– A.Y. Vyshinsky, 1948 –
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR
(Note: In smaller type are summaries of A.Y. Vyshinsky’s remarks)
In 1947, when Committee No. 3 of the United Nations started work on a Declaration of Human Rights, representatives of the Soviet Union took an active part in preparing the draft, which became known as the Geneva draft, taking its name from the city in which the committee began its work. This draft was subsequently changed. While the final result was found commendable on the whole, Mr. Vyshinsky pointed out that it contained a number of shortcomings, among which are its formal legal nature and the absence in it of any measures which would facilitate realization of the basic freedoms and human rights that it proclaimed. Speaking before the Paris General Assembly on December 9, 1948, Mr. Vyshinsky enumerated some of the objections to the draft found by the Soviet delegation and suggested a number of amendments. Taking Article 4 of the draft as an example of the formal, legal nature of the draft, he declared:
Article 4 of the draft declaration of human rights… reads: “Every man has the right to life, liberty and inviolability of person.” The abstract nature of this article is too obvious to require comment. What strikes one is that this draft, in speaking of such an exceedingly important question as the right of man to life, liberty and inviolability of person, does not set itself the aim of specifying even the most elementary measures the state must adopt to facilitate, I do not say ensure, the exercise of these rights.
The Soviet delegation, Mr. Vyshinsky continued, tried to overcome this weakness by introducing an amendment which declared that “the state must ensure each person protection against criminal encroachments on his rights, provide the conditions preventing a threat of death from starvation and exhaustion,” but this amendment was rejected. Citing another example of the formal legal nature of the draft, Mr. Vyshinsky discussed Article 23 which proclaims the right to social maintenance and to realization of the rights necessary in the economic, cultural and social spheres for upholding the dignity of man and the free development of his personality. One can only welcome the fact that such a problem was raised, Mr. Vyshinsky said, but actually there is a tremendous discrepancy between what the authors of the article wanted to say and what they did say. What was left in the final draft, he continued, was only the “vestigial appendage of something important but invisible.” He continued:
The article lacks the main essential — specific mention of the fact that society and the state are obligated to take measures to ensure an opportunity for free development of the individual in the economic, social and cultural spheres. All this is cast aside. Only the odds and ends, or that which in Russian fairy tales is called “horns and hoofs,” remained.
The Soviet delegation proposed to adopt an article stating that social insurance… of hired labour, that is, factory and office workers, must be effected at the expense of the state of each country. Here the Soviet delegation put this problem on a practical footing, pointing out concretely the sources for covering the necessary expenditures in order that the working people could enjoy the benefits of social insurance, the benefits of social maintenance. The Soviet delegation says: the state is one source; the employers, who derive profit by exploiting the workers, are another. It is in this way that the working man is to be provided with a pension and other maintenance in case of disability, old age, sickness, etc.
It would seem that this is a perfectly natural and concrete way of putting the question. However, it met with furious resistance on the part of the majority of this committee, and this majority rejected this amendment too…
Instead of adopting the path onto which the Soviet delegation has endeavoured throughout to steer the work of committee No. 3 — a path of concrete, positive settlement of the question pertaining to the recommendations, if only of a purely moral nature, to be made to the states and for them to follow — the committee preferred to take an abstract path strewn with florid phraseology which would have been more in place 150 years ago, and today cannot appeal to anyone, since all these phrases and formulas of the epoch of the French revolution, the epoch of the American revolution and the English revolution of the 17th century have by now faded because life has shown that all these high-sounding formulas conceal a brutal reality which destroys fetishes and illusions.
The third article to which the Soviet delegation objects, continued Mr. Vyshinsky, is Article 20 which reads: “Every man has the right to freedom of convictions and freedom to express them. This right includes freedom to adhere to these convictions without interference, and freedom to seek, receive, and disseminate information and ideas by any means and irrespective of state boundaries.” The greatest danger in this article as it stands is that it permits any ideas, including the ideas of fascism, to be disseminated. This the Soviet delegation cannot countenance, Mr. Vyshinsky declared:
It is not permissible to allow men with flaming torches who are out to burn our homes and to take our lives to roam freely through the streets of cities. We do not recognize such freedom and we cannot agree that our declaration on behalf of the United Nations should proclaim such freedom to disseminate the ideas of Hitler and Goebbels.
We are told: but we will fight fascist “ideas” with our ideas. But, gentlemen, you who advocate such unrestricted freedom said the same before, when Mein Kampf and similar criminal literature was written and propagated. You said that then and fought, of course, in your own way. But what was the final outcome of this struggle? Were you able to prevent by this struggle the incursion of the Hitlerite plague? No, no and no.
