« ÎnapoiContinuă »
U.S. Embassy in Moscow have been permitted to emigrate from the Soviet Union and have chosen apparently to go to Israel.
Although the U.S. Government is not making any public statement with regard to its role in this, since the U.S. Embassy was the landlord in effect of the Pentacostals for almost 5 years, long enough, had they been in the United States, to have acquired citizenship, as the landlord of those persons I have no doubt whatever that the U.S. Government and the State Department and the American Embassy in Moscow played a primary role in assisting in the efforts to secure the release of these people from the Soviet Union. I think the Government of the United States is to be complimented for its activities there.
With regard to the opportunities of Soviet Jews to leave the country, I note that the officials in the Soviet Union recently said that all the Soviet Jews who wanted to leave have now left that country. If so, they have not removed the inhibitions on Soviet Jews from leaving, because once a person seeks to leave the country, as we have learned, the person immediately loses his job. He immediately is stigmatized. He immediately has difficulty in supporting himself and is treated as though he has been excommunicated from the friendship of other people and has no means of support.
In this regard, I think that we can look to the way in which the U.S. Government has been effective in its treatment of Romanians. When the Government of Romania recently announced it would require persons who sought to emigrate from that country to pay for their cost of education from secondary school on, the U.S. Government let it be known immediately, both first quietly and then not so quietly, that if this proposal were implemented by the Romanian authorities, Romania would not receive the benefits of most-favored nation treatment treaties between our two countries.
There is no question whatever that the Jackson-Vanik amendment requiring this treatment had enormous effect within Romania. As we have learned recently, the Romanian Government is quietly withdrawing the requirement that persons who wish to emigrate pay for the cost of their education.
I think in these respects the policies of the administration are commendable and they are to be supported in their efforts in this
However, I think note also should be made of the blemishes in the record of the administration. The fundamental interest of the International Human Rights Law Group is to assure that these matters are not politicized, meaning by that that we do not have · different standards for one country from those in another country. The familiar argument that we have to be nice to our friends and not so nice to people not our friends results in a lack of credibility for the United States when we seek to assert claims against violations of human rights in other countries.
We have been notably and properly articulate and outspoken with regard to the suppression of the rights of labor and the rights of opponents of the present Polish Government. We have not been so notable voluble, perhaps quietly but there is no notable affect as a result certainly not publicly, with regard to the treatment of the same types of groups in Turkey.
The country reports on Turkey notes that the military government there is in the process of restoring parliamentary democracy to the people of Turkey. Only last week, the Turkish military rulers forbade the successor to the Justice Party in Turkey, which is a conservative political group headed by former Prime Minister Demarol, and other leaders of that group from establishing or founding a new party called the Great Turkey Party.
That denies the people in that country who choose to support a conservative parliamentary type of movement an opportunity to vote for those leaders. Last Friday it was reported that the son of the former president of Turkey, Mr. Ismet Inlau, and 21 other people who sought to establish a Social Democratic Party in Turkey in order to participate in the upcoming elections were also banned.
If you ban the two major political groups that are seeking to have a "parliamentary democracy" in a country, that leads inevitably to the perpetuation of either military rule or of a group which is beholden to the military government.
The U.S. Government has, to my knowledge, made no public statements with regard to the suppression of political rights in Turkey. I make the point if we are to treat the violations of human rights as a matter of law, they have to be subjected to objective standards. You cannot treat Turkey one way because it is a much desired partner in NATO and treat Poland another way because Poland is a neighbor friendly more to the Soviet Union than it is to the United States.
There should be no suggestion as is often made that we not support human rights lest a Communist government arises in a country if they achieve a parliamentary democracy or gain political freedoms. No one believes that Turkey is under the threat of communism, certainly not internally. If it is going to be maintained as a stable society so it can resist any external efforts by a neighboring Communist country, that society has to establish its fundamentals on a basis which is acceptable to the entire people.
One can go through a list of other countries. We will take two in our own hemisphere: Our great concern about the lack of democracy in Nicaragua, quite justified because the Nicaraguan Government is attempting to suppress and has suppressed other political parties, and our rather quiet behavior regarding indeed, our financial assistance to the Government of Chile, which is in dire economic circumstances. We should, I suppose, not challenge giving assistance to a country and our laws do not forbid it where it is needed in order to provide for the survival of its people.
Nonetheless, in that activity where we recently approved a $300million bridge loan to Chile so its society would not collapse, our leverage should certainly be used to achieve the amelioration of treatment of dissidents in that country. As we have seen recently, the ferment continues there. The aspirations of a people for freedom can rarely ever be suppressed for a long period of time and they remain there, and the U.S. Government has been conspicuously silent, indeed supportive, of Chile while at the same time it has made the representations with regard to the absence of freedoms in Nicaragua.
