it does not say practice) his religion, only if such manifestation is considered by the government not to be against the order, health, morals, or public safety of the community.

If a dictator wished to circumscribe or prohibit the practice of religion, what other shackles would he need than these? The charge made against Jesus of Nazareth before Pilate was that "He stirreth up the people." Under the Covenant on Human Rights, could not Pilate have said that, in order to protect the public safety, he would have to deny Jesus the right to manifest His religion? Certainly he would have had a legal justification for doing so under this Covenant.

Or what about public morals and order? Could not any dictator, totalitarian government, or church say that the teaching of any unpopular, minority religion was an offense against the morals and order of the community? In fact, that has been the custom of rulers throughout history when they wished to suppress the development of a new or unpopular religion. Which morals will be endangered? Obviously, the morals endorsed by the party in power. That is just the charge that was made against the early Christians in Rome by successive emperors. It was the charge made against the Jews by Hitler. It is literally true to say that the qualifying words used in this document, which purports to be a covenant on human rights, could be used to destroy religion in every corner of the world.

The American Religious Concept

In contrast, one of the early—and one of the best—expressions of the American concept of religious liberty is found in the Statute of Religious Freedom of Virginia as written by Thomas Jefferson in 1786:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

"... the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

This statute came into being because of an effort by certain persons in Virginia to restrict freedom of religion only to the practice of "the Christian religion in general." To this, because they believed it to be a restriction upon the freedom of religious expression, both Madison and Jefferson were opposed.

In 1785, James Madison had stated in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. . . . We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."

It is clear that both Madison and Jefferson based their arguments for religious freedom upon the concept of natural law—that which is discernible to reason as originating in the nature of the world.

Their thesis has four parts:

1. No man shall be compelled to comply with any form of religion.
2. No man shall be molested nor made to suffer because of his religion.
3. The profession of religious conviction shall not diminish civil rights.
4. Any act which attempts to repeal or narrow the operation of these rights shall be considered as an infringement upon the natural rights of man.

These concepts are the tenets of the American belief and practice regarding the freedom of religion. But the restrictions outlined in the article relating to religion in the United Nations Covenant would supply the legal sanction for full and complete destruction of the freedom of religion now possessed and enjoyed by Americans.

The Covenant on Human Rights of the United Nations would give to government the power to limit the freedom of religion, under pretext of the protection of the public safety, order, health, and morals. This is a clear and present danger to the life and liberty of every American citizen, for the First Amendment to our Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Freedom Of The Press

The Covenant is just as destructive of freedom when it comes to its declarations concerning the status of the press.

This wording is found in Article 14 of the Covenant: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

"The right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to certain penalties, liabilities and restrictions, but these shall be such only as are provided by law and are necessary for the protection of national security, public order, safety, health or morals, or of the rights, freedoms or reputations of others."

Let us study the implications of these words as they relate to an actual incident. A short while ago all believers in the freedom of the press were shocked by the suppression of one of the great newspapers of the world, La Prensa of Buenos Aires. The dictator shut down the paper and ordered the arrest of the editor. But why? Because he had decided that the kind of material which was being printed should be subject to penalties and restriction for the protection of his concepts of national security, public order, and safety—not to mention his own reputation.

Such a study of the civil and political rights written into this Covenant clearly indicates the inadequacy of the definition of their nature, and also presents the danger to their continued possession by American citizens through the restrictions placed upon these rights by the words of the Covenant. It should be noted that in the First Amendment to the American Constitution, the restrictions are placed only upon Congress.

If the American delegates to the United Nations, and to the Commission on Human Rights, are zealously devoted to the interpretation and the protection of these rights, and truly desire an extension of the same measure of these rights to other peoples in the world, they will demand that Articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant be rewritten in this manner:

The States Parties hereby involved shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, nor abridging the freedom of speech, of the press, and of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances.

No mandate to do any more, or any less, than this ever has been given—or ever could be given—to representatives of the American government who take part in international discussions of the rights of worship, speech, and assembly. No other statement than this is needed to preserve the rights already possessed by Americans and protected by their Constitution. No other statement than this can ever extend these rights in their full and complete meaning to other peoples of the world.

