Imagini ale paginilor



Mr. Tsongas said that he had a direct interest in the Third World in view of his Peace Corps experience in Ethiopia and the West Indies. He underlined the suspicion that existed in the Third World concerning for instance the Western contribution to the North-South dialog, which was seen as political in nature.

The Third World views most Western aid and trade policies with considerable skepticism. Poor countries were rarely grateful to the wealthy countries for the aid given to them. Whatever the West said about human rights in the Third and Fourth World countries would have very little effect on these countries. In any event we tended to look at these countries from the wrong viewpoint-in a kind of Dulles way-as pawns in the world power game against communism.


He said that the Third World was authoritarian by nature, with the family and the tribe being the models for its social and political structure. Thus the real issue was not democratic development but human rights.

We could try to persuade governments to uphold human rights without threatening to replace them by other governments, whereas insistence on democracy could give the impression that we intended to change their governments. Apart from the main human rights mentioned in the paper submitted by Congressman Fraser, racial and religious freedom should be protected. Physical security, adequate food supplies and shelter for people should be insured. Thus economic development of the poorer countries should be viewed in the human rights context.

Referring to the Jackson/Vanik amendment conditioning trade. preferences for the Soviet Union on liberalization of Soviet emigration violations, he said the United States "paid a high price" for the amendment-Soviet cancellation of the trade agreement-but that "the price was worth paying".


Senator Pell, cochairman of the U.S. Commission to monitor Helsinki, set out his particular interest in cultural exchanges, and the connection between these and developments concerning democracy and human rights. He did not see cultural exchanges as "interference" in the affairs of other nations. Neither did he see them as an export of prestigious Western culture to mere "backward" countries. The Westtern system of democracy was not necessarily the best model for all countries. We could judge the effectiveness of democracy by the extent to which human rights flourished in countries which employed that political system.


He thought that massive exchange programs could help to reduce mutual suspicions and tensions, particularly between East and West. In the past we had spent very little on cultural exchanges compared with defense. The Helsinki Final Act should help us in moving ahead in this field. Cultural exchanges were a peaceful way of helping to avoid nuclear disaster.

Mr. Gilman said that cultural exchanges helped to maximize mutual knowledge and friendship between countries, regardless of their political systems.


He stressed the enormous emphasis placed by the U.S.S.R. on developing propaganda broadcasting programs, printed books in foreign languages, etc. Details of these programs were contained in the note he had submitted to the meeting.2

He asked what would the effect on the Soviet Union be of increasing East/West exchange programs. The West could not possibly lose by increasing such exchange programs. These should be organized primarily through private groups.

In conclusion, he proposed the creation of a commission on cultural exchanges to support and encourage the spread of democratic ideals throughout the world. Mr. Gilman's paper also contained a table of comparative statistics showing various countries' expenditures and output in the cultural and information fields.

Mr. Glinne supported the proposals made by Congressman Fraser in his paper. He thought that the second suggestion of Mr. Fraserto facilitate active cooperation among democratic political parties in defense of internationally recognized human rights by convening an annual world conference of democratic party representatives and establishing a secretariat to support activities of the project-deserved particular support. But what would the most appropriate framework for such a conference be? It was important to avoid a structure similar to the Interparliamentary Union.


Threats to society and human rights were widely considered to come largely from left-wing forces, but right-wing forces had arranged takeovers of states in order to maintain economic and social privileges. Although he continued to be suspicious of the activities of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries, he wondered whether these Communist regimes were really capable of spreading their systems elsewhere, especially if the West were to challenge them on the basis of human rights and democracy.

Throughout the world many crimes were committed daily in the name of liberty, for instance, the "Suppression of Communism" Act in South Africa.

What action should be taken on Congressman Fraser's paper?

First, the West could not remain silent about the situation in Africa. Action should be taken concerning Africa not only through the United Nations, as suggested by Congressman Fraser, but through a number of international agencies.

• See p. 57.

Second, we had to put the principle of respect for human rights above the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of states. In practice, we should send investigatory missions to countries where violations of human rights were reported.

Third, the first suggestion made by Mr. Fraser concerning "an international parliamentarians' newsletter on human rights" should be taken up. It was essential that parliamentarians should be fully informed of action taken by the U.S. Government, the Community or its individual member states in protecting human rights, such as the decision of the European Commission to refuse to extend trade arrangements with Uruguay.

Finally, although Mr. Schuijt's suggestion of establishing a working group for people was a good idea, what was needed was a broader basis and larger group.


