taken to protect and promote human rights. Among these, the Administration would receive high marks for its handling of the Rumanian government's efforts to halt emigration by placing a prohibitive price on freedom. There is little doubt that the U.S. would have denied Rumania most-favored-nation trading status had that government imposed the financial burden of repaying the cost of education on those wishing to emigrate. In December 1982, South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae Jung was released from prison and allowed to enter this country for medical treatment. It was apparent that this Administration had intervened on Mr. Kim's behalf. Administration was quick to point to this action as evidence of their concern for human rights, there now seems to be some effort to put distance between the Administration and Mr. Kim. In view of the practice of this Administration of meeting with such opposition leaders, it is somewhat surprising that up to this moment, Mr. Kim has not even met with Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Elliott Abrams. Although the Although treatment of Haitians and El Salvadorans seeking asylum here is shameful and unjust enough to have been brought to the attention of U.S. courts and the OAS, the Administration has made concessions to enable others who have a well founded fear of persecution to stay in the United States. Special programs for the Baha'is from Iran and for the Poles fleeing from that country's dark night should be commended. I would also like to congratulate Mr. Abrams and the Bureau of Human Rights on winning the battle to have Ms. Hu Na, the Chinese tennis star, accorded refugee status. Insofar as these measures protect the human rights of those individuals, they are to be applauded; however, United States law and the international treaties to which the U.S. is party require that such consideration be given not only to citizens of countries which are our enemies or for political advantage. Discriminatory treatment of the Haitians and El Salvadorans seeking asylum and the current policy of denying visas to individuals such as Mrs. Allende or to groups protesting nuclear armament undermine the country's efforts to protect human rights here and abroad. This Administration's policy of constructive engagement with the government of South Africa has neither engaged the government in meaningful dialogue nor has it proved constructive. I am pleased to see that the U.S. has now at least gone forward with a statement that the apartheid policies of that country are "morally wrong." Finally, the Bureau of Human Rights deserves praise for the publication of the U.S. Country Reports which have, for the most part, been comprehensive and objective. Although One can there are individual country reports with which I would disagree, on the whole they continue to serve a useful function. see by these policies and by the diplomatic measures noted above that this Administration is well aware that symbolism is the currency of foreign relations. Were their two tracknegative and positive-tactics to be applied consistently and across the board, no question would arise about U.S. concern for human rights. In my judgment, however, the Reagan Administration more often than not has failed to follow its own guidelines, much less the mandates of Congress. By failing to do so, they have managed to convey to the world an attitude of indifference and compromise which has serious implications for the international observance of human rights. I would like to mention a few examples where negative responses would have been in order indeed required by law and where the Administration failed to provide them. These examples include provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act regarding security assistance and the granting of licenses for the export of crime control equipment, and provisions of the International Financial Institutions Act regarding the pattern of U.S. votes. Under Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, security assistance may not be provided "to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights." The situation in El Salvador is extremely sensitive politically and the national debate will continue to grow with increasing U.S. involvement and commitment in that area. However, the Congress, to its credit, has held steadfast to the principle enunciated in Section 502B that security assistance should not be provided where the government is responsible for gross abuses of human rights. Legislation requiring Presidential certification of an improvement in human rights as a condition for security assistance underscored this commitment. Although most non-governmental sources, inculding Amnesty International, concur that the human rights situation in El Salvador is still critical, this Administration has certified three times that improvements have occured in order to provide military assistance to the Government of El Salvador. Again, Section 502B states quite clearly that: "security assistance may not be provided to the police, Despite this clear prohibition, licenses have been granted for assurances that they are now regularly consulted by the Commerce Department on the granting of licenses for crime control equipment to countries with questionable human rights records, we believe this is a key area for Congress to monitor. Crime control equipment, in most cases, contributes little to a country's national security but does give a repressive regime the means to intimidate and violate the rights of its people. holding such licenses, this Administration could give very By with strong negative signals of disapproval of such abuses without jeopardizing other legitimate interests. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act requires that the U.S. oppose any loan to any country engaged in a consistent pattern of human rights violations unless that loan serves basic human needs. The law also requires in Section 701 (g) (2) that the Treasury Department consult with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Subcommittee on International Development Institutions and Finance of the Banking Committee when there is a change in policy regarding countries having poor human rights records. In 1981, the Treasury Department reversed policy in order to vote in favor of loans to South Korea, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. Before the change in vote in favor of a loan for South Korea, notice was given to the committees during the Easter recess and within one week of the vote. Notice of the votes on loans to the four Southern Cone countries was given during the Fourth of July recess and again, within one week of Although I believe that after hearings held by Congressman Patterson of the House Subcommittee the consultation requirement has been thenceforth observed, it is interesting to note that in the case of those five countries, future votes in favor of loans were not considered to be a change in policy and therefore, no consultation regarding those governments ever the vote. took place. In an attempt to get Congressional approval for an $18 million Inter-American Development Bank loan to Guatemala for 24-825 0-84--4 |