Nations already have the legal obligation, recognized by unanimous resolution of the U.N. General Assembly, "to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting, participating [or] acquiescing in" terrorist acts. Treaties have been concluded to combat hijacking, sabotage of aircraft, and attacks on diplomats. The majority of states observe these rules; a minority do not. But events even in the last few weeks dramatize that present restraints are inadequate.

The United States is convinced that stronger international steps must be taken-and urgently-to deny skyjackers and terrorists a safe haven and to establish sanctions against states which aid them, harbor them, or fail to prosecute or extradite them.

The United States in 1972 proposed to the United Nations a new international Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Certain Acts of International Terrorism, covering kidnapping, murder, and other brutal acts. This convention regrettably was not adopted-and innumerable innocent lives have been lost as a consequence. We urge the United Nations once again to take up and adopt this convention or other similar proposals as a matter of the highest priority.

Terrorism, like piracy, must be seen as outside the law. It discredits any political objective that it purports to serve and any nations which encourage it. If all nations deny terrorists a safe haven, terrorist practices will be substantially reduced— just as the incidence of skyjacking has declined sharply as a result of multilateral and bilateral agreements. All governments have a duty to defend civilized life by supporting such measures.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1889, Sept. 8, 1975, p. 360.

Secretary of State Kissinger, at a news conference at Vail, Colorado, on August 17, 1975, explained United States policy on dealing with international terrorism incidents as follows:

The problem that arises in the case of terrorist attacks on Americans has to be seen not only in relation to the individual case but in relation to the thousands of Americans who are in jeopardy all over the world. In every individual case, the overwhelming temptation is to go along with what is being asked.

On the other hand, if terrorist groups get the impression that they can force a negotiation with the United States and an acquiescence in their demands, then we may save lives in one place at the risk of hundreds of lives everywhere else.

Therefore it is our policy-in order to save lives and in order to avoid undue pressure on Ambassadors all over the world, . . . that American Ambassadors and American officials not participate in negotiations on the release of victims of terrorists and that terrorists know that the United States will

not participate in the payment of ransom and in the negotiation for it.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1890, Sept. 15, 1975, pp. 407-408.

Discrimination

General

On November 20, 1975, President Ford announced a series of actions designed to respond to any discrimination against Americans on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex that might arise from foreign boycott practices. He stated that his administration would "not countenance the translation of any foreign prejudice into domestic discrimination against American citizens." A memorandum to the Heads of Departments and Agencies, dated November 20, 1975, provided, in part:

The purpose of this Memorandum is to underscore the applicability of Executive Order 11478, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-261); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 as amended by P.L. 92-269; and pursuant regulations to all Federal personnel actions, including those which involve overseas assignment of employees of Federal agencies to foreign countries which have adopted exclusionary policies based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex or age.

In making selections for overseas assignment, the possible exclusionary policies of the country to which an applicant or employee is to be assigned must not be a factor in any part of the selection process of a Federal agency. United States law must be observed and not the policy of the foreign nation. Individuals, therefore, must be considered and selected solely on the basis of merit factors without reference to race, color, religion, national origin, sex or age. Persons must not be "selected out" at any stage of the selection process because their race, color, religion, national origin, sex or age does not conform to any formal or informal requirements set by a foreign nation. No agency may list in its job description circulars that the host country has an exclusionary entrance policy or that a visa is required.

If a host country refuses, on the basis of exclusionary policies related to race, color, religion, national origin, sex or age, to grant a visa to an employee who has been selected by a Federal agency for an overseas assignment, the employing agency should advise the Department of State of this act. The Department will take appropriate action through diplomatic channels to attempt to gain entry for the individual.

In a second decision, President Ford announced that he had directed the Secretary of Labor to amend his department's requirements to require that Federal contractors and subcontractors that have job applicants or employees applying for overseas assignments to inform the Department of State of any visa rejections based on the exclusionary policies of the host country. In such cases the Department of State is to attempt, through diplomatic channels, to gain entry for those individuals.

The President also announced proposals for legislation to prohibit a business enterprise from using economic means to coerce discrimination; regulations to prohibit U.S. exporters and related service organizations from answering or complying with boycott requests causing discrimination against U.S. citizens or firms (see post, Ch. 10, § 12, p. 696); and measures to discourage discriminatory commercial banking practices or policies.

See Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 11, No. 47, Nov. 24, 1975, pp. 1305-1307.

