Now, the question is not whether or not we just reduce the number of troops in Korea. It is a question of, do we have a vital interest there, and if so, do we make some concession on this human rights front, or do we press the human rights issue to the ultimate, and say no military assistance, no military sales? This is a hard one. This is a tough one. I have taken the liberty of writing to the President of Korea in the past, telling him of our deep concern here over this issue, and that it was time for them to shape up. I do not think it had any particular effect, but at least it is on the record.

Have you good men addressed yourself to these subjects? What is your view?

Mr. CAMERON. The Korean situation is always the one that poses the largest problem for me and also for a lot of members of ADA. It seems to me that there are two issues involved, at least.

One is, we do have the troops there, and again, ignoring the genesis of how our troops got there and what function they served after World War II, but looking at the situation now, there is this relationship between the troops and military aid, that if we were to withdraw both precipitously, it would probably have destabilizing effect on the Korean peninsula. I do not know if it would be the North or the South who would precipitate an action, but one might, and because you have a convergence of four major powers in that area, the Soviet Union, the United States, China, and Japan, this is something we should avoid.

The sort of formula that was discussed last year and which I still think is valid, if there is going to be affirmative action on removing our troops from there, and I think that that is something on the agenda, because I do not think our troops serve any sort of vital interest there; then I think you have to keep some level of military assistance, but certainly not this level, not $280 million, but some level, to indicate that we still have an interest in the stability of the peninsula, and while withdrawing troops, trying to work out some type of maybe four-power or three-power guarantee of stability on the peninsula.

I am not an expert on this, but I understand that there has been a fair amount of both the Soviet Union and China have been giving large amounts of military assistance to North Korea.

In the case of the Philippines, I think it is much clearer. There are various ways you can approach the argument. The one that I believe is that there are no absolutely vital, necessary military functions being performed by our bases there. Because there has not been a national debate on their bases yet, it is not a question of calling for a withdrawal, because we have got to have that debate. But certainly it seems to me that we can make a decision on military assistance and other forms of assistance to the Philippines in light of human rights violations, irrespective of the bases.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes; the bases seem to have become a rather commercial negotiation. Mr. Marcos is putting a high price tag on those bases.

Mr. CAMERON. Well, there are two things. I do not think we should give in to that. It is blackmail. That is one answer. Second, I am not convinced that we need them. I read General Brown's statements on why we need those bases very carefully, in his presentation to Congress this year. I was not convinced.

Third, I think he may be wolfing, that Marcos would not necessarily withdraw the bases if we would not pay his blackmail. Those bases are, I think, from many respects unfortunately, very important in the Philippines economy. Also, it is not clear how well the coalition; that is, the Marcos dictatorship, would hold together if some day there was this rift between the United States and Marcos. It is not clear whether he could hold onto his power.

So, I think we ought to make a very clear decision to cut off Marcos,. and I do not think the repercussions would be serious.

Senator HUMPHREY. The Korean situation also, as you have indicated, relates directly to Japan, not only to what are the facts about the relationship of Japan to Korea, but their perception of that situation. The Japanese political situation is very, very shaky on this, and prone to be very concerned, I should say, and very upset over any drastic movement on our part in Korea. I think we have to keep that in mind.

By the same token, some way, somehow, the Government of the United States, I feel, has to express not only its deep concern, but its open opposition to the kind of autocratic dictatorial rule which has gripped that society.

For those of us who have great friendship with Korea, and particularly the Korean people, it is disheartening, to see what has happened to what could have been a much more democratic society. They are such fine people. They are good friends of the United States.

Mr. SNYDER. Senator, could I say a word about that? In my testimony I tried to touch on some facts and figures. I would like to come back to that in a moment, but I think there are other things that President Carter could do in Korea. He has written to dissidents in the Soviet Union. There are dissidents in Korea. There is a Quaker who is 75 years old and has just been sentenced to 5 years in jail for calling for President Park's resignation and restoration of constitutionl rights in the country.

Many of the church leaders in Korea were in that trial, and are under sentence now. So, there are things that can be done that do not necessarily involve money.

