Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

urge the United States to help Africans to achieve this, and to avoid getting too far out in front of the African efforts while not restricting U.S. direct and indirect encouragement only to official groups.

There is an emerging all Africa Bar Association which views itself as having a human rights vocation; there are at least two human rights centers established in Africa to study and make recommendations concerning human rights; there are local sections and members of transnational human rights NGOs like Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists; and there are many Africans excited by the possibility of positive action to improve human rights conditions in Africa. All of these persons and groups should be encouraged, and the United States Congress and Government should seek ways of cooperating with them.

Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Mr. Weinstein. We have a recorded vote now, but there are at least 10 minutes before we have to dash over to the floor. We will proceed with our last witness, Mr. Gastil, who is director of the Comparative Survey of Freedom of the Freedom House Foundation. If you go beyond 10 minutes, we will have to interrupt and go over and vote, but we will come back for questions. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND D. GASTIL, DIRECTOR, COMPARATIVE SURVEY OF FREEDOM, FREEDOM HOUSE

Mr. GASTIL. Established in the early 1940's in reaction to the Fascist threat to democratic institutions, Freedom House has continued to be dedicated to the struggle against tyranny, whether the threat be from the right or left. Since 1972 Freedom House's "Comparative Survey of Freedom" has monitored the condition of freedom in the countries of the world by rating political rights and civil liberties. Political rights are observed most fully where there are competitive political processes offering voters a choice among alternative policies. Political rights are at their lowest level where the people are allowed no meaningful choices. Civil liberties are most respected where there are free media, willing and able to oppose the government, no prisoners of conscience, open public discussion, freedom of movement and an absence of terror. At the other extreme we find governments that allow no discussion, frequently imprison their opponents, and restrict the movement of all.

The surveys are published each January in our journal, Freedom At Issue, and more fully in our yearbooks, Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties.

I take part in this joint hearing not because I have particular knowledge of Africa but because in applying these criteria to Africa year after year I represent experience in a judgmental area with which you are concerned. With this in mind let me then turn to some of the questions you have addressed to witnesses in your correspondence.

The African countries with the most serious violations of human rights in terms of the survey are those that rank at the bottom in both political rights and civil liberties. As of last March these were: Angola, Benin, Burundi, Central African Empire, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Mozambique, Somalia, and Uganda.

The situation is always changing. Since March there have been major changes in Uganda, Central African Empire and Equatorial Guinea, and some improvement in human rights has evidently

occurred.

The least free African States are for the most part controlled by

Even within this framework the predictability and rationality of the system is low; the rule of law is essentially absent.

An answer to your request to identify the most important human rights problems in Africa might lead to a rather different list, emphasizing larger, more powerful or better known violators such as Ethiopia, Zaire and South Africa. Zaire is only marginally different from the least free states listed above. Like them its people often suffer widespread starvation or malnutrition in addition to deprivations of freedom. All three states have conflicting ethnic groups, many of which do not accept, and have little reason to accept, rule by the people now in charge of the government. These states are empires in miniature in which decolonization has not yet taken place. This human rights problem of inadequate group self-determination is widespread in Africa and one that the American Government has not yet come to grips with in its promotion of human rights.

The problem of human rights violations in South Africa is important because of the wide publicity it has received and because of the real denial of rights that has characterized South Africa. However, for several reasons South Africa is not considered by the Survey to be as serious a violator as many of the foregoing countries. First, political rights at a high level are granted the 17 percent of the population that is white. Second, the other communities-black, Indian, and colored-are allowed a limited degree of political power.

As to civil liberties, the white community again has broad guarantees, although occasional restrictions and censorship suggest limitations. The nonwhite communities are restricted in many ways-especially by movement and residence restrictions. But nonwhite demonstrations and speeches against the system do occur, often peacefully; there are even regular black publications that make clear their opposition to the system. Most recently lifting of restrictions on black union organization has improved civil liberties, but true freedom lies many steps beyond this.

Many blacks remain in prison for their political activities. Although some of these prisoners have committed or been associated with violent activities, many should be classified as prisoners of conscience. As an aside, it should be remarked that the inequalities that remain in Zimbabwe Rhodesia are far less onerous than those in South Africa.