Section 318 of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-161; 89 Stat. 868), approved December 20, 1975, added the following new section (22 U.S.C. 2426) to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961:

SEC. 666. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNITED STATES PERSONNEL. (a) The President shall not take into account, in assigning officers and employees of the United States to carry out any economic development assistance programs funded under this Act in any foreign country, the race, religion, national origin, or sex of any such officer or employee. Such assignments shall be made solely on the basis of ability and relevant experience.

(b) Effective six months after the date of enactment of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975, or on such earlier date as the President may determine, none of the funds made available under this Act may be used to provide economic development assistance to any country which objects to the presence of any officer or employee of the United States who is present in such country for the purpose of carrying out any program of economic development assistance authorized by the provisions of this Act on the basis of the race, religion, national origin, or sex of such officer or employee.

(c) The Secretary of State shall promulgate such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

Racial Discrimination

Clarence M. Mitchell, United States Representative at the United Nations General Assembly, made a statement in plenary

session on November 28, 1975, following the vote on six resolutions adopted that day by the General Assembly, relating to policies of apartheid of the Government of South Africa. He deplored the detention of persons whose only act is outspoken opposition to the system of apartheid and said that the South African Government was courting disaster when such repressive measures have the effect of closing off all avenues for peaceful change. He provided a list of specific statutes which, he said, were designed to stifle opposition to South Africa's racial policy. These include the socalled Suppression of Communism Act; the so-called Terrorism Act; the Bantu Administration Act; the Unlawful Organizations Act; the Public Safety Act; the Criminal Law Amendment Act; the Riotous Assembly Act; the General Law Amendment Act (No. 76 of 1962), section 21 (also known as the Sabotage Act); the General Law Amendment Act (No. 37 of 1963), section 17 (also known as the 90-day law); the Criminal Procedure Act (No. 56 of 1955), section 215 bis (also known as the 180-day law); and the General Law Amendment Act (No. 62 of 1966), section 22, which is a detention law for Namibia.

Mr. Mitchell specified further the manner in which these laws were being applied, and he summarized the basic facts about human rights in South Africa in two propositions:

-First, the majority of South Africans live under an oppressive government which deprives them of their basic human rights; and

-Secondly, the South African system of laws is designed and administered so as to prevent that majority from taking effective action to alter that condition of fundamental deprivation. He challenged the South African Government to allow the Human Rights Commission, or any commission of internationally known and respected jurists, to conduct a full examination to determine the truth of the two propositions.

For the full text of Mr. Mitchell's statement, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1905, Dec. 29, 1975, pp. 935-944. The General Assembly on Nov. 28, 1975, adopted six of the resolutions recommended by the Special Political Committee in its report (U.N. Doc. A/10342). Three of the resolutions (Res. 3411A, 3411B, and 3411E) were adopted without vote. These related respectively to the U.N. Trust Fund for South Africa, which provides humanitarian assistance to persecuted persons; solidarity with the South African political prisoners; and apartheid in sports, a statement of support of the Olympic principle of nondiscrimination. The United States abstained on three other resolutions (Res. 3411C, 3411D, and 3411F), relating respectively to special responsibility of the U.N. and the international community towards the oppressed people of South Africa; condemnation of the establishment of bantustans by South Africa; and the situation in South Africa, a condemnation of South Africa's policies and practices of apartheid and the actions of states which collaborate with its regime. Res. 3411F urges the main trading partners, among which the United States is

specified, "to cease collaboration with the racist regime of South Africa and to cooperate with the United Nations in the efforts to eradicate apartheid.”

Resolution on Zionism

On November 10, 1975, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 3379 (XXX), declaring Zionism to be a "form of racism and racial discrimination." The resolution was adopted by a rollcall vote of 72 to 35 (U.S.), with 32 abstentions. The United States had vigorously opposed the resolution in Committee Three (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) of the U.N. General Assembly and had stated its intention to vote against it. Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan made a statement in plenary on November 10 in explanation of the U.S. negative vote in which he said:

The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in, this infamous act.

A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-Semitism-as this year's Nobel peace laureate, Andrei Sakharov, observed in Moscow just a few days ago the abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty-and more to the murderers of the 6 million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened.

the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility-for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. "It seems to me," he said, and to his lasting honor he said it when there was still time, "It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time."

Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined "racial discrimination." The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is "racism," incomparably the more serious charge-racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine-which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in U.N. General Assembly docu

ments.

The word "racism" is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the