Franklin D. Roosevelt – dwkcommentaries

Cuba and U.S. Have Same Concept of International Human Rights

Recent Cuban statements about its human rights often state or suggest that Cuba’s concept of international human rights is different and broader than the U.S.’s. According to Cuba, its includes economic, social and cultural rights while the U.S.‘s does not.

That is an incorrect assertion or belief.

Modern History of International Human Rights [1]

An examination of the modern history of this subject shows that the United States was the leading architect of what we now know as international human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights.

During World War II, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) on several occasions spoke about the world’s need for such rights. In his State of the Union Address (or the “Four Freedoms” Speech) to the Congress on January 6, 1941 (before U.S. entry in that war), he said one of these four freedoms was “freedom from want, which . . . means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.”

Three years later, in his January 11, 1944, State of the Union Address, Roosevelt expanded this thought with these words:

“We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men are not free men.’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictators are made.”
“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race or creed.” Among these rights are [he following:
“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;”
“The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;”
“The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;”
“The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;”
“The right of every family to a decent home;”
“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;”
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;”
“The right to a good education.”
“All of these rights spell security. . . . [W]e must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”
“America’s rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

After the end of World War II in 1945, the U.S. was one of the principal leaders in the drafting [2] and the unanimous adoption of the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, California. Both the U.S. and Cuba attended this Conference and voted to adopt the Charter. Two days later (June 28^th) the U.S. Senate, 89-2, gave its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of that treaty. Its Article 55 provides:

The U.N. “shall promote: higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” In addition Article 56 provides that all members pledge “to take joint and separate action . . . for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.”

The United Nations itself came into existence on October 24, 1945; its original members included the U.S. and Cuba.

Eleanor roosevelt & Universal Declaration — Eleanor Roosevelt & Universal Declaration

One of the first tasks of the U.N. under its Charter was the preparation of what became the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10, 1948. (The vote was 48 to 0 with 8 abstentions; both the U.S. and Cuba voted for adoption.) The chair of the committee that drafted this document was Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of FDR. [3]

The Declaration provides in Article 22:

“Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.”

The Declaration also proclaims that everyone has the rights to work and join trade unions (Art. 23), rest and leisure (Art. 24), an adequate standard of living (Art. 25), education (Art. 26) and participate freely in cultural life (Art. 27).

The Declaration, however, is inspirational and aspirational. It is not a treaty that creates rights for individuals and obligations of states. As a result, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights then had the task of preparing a treaty to cover the rights covered by the Declaration.

The Commission’s committee that was assigned this task initially intended to create just one such treaty, but soon decided to prepare two treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), both of which were unanimously adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1966. [4] Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are known collectively as the International Bill of Human Rights.

As the first treaty’s title—Civil and Political Rights–suggests, it covers civil and political rights and is reminiscent of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

The second treaty—Economic Social and Cultural Rights–again as its title suggests, has provisions relating to economic, social and cultural rights, but its Article 2(1) states that each party “undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. (Emphasis added.)

In summary, the U.S. was a major advocate for, and participant in, creating international economic, social and cultural rights. Cuba, on the other hand, mostly before its Revolution, was not so intimately involved although it voted for adoption of the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration and the above two treaties.

U.S. Responses to the International Bill of Rights

The U.S. has signed and ratified the ICCPR. Although it signed the ICESCR in 1977, the U.S. has not ratified this treaty.

Instead, the U.S. through legislative measures has addressed, imperfectly to be sure, the issues addressed by the latter treaty. For example, the U.S. has Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. has unemployment compensation and workers’ compensation for job-related injuries. It has various forms of public housing.

The U.S. through various foreign aid programs has assisted many other countries in these areas as well.

Cuba Responses to the International Bill of Rights

In 2008 Cuba signed both of these treaties, but has not ratified either of them. In its most recent Universal Periodic Review by the U.N. Human Rights Council, various countries recommended that Cuba join these treaties, but Cuba did not accept these recommendations; instead it merely noted them with the comment that the Cuban “process of ratifying an international instrument is very rigorous.” [5]

Like the U.S., Cuba has chosen to address the rights covered by the ICESCR by legislative measures and policy choices. By all reports, it has been providing free education and health care to its citizens, and Cuba has generously provided such services without cost to other countries. For these efforts, Cuba is to be commended.

Cuba also has asserted that human rights are universal and indivisible and no one has more value than another. That is a debatable proposition for another occasion.

Conclusion

Cuba, like anyone defending his own conduct, “accentuates the positive” in its human rights record—its education and health care at home and abroad. It also “eliminates the negative”—its record on freedom of assembly and speech. Foreign Minister Rodriguez in his recent speech at the U.N. Human Rights Council, for example, said nothing on the latter.

The U.S., like anyone criticizing or attacking another’s conduct, does exactly the reverse. It accentuates the negatives of Cuba’s record while eliminating the positive. With respect to the U.S. record, the U.S. in various ways and fora and in different levels of government investigates and debates our failings and possible solutions.

This rather abstract discussion of concepts of human rights implicitly raises the question of what do the two countries hope to achieve in their bilateral discussions of this subject. Both have admitted that they do not have perfect human rights records. At least the U.S., I believe, would concede that most of the Cuban criticisms of the U.S. record are valid. On the other hand, I am skeptical about Cuba’s willingness to make a similar concession about U.S. criticisms of the island’s human rights.

As a result, I think the real issue in these talks should be whether there is anything that one of the countries can do to help the other country improve its record on particular issues.

For example, the U.S. has allocated funds to improve Cuban human rights and democracy. In recent years those funds have been used (I would say “misused”) by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to conduct covert or “discreet” programs in Cuba; any and all such programs should be forever abolished. [6] Instead, those funds could be used for joint U.S.-Cuba programs to promote civil society’s involvement on the island.

Cuba, on the other hand, could offer to collaborate with the U.S. to improve health care in emergencies or in under-served parts of the U.S. Minnesota and other parts of the U.S., for instance, are projecting physician shortages as current practitioners retire and as their populations grow older. Cuban physicians could practice in these states.

=============================================

[1] See David Weissbrodt, Fionnuala Ni Aolain, Joan Fitzpatrick, Frank Newman, International Human Rights: Law, Policy, and Process at 11-14, 97-105 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2009).

[2] One of the drafters of the Charter was Bernard Meltzer, one of my professors at the University of Chicago Law School.

[3] A fascinating account of Eleanor Roosevelt’s involvement in the preparation of the Universal Declaration is Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made New, Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Random House 2001).

[4] The ICCPR was adopted 104 to 0 with 18 member states not voting. The ICESCR was adopted 102 to 0 with 3 abstentions and 17 members not voting. Both the U.S. and Cuba are believed to have voted for both of these treaties. 2 Rights Charters Approved by U.N., N.Y. Times (Dec. 16, 1966),

[5] U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review—Cuba (paras. 170.2, 170.4) (July 8, 2013); U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review—Cuba: Annex/Addendum: Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review [Cuba] (Sept. 2013).

[6] Prior posts have discussed USAID’s social media program and its HIV workshops program and the New York Times editorial against such programs.

Coming Soon–The Roosevelts: An Intimate History

A prior post announced the forthcoming Kenneth Burns’ documentary “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History” about Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt to be shown on National Public Television in the Fall of 2014. Now we have the following schedule and details of the seven two-hour episodes:

Date	Title
September 14	“Get Action (1858-1901)”—The early lives of Theodore and Franklin.
September 15	“In the Arena (1901-1910)”—Theodore transforms the office of the presidency while Franklin courts and weds Eleanor.
September 16	“The Fire of Life (1910-1919)”—Theodore leads Progressive crusade that splits his own Republican Party and enables Democrat Woodrow Wilson to become President.
September 17	“The Storm (1920-1933)”—Franklin serves as Governor of New York and becomes Democratic presidential nominee in 1932.
September 18	“The Rising Road (1933-1939)”—Franklin brings same sense of optimism and energy to White House as his cousin Theodore had.
September 19	“The Common Cause (1939-1944)”—Franklin breaks the third-term tradition and tries to persuade reluctant country to enter World War II.
September 20	“A Strong and Active Faith (1944-1962)”—Franklin is determined to see World War II through to victory. Eleanor fights for civil liberties.

