THE 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and some articles appearing in the government press have nudged me to make some observations.

The fact that the Cuban press is dedicating space to the subject, without a doubt certifies the anniversary's importance and the force commanded by that declaration -- even after 50 years, even for the Cuban government.

There are official criteria, and officious ones, particularly in countries with totalitarian governments, to the effect that the most important rights are: The right to life, and the so-called collective rights such as the rights to development, health care, and education. Such criteria rest on the power that those types of governments have over civil society.

These standards and opinions are used by these governments in their attempts to hide their violations of individual rights in the Universal Declaration. The governments allege the primacy of collective rights over individual rights, which is a legal contradiction as well as a great play on words intended to distort the truth. After all, how can you speak of respect for collective rights if individual rights are not respected?

This is one of the means by which such governments violate individual rights and, in a certain way, mock the international organizations charged with documenting violations. The most basic rights, in general, are those of the individual, given that it is precisely the individual who is the primary reason for that protection, in any country or era. Moreover, the individual together with the family become the foundation for all human society.

Civil society comprises different individuals with specific and general interests who band together according to their interests and mutual characteristics. To put the collective rights ahead of individual rights is yet another means used by authoritarian and totalitarian governments to impose their plans and desires on society. Most of the time those plans and desires aren't shared by the majority of the population.

Let's further examine some of these ideas:

How can we talk about the right to development of a country if its citizens are not permitted to invest in their own economy while foreigners may do so, and if most citizens are locked at living standards below what would be possible if they could enjoy the fruits of their entreprenuerial efforts and labor?

How can we talk about the right to health care if people are not permitted to choose the medical institution of their liking or the doctors whom they wish to see?

How can we talk about the right to education if parents do not have the right to choose the type of school and education that they want for their children?

How can we talk about the dignity of a people if there is no respect for the dignity of each member of that society?

How can we talk about sovereignty of the people if the individual rights of citizens to free speech, assembly, and association are not respected?

How can we talk about self-determination of peoples if citizens are not permited to opine freely in the media about their system of government, the actions that it takes, or the capabilities of those who are governing the nation?

How can we talk about democracy if foreigners are offered goods and services that are denied to its own citizens -- because one or more people in power say so, going so far as to violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

The honest, objective, and worthwhile answers to these questions will put into a correct perspective the importance and force of the rights gathered in the declaration. They'll point to the need for our continuing struggle to defend it; to have it apply without restrictions in every country as one of the principal vehicles that guarantees full development of the human person; and to help achieve peace, fraternity, and solidarity throughout the world.
©1998 Cuba Free Press