To understand this relativistic view of South Africa, the conditions of freedom and race there may be compared with those in Burundi, a small country lying between Tanzania and Zaire. Here 14 percent of the people, the socially and racially distinct Tutsi, rule over the Hutu who make up 84 percent of the population. Historically, the Hutu have been held down by bloody slaughters. Today the Government takes care that the Hutu do not rise to positions of influence in any sphere. No organization of opposition or expression of dissenting opinion is countenanced. Most recently Burundi's authoritarian regime expelled 52 missionaries on the charge of fomenting rebellion.

It may be noted that I have not mentioned the problem of the Western Sahara. This is an important foreign policy problem involving questions of self-determination but the problem is less pressing in human rights terms for three reasons. First, the numbers are small, a few hundred thousand at most. Second, there is considerable justice in the Moroccan claim-certainly more, for example, than in

the area support the Moroccans; tribal groups in Western Sahara overlap those in Morocco. Third, Morocco, a partly free country, has granted political rights other than independence to the people within the Western Sahara on a basis equal to that enjoyed by other Moroccans.

The State Department's monitoring of human rights provides a valuable resource for evaluating conditions in the world. We often check our impressions with the State Department and we use their country reports as a basic reference. Their reports have become fuller and have improved with experience and seriousness. There remains the problem that Foreign Service officers asked to provide critical information on the countries in which they serve and State Department personnel evaluating this information are both led by their other responsibilities to present as desirable a picture as they can without denying the facts. Although we expect the State Department to continue to develop the factual base of its reports, the favorable tendency of Department interpretation is inevitable. For this reason outside monitors with fewer conflicting obligations and a different perspective are necessary to complement State's work.

Our ratings are prepared on the basis of the flow of information that comes to us. In addition to reports by private human rights organizations and departments of government this includes newspaper reports, particularly as these are provided by research services for the world or the African Continent. Of course we also use other sources, such as standard references, journals, monographs on particular countries, and contacts with area specialists.

The resulting ratings, and country descriptions in the yearbooks, are certainly not comprehensive, but I believe they have a range of error of not more than one position on our scales; that is, a rating of 5 on a 7-point scale might be changed to a 4 or a 6 by another observer with the same or more comprehensive information, if he employed our criteria. Errors are eliminated over time by the fact that errors in 1 year are picked up as we receive disconfirming information during the next. In doubtful cases we often query area or country specialists for additional information. Occasional outside critiques of particular ratings are, of course, invaluable. The basic "check" is to continually review comparatively whether the evidence justifies placing a particular state above or below another on the relevant scale. American pressures for human rights have probably by themselves produced few changes in Africa, a continent where they appear relatively ineffective.

Mr. BONKER. Mr. Gastil, at this point we will recess briefly so that the members can vote.

The subcommittees will stand in recess for 10 minutes. [Whereupon a short recess was taken.]

Mr. BONKER. The subcommittees will come to order.

Mr. Gastil, I think you were about to complete your statement. Mr. GASTIL. Thank you Mr. Chairman. American pressures for human rights have probably by themselves produced a few changes in Africa, a continent where they appear relatively ineffective. In some cases, such as Guinea, Egypt, Zaire, or Liberia or the white redoubts of southern Africa we appear to play a role in modifying policy, although the effect is often minimal or cosmetic. The State Department

Even within this framework the predictability and rationality of the system is low; the rule of law is essentially absent.

An answer to your request to identify the most important human rights problems in Africa might lead to a rather different list, emphasizing larger, more powerful or better known violators such as Ethiopia, Zaire and South Africa. Zaire is only marginally different from the least free states listed above. Like them its people often suffer widespread starvation or malnutrition in addition to deprivations of freedom. All three states have conflicting ethnic groups, many of which do not accept, and have little reason to accept, rule by the people now in charge of the government. These states are empires in miniature in which decolonization has not yet taken place. This human rights problem of inadequate group self-determination is widespread in Africa and one that the American Government has not yet come to grips with in its promotion of human rights.

