text: authorities had understood as much when they had said, at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in June 1989, that it had become completely tintenable to maintain that human rights were a matter of internal law alone. 11. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights represented a set of objectives reflecting the aspirations of humankind, they were an ideal of equity and justice towards which society must strive. In that respect, while the Universal Declaration did not carry the force of law, it did have enough moral authority for States, organizations and peoples to demand that it should be observed. The standards proclaimed in the universal Declaration, which were common values for all people, must be neither diluted nor compromised. Not every Government could attain the objectives of the Universal Declaration overnight; nor was there any one way for them to do so. The methods for calling offenders to account must also be suited to the circumstances, but first and foremost there must always be a single standard for all. Principles could indeed change conduct, as the Government of the United States had realized through painful experience in the 1960s, when racial discrimination authorized by law had still been practised in that country. The United States delegation had been constantly summoned to explain itself both to the Commission and to the Sub-Commission. The United States Government had never tried to shun or stifle criticism or to dismiss the accusations against it. The whole world knew the truth, and the United States, impelled by international and national pressure, had looked again and made the necessary changes. 12. It was always possible, or even expedient, to dilute or discard principles and adjust the standard to the behaviour rather than the behaviour to the standard. However, whatever one did, the principles set out in the 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the importance of upholding human rights and the role of international standards and principles in promoting equity and justice. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting that the text may be from an official document or speech. The examples given, such as the US experience with racial discrimination, also support this interpretation.