On the contrary, while you, prompted by the lofty motives of the impossibility of restricting anyone’s freedom, even that of fascist killers and fiends, remained calm and immersed in philosophical contemplation, the cutthroats and murderers sharpened their knives, recruited men into their gang, organized their bands, drafted their plans of assault, waiting for the moment when it was most opportune to strike.
You can fight with ideas, and you are in duty bound to fight with ideas against that which runs counter to your ideas, but these are “ideas” which represent a social danger, which are unworthy of being called ideas, and the means of struggle against this danger are not only the human word but also law, inexorable criminal law.
That is why we insisted on excluding the possibility of disseminating fascist “theories” and so-called “ideas,” insisted that it is impermissible to use freedom of speech and the press for the propaganda of hostility among nations, for propaganda of fascism and aggression.
But these demands of ours in the committee also remained a voice crying in the wilderness. The majority adopted precepts against which we objected most vehemently.
Of course, you are the majority of the Assembly. But the time will come when perhaps the majority will see that it made a grave error. But we, who remained in the minority, do not want to, cannot and dare not make such errors. Our duty to our people obliges us not to agree to the way the question is presented in the draft of Committee No. 3, for we recall the horrible picture of the recent war, in the course of which millions of our brothers perished at the hands of the fascist executioners who enjoyed the freedom of unrestricted and unhampered dissemination of their monstrous and fiendish “ideas” in some countries.
Another substantial shortcoming of this article is that it limits itself to a mere proclamation of the rights to freedom and dissemination of ideas, but says nothing about the means for disseminating noble ideas — not brigand, fiendish, fascist “ideas” to which this article opens a wide road — but to really noble, exalted ideas, ideas born in garrets, ideas with which the finest men of the world have enriched mankind. One could name hundreds of such people who were too poor freely to disseminate their ideas, not to mention the fact that these ideas encountered the resistance of the ruling classes and society.
This article of the draft keeps silent, shamefacedly silent, about the ways and means with the aid of which the freedom proclaimed by the declaration could be enjoyed.
I should like to remind you of the historic speech on the draft constitution of the Soviet Union delivered by J.V. Stalin in 1936, in which he pointed out that when freedom of speech, assembly and the press is mentioned, some people forget that all these freedoms may become a mere empty sound for the working class if deprived of a possibility of having at its disposal suitable premises for meetings, good print shops, a sufficient stock of paper, etc., that is, everything that it has in our great country. This passing over in silence of the ways and means by which it is alone possible really to enjoy this freedom and to have an opportunity in practice to disseminate one’s noble ideas and theories — this passing over in silence is a big shortcoming of the article which I am now discussing.
In an effort to eliminate this shortcoming from the declaration, the Soviet delegation proposed that it be supplemented with the words: “In order to ensure the right to free expression of opinions to considerable sections of the population, as well as their organization, the state renders them cooperation and assistance with the material means (premises, printing presses, paper, etc.), necessary for publishing democratic organs of the press.” This proposal, Mr. Vyshinsky declared, was rejected ostensibly on the ground that to grant broad circles the material means mentioned would in substance amount to an encroachment on freedom of thought by the state, but what it really means, he continued, is depriving the masses of the opportunity to conduct cultural, educational and political activity directed at defending the interests of the masses independently of the capitalist newspaper monopolies.
The Soviet delegation also proposed an amendment to Article 21 which reads: “Every man has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” To give this article teeth, the Soviet delegation proposed that it read: “In the interests of democracy, freedom of assembly and meetings, street processions and demonstrations, organization of voluntary societies and unions should be guaranteed by law. All societies and unions and other organizations of a fascist and anti-democratic nature, as well as their activity in any form, are banned by law under threat of punishment.” This, Mr. Vyshinsky said, was a truly practicable article with a profound political content. It, too, was rejected. But, Mr. Vyshinsky commented:
One cannot but note that, when this proposal of the Soviet delegation was rejected, such strange arguments were advanced as, for example, that the concept of “fascism” or the concept of an “organization of a fascist type” is not sufficiently clear. There were even some odd people who went so far as to ask the question: What, indeed, is fascism? What is an organization of a fascist type?
Is it necessary once again to expose the utter untenability and hypocrisy of such arguments, aimed, essentially speaking, at thwarting legitimate demands which fully accord with the interests of democracy and the peace and security of nations, the demands to take real and effective measures against a resurgence, and all the more so against the development of fascist and anti-democratic societies, unions and organizations?… The struggle against fascism… has left too deep scars on the peoples of the democratic countries for the obviously artificial and false argument that the concept of “fascism” is allegedly “unclear and indefinite” to be cited so shamelessly.
