The treason of the clerks

A letter from Bernard Levin

Sir: in your issue of 26 May, Mr Harold Pateshall quotes from an article by a former General Secretary of the World Council of Churches to show, as he puts it, that 'the WCC is not defending human rights in Eastern Europe, despite its loud and often bizarre espousal of a variety of anti Western causes and movements'. • Mr Pateshall is quite right. But he doesn't know the half of it, nor yet the quarter. I am in possession of an official WCC document Which goes a very great deal further than the material Mr Pateshall quotes. It is published by 'The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs of the World Council of Churches'; the publication, which is in two volumes, is a collection of papers prepared by various hands for a WCC meeting in Austria, itself something of a preliminary study for subsequent full-scale WCC congresses. It is particularly interesting to note that although the documents were published some time ago, they have been kept In print; clearly they were designed not just for the Austrian gathering, but for further use, and are presumably considered still valid, and representative of WCC opinion. The general title of the two collections is 'Human Rights and Christian Responsibility': they are introduced, and I take it edited, by D.wain C. Epps, described as Executive Secretary, who writes like the very model of those modish clergymen of today who seem to think that a vocation to Christianity is much the same as a career in Left-wing sociology. In his introduction to el• 2, for instance, he says that 'Our Primary motivation does not come from any Juridical text, rather from the demands of the Gospel', and almost immediately follows this admirable precept with the fatuous Words 'In this task, the churches dare not Ignore the United Nations, or its essential role in the protection of human rights'. If that is the tone of the document, it may reasonably bnably be assumed that it will be of no Practical use to any soul alive; nor is it, Particularly to the souls who live in those Member-states of the United Nations (about nine-tenths of them when I last human which pay no more attention to numan rights than they do to the Gospel. i6„ut what cannot be deduced from Mr -e,Pps's introduction is the fact that both volumes of papers are, in very substantial Measure, straightforward and entirely unqualified publications of official Soviet ,ProPaganda, without any rreply to or critic ism of it.

I am not thus characterising some of the attacks on the West in general and the United States in particular, though in the case of a good many of them I might well be. There is, for instance, an enormously detailed chart setting out no fewer than 116 separate varieties of repression or denial of rights in all the counties of Latin America, with crosses on the chart to indicate which of the countries listed practise which forms of repression under which headings. Some of the instances are simply comic, like the one, included under Religious repression from the inside, headed 'Censure of ecclesiastics by their superiors', another in the sub-division on Ideological and cultural repression, given as 'Distraction of public opinion by means of football, sports events, etc, to inhibit attention to the grave problems of the community', and no fewer than three in the section on Repression by the military, listed respectively as 'Organisation of various kinds of intelligence agencies', 'Equipment of the armed forces with highly sophisticated communications media', and 'Organisation of centres for the armed forces and intelligence agencies equipped with computer services and advanced technologies'. But at first sight the chart looks both impressive and useful; by running the eye down one of the columns with a country's name at the top, the reader can get an immediate impression of the nature of the regime in charge. And no one could deny that some of the countries of Latin America are run by brutally repressive regimes which commit practically every violation of human rights imaginable. A good test of the document's validity, however, can be made -by examining the Venezuelan column. This lists that genuinely democratic country (practically the only one on the South American continent) as practising 50 of the 116 possible outrages, including not only 'Deliberate perversion of the Gospel message [look who's talking] by corrupt ecclesiastics in league with the oppressor', but also 'censorship', 'illegal imprisonment' and even 'Assassination (open or underhanded or by torture, etc) of victims, their relatives and friends'.

That alone would render worthless these two volumes, in which the sins of the West are exclusively paraded for chastisement, the emphasis being throughout on the satisfaction of material needs as a sacred (literally sacred) right, and the lack of any of these things as constituting one of the greatest offences possible against Christ's teaching. There is one (and only one) exception to this rule among the documents: a remarkably refreshing article (reprinted, significantly, from elsewhere rather than designed as a contribution to this symposium) by Mr David Jenkins, Principal of William Temple College, Manchester, who says such things as I do not believe that the notion of human rights is at all biblical. I doubt if the Bible has any interest in human rights whatever . . . concern about everyone being taken into account does not mean that everyone has a right to possess a given list of things . . . It is more important that you should count than that you should get this or that . . . The notions of freedom and justice with regard to the distribution of resources must, in any distinctively Christian understanding, take into account the idea of sacrifice . . . It is not true that all the ills of the Third World are the fault of the First World . . .

That, however, is a single voice crying in a wilderness otherwise largely inhabited by the belief that you can satisfy man's spiritual needs by ensuring that he has a steadilyrising standard of living.