The problem of human rights violations in South Africa is important because of the wide publicity it has received and because of the real denial of rights that has characterized South Africa. However, for several reasons South Africa is not considered by the Survey to be as serious a violator as many of the foregoing countries. First, political rights at a high level are granted the 17 percent of the population that is white. Second, the other communities-black, Indian, and colored-are allowed a limited degree of political power.

As to civil liberties, the white community again has broad guarantees, although occasional restrictions and censorship suggest limitations. The nonwhite communities are restricted in many ways-especially by movement and residence restrictions. But nonwhite demonstrations and speeches against the system do occur, often peacefully; there are even regular black publications that make clear their opposition to the system. Most recently lifting of restrictions on black union organization has improved civil liberties, but true freedom lies many steps beyond this.

Many blacks remain in prison for their political activities. Although some of these prisoners have committed or been associated with violent activities, many should be classified as prisoners of conscience. As an aside, it should be remarked that the inequalities that remain in Zimbabwe Rhodesia are far less onerous than those in South Africa.

To understand this relativistic view of South Africa, the conditions of freedom and race there may be compared with those in Burundi, a small country lying between Tanzania and Zaire. Here 14 percent of the people, the socially and racially distinct Tutsi, rule over the Hutu. who make up 84 percent of the population. Historically, the Hutu have been held down by bloody slaughters. Today the Government takes care that the Hutu do not rise to positions of influence in any sphere. No organization of opposition or expression of dissenting opinion is countenanced. Most recently Burundi's authoritarian regime expelled 52 missionaries on the charge of fomenting rebellion.

It may be noted that I have not mentioned the problem of the Western Sahara. This is an important foreign policy problem involving questions of self-determination but the problem is less pressing in human rights terms for three reasons. First, the numbers are small, a few hundred thousand at most. Second, there is considerable justice in the Moroccan claim-certainly more, for example, than in

the area support the Moroccans; tribal groups in Western Sahara overlap those in Morocco. Third, Morocco, a partly free country, has granted political rights other than independence to the people within the Western Sahara on a basis equal to that enjoyed by other Moroccans.

The State Department's monitoring of human rights provides a valuable resource for evaluating conditions in the world. We often check our impressions with the State Department and we use their country reports as a basic reference. Their reports have become fuller and have improved with experience and seriousness. There remains the problem that Foreign Service officers asked to provide critical information on the countries in which they serve and State Department personnel evaluating this information are both led by their other responsibilities to present as desirable a picture as they can without denying the facts. Although we expect the State Department to continue to develop the factual base of its reports, the favorable tendency of Department interpretation is inevitable. For this reason outside monitors with fewer conflicting obligations and a different perspective are necessary to complement State's work.

Our ratings are prepared on the basis of the flow of information that comes to us. In addition to reports by private human rights organizations and departments of government this includes newspaper reports, particularly as these are provided by research services for the world or the African Continent. Of course we also use other sources, such as standard references, journals, monographs on particular countries, and contacts with area specialists.

The resulting ratings, and country descriptions in the yearbooks, are certainly not comprehensive, but I believe they have a range of error of not more than one position on our scales; that is, a rating of 5 on a 7-point scale might be changed to a 4 or a 6 by another observer with the same or more comprehensive information, if he employed our criteria. Errors are eliminated over time by the fact that errors in 1 year are picked up as we receive disconfirming information during the next. In doubtful cases we often query area or country specialists for additional information. Occasional outside critiques of particular ratings are, of course, invaluable. The basic "check" is to continually review comparatively whether the evidence justifies placing a particular state above or below another on the relevant scale. American pressures for human rights have probably by themselves produced few changes in Africa, a continent where they appear relatively ineffective.

Mr. BONKER. Mr. Gastil, at this point we will recess briefly so that the members can vote.

The subcommittees will stand in recess for 10 minutes. [Whereupon a short recess was taken.]

Mr. BONKER. The subcommittees will come to order.

Mr. Gastil, I think you were about to complete your statement. Mr. GASTIL. Thank you Mr. Chairman. American pressures for human rights have probably by themselves produced a few changes in Africa, a continent where they appear relatively ineffective. In some cases, such as Guinea, Egypt, Zaire, or Liberia or the white redoubts of southern Africa we appear to play a role in modifying policy, although the effect is often minimal or cosmetic. The State Department

« ÎnapoiContinuă »