The Soviet proposal that Article 28 of the draft, which covers the right to participate in cultural life and in scientific progress, be supplemented with several words needed to show that science must facilitate the interests of peace and democracy suffered the fate of the other Soviet proposals, Mr. Vyshinsky stated.
As his final example of the shortcomings of the draft declaration, Mr. Vyshinsky pointed to the fact that the draft does not contain a single mention of the right of each man, “regardless of whether he belongs to a racial, national and religious majority or minority of the population, to his national culture; to tuition in schools in his native language; to the use of this language in the press, meetings, courts, civil service and public places.” The original Geneva draft had contained a timid clause to that effect, Mr. Vyshinsky noted, but this was deleted in the final version.
Because of all these shortcomings, Mr. Vyshinsky concluded, the Soviet delegation proposes that the adoption of the declaration on human rights be postponed until the following session of the General Assembly and that the shortcomings be improved in the interim.
The following day, December 10, 1948, Mr. Vyshinsky again took the floor to clarify the position of the Soviet delegation. In analysing the draft declaration further, he declared:
One of the serious shortcomings patent in the draft declaration… is the lack of any mention of the connection between human rights and the problem of state sovereignty. This is explained in considerable measure by the fact that the theory of renouncing state sovereignty has again come to life… an utterly incorrect and fallacious theory that the principle of state sovereignty is a reactionary and allegedly obsolete idea, and that rejection of this principle of state sovereignty is allegedly one of the essential requisites for international cooperation.
The draft declaration of human rights seems to meet half-way these really reactionary views and theories directed against the sovereignty of states and hence completely contradicting the principles of the United Nations Organization. The draft declaration marks in this respect a new stage in the campaign against state sovereignty.
Sometimes we hear objections to the effect that questions pertaining to the state should not be touched upon in the declaration on human rights inasmuch as this declaration is dedicated to the rights of man. But one cannot agree with a stand of this kind, if only because human rights are inconceivable outside of the state. The very concept of rights is a concept of a state. More than that, human rights are unthinkable unless they are upheld and protected by the state. Otherwise human rights will resolve into a sheer abstraction, an illusion without meaning which, as we know, is easy to create but which vanishes just as easily.
The attempt to vilify state sovereignty by identifying it with absolute sovereignty is the manifestation of a reactionary spirit, Mr. Vyshinsky charged. Quoting from Pradier-Fodere’s Course in International Law, Mr. Vyshinsky defined state sovereignty as the “right of the state to direct development by itself and for itself in order to achieve its own aims without any external interference, the right to manifest and exercise its will, acting in the domain of its jurisdiction without any hindrance on the part of an outside force, the opportunity to uphold its rights and fulfil the duties which are the essential and most important foundation of each free society, acting in its sphere really independently and never serving as an instrument in the hands of another state.” He went on:
Propaganda against state sovereignty covered up by the claim that what is in view is absolute sovereignty and not sovereignty in general is nothing more than ideological preparation for the final political surrender of one’s own country to a more powerful state, to the latter’s economic might.
One must be on guard against such moulding of public opinion aimed at breaking the will to resist plans of world domination which are threatening the economic and political independence of other states, especially the weaker states. We are against such propaganda which is digging the grave for the independence of states and the well-being of nations…
This, I repeat, signifies capitulation before a stronger state whose aspirations to world domination are still obstructed by state sovereignty which serves as a weapon protecting the weaker countries against the greed of more powerful states, for the state sovereignty of the former, although undermined at the very root by measures like the Marshall Plan, the establishment of the Western European political bloc, etc., nevertheless still preserves its force and significance.
Turning to the question of what the declaration on human rights should really be like, Mr. Vyshinsky stated that it should meet two basic requirements:
1. The declaration on human rights should ensure respect for human rights and for the basic freedoms for all, irrespective of race, nationality, social position, religion, language and sex, in conformity with the principles of democracy, state sovereignty and the political independence of a given state.
2. The declaration on human rights should not merely proclaim rights but should guarantee the exercise of such rights, taking into account, of course, the specific economic, social and national features of each country.
It is not enough to limit oneself to recording only the formal rights of citizens; it is necessary not merely to proclaim that all citizens are equal, but it is essential also to guarantee the exercise of this right by providing certain material means, as well as by legislative measures. Naturally, a document like the declaration on human rights… cannot be expected to pursue the same aims as a constitution. Nevertheless, a declaration on human rights should be built in such a way as to overcome these narrow formal bounds, the abstract nature of those principles which are included in the declaration on human rights. At the same time it is, of course, necessary to take into account the specific economic, social and national features of each country, for unless this is taken into account, it would be impossible to solve the present task and to find practical ways of giving effect to the proclaimed declaration.
