« ÎnapoiContinuă »
professional operations which make a vital contribution to the free flow of information between peoples.
For the text of Secretary Kissinger's letter, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXV, No. 1944, Sept. 27, 1976, pp. 405-406. The Final Act of the CSCE, signed at Helsinki by 35 states on Aug. 1, 1976, provides, in part:
The participating states. . . make it their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds . . . .
The participating states note the expansion in the dissemination of information broadcasts by radio, and express the hope for the continuation of this process, so as to meet the interest of mutual understanding among peoples and the aims set forth by this Conference.
In December of 1976 the Department of State refused a visa for Literaturnaya Gazeta Chief Editor Chief Editor Aleksandr Borisovich Chakovskiy, in response to a Soviet refusal to grant a visa to Representative Dante B. Fascell to visit the Soviet Union with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Commission, which had been scheduled to visit there in the latter part of 1976. Mr. Chakovskiy is a member of the Soviet Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe and is a member of the Supreme Soviet.
The CSCE Final Act, which was signed by the United States and 34 other participating states at Helsinki on August 1,1975, contained a subsection entitled "(c) Improvement of Working Conditions for Journalists" under the general heading "Cooperation in Humanitarian and Other Fields." This subsection, which calls for the facilitation of travel by journalists, requires the participating states
-examine in a favorable spirit and within a suitable and reasonable time scale requests from journalists for visas;
-facilitate the issue to accredited journalists of the participating states of permits for stay in their country of temporary residence...;
-ease, on a basis of reciprocity, procedures for arranging travel by journalists of the participating states in the country where they are exercising their profession, and to provide progressively greater opportunities for such travel, . . . .
The Department of State noted its regret for the Soviet decision to refuse visas to the U.S. CSCE Commission, and said that the U.S. Government had responded in kind to emphasize the seriousness of the decision by the Soviet Union of refusing visas to the Commission. Mr. Chakovskiy wished to be present for the opening of the Literaturnaya Gazeta office in New York. The Soviet Government officially protested the U.S. visa refusal in Washington at the Counselor level on December 29, 1976, and in Moscow on December
30 in a phone call to the U.S. Charge d'Affaires from the Deputy Chief of the U.S. division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Department of State took full responsibility for the decision to refuse the visa to Mr. Chakovskiy. Representative Fascell was informed after the decision had been taken.
For additional information on CSCE Principles on Information, see the 1975 Digest, Ch. 3, § 6, pp. 236-238. For the full text of statement defining U.S. position, see Dept. of State File No. P77 0010-439.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at its 19th General Conference, held at Nairobi, voted on November 29, 1976, to postpone action on the issue of a mass media declaration. It remanded for further study a Soviet-supported document that in the view of the U.S. Delegation would have endorsed the concept of state control over the media. The draft declaration (19/C/91), backed by Eastern European countries and some developing nations, carried the title: Draft Universal Declaration on Fundamental Principles Governing the Use of the Mass Media in Strengthening Peace and International Understanding and in Combating War Propaganda, Racism and Apartheid.
Western newsmen covering the Nairobi Conference protested that the declaration as drafted could be used to govern the flow of international news and to control the free press in its reporting of world news. Clayton Kirkpatrick, editor of the Chicago Tribune and member of the U.S. Delegation to the Conference, spoke on November 5, 1976, in favor of a proposal to send the draft declaration to a drafting and negotiating committee for further action. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated, in part:
We are confronted here by a conflict between opposite ideologies with respect to mass media. The differences cannot be resolved in this forum by discussion and debate. The differences are essentially political. . . . [The] draft declaration . . . reflects the views of some nations that regard the mass media as a political arm of the state. It reflects the view that information media is to be used as a tool or an implement to further the aims and objectives of the state. In these states the interests of the state take precedence over the interests of the citizens as individuals. Therefore, the media must be responsible to the state. It must submit to the control of the state. And the state must be constantly drafting new policies to control media as conditions change.
This view is totally rejected by nations that declare-in many cases by constitutional mandate-that their press, and by extension other mass information media, must be free from interference by the state.
In these nations the mass media, far from being a tool of the state, is a counter-balancing force exercising a restraining influence to prevent the abuse of power by the state. It is more than that, of course. It is an educational and information agency that brings to the citizens the information they need about their community and the world which is essential if they are to make wise decisions as the holders of ultimate power in their governments.
In these nations mass media is an early warning device to alert the managers of government operating in behalf of the people that the people may desire change and improvement in their stewardship.