It is noticeable, further, that the two volumes contain, as indeed they should in any publication concerned with violations of human rights throughout the world, a number of studies of repressive regimes in various undoubtedly repressive countries: Chile, Argentina, South Korea (but not North, of course), the Philippines and white Southern Africa. There is a chapter on rights in the black African states, in the form of a report of a Seminar on the subject, but it is couched entirely in general terms, no countries at all being named, and is concerned largely with defending or condoning in Black Africa what is condemned without qualification in White. A few excerpts will give the flavour: . . . A serious problem was that African countries had in many cases inherited from the colonial powers systems according special privileges .,. . which had enabled foreign companies and multinational corporations to dram off the profits . . . and which had enabled foreigners to dominate their economies . . . the main human rights problem in Africa was . . . how those rights should be promoted and protected. beariag in mind the special situations of African countries. . . In this context some violations of human rights were inevitable, but they constituted for the most part a provisional phenomenon . . . which was bound to give way in time to a liberalism more in keeping with the harmonious development of Africa . . . Divergencies between the norms of international law and certain African practices became apparent. . . Some participants . . . felt that certain practices widely considered to be violations of human rights were, in the context of Africa, merely efforts to correct situations which had developed in preindependence days and to encourage and protect the human rights of the masses of African people. This was the justification, for example, for creation of the single party political system . . . as well as for the adoption of special rules relating to persons of certain nationalities . . . Some participants. . . expressed the view that theoretical concepts of human rights — good by themselves — might be misused to divert the attention of Africans from other important things that had to be done in order to take care of their priorities . . .

The general pattern of this dossier, then, is clear. Right-wing dictatorships are castigated without mercy, and wherever possible linked to the United States; it is admitted that the United States itself enjoys most human rights, but attention is concentrated almost entirely on that country's shortcomings; black Africa is permitted any amount of violations of human rights of every kind . . . the primary aim of any government must be to promote the happiness of the people of the country, and . . . civil and political rights were useful only if they contributed to the attainment of this goal . . . '). But that is not what I mean by Soviet propaganda. The following is.

There are five papers about conditions in the Soviet Union and her Empire. They are all by citizens of that Empire, and they are all official statements. The authors are: Bernard Jarzynka, described as a Polish jurist; I. P. Blishtshenko, Deputy Chief of the International Law Faculty of the State Institute for International Relations, Moscow; a group in East Germany, members not named; Professor-Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy of the Soviet Russian Orthodox Church; and Professor N. Zabolotsky, who is not further described, though a footnote to his paper says that it was prepared in conjunction with a group in the Soviet Russian Orthodox Church's `Department of External Relations'.

Let us take them in turn. Mr Jarzynka's essay is called 'The European Socialist States and Human Rights: I'. and begins with some harmlessly Marxist definitions of rights, their origins and their interdepen dence. From this he goes on to elevate the 'right to work' as the supreme right in `socialist' regimes such as his country's. Then there are a few paragraphs of that particularly costive jargon used by intelligent Marxists who are about to tell lies, and he goes on: The constitutions and the legislation of the socialist countries guarantee citizens all the rights and freedoms provided in the Universal Declaration and in the Human Rights Covenants: personal freedom and security, equality before the law and between men and women, prohibition of slavery and of racial discrimination, right of access to tribunals and presumption of innocence, right of asylum, freedom of conscience, of association, of the press, and of assembly, right to work and to education, etc.

I have in my time asked more than once for an explanation of a curious phenomenon that at first sight is illustrated in that passage: why do men say things they know to be entirely false when they also know that nobody to whom their falsehoods are addressed believes them? But it is only, as I say, at first sight that Mr Jarzynka's claim falls into that category: I fear it is all too likely that some of his audience (that is, the expected readers of the symposium) probably believe every word of it. Indeed, I would not be surprised to hear that Mr Dwain C. Epps, editor of the work, does so. What, after all, would you expect from a man whose own essay in the book includes this fascinatingly selective tour of violations of human rights?

Looking beneath the surface of contemporary talk about individual freedoms we see the stark truth that the vast majority of violations of individuals' human rights come as a result of their belonging to a certain sector of society. Systematic torture in Brazil is practised at individuals who are considered suspect in an effort to eliminate popular opposition to a selfproclaimed government. Churchmen in South Korea are persecuted not for their individual acts, but because they represent a major force for the implementation of human rights. Masses of people are arrested in Namibia for their mere verbal opposition to white minority rule. The rights of migrant labourers in Western Europe to proper working conditions are violated not because of individuals' actions but because they belong to a specific economic and/or national group.

Are there not one or two areas of the world, or types of government, rather noticeably missing from that catalogue? The reason they are missing — which may well also account for the nature of the documents I have been describing — is perhaps found later in the same essay, where Brother Epps says The United States calls its internal problems 'civil rights' issues, and reserves the category `human rights' to criticise what it judges to be wrongful restrictions on the individual freedoms in the European Socialist countries. The USSR states that human rights are fully guaranteed by the constitution for all Soviet citizens, and then turns its attention to the flagrant violations of international standards committed by Western governments. Both charge and counter-charge may have an element of the truth.

