believe that liberalization is a wise policy that well serves the national interests of Haiti. (c) In the case of Haitians deported from the United States for illegal entry, we consider it extremely important that we have full information as to their treatment upon arrival in Haiti . . . . (d) It is highly desirable that the Haitian Government make further clarification on the status of political prisoners and that the Government liberalize regulations on visits to and correspondence with these and other prisoners. None should be held without proper charges; and convictions and sentences-past or current-should be made public. In the course of the visit of staff members of the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration in early 1976, we again emphasized to Haitian leaders the strong congressional interest in human rights as regards treatment of Haitian refugees. Indonesia U.S. officials have had frequent discussions with Indonesian Government officials about our concern over the human rights situation in Indonesia. The Indonesians recognize that the detention of large numbers of Indonesian citizens without trial constitutes a human rights problem and they have been willing to discuss this problem with U.S. officials. At the same time, they feel they must weigh human rights considerations against the background of the 1965 attempted pro-Communist coup, as a serious internal security problem. (a) In late June and early July 1974 and again in March 1975, the U.S. Ambassador met with the Acting Foreign Minister. During these meetings he passed the text of the new U.S. legislation on foreign assistance relating to human rights. He also held meetings with other senior Indonesian officials at which this problem was discussed and international concern about it was stressed. (b) Our Embassy in Jakarta has ... provided information on U.N. activities and services to Indonesian legal officials, facilitated high-level contacts with the Congress and with representatives of international organizations active in the human rights field. The Department of State has . . . followed up on these actions in Washington. (c) Our Ambassador met with Foreign Minister Malik and Attorney General Ali Said in June 1975 and with Admiral Sudomo in August 1975 to outline congressional interest in human rights questions in countries which receive U.S. aid (d) In July 1976 our Ambassador spoke on "U.S. Foreign Policy in an Election Year" before the Public Relations Association of Indonesia and pointed out that there were Americans who remain concerned about American relations with a nation which still has a number of persons detained without trial (e) In late September and early October the Ambassador personally delivered copies of sections 301 and 302A of the International Security Assistance Act to key officials of the G.O.I. Iran Over the past 2 years, U.S. Government officials have discussed privately with Iranian officials our views about human rights in general and the human rights situation in Iran specifically.... We have made clear. . . our views and laws. Iranian officials are aware of our views about human rights both from those contacts and from other U.S. Government, activities. . . . Most recently the hearings on human rights in Iran before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House International Relations Committee were followed carefully by the Government of Iran. In addition, our Embassy in Tehran keeps itself informed on developments related to human rights and that fact is certainly obvious to the Iranians. Peru We have not formally raised with the G.O.P. any specific cases of imputed violation of human rights involving Peruvians. Recent U.S. cultural exchange programs in Peru have made clear our concern for the full and proper observance of human rights. . . . Labor leader exchanges have also demonstrated U.S. support for human rights and the development of free and independent institutions. U.S. Government concern over human rights has been demonstrated as well in U.S. citizen protection cases. In July 1976, the Ambassador called upon the Foreign Minister to request that U.S. citizens caught up in the drug traffic receive speedier trials. In August our Chargé d'Affaires also called upon the acting head of the National Council of Justice (overseer of the court system) to drive home the need for speedy trials. The Embassy is in regular contact with the G.O.P. attorney general on principles of human rights protection in regard to specific cases involving U.S. citizens. Peru has cooperated in the international protection of human rights through the U.N. and the OAS. The Peruvian immigration office has cooperated closely with the U.S. Embassy and the U.N. Human Rights Commission to facilitate the immigration to the United States of Chilean refugees. Philippines During the past several years U.S. Government officials have had wide-ranging and numerous discussions with key Philippine Government officials about our concern over the human rights situation in the Philippines and worldwide. The Philippine Government, up to and including the President, is fully aware of our concern and interest in human rights. It has demonstrated sensitivity to the impact which reported violations of human rights in the Philippines have had on opinion within the United States. . . .Contacts included the following: a. In July 1974, the U.S. Embassy in Manila discussed with Executive Secretary Melchor the provisions of FAA section 32 and provided the text of the legislation to Melchor and to Solicitor General Mendoza. b. On January 9, 1976, the Embassy brought the human rights provisions of section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act to the personal attention of Solicitor General Mendoza. c. In September 1976, the Embassy formally brought the human rights provisions of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act to the attention of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and discussed them with senior officials of the department. d. In two cases in 1976 the Embassy made representations which resulted in the Philippine spouses of American citizens being permitted to leave the country after they had originally been prevented from doing so. In addition to these and other high-level approaches, the Embassy has continued to make other efforts to promote understanding of and adherence to internationally recognized standards of human rights. Educational and cultural exchange programs, for example, have significant potential for making a positive impact on the human rights situation. . . . Committee Print, "Human Rights and U.S. Policy: Argentina, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Peru, and the Philippines," Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., Dec. 31, 1976. U.N. Resolution On November 30, 1976, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 31/33 entitled "Adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of political, military, economic and other forms of assistance given to colonial and racist regimes in southern Africa." The resolution contains, inter alia, a condemnation of the collaboration of states with racist regimes and invites the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to examine the consequences of the use of the veto by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It was adopted by a vote of 97-11(U.S.)