Economic Objectives

Let us now consider the list of social and economic objectives which this United Nations Covenant would elevate to the status of human rights. You may again be struck by the remarkable similarity of these ideas in the Covenant and the same ideas in certain totalitarian constitutions:

ARTICLE 19 The States Parties to the present Covenant,

1. bearing in mind the link between the rights and liberties recognized and defined above, and the economic, social and cultural rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
2. resolved to combat the scourges, such as famine, disease, poverty, the feeling of insecurity and ignorance, which take toll of or degrade men, and prevent the free development of their personality;
3. resolved to strive to ensure that every human being shall obtain the food, clothing, shelter essential for his livelihood and well-being, and shall achieve an adequate standard of living and a continuous improvement of his living material and spiritual conditions;
4. undertake to take steps, individually and through international co-operation, to the maximum of their available resources with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in this part of the present Covenant.

ARTICLE 20 Work being at the basis of all human endeavor, the States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right to work, that is to say, the fundamental right of everyone to the opportunity, if he so desires, to gain his living by work which he freely accepts.

ARTICLE 21 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right of everyone to just and favourable conditions of work, including: (a) safe and healthy working conditions; (b) minimum remuneration which provides all workers: (i) with fair wages and equal pay for equal work, and (ii) a decent living for themselves and their families; and (c) reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

ARTICLE 22 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security.

ARTICLE 23 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right of everyone to adequate housing.

ARTICLE 24 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living and the continuous improvement of living conditions.

ARTICLE 25 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest standard of health obtainable. With a view to implementing and safeguarding this right each State party hereto undertakes to provide legislative measures to promote and protect health and, in particular: (i) to reduce infant mortality and provide for healthy development of the child; (ii) to improve nutrition, housing, sanitation, recreation, economic and working conditions and other aspects of environmental hygiene; (iii) to control epidemic, endemic and other diseases; (iv) to provide conditions which would assure the right of all to medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

ARTICLE 26 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize that: (1) special protection should be accorded to maternity and motherhood; and (2) special measures of protection should be taken on behalf of children and young persons, and that in particular they should not be required to do work likely to hamper their normal development.

ARTICLE 27 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize the right of everyone, in conformity with Article 16, to form and join local, national and international trade unions of his choice for the protection of his economic and social interests.

ARTICLE 28 The States Parties to the Covenant recognize:

1. the right of everyone to education;
2. that educational facilities shall be accessible to all in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination enunciated in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of this Covenant;
3. that primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;
4. that secondary education, in its different forms, including technical and professional secondary education, shall be generally available and shall be made progressively free;
5. that higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit and shall be made progressively free;
6. that fundamental education for those persons who have not received or completed the whole period of their primary education shall be encouraged as far as possible;
7. that education shall encourage the full development of the human personality, the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the suppression of all incitement to racial and other hatred. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial, ethnic or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society;
8. the obligations of States to establish a system of free and compulsory primary education shall not be deemed incompatible with the liberty of parents to choose for their children schools other than those established by the State which conform to minimum standards laid down by the State;
9. in the exercise of any functions which the State assumes in the field of education it shall have respect for the liberty of parents to ensure the religious education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

A List Of Desires

At least this can be said about the above declarations: They constitute almost the entire list of what might be called "The Desires of Mankind." But desires are never rights, nor are they in any sense essential freedoms. Food, clothing, and shelter were not demanded by our ancestors as grants of the universe nor as rights they could claim from their Creator. The only right they had was the right to be free. The only grant they received was the knowledge of reality. With only the possession of this right and this grant, men and women began the struggle of survival and of development, rising and falling in the strange alchemy of human life in the changing periods of history, but growing strong and creative in spirit in those eras when life was relatively unshackled and free. Now, in the middle of the twentieth century, we are confronted with the astounding proposition that the "States Parties to the Covenant" somehow believe that the simple device of voting for this Covenant can relieve the individual of the responsibility for his survival and the gratification of his desires.

The American Idea

It might be easier to accept the Covenant on Human Rights as an honest effort toward human freedom and progress if Section 3 of Article 19 had been written in this form:

"The States Parties to the Covenant shall make no law nor provision that will prevent any human being from making full personal effort to obtain the food, clothing, and shelter essential to his livelihood and well-being, to keep what he thus produces, to strive for an adequate standard of living and continuous improvement of his material and spiritual condition, and voluntarily to help others."

That would be a proposal in full keeping with the spirit and words of the American concept of human rights as set forth both in our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Those documents are based on the concept that each human being is endowed with the right to seek his own development to the fullest extent of his ability and ambition, within the limited natural resources of the environment in which he happens to be. This concept of freedom stems from a source above and beyond any man-made government under which a person happens to be born. It is a religious concept which categorically denies to the state any characteristics of God.

