Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

tinue to occur, and this is a matter of bilateral as well as international attention. In the United States, concern is widespread in the executive branch, in the press, and in the Congress, which has taken the extraordinary step of enacting specific statutory limits on United States military and economic aid to Chile.

The Commission has worked and reported widely. Its survey of human rights in Cuba is ample evidence of that. Though the report was completed too late for formal consideration at this General Assembly, an initial review confirms our worst fears of Cuban behavior. We should commend the Commission for its efforts-in spite of the total lack of cooperation of the Cuban authorities-to unearth the truth that many Cuban political prisoners have been victims of inhuman treatment. We urge the Commission to continue its efforts to determine the truth about the state of human rights in Cuba.

In our view, the record of the Commission this year in all these respects demonstrates that it deserves the support of the Assembly in strengthening further its independence, evenhandedness, and constructive potential.

the protection of human rights is an obligation not simply of particular countries whose practices have come to public attention. Rather, it is an obligation assumed by all the nations of the Americas as part of their participation in the hemispheric system.

To this end, the United States proposes that the Assembly broaden the Commission's mandate so that instead of waiting for complaints it can report regularly on the status of human rights throughout the hemisphere.

At the same time, we should also consider ways to strengthen the inter-American system in terms of protection against terrorism, kidnapping and other forms of violent threats to the human personality, especially those inspired from the outside.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1932, July 5, 1976, pp. 1-5.

The OAS General Assembly at its Sixth Regular Session, held at Santiago June 4-June 18, 1976, adopted three resolutions on human rights, which strengthened the hand of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, urged the member states to protect and fully maintain human rights, renewed the mandate of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission to continue monitoring progress in Chile and elsewhere, and sent Chilean proposals to define the powers of the Commission to the Permanent Council for study.

See AG/RES. 242 (VI-0/76), Annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; AG/RES. 243 (VI-0/76), Second report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights "The Status of Human Rights in Chile"; AG/RES. 244 (VI-0/76), Means to promote respect for human rights and to facilitate cooperation by the member states for that purpose. OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.P/VI-0.2, July 7, 1976, Vol. 1, pp. 54-57.

U. N. System

Secretary of State Kissinger urged international cooperation within the U.N. system for the protection of human rights, in an address to the General Assembly on September 30, 1976. He stated:

human rights are in jeopardy over most of the globe. Arbitrary arrest, denial of fundamental procedural rights, slave labor, stifling of freedom of religion, racial injustice, political repression, the use of torture, and restraints on communications and expression-these abuses are too prevalent.

The performance of the U.N. system in protecting human rights has fallen far short of what was envisaged when this organization was founded. The principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are clear enough. But their invocation and application, in general debates of this body and in the forums of the Human Rights Commission, have been marred by hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination. Flagrant and consistent deprivation of human rights is no less heinous in one country or one social system than in another. Nor is it more acceptable when practiced upon members of the same race than when inflicted by one race upon another.

The international community has a unique role to play. The application of the standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be entrusted to fair and capable international bodies. But at the same time let us insure that these bodies do not become platforms from which nations which are the worst transgressors pass hypocritical judgment on the alleged shortcomings.

Secretary Kissinger pledged U.S. support to the following practical approaches:

-To build on the foundations already laid at previous Assemblies and at the Human Rights Commission to lessen the abominable practice of officially sanctioned torture;

-To promote acceptance of procedures for protecting the rights of people subject to detention, such as access to courts, counsel, and families and prompt release or fair and public trial;

-To improve the working procedures of international bodies concerned with human rights so that they may function fairly and effectively; and

-To strengthen the capability of the United Nations to meet the tragic problems of the ever-growing number of refugees whose human rights have been stripped away by conflict in almost every continent.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1948, Oct. 25, 1976, p. 509.

CSCE Principles

On June 3, 1976, President Ford signed Public Law 94-304, "To

establish a Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe" (90 Stat. 661; 22 U.S.C. 3001-3008). The Commission is authorized to monitor compliance with or violation by the signatories of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), signed at Helsinki on August 1, 1975, with particular regard to the provisions relating to Cooperation in Humanitarian Fields. The Commission is also to encourage the development of programs to expand East-West economic cooperation and cultural exchange.

The 15-member Commission under the terms of P.L. 94-304, is composed of six Members of the House of Representatives, six Members of the Senate, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce. It is authorized to receive testimony, voluntarily or by subpoena, and to submit its findings periodically to Congress. The President is directed to furnish reports to the Commission every six months on (1) actions by signatories which reflect compliance with or violation of the Final Act, and (2) a listing of all U.S. programs to implement those sections of the Final Act relating to East-West economic cooperation and greater interchange of peoples and ideas.

Senator Clifford Case, in introducing the bill on November 17, 1975, stated:

Part of the agreement, known as the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation, pledges the signatories to respect human rights. The agreement contains a pledge to allow freer movements and contacts and to respect such basic human rights as freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

There are

*

reasons for concern about Moscow's intention to abide by the agreement. We have received disquieting reports that obstacles are still being raised in the way of family reunions. Also, there have been continuing reports of harassment of Russian Jews and political dissidents.

