Page 3

persistent economic crisis of Latin America has resulted in a stark drop in subscriptions to US scientific journals and purchases of US books and equipment, while shrinking university enrollments in the United States, combined with cuts in federal funding for university research have made it much more difficult for US scientists to enrich their work through contacts with foreign colleagues. Political turmoil in a number of Latin American countries has caused acute hardships for the academic and professional communities of those countries, resulting in campus closings and the persecution of psychologists. At the same time, political antagonisms between the United States and some Latin American nations vitlate ongoing efforts at exchange, while making the prospect of working in Latin America appear difficult and unpleasant for potential exchangees from this country. In this context, the continued vitality of the Interamerican Congresses is an impressive fact. Most obvious among the benefits of the Congresses are those that redound to the benefit of the host country and to attendees from the surrounding region; indeed, the Congresses serve to bring the best of current research to Latin American psychologists on terms they can afford. On the other hand, APA records contain written reports from dozens of prominent US psychologists that assert the value of the Congresses to their own work in this country (e.g., In working with Hispanic populations or in eliminating culture-blas from research).

In 1985 attended my first Interamerican Congress, which was held that year In Caracas, Venezuela. Based on my experience in Caracas, I was planning to report my research and discuss recent scientific developments with my Latin American colleagues at the 1987 Havana Congress (just as I am currently planning to participate in and del lever an invited address to the 1989 Congress to be held June 25-30 In Buenos Aires). The Caracas meeting was among the most Intellectually stimulating international meetings I have ever attended. To that point, I had not appreciated how much we have to gain from scientific exchange with our neighbors in the southern half of our hemisphere. We relate routinely with our Canadian neighbors, and we are generally up to date on what is happening in the European scientific community, but we are largely unfamiliar with even the most prominent work being done by our South American colleagues.

An average of 300 US psychologists regularly attend the SIP meeting. Of these, some 200 present papers in the formal sessions. It is notable that US psychologists give a disproportionately large number of the most prominent presentations, reflecting our country's leadership in most, if not all, areas of psychological research and practice, and the great demand of our Latin American colleagues for the participation of US Investigators.

Page 4

Until the Havana Congress, the National Science Foundation (NSF) recognized the value of the Interamerican Congresses by awarding to APA block grants to support the travel of US psychologists participating at high levels in the Congress program. The Foundation's grant reviewers have consistently been convinced of the value of the SIP congresses to psychologists throughout the Americas. However, In 1987 the Foundation was forced to comply with the Treasury Department regulations, and no travel funds were made available. This withdrawal of funds posed yet another restriction on US scientists who might have otherwise applied for a license to attend the meeting.

In addition to applying for and administering the NSF travel grant program, APA has consistently expressed its support of the SIP Congresses by publicizing the events in our publications, by participating directly in the Congresses, and by sponsoring receptions and other on-site congress activities designed to facilitate Interaction between US scientists and psychologists from other countries. The Association had planned to carry out these functions as usual in Havana.

This nearly four-decade history of fruitful, nonpolitical cooperation In psychology was interrupted in 1987 through the operation of Treasury Department regulations 31 CFR 515-560. In relevant part, these regulations provide certain exempted persons with a general license for "transactions Incident to travel to and within Cuba" when travelling for the following purposes:

(h) Professional research and similar activities. (1) Paragraph (a)(1) of this section provides a general authorization for travel to, from, and with Cuba for professional research. Those covered by the "professional research authorization are full-time professionals who travel to Cuba to do research in their professional areas, whose research is specifically related to Cuba and will constitute a full work schedule In Cuba, and where there is a substantial likelihood of dissemination of the product of such research.

...

(2) "Similar activities" Include attendance by professionals with an established Interest in Cuba at professional meetings where research on Cuba is shared ....

In order to minimize the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the regulations in the minds of potential Congress attendees, APA sought to obtain from the Treasury Department clear guidelines as to the scope of the general license offered by the regulations. In response to the APA Inquiries, Cheryl A. Opacinch, Licensing Chief of the Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) (the agency charged with administering the regulations), expanded on the Interpretation of the regulations in an August 7, 1986 letter to the APA Chief Executive Officer Leonard D. Goodstein.

Page 5

Opacinch stated that individuals who qualified for the the general license for professional research would have to be full-time professionals with an established Interest in Cuba as evidenced by "prior publications or courses taught", or other evidence substantiating a professional researcher's "established Interest" In Cuba. It is notable that this interpretation, upon which the licensure decisions hung, is not included or even apparently Indicated by 31 CFR 515-560.

...