Will the communist and socialist nations accept that idea of human rights? Can the American representatives, or the American Congress, accept anything less than that?

Not Fantasy

Before we are tempted to say that all of the proposals suggested in these articles of the Covenant appear to be entirely in the realm of fantasy—comparable to the one which declares that governments should insure a continuous improvement of the spiritual condition of men—let us remember that such a program of life has been formulated and attempted in practice in varying degrees in the welfare states of the world. Social contracts have been enacted into law in those countries which state that each individual in the community is entitled to the privilege of receiving a share of all the social and economic benefits which the state can assemble through its coercive powers of taxation and confiscation.

Let us examine in more detail these so-called rights of the United Nations Covenant.

Article 20 states that the governments must recognize the right to work, which it defines as the fundamental right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely accepts. There is obviously no objection to the possibility of work since work is a necessity of life. What this article really means, however, is that a cooperating nation must accept the obligation to provide full employment within its borders, because everyone in the country has the right to a job. If it does not mean that the state is obligated to provide the job, it is a useless declaration. It is obvious that everyone, if he is alive and free, has the opportunity of going out to try to find employment; and if there is no position that suits him, to develop something at which he can be self-employed. The United Nations statement, however, is in a different category. It says that there is a state-declared right to work, which means that the state must supply some job whenever any person applies for it.

Invitation To Slavery

Article 21 states that the parties to the Covenant also recognize the right of everyone to just and favorable conditions of work, with a minimum remuneration which will provide all workers with fair wages and equal pay; to a decent living for themselves and their families; to limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. If this right is to come from the state, then the government must control the standards of all employment and set a minimum wage which becomes the "fair" wage which provides what those in political power decide is adequate for a "decent" living. That, of course, would plunge the government into every phase of the economy. According to Sir Stafford Cripps, who should know what he is talking about in this area: "No country in the world . . . has yet succeeded in carrying through a planned economy without the direction of labor."

Are we then to accept the governmental direction of labor as the meaning of "the right to work"? Is this a reasonable and desirable substitute for the American tradition of letting each man work as long and as hard as he likes at the task of his choice for as much return as others will voluntarily offer him for his product and services? How can the state promise a job to every applicant unless it controls all the means of production? If the state promises jobs, can it permit aggressive competition among workers for any one job? Can it permit private employers to compete for the services of the more efficient workers by offering higher wages? Is such a giant state cartel or monopoly suddenly to refute all history and become a blessing of efficiency and abundant production? Is this the kind of opportunity toward which responsible men would struggle? Is this to be the new goal for inhabitants of the land of the free?

Housing

Let us pursue these questions relative to the matter of housing. Article 23 says that the governments must recognize the right of everyone to adequate housing. This means that the state shall build "adequate" housing for each person who claims the need. Of course, a representative of the state will determine what is "adequate." But visualize his problem by asking yourself if your own housing is "adequate" today. Adequate in terms of what? Your need for housing? Or your capacity to provide housing, in addition to satisfying more urgent needs for other things?

Will some public official do a better job than you can in determining the relative urgency of your various needs? Are you going to be happy some morning when you are informed that you shall spend so many days providing adequate housing for someone—quite probably someone unknown to you? Yet that is the inevitable consequence—whether done directly or indirectly—if the state takes cognizance and control of everyone's "right to work" and his "right to adequate housing."

Medicine

The health and medical care of the community are dealt with in Articles 25 and 26. A re-study of these articles will show that the Covenant fails to acknowledge that it is now the right and privilege of each person—by his own efforts or through voluntary cooperation with others—to provide such health, medical care, and good standards of living as he and his family can afford. Instead of that, it states that everyone has the right to the highest standard of health obtainable and that, therefore, each nation must undertake to provide by legislation measures to promote and protect health all through life.

Article 25 states that each government must provide legislation which will reduce infant mortality and promote the healthy development of the child. It says it must improve nutrition, and also that it must provide conditions which will assure the right of all to medical service and medical attention in the event of any kind of sickness.

Those statements can be characterized either as political catch phrases or as social and legal contracts enacted into law upon which the citizen can lay claim. In Great Britain, these provisions have been written into the law; and each individual citizen can claim his legal right to these benefits.

