Q: 1. In a May 10th letter to the House Banking Committee, the State Department expressed the view that the "current statutory language is relatively clear and unambiguous." Could the Department provide the Subcommittee with a written interpretation of "consistent pattern" as it now defines that term? Could the Department also provide the Subcommittee with a similar statement on what interpretation would be applied to the single word, "pattern," if the Committee were to decide to drop the word "consistent"? A: We interpret a "consistent pattern" to include the elements of duration, repetition, and intent. All of these measurements come into play in rendering judgment whether "a consistent pattern of gross violations" may exist. It should be recognized, however, that we may recommend against providing assistance, for example, even in cases where we do not conclude that standard has been reached. We do so in furtherance of statutory guidance that U.S. assistance should help promote the enjoyment of human rights and that the U.S. should distance itself from such violations. This may mean that our recommendations against certain assistance are based as much on the type of assistance as on our evaluation of the recipient country. I responded to the second part of your question in my opening remarks to the Committee. To paraphrase slightly, since the word "pattern" can also imply the passage of time, it is not clear that eliminating the word "consistent" would alter the meaning of the phrase. If the proposal to drop the word "consistent" were adopted, on the theory that the phrase should not apply to conduct over a period of time, it is conceivable that we might then recommend against assistance to countries where a serious burst of human rights violations occurred at some point but did not continue. a possibility. Since we make our judgments on This is certainly a case-by-case basis, however, we would continue to evaluate duration, repetition, and intent and any other significant germane considerations. Q: 2. What does the Department believe will be the consequences for future enforcement of US human rights laws if the word consistent" is dropped? What countries does the Department expect would be affected? A: I would envisage continued debate over the differing statutes which presumably would contain different criteria. But even if all statutes should become alike, we would continue to make our judgments on assistance to countries with questionable human rights practices on the basis of those countries' records of human rights and whether the U.S. should distance itself from an apparent abuse of such rights. Into this equation, we would also try to factor just what actions of the U.S. Government were needed to persuade a given country to improve its human rights posture and to implement them. It is impossible to predict what countries would be affected, since developments in human rights are dynamic. We would continue to make our decisions on the best information available and in the context of overall foreign policy objec tives in which human rights considerations play a significant part. Q: 3. In hearings before the House Banking Committee, the How A: We would examine and evaluate each country on a case-by-case basis and in the context of our overall policy concerns, which include both significant human rights developments and the overall human rights situation. As I have said, key elements are intent, duration, and repetition. It is our job to give our best judgment as to the intention of a country to improve its human rights situation as well as the concrete actions it has taken. There is no formula for this and no assignment of mathematically precise points or demerits. Each As for a specific time frame, we would have to consider that in relation to these other important considerations. case is different. I would assume, however, that time would be measured in months rather than weeks or years in the preponderance of cases. Q: 4. Why does the Kennedy-Clark human rights memo not discuss the requirements of Section 502B in enunciating the guidelines of Administration human rights policy? Was this an oversight or does it have policy implications? A: The Kennedy-Clark memorandum was transmitted to all overseas diplomatic and consular missions as a statement of this Administration's policy toward, and concern for, human rights. There was no need to discuss in any detail the provisions of Sections 502B and 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act or other pertinent statutes, since the recipients should already have been aware of the law. Therefore, it was not an oversight nor does its omission have any policy implications. Q: 5. Would the dropping of the word "consistent" from our human rights laws narrow the Department's discretion to some degree and force a more forthright acknowledgment of human rights violations in certain countries, even if the Department would not be forced to terminate aid? A: No. As I have earlier indicated in my testimony, the question is not this Administration's interpretation of the prevailing legislation but its judgments about the situation in particular countries. We believe that we do in fact acknowledge forthrightly human rights violations, not least in the annual Country Reports submitted to the Congress covering over 160 countries. " Q: 6. A: The Foreign Assistance Act contains provisions to allow this. I should like to add, however, that neither this nor any previous administration has determined that a country has shown "a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations," which is not tɔ say we do not have serious human rights concerns in several countries. It is the policy of this Admini stration to work through diplomatic channels to help effect progress in human rights wherever this tactic can be effective. At the same time I reemphasize the point that we recommend against providing assistance to countries even in cases where we do not conclude that the gross and consistent standard has been reached. Q: 7. A: In a recent article entitled, "Human Rights Dehumanized" by Charles Maechling, Jr., published in FOREIGN POLICY (Fall 1983) you are quoted as saying (p. 124): "That's the thing. You could make the argument that there aren't many countries where there are gross and consistent human rights violations except the communist countries because they have the system itself. It is certainly a plausible way of reading the statute." Is that quote accurate and does it correctly reflect your interpretation of the phrase consistent pattern" as it is used in the law?. " I have no reason to believe this quote is inaccurate, as I assume Mr. Maechling taped the interview I gave him. In the quotation you refer to, I said that "you could make the argument" and that it is a "plausible way of reading the statute," not that this is an interpretation of 502B that operationally guides our enforcement of the law. In applying legislation, I have to take into account not only my own analysis of a given matter, but also the original intent of Congress. The point I was making to Mr. Maechling was one which, like most of the points I made to him, he failed to grasp. I was attempting to distinguish between a society in which there are many human rights violations coming from many different quarters and reflecting in part an inability by the government to maintain guarantees of human rights, on the one hand, from a situation in which the government is very much in control of all aspects of life and spends much of its energies |