Many people point to this speech as the beginning of a foreign policy paradigm shift toward what is often called “human security”. Proponents of “human security” argue that rather than focusing on national security (the protection of individual nations), the UN (which did not exist at the time of the speech) and its member states should be focused on protecting the “inalienable natural human rights” of all individuals regardless of the country they live in. Do you agree that the Four Freedoms Speech lays the foundation for this sort of thought? Or, do you believe that it is more about justifying possible future American intervention in WWII in specific regard to the actions of Germany and Japan alone, and should not be taken in a global sense? Explain using specific evidence from the document.