My italics. But I would not have been surprised if they had been Epps's italics. We have, however, hardly started. Following Mr Jarzynka's essay there is `Human Rights in the European Socialist States: II', by Professor I.P. Blishtshenko, who kicks off in fine style by announcing that 'Communism is not imposed by force from outside', a view that would be thought extremely interesting in Prague, Budapest, Warsaw, East Berlin and a number of other places. But the Professor has miles to go before he sleeps. Hark: Our point of procedure must be the following consideration: `The interests of the struggle against imperialism which aims at suppressing the fundamental freedoms of Man require the waging of a ceaseless struggle for gaining and defending the freedom of speech, of the press, assembly and demonstrations, and the freedom of association, for the equality of all citizens, for the democratisation of all spheres of public life.' . . .

Blishtshenko's italics. (1 bet you thought they were mine.) But he has no need of italics in the following passage: Under socialist democracy the working people are guaranteed social and political rights and the freedom of the personality. It opens to them far-reaching possibilities of active participation in running the affairs of state, the economy and society.

Nor in this one: From the day of its inception the Soviet State has attached great importance to the question of political rights for the citizen. Under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. In the Soviet society this right has a concrete and actual content.

Bui Professor Blishtshenko reverts to italics for the next passage, as well he might: The political rights of the Soviet citizen are above all guaranteed by the right to vote and the right to stand for election . . . The Constitution of the USSR ensures the right to unite in public organisations • . . Not only are all Soviet citizens guaranteed by law freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly including street processions and demonstrations. They and their organisations have at their disposal printing presses, paper, the facilities of telecommunication, radio and TV services, and the use of Public buildings . . . The Constitution of the USSR ensures freedom of conscience to all citizens . . .

There is a good deal more than that, but Perhaps my excerpts have given a sufficient idea of the whole. In any case, there are three more articles about 'Human Rights in Eastern European Socialist States' in the World Council of Churches' symposium. First of these is a paper, prepared by an unnamed group from East Germany, about the state of human rights in that country. This passage sums up the tone and contents alike: The socialist system of society and of government set up by the people, ruled by the workers and farmers under the leadership of the working-class party, was and is a definite political guarantee for the fundamental rights of citizens. . . For the first time the workers in a German state have the constitutional right to influence decisions concerning industrial Policy . . . The socialist Constitution (1968) of the DDR also extended the constitutional and legal guarantees for every single fundamental right.

Next, turn to what is perhaps, considering the supposedly Christian provenance of these documents, the most scandalous inclusion in the entire collection: the paper 0n 'Religious Rights of the Soviet Citizen', contributed by Professor-Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy. From the land where Igor Ogurtsov and an uncountable number of thousands of other Christians are in concentration-camps, prisons or madhouses for practising their religion, come these introductory remarks: In the USSR, religious rights of the citizens are proclaimed, defined and guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 124 states: 'With a view to providing for the USSR citizens freedom of conscience, the Church is separated from the State and the school from the Church. Freedom to Perform religious activities as well as the freedom of anti-religious propaganda belong to all the citizens.'

And after those, these: Religious communities of all denomina tions are equal before the law. The Soviet legislation prohibits the division of citizens according to religion . . . According to the Constitution, citizens of the USSR can profess any religion or none. According to the law, no one is entitled to prevent the Soviet citizen from using this right. All believers can freely change their religion . . . Religious organisations may invite or hire priests, singers, regents and others serving the needs of believers . . . believers can gather together in churches and houses of prayer for services at appointed times, according to their rules . . . churches, mosques, and houses of prayer are people's property given by the State for the use of believers, free of charge. . . Religious organisations are entitled to convene their councils, meetings, congresses, elect religious governing bodies, and resolve current problems. They can publish service books, church calendars, journals, the Holy Scriptures and the Koran. They are entitled to have special educational institutions for preparing priests and other workers of the Church . . . All forms of control on behalf of the state bodies exclude any interference in internal life of religious organisations . . .

So much for religious rights in the Soviet Union. Now for 'Social Rights in the USSR', expounded by Professor N. Zabolotsky. He, it is true, does say at one point that 'The guaranteed character of citizens' rights is a peculiar feature of Socialist society', but it is clear that he is not trying to be funny. Very clear: Chapter X of the Constitution of the USSR provides the basis for the fundamental rights and duties of Soviet citizens . . . the law guarantees the Soviet citizen freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association . . . the citizens of the USSR have the right to security of residence.

