resolution that nongovernmental organizations needed to be disciplined; and (3) that nongovernmental organizations have played, and he hoped would continue to play, an important role in the United Nations and in the Human Rights Commission in particular. With respect to the overall effectiveness of the procedures, Ambassador Ferguson said that the United States was impressed that, in general, every effort was made to examine the situations brought before the Commission in an objective manner with a view not to judging countries but to ameliorating the situation and, in doing so, to seek the cooperation of the government concerned. we must recognize that the 1503 procedure is in a sense still new and still fragile, and every effort need be made to ensure its healthy growth." But Secretary Kissinger, in his address to the General Assembly on September 22, recommitted the United States to the support of these human rights procedures. HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHILE Few human rights questions involving a specific country have received as much attention in the United Nations as has the case of Chile. During 1975 there were major debates on reports of violations of human rights in Chile in the Human Rights Commission and in the General Assembly. In addition, the subject was treated in ECOSOC and in the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities .29/ By its appointment of an Ad Hoc Working Group to inquire into the human rights situation in Chile, the Commission embarked on an innovative approach to dealing with human rights questions that may be an important precedent in the future. In February 1975 the Commission needed to respond to a resolution of its Subcommission recommending that the Commission study "the reported violations of human rights in Chile, with particular reference to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This recommendation had, in the interim, been endorsed by the 29th General Assembly. The Commission had at its disposal a large amount of documentation including a note by the Secretary General, the 29/ The Subcommission is composed of 26 experts, serving in their individual capacities, elected by the Commission on Human Rights for 3-year terms. W. Beverly Carter, Jr., of the United States is a member. The Subcommission held its 28th session in Geneva, Aug. 25-Sept. 12, 1975. report of its Subcommission, submissions by international bodies such as the ILO and UNESCO and by many nongovernmental organizations, and comments by the Government of Chile. Representatives from 15 countries, including, in addition to members of the Commission, observers from Chile, Cuba, and the German Democratic Republic, took part in the general debate on this item. Representatives from nongovernmental organizations also spoke. Virtually all the participants voiced serious concern over reports of the human rights situation in Chile, and there were calls for action ranging from outright condemnation of Chile, without waiting for verification of the allegations that had been made, to an objective study avoiding a prejudgment of the case. In this regard the lines were clearly drawn between the U.S.S.R. and other communist states urging the former and Western European countries and the United States urging the latter. The U.S. Representative and others pointed out that the status of human rights in Chile was already being considered by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. The observer for Chile told the Commission that the allegations with regard to mass arrests, torture, and killings were either grossly exaggerated or untrue. He announced that his government would welcome and lend every assistance to an impartial and unprejudiced factfinding mission to seek the truth of the situation in Chile. Two draft resolutions were proposed. One, sponsored by the Netherlands, Nicaragua, and the United Kingdom, would have established a working group under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the Commission to inquire into the present situation of human rights in Chile and report to the next session of the Commission. The other, introduced by the U.S.S.R., would have condemned the violations of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile and urged the Chilean authorities to implement the relevant resolutions and decisions of the United Nations, principal among which was the 29th General Assembly resolution on "Protection of Human Rights in Chile." During the debate the U.S. Representative spoke in favor of the 3-power resolution. He noted a certain tendency ... to emphasize the propaganda aspects of the resolutions which have been proposed, to stress the need for condemnation as though that were an important end in itself. We find this approach particularly difficult to accept when it reflects a deeply ingrained double standard--when this Commission is asked for condemnations by those whose attachment to the He went on to say that the United States "has been willing and anxious to go on record on past occasions in making known our concern over the situation in Chile, and in supporting actions which gave expression to that concern in appropriate language. For these reasons, he said, he was prepared to support the idea of a working group "composed of persons whose qualifications would give the greatest hope for positive results." After intensive private negotiations, a compromise resolution proposed by Senegal and understood to be agreeable to the Government of Chile was adopted by the Commission without a vote on February 27. The resolution set up for 1 year an Ad Hoc Working Group of five members of the Commission, to be appointed in their personal capacity by the Chairman and to operate under his chairmanship, to "inquire into the present situation of human rights in Chile" and to report, on an interim basis, to the 30th General Assembly and finally to the next session of the Commission. Although the resolution ignored positive action to improve the status of human rights already taken by Chile, it avoided the unacceptable a priori condemnation of Chile which characterized the Soviet proposal. The Chairman of the Commission, Ghulam Ali Allana (Pakistan), announced