Universal Human Rights

So today is the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly on this day in 1948. The vote was 48 countries in favour, 0 against, and 8 abstentions. The countries which abstained were Soviet bloc states (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, The USSR and Yugoslavia), Saudi Arabia, and, I’m deeply ashamed to say, South Africa.

This morning I turned on the TV and in between the riots in Greece and the cholera in Zimbabwe, there was Eleanor Roosevelt,  former US First Lady, presenting the Declaration back in 1948.

That footage really made an impression on me. And it made me suddenly see the Universal Declaration in a new light. You see, it is most often human rights activists these days, who refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in support of their demands. These are usually people outside of the official establishment, and outside the the corridors of official power. Sometimes they are seen as radicals, sometimes as trouble-makers.

But here was this middle aged, respectable-looking American woman, with a posh accent, announcing the adoption of the Declaration. And it somehow suddenly came home to me, in a way it hasn’t before, that this Declaration isn’t anything outrageous, isn’t radical, isn’t something only associated with ‘trouble-making activists’. Eleanor Roosevelt, former US first lady, was the chair of the committee which drafted it. You can’t get closer to the official establishment than that. The Declaration isn’t anything new and alien — it was adopted way back in 1948.

I realised, watching TV this morning, that I’ve always had a subconscious feeling that the idea of universal rights needs to be justified, needs to be explained — isn’t quite part of the mainstream. Maybe that’s because I grew up as a white child in racist South Africa, surrounded by adults who expressed hostility to the UN and to the idea of equality. Maybe it’s because still today, when activists point to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a way of justifying demands for equality, for freedom of association and freedom of speech, for access to adequate health care, protection of children, for free elementary education, for social security, they are often looked on as trouble-makers, as rebels, as extremists.

But really, why do we have to still keep justifying these demands, keep pointing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as we call for development and changes in the law? This declaration is binding on all UN members and forms part of customary international law. Come on already, what’s the argument about. We need to be saying to our governments, “There’s the Declaration. You’ve signed it. No arguments — the only discussion should be on how best to make it happen.

(By the way, Eleanor Roosevelt was something else. You think Hillary Clinton is the first former First Lady to be a formiddable political force in her own right? Think again. Eleanor Roosevelt was First Lady from 1933 to 1945, the year her husband died. She fought for equal rights for women, and openly supported the African-American civil rights movement. She also worked to promote the formation of the United Nations. In 1945 President Harry S Truman appointed her as a delegate to the UN, a position she held until 1952. During this time she oversaw the drafting and adoption of the Declaration.)