But the cynicism of Professor Zabolotsky, and the culpability of the World Council of Churches in helping to propagate it, goes further still: Equality of citizens, irrespective of race or nationality is one of the basic social rights within the Socialist society. Direct or indirect infringement of these rights, or, vice versa, direct or indirect advantages to citizens due to their race or nationality, as well as any propaganda or race or national priority are forbidden by law.

All other above mentioned rights (freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of meetings, freedom of demonstration, freedom of uniting in social organisations) are similarly guaranteed.

Now, why does all this matter? Soviet hacks are only Soviet hacks, after all. Those whose job is to write, or at any rate put their names to, Soviet propaganda will do so under whatever auspices are available to them. Why should I go on at this length, and even expect your readers to come with me all the way, merely because I have discovered some more examples of that truth, a good deal cruder and less skilful than most?

It is partly, of course, because the World Council of Churches, whose Commission of the Churches on International Affairs was responsible for these inexcusable publications, is a body with considerable effect, if not influence, in the world; for instance, its active help, including substantial material help, to African revolutionary movements has surely brought nearer, if only by a little, the end of white oppression in Africa and a further extension of its replacement by black oppression. But that is not all, and it is what remains that carries the gravest charge against the World Council of Churches.

For the hypocrisy in the collection of documents I have been describing goes still further than my quotations have indicated. To some of the articles and papers, the editor, Mr Epps, has appended a note making clear that the views expressed are those of the authors and do not 'necessarily' reflect the position of the organisations responsible for promulgating them. This note is not attached to all the material, and some of the most extreme examples of the Soviet propaganda I have quoted are set forth without the word of warning; I am prepared, however, to accept that we are intended to read them as though it were attached to them all.

But that really will not do. For it is one thing to suggest that the defenders of tyranny are entitled to have their say, provided it is made clear that that is what it is; it is quite another to do this, and then allow only the defenders of Communist tyranny to take advantage of the principle. And that is exactly what is here done. The articles on right-wing tyrannies are all hostile, all unqualified condemnations (and mostly, I may say, couched in crude Marxist jargon). The articles on the democracies, especially the United States, are less extreme; but nonetheless critical. Only the Soviet Empire's spokesmen are allowed to put forward their masters' lies without anything to qualify them.

And there is not the smallest exception to this rule. There is no paper on the violations of human rights in any Communist country; there is not even an article suggesting that conditions there might be better. And this is from a Christian body, when Christians in the Soviet Union and other Communist countries are rotting in concentrationcamps for their Christian witness. When Christians are persecuted in Brazil or Argentina for defying the rulers of those countries, the World Council of Churches rightly throws open this publication's pages to denunciation of those rulers. When Christians are persecuted in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union is invited to occupy one-seventh of the total number of pages in proclaiming her unblemished virtues and to insist that she, and she alone, upholds the rights of all her citizens, particularly their religious rights.

This is treason against Christianity, responsibility and honour alike. How can the World Council of Churches answer the charge that it is a Communist-dominated body which does not stand up for the rights of Christians in Communist countries? How, that is, in the face of this evidence? If we seek a clue that will explain the facts, we may perhaps find it in the short paper, included in the symposium, by the Executive Secretary of the WCC's Commission on International Affairs, Mr Dwain C. Epps.

I have already drawn attention to Mr Epps's curious selectivity in his reference to oppressive regimes (he only criticises right-wing ones). But just contemplate one sentence from his paper, if you want to have some idea of how the World Council of Churches became what it is: the thought in the sentence, I should make clear, is described by Mr Epps as a 'misconception', and is indeed listed as the first of 'Three mistaken ideas' about human rights. It runs: It is said often that human rights pertain only to individuals and are not applicable to the human collectives of which they are a part.

It is said often; and it is said rightly. And when a senior official of a Christian organisation denies it, then the words of the Book of Judges have indeed come true; 'They went a-whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves down unto them'. The idea that there are 'collectives' in society, which are more than the sum of the individual human souls within them, and which, as collective entities, have rights which supersede those of the individuals, is the deadliest poison of our world; from Rousseau to Hitler and Stalin, and from them to all the ideologists who today imprison, torture and kill in the name of their ideology, that profoundly unChristian philosophy has become more and more powerful, and is now almost supreme almost everywhere. In the name of that heresy, Christians are put in concentration-camps in the Soviet Union and murdered in Argentina, and in the name of the same heresy, the World Council of Churches disapproves of the latter, but when faced with the former puts forward its defence unchallenged.

I dare say that here and there, in Christian churches up and down this country, there will be collections on Sunday to aid the work of the World Council of Churches. Considering the evidence Mr Pateshall presented a fortnight ago, and the further evidence I have adduced today. I think I am entitled to hope that some of the Christian worshippers invited to contribute may feel that there are better causes, and indeed more Christian ones, for their money.

Yours faithfully. Bernard Levin London W1