In addition, in September the entire documentary will be available on DVD, and Knopf Doubleday will publish an oversized volume of The Roosevelts: An Intimate History containing nearly 800 photographs documenting the lives of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and (to a much lesser extent) their wives and families. The author, historian Geoffrey C. Ward, argues that “the similarities and not the differences” between Teddy and FDR are compelling. Both bucked the reins of their parties, though the one remained a Republican for most of his political career while the other redefined Democratic Party politics; both were children of privilege whose sense of noblesse oblige included a fundamental sense of fairness. Both surpassed all that was expected of them and transcended class to embrace an American-ness.

PBS’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

As someone who currently is investigating certain aspects of Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency,[1] I was happy to learn that this Fall PBS will be broadcasting noted documentarian Ken Burns’ The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.

In seven parts totaling 14 hours, the documentary “chronicles the lives of Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, three members of the most prominent and influential family in American politics.”

In June I enjoyed watching PBS Previews: The Roosevelts that whetted my appetite for the full series.

====================================================

[1] Prior posts have reviewed (a) the election of William McKinley and Theodore as President and Vice President in the election of 1900; (b) Roosevelt’s involvement in that election; and (c) the assassination of President McKinley and the swearing in of Roosevelt as President. Future posts will canvas Roosevelt’s first term (1901-1905) regarding regulation of railroads, his “re-election’ in 1904 and his second term (1905-1909) regarding such regulation.

Refugee and Asylum Law: The Pre-Modern Era

The history of refugee and asylum law, in my opinion, may be divided into two major periods: (a) the pre-modern era before the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and (b) the modern era starting with that 1948 adoption.[1] There are four major points from this earlier period that have impressed me.

First, there have been instances when individual states granted protection or asylum to people of another state, but the granting of such protection was always within the discretion or grace of the potential protecting state. Whether or not this was done was influenced by a multitude of circumstances. Correspondingly the individual fleeing his or her own country had no legal right to claim protection from another state. An interesting example of this type of asylum happened in 615 CE, when Mohammad requested his cousin and other followers to leave Mecca and seek refuge in Abyssinia or Ethiopia to escape persecution by Mecca’s leading tribe. This is known as the First Hijra (Migration) of Muslims. At the time, the King of Abyssinia was a Christian and known for his justice and respect for human beings. Responding to a letter from Mohammad, the King said he understood that Mohammad respected Jesus and, therefore, granted asylum to the Muslims.[2]

Second, as we have just seen, religious belief sometimes has motivated a government to grant asylum in this earlier period. In addition, religious bodies and individuals often call upon their members and fellow believers to be hospitable to outsiders such as those fleeing persecution. In Judaism and Christianity, for example, there are numerous Biblical texts to this effect. In the Hebrew Bible, the people are told, “Do no mistreat an alien or oppress him for you were aliens in Egypt.” (Exodus 222:21.) Similarly, “You are to have the same law for the alien and for the native born.” (Leviticus 24:22.) In the New Testament, Jesus when asked what the greatest commandment was, said, “Love the Lord your God with all you heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39.)[3] Similarly Arabic traditions and customs have served as a solid foundation for protecting human beings and preserving their dignity. These include “istijara” (plea for protection), “ijara” (granting protection) and “iwaa” (sheltering). The Islamic Shari’a further consolidated the humanitarian principles of brotherhood, equality and tolerance among human beings. Relieving suffering and assisting, sheltering, and granting safety to the needy, even enemies, are an integral part of Islamic Shari’a. In fact, Islamic Shari’a addressed the issue of asylum explicitly and in detail, and guaranteed safety, dignity and care for the “musta’men” (asylum-seeker). Moreover, the return, or refoulement, of the “musta’men” was prohibited by virtue of Shari’a.[4]