Mr. Rosati agreed with the stress placed on cultural exchanges by previous speakers. He had been particularly impressed by the factual information provided by Mr. Gilman on the Soviet propaganda effort. He agreed with Congressman Fraser on the need to initiate action to protect the three most important human rights that had been quoted rather than to launch into more controversial errors even though he considered that to the three rights on which there seemed general agreement should be added the right of religious freedom and freedom of the press.

The West must try to insure the implementation of the Helsinki texts on the freer circulation of ideas and people. Violations of Helsinki must be denounced, and "Euro-Communism" should also be denounced. Communism was the same throughout the world whether in Eastern Europe or in Western Europe.

He wondered whether Mr. Gilman had perhaps implied that there could be some principles and issues more important than those of human rights. If this were what had been meant, he disagreed.

"Interventionism" by Western powers had been denounced at this meeting. It should be remembered that this was not limited to the United States. Chancellor Schmidt had also "intervened" in speaking of internal Italian developments. Although every state had the right to choose its own system it was legitimate for the United States or other political leaders to express their views concerning internal political developments.


In conclusion, he agreed with the proposals made by Congressman Fraser and Mr. Schuijt on the creation of a joint working party.

Mr. Biester introduced the paper he had submitted to the meeting. He was confident that the Third and Fourth World countries were capable of working out their own systems of government without Western or other intervention.

In recent years we had come to realize that we lived in one global economy. But this economy was "skewed" by an imbalance in the distribution of wealth. We had to try to get back towards the center. In this context OPEC, International Bauxite Association and others

were not "cartels" but were countries exploiting what few economic resources they had.

A global society was also developing. A bad "skew" was developing here too! If freedom was reduced in certain countries these states became "garrison states" imprisoned in their own systems. As members of one human family, poverty and deprivation were matters for all our consciences. Traditionally, we were only supposed to care about the poor being fed and clothed, but developing their minds and their personalities was equally important.


He did not think it realistic to set up our own standards about the countries to which we should give aid. Such a policy was both presumptuous and unworkable. Authoritarian governments had within them the seeds of their own downfall.

Mr. Bordu asked speakers to be restrained in their comments, and regretted that more time was not available for the discussion.

It was important to distinguish between the many different degrees which existed of violations of human rights.

Individual states had laws which had to be respected. "Competition" between different states and political systems was quite normal and healthy. People in different countries should be fully aware of the systems of other countries so that they would be able to judge different political systems effectively. It was not possible to set up a single universal model by which human rights and violations could be judged. We should be realistic and perhaps limit ourselves to the three fields outlined by Mr. Fraser.


If we tried to enforce human rights standards outside our own part of the world we would only increase international tensions. There were all sorts of different violations of human rights which could not be ignored, such as the arms stocks being built up in Iran and, also, the growth of nuclear weapon stocks, which brought with it a threat to humanity.

In conclusion, he said that the French Communist Party was open to suggestions and ideas. He pointed out that the French Communist Party had renounced the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, since it could not approve the rule of a minority. The French Communist Party worked together in a wider political framework which hoped to include many political forces. Its aim was to achieve a new kind of democracy in France. It had no intention of disrupting the French political framework and it could certainly not do this, in any case, against a popular majority. If France were to have a left-wing government, this would reflect the will of the French people.


Mr. Broeksz said that in acting as parliamentarians on human rights we should follow the advice of those who had suggested limiting our activities to the protection of three or four of the most essential human

rights and trying to stop the violation of these rights. He disagreed with the views expressed by Sir Peter Kirk. There was considerable difference between the violation of some human rights-however important these might be-and being put into a concentration camp or shot.

The United States and the Community could influence human rights developments in areas such as Asia, through trading policy. Trade policy could be used, if necessary, against countries where the United Nations or Amnesty International had noted serious violations of human rights.

He agreed with the proposal made by Mr. Schuijt that a working party should be set up. This should be larger than four members, possibly three or four members on each side. As for the group's terms of reference, it could begin by listing those countries with which the Community and the United States had trade relations and which were guilty of violating human rights. The type of action to be applied against these countries could then be determined.

Mr. Spénale said that he felt that the press could be informed--at the press conference which was due to conclude the morning's workthat there had been broad agreement on Mr. Fraser's proposals and on the creation of a joint working party as suggested by Mr. Schuijt, although there had been understandably some minor differences of opinion over points of detail.

Finally, it was important that we ourselves recognized violations of human rights whenever these occurred in our own countries and that we should act against such violations.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »