On the Right

London, March 9—Mr. Carter’s references to human rights are causing quite a commotion in these parts. It is not really expected, by working statesmen, that anything more will be done about human rights than to mention them genially from time to time. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was keynoter at the Helsinki Conference that eventually brought forth the Declaration, stressed in 1972 that this time around the West would not settle for mere talk. That is the diplomatic way of saying, “this time around the West will again settle for mere talk.” It is the diplomatic equivalent of the vernacular use of the word “literally.” “Literally” is used to mean “not-literally”: as in, “I called you literally a hundred times over the weekend.” When on a subsequent occasion, after it became quite clear that the Soviet Union was not intending to do anything about human rights and Sir Alec was asked what the West was going to do about it, he said, literally, nothing. That tends to be the preferred way of doing things about human rights, where the Soviet Union is concerned. Ask anyone who has labored in the United Nations on the subject of human rights. He, I mean he or she, will tell you.

That is why Mr. Carter’s behavior, which one would not really have thought so extraordinary, is causing such upheavals here. President Giscard d’Estaing is positively truculent on the subject. Human rights, he passed the word to the noble Amalrik, who sought vainly to interview him, are not to be discussed with mere Soviet martyrs. They are to be negotiated through channels, which is the same institution through which we negotiated the fate of Eastern Europe. Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany has flatly refused to see Amalrik, consigning him to as subordinate a secretary in the foreign ministry as he could find.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

London, March 9—Mr. Carter’s references to human rights are causing quite a commotion in these parts. It is not really expected, by working statesmen, that anything more will be done about human rights than to mention them genially from time to time. Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was keynoter at the Helsinki Conference that eventually brought forth the Declaration, stressed in 1972 that this time around the West would not settle for mere talk. That is the diplomatic way of saying, “this time around the West will again settle for mere talk.” It is the diplomatic equivalent of the vernacular use of the word “literally.” “Literally” is used to mean “not-literally”: as in, “I called you literally a hundred times over the weekend.” When on a subsequent occasion, after it became quite clear that the Soviet Union was not intending to do anything about human rights and Sir Alec was asked what the West was going to do about it, he said, literally, nothing. That tends to be the preferred way of doing things about human rights, where the Soviet Union is concerned. Ask anyone who has labored in the United Nations on the subject of human rights. He, I mean he or she, will tell you.

That is why Mr. Carter’s behavior, which one would not really have thought so extraordinary, is causing such upheavals here. President Giscard d’Estaing is positively truculent on the subject. Human rights, he passed the word to the noble Amalrik, who sought vainly to interview him, are not to be discussed with mere Soviet martyrs. They are to be negotiated through channels, which is the same institution through which we negotiated the fate of Eastern Europe. Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany has flatly refused to see Amalrik, consigning him to as subordinate a secretary in the foreign ministry as he could find.