In these nations mass media also is a safety valve to permit protest to be ventilated before it becomes so explosive that only destruction of the government can bring relief.
the Delegation of the United States contends that the attempt in [the] draft declaration . . . to impose the philosophy of one of these ideologies upon the other and all the rest of the world besides is contrary to the spirit of tolerance and pluralism that should guide UNESCO.
The procedure of submitting such a controversial and politically charged document to a drafting and negotiating group is fully in accord with the general principle long maintained by the United States and others in UNESCO forums, namely that normative actions of such universal nature should never be presented to the member states for vote unless or until a high proportion of the states have already agreed to the direction to be followed and only when such proposals have such wide support that the resulting instrument will rest upon a sufficiently broad base of acceptance to insure compliance with the provisions. .
the draft is in conflict with the Constitution of UNESCO itself and certainly it flatly contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which has guided UNESCO through most of its history, and which guaranties freedom of thought and the free flow of information.
Tel. 12229 from Nairobi to Dept. of State, Nov. 5, 1976. Freedom of Information Act.
In Church of Scientology of California v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., No. CV 74-3550-F, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held on April 2, 1976, that the 1974 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (88 Stat. 1561; 5 U.S.C. 552) permit nondisclosure of confidential information supplied to the Drug Enforcement Administration by foreign, State, and local law enforcement agencies. The materials involved were criminal investigatory records compiled for law enforcement pur
poses given under conditions of confidentiality. The Court found that exemption 7(b) (D) of 5 U.S.C. 552 clearly provides that confidential information furnished by a confidential source compiled in the course of a criminal investigation is not to be revealed. The Court stated further:
In light of the legislative history, it is clear that the Congress did not intend to throw open the confidential files of law enforcement to the general public, and its intent to protect against disclosure of confidential information extends to material provided by any confidential source including law enforcement agencies.
In a footnote the Court added:
. Nor is it necessary to dwell on the irony that if a contrary result obtained, the Freedom of Information Act, which purports to operate only against Federal agencies, would have the effect of revealing confidential information contained in the files of foreign, State, and local governments.
5 U.S.C. 552(b) (7) exempts: “investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, . . . to the extent that the production of such records would . . . (D) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source. . . ."
PLO Information Office
At a news briefing in the Department of State on November 22, 1976, Robert L. Funseth, spokesman of the Department, stated that there was no legal bar to the opening by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) of a PLO Information Office in Washington, so long as the Office is registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. 611-618) and conforms to U.S. laws. He added that persons staffing such an office must have legal status under U.S. visa laws.
Dept. of State News Briefing, DPC 218, Nov. 22, 1976. Mr. Funseth noted at the Nov. 22 briefing that a PLO Information Office had been maintained in New York since the 1960's. On Nov. 23, he reported that a Palestinian representative who planned to open a PLO Information Office in Washington was found to have incorrectly stated his place of birth on his visa application and for that reason was asked by the Dept. of State to leave by the end of November, the original date of his departure under the B-1 (business-pleasure) visa issued to him. Dept. of State News Briefing, DPC 219, Nov. 23,
Diplomatic Missions and Embassy
Protection of Diplomats
The Act for the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons was signed into law on October 8, 1976 (P.L. 94-467; 90 Stat. 1997). The purpose of the Act is to amend title 18, United States Code, to implement two international conventions: the 1971 Convention to Prevent and Punish the Acts of Terrorism Taking the Form of Crimes Against Persons and Related Extortion That are of International Significance (the O.A.S. Convention) and the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (the U.N. Convention). The Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the O.A.S. Convention on June 12, 1972, and to the U.N. Convention on October 28, 1975. The United States became a party to the O.A.S. Convention effective October 20, 1976 (TIAS 8413; 27 UST), and on October 26, 1976, deposited its ratification of the U.N. Convention. The latter entered into force February 20, 1977.
Parties to the two conventions are required either to extradite or to prosecute offenders against internationally protected persons whether or not the crimes occur within the territorial jurisdiction of a state party. Each convention provides for the punishment of murder and kidnapping of, as well as assault upon, internationally protected persons. Additionally, the U.N. Convention condemns attacks upon the premises or means of transportation of such persons, and condemns threats and attempts as well. The O.A.S. Convention also condemns extortion in connection with murder, kidnapping, and assault.
Section 2 of the Act for the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons revises section 1116 of title 18, United States Code, to conform with the two conventions. Killing and attempted killing of foreign officials, official guests, and