that, in addition to himself, the Working Group would consist of Leopoldo Benites (Ecuador), Abdoulaye Dieye (Senegal), Felix Ermacora (Austria), and M.J.T. Kamara (Sierra Leone). The Commission's decision to establish the Ad Hoc Working Group was approved by ECOSOC on May 6. This followed a statement by the Chilean observer in the Social Committee of ECOSOC that his government had agreed to the establishment of the Working Group to visit Chile. Despite these assurances, the President of Chile announced on July 4 that he had asked the Working Group. not to come. The Government of Chile subsequently explained that the presence of the Working Group might give rise to undesirable incidents. It also argued that the Working Group, the performance of whose task was contingent on a visit to Chile, could not continue to function since "the testimony of exiles or persons opposed to Chile residing abroad and therefore unacquainted with the present situation of respect for human rights that prevails in . . . [Chile] can scarcely serve as a basis for an objective and impartial report to the Commission." Nevertheless, the Working Group proceeded with its work on the basis of information available to it and began preparation of a progress report to be presented to the General Assembly. The Subcommission at its 28th session again reviewed the human rights situation in Chile and on September 10 adopted another resolution which recited the history of international concern over this problem, reiterated the Subcommission's own concern, and asked the Secretary General to bring the resolution to the attention of the Chilean authorities. Thus the stage was set for extended General Assembly debate on this issue at its 30th session. The debate was opened in the Third Committee on October 29 by the Director of the Human Rights Division of the UN Secretariat, who introduced the report of the Secretary General on the protection of human rights in Chile. The report described in detail the actions that the Secretary General, the UN organs, specialized agencies, and intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations had taken in accordance with the 29th Assembly's resolution on Chile. The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Working Group provided background on the Working Group's activities and his personal role in them and summarized the Working Group's progress report, which was highly critical of the Government of Chile for its attitude on human rights matters. The Third Committee also had available an extensive report entitled, "The Present Situation on Human Rights in Chile," submitted by the Permanent Representative of Chile. During the next 2 weeks there was extended discussion in the Third Committee on the situation in Chile, coupled with intensive private negotiations over the text of a draft resolution that would embody the sense of the General Assembly on this important issue. The Committee's debate centered on the Working Group's progress report. Much criticism was directed at Chile's refusal to admit the Working Group. The intensive private negotiations produced a draft resolution ultimately sponsored by 38 states--12 African, 10 Western European and Other, 8 Eastern European, 4 Latin American, and 4 Asian. The draft resolution, introduced by the Netherlands on November 11, criticized human rights practices in Chile, expressing the "profound distress" of the General Assembly at the "constant, flagrant violations of human rights, including the institutionalized practice of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest, detention, and exile--to which the progress report . . . brings additional evidence--which have taken place and, according to existing evidence, continue to take place in Chile." The resolution called on Chile to take a number of specific measures which would, in general, have Chilean practice conform to the standards of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also invited the Human Rights Commission to extend the mandate of the Working Group so as to enable it to report again to the General Assembly in 1976. The resolution, as finally drafted, avoided the most extreme formulations of uncritical condemnation that had been suggested, and the United States accordingly decided to support it. In explaining this decision in the Third Committee the U.S. Representative, Mr. Garment, said: "Our vote reflects deep concern over reports which continue to come to this organization from many credible sources about violations of basic human rights taking place in Chile. My government is of the opinion that these reports deserve to be addressed by appropriate UN action." He mentioned the strong support the United States had given the Working Group and expressed disappointment that its visit to Chile did not take place. He emphasized that the United States regarded the resolution as a positive attempt to give meaning to human rights instruments through its call on the Chilean authorities to give full respect to them, but he registered some concern lest resolutions like this go too far in prescribing specific measures of correction which might seem to involve the United Nations too directly in domestic matters. He also warned of the danger of leaving the impression that the United Nations, while singling out the human rights situation in one country, "is willing to overlook situations involving gross violations of human rights in other countries, some of which are among the loudest and most belligerent critics of Chile." The resolution was approved on November 11 by a rollcall vote of 88 (U.S.) to 11, with 20 abstentions, and adopted on December 9 by the plenary Assembly by a recorded vote of 95 (U.S.) to 11, with 23 abstentions. HUMAN RIGHTS AND DETENTE At its 1975 session the Commission considered once again a draft resolution introduced the year before by Bulgaria, the Byelorussian S.S.R., and the U.S.S.R. dealing with detente, peace, and human rights. Those supporting the draft resolution argued that human rights had to be viewed in the context of international peace and security and could not be divorced from the fight against aggression and colonialism. The right to life, they contended, was paramount, and |