[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 185 (Thursday, December 10, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2961]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS HAS NO RESET BUTTON

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 10, 2009

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the adoption 
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exactly 61 years ago. This 
document was born on the ashes of a global war which saw the murder of 
over six million Jewish people during the Holocaust and the deaths of 
over 60 million people around the world.
  Just when it seemed that humanity was irrevocably lost in the global 
devastation of this conflict, some of the greatest leaders of their 
time, such as Eleanor Roosevelt, came together at the United Nations to 
enshrine a common human bond of individual dreams and aspirations 
protected by defined rights in the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights. While formally a resolution, not a treaty, its provisions are 
part of every legally binding international instrument which sets out 
to protect human rights.
  Today, 61 years after its adoption, the catalog of defined rights has 
withstood the test of time, but the full implementation of those rights 
is as elusive as ever. The language and the context in which we discuss 
these rights today may have changed, but the urgency and importance to 
protect them globally has not. Terms such as internet freedom, global 
war on terror, environmental devastation, water-boarding, Guantanamo, 
corporate social responsibility, food security, women's rights and the 
Responsibility to Protect are just a few of those modern terms which 
put in sharp focus the relevance of those rights set forth in this 
document 61 years ago.
  During that period, the United States was a leader among nations in 
defining and defending those rights and spearheaded international 
consensus and agreements. More recently, however, we seem to have 
either forgotten the hard-won lessons of that period or at least have 
misapplied them.
  Instead of holding on tighter to our believes and commitments after 
the 9/11 attacks, we were willing to consider these sacred values 
impediments to our national sovereignty and infringements on our right 
to defend our country. Instead of heeding the admonition of one of the 
greatest American Presidents--another Roosevelt--who led this nation 
through the Great Depression and defeated the most evil regime in human 
history, that ``the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,'' we 
abandoned our human rights commitments at home. Faced with an unknown 
and secretive enemy, fear drove us to suspend important legal 
protections, to re-define the meaning of torture, to engage in 
extraordinary renditions of individuals utilizing poor human rights 
records of other countries, and we created with Abu Ghraib and 
Guantanamo monuments to that failed policy that still serve as 
recruiting tools for extremists all over the world. All the while we 
harshly criticized friends and foes alike if they disagreed with us, 
and set on an international course of democracy promotion, which was of 
the ``either you are with us, or you are against us'' nature.
  To regain our international standing and reputation, and in 
recognition of the fact that we can only defeat terrorism with the 
support of the relevant local populations, we have recently undertaken 
significant diplomatic efforts to repair our international 
relationships. We have announced the closure of Guantanamo, and have 
ruled out enhanced interrogation techniques, have passed hate crimes 
legislation at home and have joined the Human Rights Council. While 
important parts of these objectives have yet to be achieved, the 
American public and the international community have rightfully 
applauded these important and difficult initiatives.
  But while we have made domestic human rights gains, we now stand to 
lose our human rights bearings abroad. With ambiguous statements and 
actions the United States has sent signals to repressive regimes that 
human rights may no longer feature prominently in our foreign relations 
and that there is the possibility of a ``fresh start,'' which can be 
triggered by a magical ``reset button.'' While I strongly support the 
direct engagement of repressive regimes around the globe, I am equally 
convinced that past human rights records cannot be ``reset,'' or 
glossed over. The Universal Declaration does not provide for a ``reset 
button'' for gross human rights violations, nor do any of the 
international human rights treaties. Repressive regimes will only 
seriously engage the United States and the international community on 
important human rights issues if we take a principled stand, both in 
public and in private, which is based on accountability. We owe justice 
to human rights victims, be that in Sudan, Burma, China, North Korea, 
Russia or anywhere else in the world.

                          ____________________