An Untenable Stand

What the people of Britain have not yet acknowledged—and what many of us in America do not seem to understand—is that the so-called middle way is untenable. Our welfare-statists promise a limited amount of public housing, a minimum amount of medical care, a little of this or that state control—but no loss of freedom! They talk as though it were possible to be half-communist and half-free. They ignore the fact that under such an arrangement the "free" areas of human activity are only tolerated by government. That is not freedom but communism of the variety of the New Economic Policy of Russia during the 1920's.

The "middle way" theory moves inevitably from freedom into communism in this manner: The first public housing project justifies the second which, in turn, brings the third. This advance of government housing builds the case for an advance by government into other areas—for example, public feeding. And the further encroachment of government into either of these activities builds the case for public clothing. For once there is acknowledged a need for a little government ownership or control—a little force to make people better than they are—then the door is opened for complete state ownership and control of all property and all persons.

If the people demand "free" medical care, then the doctors and hospitals have to be nationalized. If it is stated that everyone has the right to a house and to a job, then the construction industry and all the methods of employment must be controlled by the state. If to this should be added the items of food and clothing, then the state would have to move inevitably into all these areas of life and nationalize them because the legislation converting these desires into legal claims would demand the nationalization and the collectivization of the nation.

Education

But let us go a step further. In Article 28, there is the statement that all persons have a right to education, and that all education—elementary, higher, and professional—shall be equal and accessible. There is a further statement that, while primary education must of necessity be free, all further education through the graduate schools shall be progressively free until it is entirely free. This means that the complete education of the child from infancy to maturity shall be at the cost of the community and under the control of government. And even our own Supreme Court has now acknowledged the fact that: "It is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that which it subsidizes."

But the statement regarding the political right of education goes even further. The article states that education shall encourage the full development of the human personality, the strengthening and respect for human rights and freedoms, and the suppression of all incitement to racial and other hatred. It shall promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations, racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

A Perverted Phrase

When one remembers the way in which the phrase in the American Constitution, "to provide for the general welfare," has been perverted to include the responsibility of the state to take over practically every form of social endeavor, one can understand how easily the seemingly humanitarian and enlightened motives of this paragraph in the Covenant could be construed to allow the state to indoctrinate its children with the mind, morals, and the mores of the dominant political power of any given time. In fact, it would have been possible for Adolph Hitler to have accepted these words as the basis for the educational program of national socialism in Germany. His party had control of the educational system of Germany. This educational system extended throughout the entire educational life of the child and young person. He also had a philosophy of national socialism with definitions describing what he thought the full development of the human personality should be, and what, in the Nazi concept, human rights and fundamental freedoms are. We should remember that in an area controlled by such a process as national socialism, or any similar philosophy of governmental direction, the question and definition of what human personality is, and what human rights and fundamental freedoms are, rest with the dominant political power.

The leaders of the collectivized, totalitarian governments always give their own definitions to words such as democracy, freedom, hatred, tolerance, and rights. Recall the Soviet definition given to such a term as "peace-loving people's democracies." This United Nations Covenant of educational rights would provide legal sanction for any dictator or any totalitarian government—any government at all to which the people had given control of education—to frame the definitions of the meanings of words, and then to control education and the educational system according to its will.

Two Conclusions

There are two conclusions which must be drawn from a consideration of these articles relating to the social and economic life of the world.

One is that these phrases describe possible achievements of freedom rather than freedom itself. Freedom is the opportunity to act according to one's wisdom and conscience. The opportunity to act and to be creative is the right and obligation of a free man. Medical care, or any other product of human action, is the result of man's right to be productive; it is not a right in itself. Education is not a human right; it is the process by which a free person achieves enlightenment. The freedom to learn—not the educational equipment and forms—is the fundamental human freedom. The Covenant actually endangers and imperils the existence of the fundamental freedoms by this tragic confusion of equating them with the results of freedom.

The second conclusion is that when the social results of the expression of freedom are declared to be legal rights, then the collectivization of the whole social order is thereby demanded in order that the state may attempt to produce and distribute these political claims. If Congress should declare that each baby has a right to a silver spoon, each father can lay claim to that right for his baby. On the basis of this Covenant, each nation becomes liable for the payment of these benefits to all who make their legal claims to them. The liability of any nation would be upheld by the international tribunals. The state, therefore, would have to attempt to produce and distribute these benefits and so would inevitably move to the control and nationalization of all forms of production. The change from private ownership and free enterprise to collectivism would be automatic.

