Mr. COHEN. I think that there are countries where during the year things have gotten worse. To take one example, I think that things did get worse in the Central African Empire during most of the year. There has now been a coup and there appears to be some hope for substantial improvement.

Mr. SOLARZ. But you cannot think of any other countries offhand! Mr. COHEN. No. I would be happy to check and supply something for the record. On balance we think things have generally gotten better. I think that in the Central African Republic, there have been net improvements. In order to ascertain whether things have on balance gotten worse we have to look at all the different dimensions in particular countries.

I think they were probably worse in Uganda until the Tanzanians came in simply because of the increased breakdown in authority.

Mr. SOLARZ. If you put those countries in the list of where it got worse, then what countries are left in the list of those that got better? I have no further questions.

[Subsequently, the following response was received for inclusion in the record:]

It is administration policy not to prepare lists of countries that are "bad" or have gotten "worse."

Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Mr. Solarz.

Mr. Goodling.

Mr. GOODLING. I have three brief questions.

First of all, I am always concerned as to who it is that constructs the test by which these countries' report cards are then marked. In other words, I would say that to Amnesty International, Freedom House, State Department. Who constructs that cest? Is it constructed by the United States? Is it a Western World construction? Is it an international construction of developed nations? Is it internationally done by developing nations? Who determines this test that these countries then are tested in order to determine how they may end up on their report card? I think you can see what I am getting at. Is it through our eyes? Who determines what good human rights policies are, what bad human rights policies are?

Mr. COHEN. Well, I think there are two parts to that question. The first is how do we define what are basic human rights and what are not? In this we look in the first instance to what is an emerging body of international law on this subject. This law is contained for example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations covenants on civil and political and economic and social rights.

In the Western Hemisphere we have an Inter-American Human Rights Convention which sets out basic human rights obligations. Another point of reference is the Helsinki Accords. From this emerging body of international law one can extract three basic categories of fundamental rights: First, rights to the integrity of the person; second, basic civil and political freedoms; third, the right to have an opportunity to satisfy basic social and economic needs.

Mr. GOODLING. I saw those in your report. My only thought was that probably in many countries that you are dealing with, all of that is rather foreign to them and to their history and to their culture.

Mr. COHEN. I think what is remarkable is the astonishing consensus on this. Part of the evidence of this consensus lies in a number of things

Africans have done. For example, this year at Monrovia, the OAU voted to write a basic human rights charter for the countries of Africa. So I think there is an emerging consensus.

Mr. GOODLING. How does that charter line up in connection with your thoughts?

Mr. COHEN. We don't know yet, it has not been finished, but I expect it to follow the basic principles that I have outlined.

Now there is a basic disagreement, of course, as to whether a capitalist or socialist is the best way to organize a country's economy. Then, along that dimension there is no consensus. But along the others I think there is.

Mr. GOODLING. Two other brief questions. There are those who would criticize the State Department in relationship to the way you gather material and in the way you present that material to the Congress. In fact, some of your friends today might even criticize you at these hearings.

First of all, do you accept that criticism? If you do, what can be done to improve the situation? I realize why it is done in many instances. It is one thing if you are an organization outside the U.S. Government. It is an entirely different thing when you are involved with the day-to-day operation of the Government basis. How would we improve that?

You know, Jack Anderson can say one thing, he does not have to make the policy or be involved. How can we improve this so that we do not get the kind of material that we should have?

Mr. COHEN. I think one way to improve it is to have hearings such as this one in which we can get criticism from Congress and also from private citizens about what we are doing wrong and what we need to do better. Then we have to look at those criticisms and transmit them to the people in the field who are working on gathering this information.

Mr. GOODLING. For instance, I thought that perhaps your reluctance to answer my chairman was not a reluctance that you didn't have answers but perhaps a reluctance that you were not sure that it was the kind of thing you should be saying publicly at this particular time. Perhaps, I am laboring under a misconception.

Mr. COHEN. No, I don't think you are misperceiving at all. There is a reluctance to characterize countries in public as being the worst or having significantly deteriorated. This is because of concern that such public criticism may sometimes make it less possible for us to be effective. I have offered to supply something later. In the human rights reports we try not to draw bottom line conclusions such as "conditions have considerably worsened." Instead we try to provide. as much basic data as we can so that Members of the Congress can draw these conclusions for themselves.

Mr. GOODLING. I made that statement because I didn't want the audience to think that here was someone testifying before the committee who didn't have answers to the questions.

Mr. COHEN. But we don't have all the answers.

Mr. GOODLING. My last question, then, would be: What are your recommendations? How can we more effectively use this then in order to do something about improving the human rights situation?

Mr. COHEN. Well, I agree, I think, with the statement that Mr. Bonker made that over the long run the key to effectively encourag

ing human rights improvements in the world is to involve other countries so it is not simply the United States. It is African countries that have taken the initiative in this regard. That is one important thing. Another is that we simply have to persist in what we are doing and not let up. If I can add one other thing, I think we also have to realize that taking human rights into account in foreign policy while it is the right thing to do is also critical to our self-interest. I think that is something we have not focused on perhaps enough.

Mr. GOODLING. I have no further questions.

Mr. BONKER. Mr. Cohen, just a few brief questions for the record. Can you tell us how many U.S. embassies have human rights officers? Mr. COHEN. We should have a human rights officer in every embassy but I will have to check on whether that slot is actually at this time filled in every embassy or not. Maybe I can introduce Judy Buncher from the Africa Bureau who is with me. She may know the answer. Judy tells me someone is designated in every embassy to monitor human rights developments.

Mr. BONKER. Someone is designated. Does that mean the person could have a dual role?

Mr. COHEN. Generally that is not the exclusive job of the person. The person will do human rights reporting in addition to other duties, that is correct.

[Subsequently, the following response was received from Mr. Cohen for inclusion in the record:]

There is an officer assigned to follow human rights in every embassy in Africa. In no case that I am aware of is that a full-time responsibility.

Mr. BONKER. Is it that person who submits the information which. becomes the basis for your report, or does that information come from the various ambassadors?

Mr. COHEN. That person will submit information which the ambassador will then send back to us. The information we get from embassies on all subjects, no matter what the subject is, is generally sent out under the ambassador's signature. Thus, the ambassador will, of course, review anything that is sent out.

Mr. BONKER. In the course of recent human rights hearings, we found that in certain Latin American countries, where there is a fulltime human rights officer, that there is not always a consensus or agreement between the human rights officer who is trying to fulfill his position, and the ambassador who wants to minimize some of the adverse reports that may be forthcoming. Do we have problems or a situation in Africa where there are conflicting reports that come from the human rights officer and the ambassador?

Mr. COHEN. On occasion. Sometimes our Embassy reporting will reveal differences of opinion among people in the Embassy, at other times it will not. I want to say my own view is we have not done as much as we need to do in the Department to make sure the differences of opinion reach us in Washington.

Mr. BONKER. Mr. Solarz mentioned Zaire. Has there been a situation where the Embassy has withheld a report that may prove embarrassing to the host government?

Mr. COHEN. Not to my knowledge. I am not sure I understand what you are referring to.

Mr. BONKER, Well, OK. On page 18 of your statement you noted that you have sought to insure that human rights considerations are

reflected in U.S. programs of economic aid and security assistance. We had a matter before this subcommittee not too long ago, which involved the sale of rice to Zaire. The chairman of the Africa Subcommittee shared with us some reports showing that maybe some of the rice was not reaching the intended people. If Zaire clearly has human rights problems, and if you note that it ought to be manifested in some of the U.S. economic programs, how would you reconcile that problem as it relates to Zaire?

Mr. COHEN. In the case of Zaire to the extent we provide economic aid, we have to monitor that aid very carefully, because the problem of corruption is so pervasive.

Mr. BONKER. While we are on Zaire, I recall that there was a difference of opinion over a matter involving the human rights officer and the Ambassador, and the human rights officer resigned. Can you refresh my memory on that?

Mr. COHEN. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to get into specifics of differences of view in a public hearing.

[Subsequently Mr. Cohen submitted the following statement for inclusion in the record:]

Mr. Robert Remole, former political counselor at the American Embassy in Zaire, submitted a dissent channel message, disagreeing with U.S. policy. He stated the specifics of this disagreement in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Africa, on March 5, 1980.

Mr. BONKER. Well, the point I want to make is that if we are really going to monitor human rights conditions in these various countries, it does us little good as Members of the Congress, if the report you have submitted is toned down by the Ambassador and things which might prove embarrassing are purposely excluded or deleted.

The whole purpose of the report is to give Members of Congress, and others, a fairly accurate appraisal of the conditions in a given country. It may prove embarrassing but it might be the best human rights policy we have going. As the one person who is responsible for the compilation of the report, I assume that you would fight to the death for the integrity of the process as well as the substance of the report.

Mr. COHEN. I want to say that we do everything we can to see that the integrity of the reporting process is preserved. It is critically important.

Mr. BONKER. One final question. You say that you had opposed at least 10 loans to countries because of human rights practices. Could you specify those for us.

Mr. COHEN. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. That should read five. That is a mistake.

Let me see if I can get my list out. I know that one of them is the Central African Empire. Here it is. The five countries are Benin, the Central African Empire, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, and Guinea. Mr. BONKER. Mrs. Fenwick.

Mrs. FENWICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I notice on page 2, "freedom of the press." which countries have a free press?

Mr. COHEN. Well, there are a number of African countries that have multiparty systems that

Mrs. FENWICK. Which would they be?

Mr. COHEN. Three of them would be Gambia, Senegal, and Botswana. In addition, elections have just been held this year involving party competition in both Nigeria and I believe in Ghana. In addition, although a majority of African countries are one-party states, in a number of them, despite the fact that there is only one political party, there is either a free press or the press is able to engage in criticism of the government within some limits.

Mrs. FENWICK. Did the free press in Tanzania report that those who won the elections were not allowed to serve?

Mr. COHEN. I want to check my notes but my recollection about Tanzania is that the media is not generally free and essentially presents one point of view.

Mrs. FENWICK. I see. But the other three, among them Senegal, which has had a very stable government for a long time, have they a multiparty system and free press?

Mr. COHEN. Senegal had a one-party system until I believe this year. There was a new constitution instituted, and for the first time there was a competition involving more than one party.

Mrs. FENWICK. Are those five the ones that you would say had the most free press?

Mr. COHEN. Those are the five that I would say have multiparty democracies and have generally a free press. I would not want to say they are the most free because there are others.

Mrs. FENWICK. Which would you say are the most free?

Mr. COHEN. I am not sure I would want to.

[Subsequently Mr. Cohen submitted the following statement for inclusion in the record:]

It is administration policy not to rank countries against each other in terms of human rights performance.

Mrs. FENWICK. When you said that you thought that interest in human rights was critical for foreign policy, did you mean that we should or should not intervene in Africa when free human rights are not being honored? I mean how did you intend that?

Mr. COHEN. There has been a tendency to suggest that there is a dichotomy between pursuit of what is moral and what is in our national interest. That dichotomy is connoted by the term "realpolitik." I disagree with the idea of that dichotomy. Standing for human rights is important not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is an American self-interest.

Mrs. FENWICK. Are you saying it would be offensive if we pursued human rights in view of the fact there is so little freedom? Is that what you are trying to convey to us?

Mr. COHEN. I am not sure I understand but I think that

Mrs. FENWICK. I mean you have conveyed two things: One, we should be keen in our pursuit of human rights and, two, that there are a very limited number of African countries in which human rights exist. Are you suggesting that it would be offensive to those other countries that are not free if we pursue human rights?

Mr. COHEN. I don't think I mean to suggest that there are a very limited number of African countries in which human rights are respected. There are a limited number of African countries which have multiparty democratic systems. There are, in addition, several