Third, after World War I, the Covenant of the League of Nations did not have any explicit provision regarding refugees. The closest it came was its Article 25, which states, “The Members of the League agree to encourage and promote the establishment and co-operation of duly authorised [sic] voluntary national Red Cross organisations [sic] having as purposes the improvement of health, the prevention of disease and the mitigation of suffering throughout the world.”[5] There also were various treaties regarding refugees in the 1920s and 1930s, but they did not grant legal rights to asylum.[6] Fourth, German persecution of the Jews in the 1930s showed the weaknesses of this discretionary approach to asylum. In 1933 the Nazis took over control of the German government and fired Jews from the civil service and sponsored boycotts of Jewish-owned businesses. Germany also started an official encouragement of German Jewish emigration, and in September 1935 Germany’s Nuremberg Laws cancelled German citizenship for Jews. By the end of 1937 450,000 German Jews had left the country.[7] In March of 1938 German annexed Austria (das Anschluss) and thereby brought the 200,000 Austrian Jews under German laws, including the Nuremberg Laws.

Several days later U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to call an international conference to facilitate the emigration of Jews from Germany and Austria and to establish an international organization to work towards an overall solution to this problem. That July the conference was held in Evian, France. Thirty-two countries attended and expressed sympathy for the refugees. With one exception, however, no country agreed to take additional Jewish refugees. The exception was the Dominican Republic, and it did so because its dictator, Trujillo, wanted more white people in his country. The Conference also created the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees to “approach the governments of the countries of refuge with a view to developing opportunities for permanent settlement.” It also was to seek German cooperation in establishing “conditions of orderly emigration.” This Committee, however, never received the necessary authority or support from its members and, therefore, failed to accomplish anything. After the conference, Hitler said, “It is a shameful spectacle to see how the whole democratic world is oozing sympathy for the poor tormented Jewish people, but remains hard hearted and obdurate when it comes to helping them . . . .” Moreover, the failure of the Conference to do anything about the German Jews was seen as an encouragement for Germany’s increasing persecution of the Jews, including Kristallnachtin October 1938 and the Holocaust itself through the end of World War II in 1945.

[1] I have not studied what I can the pre-modern era in great depth and especially invite comments and critiques of this analysis.

[2] E.g., Hijrat Al-Habashah, http://www.positivearticles.com/Article/Hijrat-Al-Habashah/45073

[3] Religious beliefs motivated most, if not all, of those people and congregations that were involved in the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980’s to provide safe space to Salvadorans and Guatemalans fleeing their civil wars. See Post: The Sanctuary Movement Case (May 22, 2011).

[4] Prof. Ahmed Abou-El-Wafa, The Right to Asylum between Islamic Shari’ah and International Refugee Law: A Comparative Study (Riyadh – 2009 (1430 H.), http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4a9645646&query=sharia.

[5] Covenant of the League of Nations, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp#art25; Holborn, The Legal Status of Political Refugees, 32 Am. J. Int’l L. 680 (1938); Holborn, The League of Nations and the Refugee Problem, 203 Annals Am. Acad. Of Pol. & Soc. Sci. 124 (1939).

[6] A list of these treaties is set forth in Article 1(A)(1) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/refugees.htm.

[7] E.g., U.S. Holocaust Museum, The Evian Conference, http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007698 ; U.S. Holocaust Museum, Emigration and the Evian Conference, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005520 ; Annette Shaw, The Evian Conference–Hitler’s Green Light for Genocide, http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/evian/evian.html; Wikipedia, Evian Conference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference.

Questioning President Lyndon Johnson

In March 1966, during my final semester of law school, I was one of 38 national finalists for 16 White House Fellowships. This fellowship program had been started in 1964 by President Lyndon Johnson to provide one-year high-level positions in the White House and Executive Branch to future leaders so that afterwards the individuals could take that experience into their regular jobs and be better informed about important public policy issues and the workings of the federal government and, therefore, be better citizen leaders.[1]

east-room-white-house--3 — East Room, White House

The other finalists and I were brought to a Virginia retreat center for interviews by members of the Fellows Commission, including John Gardner (then U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Department) and C. Douglas Dillon (former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Department). Afterwards on March 29th we all were bused to the White House and mid-afternoon were escorted to the East Room where the winners would be announced.

Before the announcement, however, President Johnson unexpectedly entered the Room. He first joined his daughter Luci Baines Johnson, who was substituting for her ill mother, to greet the finalists. The President then walked around, shaking hands and making individual comments. Johnson then called for everyone’s attention. He said that when he was a young man in Washington, he always wondered what it would be like to come to see the president and what the president would say while the young Johnson knew what he hoped the president would say. Johnson then remarked that perhaps the finalists would like to ask him questions rather than hearing him give a dry lecture.[2]

There was an awkward silence. The other finalists and I were hesitant to ask the first question, and Johnson told a few jokes to loosen up the people in the Room.

Finally one of the finalists asked what previous presidents would have been selected as Fellows if there had been such a program in their day. Johnson laughingly replied that Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy undoubtedly would have been selected, but he did not think that Truman and Johnson himself would have made it. Other finalists asked Johnson questions about the Viet Nam war, the current visit to Washington of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and the Fellowship program itself.[3]

LBJ & Moyers — Lyndon Johnson & Bill Moyers

Word of this impromptu presidential question and answer session got back to the White House Press Room, and journalists belatedly arrived and stood at the back of the Room taking notes. Johnson’s Press Secretary, Bill Moyers, was next to Johnson during the session and kept trying to end it, but Johnson was enjoying himself and continued to respond to questions.

During this session I was standing about 10 feet from President Johnson. There was concern at the time about inflation with the February 1966 Consumer Price Index up 0.5%, the highest increase in that month since 1951, and whether the President would ask Congress for a tax increase to fight inflation. So I asked the President if he would be seeking such a tax increase.

Tugging at his big right ear lobe, Johnson responded in a folksy manner in his Texan drawl. He first said that he was more worried about economists than he was about the economy and that he had not made up his mind on the tax increase idea. He added that he did not want to ask for an increase, especially in a midterm election year, but if he decided a tax increase was necessary to cool off the economy, he would ask Congress for a “modest” rise of 5 to 7 per cent in the taxes paid by individuals and corporations. Johnson also said he had ruled out reductions in federal government spending and wage and price controls as other ways to combat inflation.[4]

The President’s Daily Diary for that day says that this answer and his “mention of the Tax Rise to be proposed” was the headline in many newspapers the next day, as indeed it was.[5]

This news the next morning prompted a sharp decline in the stock market–the largest in two weeks. Reacting to this market decline, the President around noon on March 30th told journalists that he “absolutely” had not made up his mind about the need for a tax increase. The market responded with a momentary uptick, but it closed lower that day.[6] Thereafter I joked that I caused the stock market to fall.

At the conclusion of the meeting the prior day in the State Dining Room, the announcement of the 18 new Fellows was made.[7] I was not one of the lucky ones.

[1] White House, White House Fellows, http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows.

[2] Lyndon Baines Johnson Library & Museum, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Daily Diary Collection (March 29, 1966), http://www.lbjlibrary.org/collections/daily-diary.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.; Pomfret, Johnson Favors 5-to-7% Tax Rise If Any Is Needed, N. Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1966, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F10B12FC3F59177B8EDDA90B94DB405B868AF1D3; Rossant, Flexibility and Taxes; Johnson’s Hint of Relaxing Opposition To Rise Is Gain for ‘New Economists,’ N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1966, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F10D11FE3E59177B8EDDA90B94DB405B868AF1D3; Wicker, The Inflation Debate, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1966, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F1071FFD3F59177B8EDDA90B94DB405B868AF1D3; Editorial, The Economy’s Pulse, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1966, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F10617F83F59177B8EDDA90B94DB405B868AF1D3.

[5] Id.

[6] Abele, Tax Uncertainty Upsets Markets, N.Y. Times, Mar. 31, 1966, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F10D15F63959177B8EDDA80B94DB405B868AF1D3.

[7] Capital Fellows End a Year at Top, N.Y. Times, Mar. 30, 1966, http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F10E1FFD3F59177B8EDDA90B94DB405B868AF1D3.