*

Because of the questions these other reports have raised about Moscow's willingness to abide by the Helsinki agreement, I think there is an increasing need to monitor the extent of compliance with the agreement which Moscow so badly desired.

To be sure, a monitoring procedure would not necessarily assure compliance. But it would have the effect of providing at least a mechanism to evaluate the degree of compliance and to focus international attention on possible violations.

The Department of State recommended against enactment of the bill in a letter from Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations Robert J. McCloskey to the Chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Committee on International Relations dated January 19, 1976. It pointed out that the United States had

scrupulously fulfilled its own obligations under the Final Act, that U.S. embassies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were required to report regularly on implementation and compliance with the freer movement provisions and other aspects of CSCE, and that there was regular exchange within the NATO framework of information on CSCE implementation. Ambassador McCloskey's letter continued:

we have already taken up with the Soviet Union several specific provisions of the Final Act which relate to longstanding U.S.-Soviet problems, including multiple entry/exit visas for American journalists and reunification of divided families. With regard to visas for journalists, an exchange of notes on September 29 provided for issuance of multiple entry/exit visas for American journalists and their families resident in the U.S.S.R. With regard to divided families we cited the commitments contained in the Final Act in presenting our latest Representation List of individuals and family groups who wish to join close relatives in the United States, and urged the Soviet authorities to take early positive action in accordance with their undertakings in the CSCE. We will continue to seek Soviet observance of CSCE provisions of interest to us.

We believe that we have taken all appropriate steps to encourage observance of CSCE provisions, to ensure the collection of the maximum information on CSCE compliance, and the regular compilation and analysis of such information. We welcome congressional interest in this process and stand ready to cooperate with your committee and other committees of the Congress with an interest in CSCE, and to consult closely with all Members of Congress who express such an interest.

After the bill had been passed by Congress, the Department of State did not press its prior objections. It recommended that the President approve the Act.

See S. Rept. 94-756 and H. Rept. 94-1149, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. For the text of the Final Act of the CSCE, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1888, Sept. 1, 1975, pp. 323-350. For the CSCE principles on Cooperation in Humanitarian Fields, see also the 1975 Digest, pp. 191, 193.

On October 12, 1976, President Ford announced the appointment of three individuals, including the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, to serve as executive branch "Commissioner-Observers" to the CSCE Commission. They did not accompany the legislative branch members on a subsequent Commission visit to European countries signatory to the Helsinki Final Act. On the occasion of that visit, the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries members of the Warsaw Pact refused to issue visas to the Commission members, despite Department of State support of the visa applications.

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 12, No. 42, Oct. 18, 1976, p. 1490. For a letter of Monroe Leigh, Legal Adviser of the Dept. of State, to the Editor of The

Washington Post concerning the CSCE Commission, see The Washington Post, Jan. 20. 1977.

President Ford transmitted, on December 3, 1976, the first semiannual report to the CSCE Commission, established by Public Law 94-304. He reported increased East-West scientific cooperation but stated that efforts to ease human contacts had been limited and uneven. Excerpts from the President's letter of transmittal follow:

our policy toward the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) has continued to be that the test of the Conference will be the extent to which its provisions are actually implemented. . .

The creation of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and its work, is part of this measuring process. It reflects how seriously the United States takes the Final Act and how conscientiously we expect all the signatory states to approach the task of implementing its provisions. It is not our purpose to interfere in the domestic affairs of others. We do expect, however, that all those with whom we pledged our word at Helsinki will work with us closely to give life and meaning not only to the noble goals but to the specific practical undertakings in the Final Act.

Since Helsinki our policy has been based on the need for implementation of the provisions of the Final Act: we have stressed this approach in all our contacts on CSCE. We have made a series of demarches to the Soviet Union to convey to the Soviet Government the importance which the United States Government and the American people attach to implementation of the commitments contained in the Final Act, and have sought to encourage positive implementation. We have also raised specific CSCE commitments with each of the Eastern European governments and have urged that those states fulfill their Helsinki undertakings. Our Allies and many neutral European states have also urged Soviet and Eastern European implementation of specific Final Act provisions, using high-level visits and contacts to press for progress on CSCE-related bilateral problems.

Since Helsinki, the United States has also carefully monitored implementation activity by all CSCE participant states, and has developed a continuing process of exchange and collation of information with our Allies. We have maintained contact and compared notes with other Western countries in order to have the broadest possible picture of how the provisions of the Final Act are being carried out.

We and our Allies are now preparing for the 1977 Belgrade followup meeting that is called for in the Final Act. The Belgrade meeting is, of course, closely related to the broader effort to improve East-West relations, of which CSCE is a part. The course of the Belgrade meeting and the future of the CSCE concept, however, will be determined primarily by the degree to which the participating states carry out the provisions of the Final Act.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »