i ‘ ?
  ·- l
‘   ->;~  
l  Q · i . . Q l
      I<¢\.E|,El\/|I`OPO,/JOK I
,   I i
i     M                  .‘          
V i I __,;,  1;; ._·. ,j'_·_·.§;'_     ‘ _.,i._··,. Vi; ’
;     V7     ;  ,  4 in . .,.,   ti  $¢ _  l ,..  t _    c ,, . y  , a   it '  t  —    <=:   zi:       , ~;-=‘ t t  
1   ¤ Spanish and Arabic. The essays are A     i'   iii ii" ( I it i  
  m then collected and sent to diplomatic expression or due process under law.  
I i; posts around the world. Nelson goes on to say that dissent l
  hd A major purpose of these short and criticism of the Communist Party l
    papers is to alert recipients to the by Soviet citizens are not regarded as a i ,.»/(
  manipulation and abuse of political human right but as "subversive i    
  concepts. "There are many ways," activity." Such political and legal   2
ii Nelson says, "in which any aspects of human rights are, however,  
  }-U Superpower—notjust the U.S.S.R. but often discussed by Soviet leaders or  
V   any Superpower—can use and abuse journalists when commenting on in __,> ,
  8 key concepts. Both Superpowers use conditions within the U.S. For    
  Sc propaganda and disinformation in example, Soviet journalists seek to  V4   ’
  order to attempt to change the behavior portray cases such as the arrest or   .‘;·  
  § of others. In the battle of ideas the conviction of black, American Indian,   .,_,·..· 7
1   necessary ammunition is the or other minorities as de facto "political   7
  - · manipulation of words and concepts." repression."   'i‘‘ _`
  In the essays he writes and sends to Put simply, the U.S.S.R. expands or  
  the USIA, Nelson deliberately avoids contracts the meaning of human rights -·-r··r Zgtetl
  citing specific instances. "The inclusion as needed in an attempt to fortify its  
  of examples might easily offend some position.  
  oH‘icials in diplomatic offices, who Although not a part of the Nelson   ·tt,
I   lj would then be much less receptive to study, others maintain that similar  
  the entire pi~oieet"’ he explained In language manipulation is evident in  
  (D previous research, however, Nelson has US- P0ii€i€S- F0? €X21mPi€, in 21 F€€€¤i  
  included discussion of specific instances &Fii€i€ investigative F€P0Ff€1` Tim  
i·'» i > in order to show how these concepts are W€i¤€Y of Knight RidCi€1‘, pOi¤tS Out  
  understood by the Superpowers that the Pentagon’s recently publicized  
  Nelson mentions the eoneept of interpretation of the "use of space for
  human rights as perhaps the best peaceful p¤rpeSeS" has been extended
  Cxaneiplc Of languagg manipulation   to i1'1CiLId€   USCS of SPZICC.
  the S()vi(;[3_ Although the United International treaties, signed by the
‘  Ng(iOng’ Universal Deglgtrgttign Of   &1'1Cl   f`OI`blCl the military
  Human Rights (1948) and the Helsinki use of space. When Congress asked
 i Agreement (1975) enumerate the rights Pentagon oflicials whether the
  to "human contact," the "reunifica- installation of CBI systems (a
  tion gf familieg," and other rights to communications network of orbiting
 Q  freedom of movement, the Soviet satellites that could command and
`  Union has restricted the meaning of control the nation’s nuclear forces `
t  human rights when the discussion turns during and after World War III) would V
  to Conditions within its country violate these agreements, the Pentagon `.
  The U.S.S.R. speaks of guarantees replied, Weiner reported, that the U.S. i
  of social and economic equality and interprets "the right to use space for  
  justice when defending the Communist peaceful purposes to include military l
  Party’s record on human rights in the uses of space to promote peace in the
  Soviet Union, asserting that the Party world."
  I has ensured a right to work, leisure, In his study of semantic corruption,
F  health, wcll-being, and education. This Nelson has had his "worst fears
  u statement includes only a few of the confirmed. In looking over great
 i ~1 many rights listed in the U.N. amounts of material, I believe that the
  9 Declaration, forgetting entirely those two Superpowers are still very far apart
  Q which emphasize political and religious in terms of speaking to each other;
  3*
  $1
.   31
l ?