The draft declaration, Mr. Vyshinsky declared further, ignores the cardinal principle of a declaration on human rights, namely, the right of nations to self-determination, on the equal rights of every people and every nationality within the framework of one state:
It is common knowledge that the constitutions of capitalist countries proceed from the premise that races and nations cannot be equal, that there are nations with full rights and nations without full rights and that, in addition, there is a third category of nations or races, for example in the colonies, which have even fewer rights than the nations without full rights…
Article 2, although proclaiming equality irrespective of race, nationality, language, etc., confines itself to the generality that man must possess all rights. This, of course, is utterly inadequate. Even more inadequate is Article 3 of the draft which is limited to generalizations concerning the extension of rights proclaimed in the declaration to the peoples of trustee and non-self-governing territories.
The delegation of the USSR cannot but draw attention to the fact that the draft… completely overlooks such an exceedingly important question as that of the rights of every people and every nation to national self-determination.
This right, Mr. Vyshinsky declared, is a tremendous achievement of the national policy of the Soviet Union, inspiring the Soviet delegation to recommend that the experience gained in solving the national problem in the Soviet Union be taken into account. Unless the declaration includes an article covering the right of every nation and every people to self-determination, he emphasized, the declaration on human rights will not answer its purpose. Without stipulating that “states responsible for the administration of non-self-governing territories, including colonies, must facilitate the exercise of this right, guided by the principles and aims of the United Nations with regard to the peoples of these territories,” the declaration would be far from complete and far from satisfactory, Mr. Vyshinsky warned.
The Soviet delegation also proposed substituting for Article 22 of the draft a text stating that “Every citizen of any state, irrespective of race and colour, nationality, social status, property status, social origin, language, religion or sex should have the right to participate in the government of the state.” We propose, Mr. Vyshinsky said, that:
Article 22 should state that every man has the right to elect and be elected to all bodies of authority on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot, as well as equal opportunity with other citizens to hold any state and public office in his country. These questions are not duly reflected in the present wording of Article 22. It is not sufficient to declare that every man has the right to participate in governing his country or state. It should be stated that each citizen of any state has the right to participate in the administration of the state; it should be stipulated that he has the right to elect and be elected to all bodies of state authority and not only on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage but also on the basis of direct suffrage…
The proposal of the Soviet delegation also points out that property, educational or any other qualifications restricting the participation of citizens of any state in the elections of representative bodies are incompatible with the above principle…
The delegation of the USSR, moreover, proposes that after Article 30 of the draft declaration on human rights, a new article with the following content should be included:
“The rights and basic freedoms of man and citizen enumerated in the present declaration are guaranteed by the laws of the various countries. Any violation or limitation of these rights, direct or indirect, is a violation of the present declaration and is incompatible with the lofty principles proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.”
Why can this article not be accepted? Why do obstacles arise when we raise the question of introducing an article of this kind in the declaration? This article speaks for itself; it calls for the rights and basic freedoms of man and citizen to be guaranteed by the laws of the state; it proclaims any violation or restriction of rights, direct or indirect, to be a violation of the present declaration; it recognizes such violations as being incompatible with the lofty principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations. Why can this not be said? Why is an article that fully conforms to the spirit and the principles expressed in the United Nations Charter inacceptable?
Such are the highly important precepts which should be included in the Declaration on Human Rights if it is to satisfy the desires of millions upon millions of ordinary people, the desires of all peace-loving nations for the establishment and consolidation of the basic freedoms and rights of man, for democracy and progress, peace and the security of nations.
Mr. Vyshinsky’s statements refute the charges that the Soviet stand on the Declaration of Human Rights arose from lack of concern for the rights of the individual human being. They show that, on the contrary, the Soviet representatives were seeking a document that should not be made up of vague generalities, but should carry with it guarantees to ensure the implementation of its aims. When the Declaration, constituting the first part of a projected three-part International Bill of Rights, came before the General Assembly, Mr. Vyshinsky sought to gain postponement of the question until the following Assembly session, in order to allow time for further consideration and improvement. Failing that, he asked the Assembly to accept a series of amendments, as outlined in part in the portions of his speech published above, which were also rejected. In the final vote, which resulted in the adoption of the Declaration, the Soviet Union and the countries of people’s democracy abstained. This abstention registered not so much disagreement with the statements contained in the Declaration as disapproval that it did not constitute a more effective step toward realization of UN Charter obligations to promote universal observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
(The U.S.S.R. and World Peace, International Publishers, New York 1949)