APA and the leadership of the SIP (supported by the IUPsyS and the National Academy of Sciences) argued that the US members of the sponsor Ing organization (SIP) had, Ipso facto, an established Interest in Cuba and should, therefore, be granted a "blanket" license. In response to this argument, Opacinch's August 7, 1986 letter attempted to rebut our arguments by stating that "because all of the criteria listed must be met, membership In ... the Interamerican Society of Psychology would not in and of Itself qualify an individual for travel to Cuba under subsection 515.560 (h)(2) of the regulations." Dr Opacinch concluded, in a December 6, 1986 letter to SIP President and Vice-President Harry Triandis and June Tapp, that "the denial of a general license permitting all American members of the Society to travel to Cuba for this meeting does not necessarily Impede the goal of scientific exchange," since "the Regulations contain a provision for professional research by Individual scientists with an established interest In Cuba." Based on this exchange, it was evident that the regulations pertaining to general licenses were being Interpreted in such a way as to maximize the foreign policy objectives for which they were created, without adequate regard for the countervailing principle of free circulation of scientists.

It short, it was clear from our communication with the Office of Foreign Assets Control that in the absence of some change in the wording or the application of the present regulations, US participants in the XXI Interamer I can Congress of Psychology would consist of three groups: (1) those whose research was related specifically enough to Cuba to satisfy the evidentiary standards of the Office of Foreign Assets Control; (2) those whose attendance was guided by their own interpretation of the regulations, and (3) those whose attendance was fully hosted.

Certainly, the single point most restrictive of established scientific freedoms is category (1), the requirement [31 CFR 515.560 (h) as Interpreted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control] that the research of those traveling to Cuba for scientific meetings must be "specifically related to Cuba."

It is worth noting that this requirement (as presently advanced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control) could be brought more into line with ICSU principles and past US practice without changing the wording of the

Page 6

regulations. How? Subsection (h)(2) provides for "attendance by professionals with an established Interest In Cuba at professional meetings where research on Cuba is shared." It is only when the operation of this paragraph is conditioned upon the criteria set forth in the preceding paragraph [(h)(1)] that the restrictive clause comes into effect. see any legal or logical reason why the regulations must be so construed, particularly if one desires to protect the right of scientists to attend duly constituted professional meetings.

We do not

The above reasoning addresses only the most restrictive requirement that a prospective traveler's research be "specifically related to Cuba." Unless the regulations were rewritten, the requirements for an established Interest In Cuba, a "full-time" commitment to research (eliminating retired or parttime faculty), and "a substantial likelihood of dissemination" of research would remain. These requirements incontestably conflict with the ICSU principles. However, they are not as restrictive of scientific freedom as the requirement that one's research be specifically related to Cuba. In summary, any serious effort to define regulations in this area must, in our opinion, recognize and address the need to establish an equilibrium between two competing aspects of US policy: our foreign policy objectives with respect to Cuba and the principle of free circulation of scientists. Certainly, we should never forget that the free circulation principle has also been a conspicuous part of US policy In other instances.

The failure of the Treasury Department to even attempt to maintain this equilibrium also points to our second major concern that this is no way for the US government to conduct its business. "Good government" like good business should seek to promote rather than prohibit open exchange (in this case, of scientific Ideas). But more Importantly, good government should provide clear, specific, and consistent guidelines and procedures for conducting its business. Those US scientists who fell into category (2) whose attendance was guided by their own Interpretation of the regulations - confronted an ambiguous bureaucracy when they applied for their licenses. These Individuals were required to decide for themselves if they met the criteria. OFAC's Improvisational Interpretation of 31 CFR 516.560 failed to meet common-sense standards of good administrative practice in at least two ways.

First, the OFAC's avowed standards for assessing an Individual's Interest In Cuba (e.g., by courses taught or prior publications) were not published anywhere. Thus, Individuals who believed themselves to be eligible under the criteria set forth by the published guidelines could easily make

Page 7

Judgements as to their eligibility without being aware of the criteria applied by the government agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the regulations. One can only question the purpose such unpublished criteria serve in the absence of a requirement that the Interested public make an effort to learn of their very existence.

Second, In light of the fact that I know of no one who was ultimately denied a license, it would appear that OFAC is not actually enforcing the unpublished guidelines. This raises a question as to why we even carry the regulations on the books if they are glossed over in application. Certainly, one would expect enforcement were this a matter of serious concern to the US government.

These questions lead me to conclude that the regulations are to an Important degree unenforceable. While they could be fine-tuned (as suggested above) to better assure free circulation for scientific purposes, the interests of science and the country would best be served by the abolishment of the regulations altogether.

In the final analysis, if discouraging travel to Cuba were in fact the objective, the regulations were a successful deterrent. I personally chose not to attend, as did nearly two-thirds of the US scientists who had originally intended to present their research in Havana. APA, our national association, also chose not to be present or to conduct their usual functions at the Congress. But perhaps the biggest loss was the Interruption of full scientific exchange with our Latin American colleagues. When we gather together this summer in Buenos Aires, it will have been four years since many of us have met critical years in which we could have mutually benefited from the exchange of scientific Ideas which full participation in the Havana Congress would have enabled.

From the point of view of the American Psychological Association, future legislation must protect, and Ideally should promote, the principles of free circulation of persons, scientific Information and Ideas across national borders. In the case of the XXI Interamerican Congress of Psychology In Havana, free-circulation principles were not given the weight they deserved.