Senator Case and I were talking about some figures earlier in the hearing, and I believe the State Department figures show, not talking about what was authorized for the current fiscal year, but what is actually anticipated will be spent, $158 million. Now we have the request of the Carter administration, which was built on last year's sort of going along, and it is $280 million, which is a 77-percent increase, if they get the authorization and appropriation.

Now, to have that kind of a situation, for the Congress to give that level of appropriation, it seems to me, would be rewarding this kind of tyranny. So, I hope you will take a close look at that.

Senator HUMPHREY. I want you to know we have not agreed to any such authorization.

Mr. SNYDER. Certainly, I understand that.

CONGRESSIONAL MONITORING OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator HUMPHREY. We had a meeting yesterday as a subcommitteeon the overall budget, requests for the Budget Committee, and some

of those figures were folded into that budget request, but let's make it clear, that was only for the purpose of meeting what we consider to be the total budget targets, and as to the authorizations region-byregion, or function-by-function, or country-by-country, that is yet to be done, and I, as I listen to you, and knowing what you have said here somewhat in your testimony and in coming here, I think that this subcommittee-I might just as well say it out loud: We need to monitor the human rights issue as well as the State Department.

We had to fight hard to get in the State Department this human rights section, and the language which we ultimately agreed upon was worked out over months and months of haggling and negotiating and bargaining, and finally we just had to force the issue. As you know, we had a veto on it at one time. We tried to put this human rights issue in not only the foreign aid bill but in the military sales bill, and we finally succeeded in getting the Department geared up to it, besides just what I consider to be the more dramatic things the President has done, and the Secretary has done which I appreciate. But the day-to-day kind of work that really is required, I think, is going to necessitate some help here at the committee level.

This is why, when we talk to the public about the necessity of a committee staff, we are talking about something that is important. But I want to tell you, every time there is any expansion of any of these committee staffs, we get an article in U.S. News and World Report on something as if we were robbing the public till, yet people want you to be sure that human rights are protected, just like they want to be sure that there is law enforcement, but they do not want to pay the courts, the judges, the police, or anything else. There are no free rides. As somebody said, there is no free lunch; and there isn't.

We are going to have to have the people to do the job. We have a handful of people here to take care of what were our requests yesterday, $10.2 billion?

I think we have about four or five people that we are working with to see that we are able to handle $10.2 billion. The Defense Department will bring in more people on a $100 million request than we have for our whole staff, and that is a fact. They come in prepared. When they are a witness like one of you, they have five backups right back there.

Somebody says, well, where was the comma placed, what was the exact figure, and it goes back two rows into the audience. [General laughter.]

We get into an issue like this, and I look around and say, who do we have around here that knows anything about this problem? I try to figure out what was the last story I read. We are sort of general practitioners. I have to run from Joint Economic to Agriculture to Foreign Relations to Office of Technology Assessment, and then somebody wants to come in and talk to me about the draft in Minnesota, and somebody else says, my brother is in jail, help me, and so on, and

so on.

That sure makes me a very thoughtful, meditative Senator, by the time you do all of that. Would you like to go home? Let's call it quits. OK, thank you. [General applause.]

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1977

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Humphrey, Pell, Clark, Case, and Javits.
Senator HUMPHREY. This subcommittee will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT

We will continue our hearings on the subject of human rights. Again, I want to note for the record that this hearing is in a very real sense an oversight operation on human rights provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act and Military Sales Act and other provisions of public law.

We are very honored to have the Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs-designate-I guess we have not yet confirmed you-Patricia Derian here with us today. Patricia is a longtime friend and I am very pleased to see her here as a witness before our subcommittee.

Of course we have our Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Christopher, here with us, too. We surely welcome you. You have had the opportunity of appearing before this committee on several occasions, so it is no new experience for you.

Some of my colleagues will be here shortly, but nonetheless I thought we ought to proceed.

The Subcommittee on Foreign Assistance is resuming hearings today on the role of human rights in U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to our development and security assistance programs. On Friday we heard from a distinguished group of outside witnesses, all of whom articulated their views and concerns with considerable sensitivity, and in many instances with considerable eloquence.

I want to commend to both of you the statements of these individuals. I hope that these statements will be studied very carefully by the appropriate officers in the State Department. They are worthy of serious study and consideration.

Sometimes I feel that our communication system is not as good as it should be. We hear from the witnesses here in public testimony, and I