There are other areas to which I think attention should be called. One specifically is the failure of the administration consistently to forbid the export of police weapons to countries where these police weapons can be used and are used internally and not for any legitimate national security purpose.
Some 2,500 cattle prods were approved to go to South Africa. It was said they were sent there inadvertently and that the export had been approved by the Department of Commerce. The Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs tried to prevent these prods from being exported to South Africa.
A similar situation occurred with regard to Turkey. I think the administration must be advised that the implementation of these prohibitions imposed by Congress has to be monitored and supervised at the very highest levels of the administration. We have been told once by high officials in the State Department, by then Secretary Haig himself, that there is no need for a Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs especially to look at these concerns because, he said we are all concerned with them.
If the Department of Commerce was concerned with human rights and humanitarian affairs in the implementation of our foreign economic policies, either it gave those affairs extremely low priority or it overlooked them altogether.
The handling of those questions vindicates the position of those of us and of Congress who have insisted that there be a separate Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs to mind the store on these issues.
In any event, the role of this subcommittee is a needed one. In carrying out its relationships with the Executive branch the activities that the subcommittee has had in conducting these hearings to review particular programs is a desirable one and should continue. Finally, with regard not to that particular Bureau but with regard to another aspect of transcending relationships-and by transcending I mean to say one that cuts across different agencies within the administration-is what Mr. Abrams has described before this subcommittee as the "affirmative track in promoting human rights and democracy." We commend that approach.
One aspect has been the so-called Project Democracy, which is intended to provide stimulus and educational activities for people in other countries in conduct of elections and observance of freedom of the press and other rights which we value.
I believe and the International Human Rights Law Group believes this is a commendable effort. But one should recognize that it is a continuation of what the U.S. Information Agency has been doing for a number of years in promoting exchange programs. In favoring the effort, however, I think that great caution has to be taken to assure that the program is conducted in an objective way so that it does not appear to favor a particular type of democratic society.
I emphasize this because in the press of last week, on Saturday, the Washington Post reported that Vice President Bush is traveling abroad and is promoting the formation of a union of conservative parties around the world-some 14 European countries, and Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States
which will attempt to, as Vice President Bush states, "carry on the great work of promoting democracy."
I think it is lovely that conservative parties are engaged in a project of promoting democracy, but it is not their monopoly; neither is it the role of the U.S. Government in aiding a project for democracy that we ally ourselves with particular parties within a country.
As we know, every one of these countries which are not under Communist control-and none of these is-has labor parties, has social democratic parties, has Christian democratic parties, has a variety of parties, all of which are committed to the fundamental ideas of democracy that we believe in, although they may have different points of view with regard to economic programs of a country.
If Project Democracy is going to be an effort to have a replication of some kind of conservative political establishment which harks back to Metternich, it would be a singularly inappropriate activity for the U.S. Government to finance, since we are based on more than one political party and they are described as either conservative or liberal or whatever.
I urge that this subcommittee seek clarification from the administration as to how it intends to implement Project Democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to insert in the record a statement which we have prepared which sets forth more fully the ideas that I have discussed this morning, and because of the importance that is being assigned to Project Democracy by the administration that the article I referred to this morning be also set forth in the record.1
[Mr. Carliner's prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID CARLINER, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to appear before this Subcommittee again. As I understand it, the purpose of these hearings is to review the human rights policy of the United States under this Administration and to recommend to the Congress ways of making that policy more effective.
To review fairly the human rights policy of the Reagan Administration, one must not merely draw comparisons with the previous Administration, but also measure this Administration's performance by the standards they have set for themselves and, more importantly, by the standards and laws which Congress has imposed on the Executive Branch in conducting a foreign policy which reflects the will of the American people.
This Administration has laid great stress on being
effective and has eschewed certain tactics as being ineffective or counterproductive. While this Administration states that it shares with the Carter Administration the same goals to promote human rights, it has chosen to employ different tactics. On March 3, 1983, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Elliott Abrams stated before this
Subcommittee that this Administration pursues a two track policy: the first is a negative track, responding to abuses and using all available diplomatic tools from quiet diplomacy to aid cutoffs to signal disapproval of abuses; the second is a positive approach which includes building and strengthening democracy abroad on the sound theory that popular control of government reduces the likelihood of human rights violations. Let me begin my review of the Peagan Administration's record by recalling and commending measures which have been