The Covenant on Human Rights is such a program, and if adopted would become the sanction for the world-wide collectivization of man.

No Common Values

The members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights seem to assume that a concept of human rights can be evolved without a common consent to the meanings of language, human existence, government, or the mores of individual societies.

Among the peoples of the world there is a veritable Babel of languages, many with entirely different definitions to the words denoting certain concepts, and many with no words which define convictions of life and values held by others. Phrases such as "right of recognition as a person" are impossible of definition in any but small areas of the world; and because this definition partakes of the nature of religion and philosophy, it is tempered by the background of various historical cultures.

Man is as he is in the Western world partly because of the history and culture of the Greek, Roman, and Christian civilizations. Eastern man is different because of the history and culture of the East. How can a phrase unite them? Try to discover a commonly accepted meaning of crime, conscience, or peace—words used quite often in the Covenant. In the area of religion, the gamut runs all the way from natural humanism on one side to the incantations of the witch doctor on the other; from the activism of Christianity to the negative of Buddhism.

Among the peoples of the world, the philosophies of life and freedom vary from the extremes of nationalistic collectivism to individual freedom, much in the manner of two streams flowing in opposite directions, with many tributaries feeding into each. Economics is a hodgepodge of confusion with no possibility of a generally accepted definition of the economy as practiced in any one nation. Ethics is so confused that a common definition of it might be: That action which best suits the fulfillment of desire at the moment. Political systems of government range from totalitarian communism through tribalism, feudalism, absolute and constitutional monarchism, fascism, socialism, democracy, and republicanism.

Forced Uniformity

The very inharmonious nature of the heterogeneous peoples, corralled together under the term "united," constitutes the fundamental peril to the rights of man—first, because there can be no voluntary agreement upon their meaning or validity; and second, because this lack of agreement would give the most powerful unit in the association the legal means to impose its definitions of these rights on everyone. No law nor concept has any real power or effect, no matter what it may be, unless there is such a general acceptance of it that no police force is necessary to bring about its acceptance by the vast majority. There is not the slightest possibility of any declaration made by any constituent body of the United Nations today receiving such dominant acceptance; and therefore the end result of any attempt to impose this code upon the nations could only be greater disunity and strife. Only a unifying faith in the dignity of man, with the inevitable diversities of expression of individuality, enables man to accept the assumptions of the good life. No imposed code can ever attain any measure of this.

A Case History

The history of the Roman Empire should illustrate to us the impossibility of imposing a uniform structure of governmental control, and a mode of life, upon various forms of national units.

At first glance, it would appear as though the formation of that Empire were a great success, indicating the possibility of creating a unified government across a diversity of peoples today. An imperial government, centered in Rome, set out to bring the world under one unity of control and command. Within two centuries it had imposed its rule upon the whole of the Western world, and the common system of government extended from the Rock of Gibraltar to Persia and from North Africa to Britain. Every form of culture, religion, and ethics known to the world at that time was encased within the borders of this Empire.

It is true that this system developed a surface appearance of order, and the people achieved some material benefits. War between the units ceased for a time; highways, aqueducts, dams, and many other public works were constructed; a unitary code of Roman law ruled the world; Latin became the universal language of formal and official speech and writing.

But the fact of history is that this surface uniformity never went below the surface. Within another 200 years the great Empire had crumbled. Yet the individuality of the conquered groups, which the Empire had endeavored to stamp out, persisted. The centers of Athens, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Canterbury, and Constantinople were still individualistic producers of concepts. Only Carthage was nonexistent. It had been swept off the earth. An over-all pattern of supergovernment had been imposed upon a diversity of culture, religion, and forms of mores and governments. Because there was no unity beneath the uniformity, even an imperial power could not endure. But while the supergovernment, with power to enforce its dictates, could not exist, the individual areas of unity did exist. Only true unity within any society can exist without compulsion. And if compulsion is necessary, then the superstructure is an evil deception. Only those who will unite can unite.

A code of ethics, which the United Nations Covenant pretends to be, must follow, rather than precede, the existence of those common beliefs upon which society rests. A code of ethics can only serve as a record of what is, rather than as a formulation of what should be imposed by a majority.

There have probably been no greater disasters in the course of civilization than those which have arisen from the attempts of well-intentioned people to enforce ethical codes upon societies which had no common acceptance of the base of the codes. Athenian democracy could not even be forced upon the Spartans, a day's walk away. The attempt to do this sort of thing has always resulted in strife and conflict, as those who felt that their way of life was being coerced by an alien have rightly resisted in mind and spirit, as well as with the body.

An Ancient Error

This attempt through the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights repeats the ancient error of seeking to impose a code upon peoples before the common values and principles exist which make voluntary acceptance possible. The inevitable result can only be greater disunity, resentment, and violence—until the yoke of such a superstate is thrown off and the freedom to unite voluntarily with those of a common mind and spirit is restored.

The Covenant offers no clear meaning of these human rights of which it speaks. There is no unequivocal definition of these rights which would protect their value; nor is there a recognition of the moral aspects of rights that inhere in the nature of man.

Society can—and in some instances should—restrict the freedom of action of the individual. But when the rules of society conform to the laws of nature or to the moral order of the universe—that is, when the government of man is in harmony with higher laws which no man can change—then the individual is essentially free. Any loss of that freedom is in reality the consequence of his failure to understand and abide by the higher law. This higher law insists that each one of us shall exercise his freedom in such a way that he will have no occasion to interfere with the equal freedom of others. In such a society, only the illiberal person who attempts to restrict the liberty of another would be punished.

But society can, and often does, impose rules which are not in harmony with the laws of nature—man-made rules that are designed to benefit some persons at the expense of others. These rules do not change the laws of nature; and they do not abolish the status of the rights of man to life and physical liberty, and to that freedom of mind and spirit which even shackles cannot deny.

This sense of innate freedom, ingrained in the very texture of the life of man, removes from any government the possibility or responsibility of making either grants or restrictions concerning his right to speak, to assemble with companions, or to worship according to his conscience. If ever it be accepted that man has to seek such rights from the government of the nation of which he is a citizen, he would find himself at the mercy of that government; for then the power to grant or deny such a right would also have been deposited with the state.

The American Constitution and Bill of Rights declare that the government is without power to make any abridgment of these personal expressions of freedom. To this concept, American citizens have pledged allegiance. Congress did not invent the concepts of natural rights and freedoms, and Congress did not grant them. In fact, Jefferson acknowledged them before there was an American Congress; and others had announced them even before him, so they have nothing to do with Congress. That should rid us of the delusion that we need to look to Congress, or to any Parliament, or to the United Nations, for the announcement or validation of any of these rights.

Treaties And The Constitution

Let us briefly examine the effect that the United Nations Covenant on Human Rights would have on our own body of law if our Senate should ratify it.

Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States declares in part: "... all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is a vital issue which merits thorough airing by the authorities in the field of international jurisprudence. But it is important to note here that if the Covenant on Human Rights should be adopted by the United States Senate as a treaty, its provisions would automatically become the fundamental law, not only of the federal government but also of each of our states, cities, counties, towns, and school districts, with all local laws being superseded.

There are certain factors concerning this process which should be recognized.

One is that this method could accomplish a change in the laws of the American federal, state, and local governments which Congress and the state legislatures and the local units of government have all refused to make. For instance, a program of socialized medicine would become "the supreme law of the land" if the Senate should ever adopt this Covenant as a treaty. Surely it cannot be argued logically that the constitutional provision providing for agreements upon international relations should be used for the purpose of internal legislation. But that is exactly what this proposal would do to the American structure of government.

There is another important consideration. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the states all those powers of government not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. But if this treaty should be adopted—becoming, in effect, a part of the Constitution itself under Article 6—it would supersede the Tenth Amendment and would thus invalidate the original purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Trial By Jury

Further, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states: "... the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." There is no such provision in the Covenant; if this treaty should become the supreme law of our land, there would be no guarantee to an American accused of any violation of the Covenant by any member of the United Nations that he would have either a trial by jury, or would be tried in the state and district in which the alleged crime was committed. This, of course, would violate traditional American concepts of criminal law.

The Declaration of Independence, in its listing of the grievances of the people against a sovereign whom they were about to repudiate, included that of "depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Are we now to deny the moral philosophy and ideals behind that basic American concept?

The Covenant states in Article 52 that if one nation considers that the citizens of another nation are not obeying the provisions of the Covenant as adopted in treaty form, then those citizens, or the nation itself, can be brought to international trial before the International Committee on Human Rights. It is important to understand that this Committee on Human Rights will be a supra-international authority of nine persons which will have the powers of final interpretation and decision on all complaints and trials relating to charges of infringements of the code of morals and action described in this Covenant.

The Price Of Freedom

In the study of a document such as this Covenant, we are confronted by the paradox of representatives of the nations emotionally desiring that all the benefits and freedoms of the free peoples of the world should be extended immediately to all those who are bereft of them, while advocating means to this end that would destroy the very things they wish distributed. These people see the mass misery of several areas of mankind and wish they could see instead a picture of the mass betterment of mankind. But they do not see nor understand that these material advantages of freedom must be earned and bought with the price of personal achievement, else the recipients are subservient to the power which granted them.

The productivity of freedom in what is left of the free world today, which is the great prize that is so coveted by all the rest of humanity, was not a grant to our ancestors which they passed down to us as an inheritance. The price of liberty is personal effort, as well as eternal vigilance. It can never be a gift, even from one generation to another, any more than an education can be transmitted as a legacy from parents to children. The desire to be free is the natural heritage of all mankind. But each inheritor of the concept must develop the context of freedom himself.

No one has better expressed this situation which confronts all believers in the rights of man than Ortega y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher, when he wrote in his book, The Revolt of the Masses:

"The very perfection with which the 19th Century gave an organisation to certain orders of existence has caused the masses benefited thereby to consider it, not as an organised, but as a natural system. Thus is explained and defined the absurd state of mind revealed by these masses; they are only concerned with their own well-being, and at the same time they remain alien to the cause of that well-being. As they do not see, beyond the benefits of civilisation, marvels of invention and construction which can only be maintained by great effort and foresight, they imagine that their role is limited to demanding these benefits peremptorily, as if they were natural rights. In the disturbances caused by scarcity of food, the mob goes in search of bread, and the means it employs is generally to wreck the bakeries. This may serve as a symbol of the attitude adopted, on a greater and more complicated scale, by the masses of to-day towards the civilisation by which they are supported."

The Price Of Production

We shall not see the problem presented by this Covenant until we understand this thesis: If the good things of life—which were achieved only through the travail of the souls and minds and bodies of those who dedicated themselves to such achievement—are demanded as benefits to be given upon demand, as rights, to those who have not earned them, then even the bakeries which produce bread will become abandoned in pursuit of a false hope. Bread is brought into existence by the toil and thought and persistence of those who understand its source, not by the crowds who demand bread and who give no concern and devote no effort to the wheat fields or the flour mills. Material goods and the resulting welfare are possessed by those who, knowing the value of those goods of life, know also that they belong only to those who earn and buy them with a great price of personal achievement, not to those who demand them as a grant without effort.

The American Principle

The American government was established on the principle that men are endowed with the right to be free persons, and that this natural right was ingrained into the very texture of the life of man before any form of community organization or government began. To that should be added its corollary: No state, nation, nor association of nations can legitimately make any abridgment of this inherent freedom. Upon this foundation of freedom, man is enabled to make contractual relations voluntarily through association with his fellow men.

This concept of human rights rests upon a valid heritage—the heritage of the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. Each of these expressions of moral philosophy, tested by time, presupposes the inherency of the natural rights of man as a gift of life itself, wherever and whenever it began. The stars need no human declaration of their reality, inviolability, and grandeur. In the nature of the universe, the rights of man to life and freedom are as one with the stars.

This moral concept, which makes the universe intelligible and rational, declares that no person can rationally be deprived of his life, liberty, or property—his expression of being a person—except through his own denial of the same rights to any other person.

The Enemy Of Liberty

Within five years after its founding, the United Nations—the announced purpose of which was that of being a limited authority to prevent war—is attempting to control the minds of men! No greater danger to the freedom of man has arisen since the days of the claim of the divine right of kings. This danger is a greater threat to the citizens of the United States of America than the danger from any foreign military foe; for it might be that this control, together with the abrogation of the Bill of Rights, would be thrust upon the American people, accomplishing by treaty that which the Constitution would prohibit being accomplished by legislation.

Only a new birth of the understanding of the true nature of our freedom can save us.

About the Author

Russell J. Clinchy, minister in the Congregational Church and former Foundation staff member, is assistant to the chairman of the League to Uphold Congregational Principles. "Two Paths to Collectivism" was published in 1949; "Human Rights and the United Nations" was published in 1952.

Attribution

Clinchy, Russell J. "Human Rights and the United Nations." In Essays on Liberty, Vol. 2, 298-333. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1954.