-28, after a separate vote was taken on paragraph 3, which condemns the collaboration of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, and Japan, especially in the economic, military and nuclear fields. That vote was 68-25(U.S.)-39. Ambassador Jacob M. Myerson, U.S. Representative in the Third Committee which had recommended the resolution, voiced U.S. opposition to it in a statement to that Committee on November 4. He said, in part: the United States does not accept the premise that diplomatic and commercial relations are the equivalent of assistance which fosters racist policies. We reject the biased, onesided conclusions in the document circulated under this item. We have difficulty understanding why this report has selected certain countries for criticism and omitted mention of so many others which maintain trade or economic relations with South Africa. Further, this resolution makes an unacceptable attack on the legal right of the permanent members of the Security Council to exercise the veto. The United States is committed to prompt establishment of majority rule in southern Africa and has made concrete proposals in that direction. Efforts by the United States to assist in the search for peaceful and equitable solutions are a matter of public knowledge. Our support for the principle of self-determination and our opposition to the entirely reprehensible practice of apartheid have been made clear on numerous occasions during the course of the current General Assembly session. They speak for themselves. Press Release USUN-142(76), Nov. 4, 1976. Freedom of Information CSCE Principles On April 19, 1976, John Kornblum of the Department of State's Office of Central European Affairs wrote to James L. Greenfield, the Foreign Editor of The New York Times, concerning the accreditation of American journalists in the German Democratic Republic (G.D.R.). Mr. Kornblum outlined the U.S. position on this issue as follows: [W]hen we are certain that American news organizations are satisfied with arrangements for covering the news in East Germany, we will relax the one remaining restriction placed on G.D.R. journalists in the United States, i.e., our refusal to grant them multiple entry visas for travel to this country. Mr. Kornblum described the G.D.R. position, which the United States had found "unreasonable": [A G.D.R. representative] has told us that for "political reasons" the G.D.R. cannot accredit U.S. correspondents resident in Bonn or West Berlin, but that correspondents resident in other cities can receive accreditation and multiple entry visas. Subsequently, in a diplomatic note dated November 30, 1976, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the German Democratic Republic proposed the following arrangement: The Government of the German Democratic Republic is prepared to grant multiple entry and exit visas for a period of one year to correspondents from the United States of America accredited to the German Democratic Republic, on the basis of reciprocity. The Government of the German Democratic Republic is of the opinion that such an arrangement would contribute to facilitating the working conditions for journalists in accordance with the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Department of State declined the offer in a diplomatic note dated December 29, 1976, which read, in part, as follows: As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aware, the United States Government has on several occasions offered to issue multiple entry visas to journalists of the German Democratic Republic on the condition that the German Democratic Republic agree to grant full reciprocity to American journalists. However, the German Democratic Republic has so far been unwilling to extend such full reciprocity to all American journalists wishing to work on its territory. Instead it has established a category of journalists to whom reciprocity will not be granted, based solely on the place of residence of these journalists. Such arbitrary discrimination is not in accord with the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and does not contribute to facilitation of the activities of American journalists. The unwillingness of the German Democratic Republic to accredit certain United States correspondents because of their place of residence is a major hindrance to the ability of American news organizations to cover events in the G.D.R. For this reason, the United States is not able to give a positive response to the proposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the German Democratic Republic for the reciprocal issuance of multiple entry visas to correspondents. However, if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can give assurances that there will be no discrimination against American correspondents solely because of their place of residence, the Department of State would be willing to reconsider its position on this matter. Dept. of State File Nos. P77 0010-436, P76 0179-567, and P77 0003-1741. See the 1975 Digest for CSCE Principles on Information and especially "(c) Improvement of Working Conditions for Journalists," Ch. 3, § 6, pp. 237-238. Secretary of State Kissinger reiterated the U.S. Government's firm commitment to the free flow and dissemination of information through radio broadcasts, such as those of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, in a letter of August 28, 1976, to David M. Abshire, Chairman of the Board for International Broadcasting. The letter added: The "jamming" of international broadcasts continues in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and, sporadically, in Poland. It must be eliminated if the goals of the CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe] Final Act are to be met. The United States Government categorically rejects allegations made by Soviet and East European officials and media that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty contravene the aims of the Helsinki Declaration, or that either is associated with the Central Intelligence Agency. The Radios are independent, highly |