KIND OF TERROR DISCUSSED Mr. ROSENTHAL. Tell us a little bit more about your 3 years. I was a little offended by this drawback that the State Department was taking in suggesting that some of the charges about a state of terror were overdrawn. I would like to hear documentation of that if it is true. Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that you have the time. now but we could provide you with material which would make the basis for this statement clear. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am just wondering whether you are comparing the terror of Stalin to the improvement of Khrushchev and his successors in causing you to make that statement. You know, if I stop killing a thousand a day and I am down to only one hundred a day, that is an improvement. Mr. DAVIES. I think it is significant that whereas under Stalin people were being killed Mr. ROSENTHAL. Right. Mr. DAVIES (continuing). I was in Moscow during that period too when Stalin died. Just before he died, as you remember, the "plot of the doctor murderers" was announced. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I remember. Mr. DAVIES. There was every reason to believe, among the Jewish community, at any rate, that this was going to be extremely severeyou talk about reign of terror, that would have been it. That would have been the holocaust in the Soviet Union. Now compared with that, it is not only the case now that people are relatively free of the kind of fear that had been built up over the years under Stalin but they are quite a bit freer when people feel free to go to the Supreme Soviet and stage a sit-in and when they are not punished severely, as anybody with the mere intention of doing that would have been 10 or 15 years ago. There is a very considerable change. As I tried to point out in my statement, a very substantial part of the change is owing to the change in the attitude of Soviet Jews themselves. I thoroughly agree, I believe it was Congressman Buchanan who was pointing to the courage of Soviet Jews, they are the ones who have effected this change. They have divested themselves of the fear that, quite frankly, used to rule everybody in the Soviet Union. They have done so in greater numbers than some other groups but this is not of course restricted to the Jews. You have other prominent people in the Soviet Union who are speaking out now for civil rights. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think what bothered me was when you say the state or terror seems to be overdrawn. To me the state of terror does not necessarily only mean that I am going to be shot momentarily, it means when I walk out of that door there is a KGB agent following me. OTHER GROUPS HARASSED Mr. DAVIES. This is a condition that pertains pretty generally in Soviet society. It is not one which is peculiar to any particular group, the Soviet Jews; it is one that confronts people who express deviant opinions, different views from the official line, in many walks of life. Our point here is that we think we should have a sober and realistic evaluation of the present situation and proceed from that. We ought to try to see what the facts are, evaluate them and see what possibilities emerge from that situation. That was the reason we felt it was important to make this point. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I think you can make a valid contribution to the record. Tell us a little bit more about your 3-year tour and about the distinctions between the restrictions on the various groups and the freedoms they have. Mr. POLANSKY. Mr. Chairman, without taking too much time, I wonder if you could at least for my own sake, so I don't ramble on, define that a little more clearly. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Frankly, I would like to hear you ramble on. Are there differences of oppression in the treatment of Soviet Jews as compared to the Baptists that Mr. Buchanan spoke of, for example? Tell us about the life style of the minority groups, what is the government doing, what are the other groups' attitude toward the Soviet Jews? Mr. POLANSKY. That is a fairly tall order. I was not really thinking in those terms. If I can try to collect my thoughts for a second, if you don't mind. I think essentially what I would say is that if we are talking primarily about Jews, I think they do feel that they are being discriminated against in some of the things that make them Jewish in terms of being able to practice their religion in a fully meaningful way, in terms of being able to have kosher meat, things of this order. In that sense, I think they are certainly more discriminated against than perhaps other religious faiths in the Soviet Union. I did not try to investigate the Jewish aspect of life in the Soviet Union any more than I did, say, other aspects of life in the Soviet Union. My primary interest was Soviet foreign policy but I tried to learn as much as I could about the Soviet Union in general. So I attended as many different kinds of activities as possible. CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE SERVICES I attended Russian Orthodox churches as well as synagogues. I did not get to Baptist churches. We went to mosques wherever we could. It seemed to me that to the extent that one can make this kind of judgment, the kinds of celebrations we saw at synagogues were in some ways more vigorous than what I had anticipated, and in some ways more vigorous than what we saw in Russian Orthodox churches, although Russion Orthodox churches were also full. I am not trying to say that Jews feel they are completely free by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me, again we go back to this point of the reign of terror, I just didn't experience it in terms of its being in Jewish settings in Moscow or elsewhere in the Soviet Union. That is not a full answer to your question. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I would like to hear more from you. We don't always have the opportunity to have a respected and distinguished Foreign Service official spend time with us. I would like to hear more about what your 3 years in the Soviet Union were like, this problem or anything else you think the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe should be apprised of. Mr. POLANSKY. Well, Mr. Chairman, why don't we, and in a sense without checking with Mr. Davies, but to take the bull by the hornsMr. DAVIES. Mr. Polansky has not checked with me on any or this. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I am sensing that as we go along. Mr. DAVIES. Go ahead. Mr. ROSENTHAL. This is a free society we have here. Mr. ROSENTHAL. We are going to eliminate the selection out process, anyhow. Mr. POLANSKY. Maybe you will. If I can just go into the whole question which I know has been discussed quite a bit here, and the question of broadcasting in Yiddish by VOA. I would say, based again on my own experience in talking with Jews, and this is primarily young Jews rather than elderly Jews of an older generation, that I am not at all persuaded that there are enough Jews in the Soviet Union who know and speak Yiddish to make it worthwhile to broadcast in Yiddish. I realize that there is a need in some ways to try to show American support for Soviet Jews, but I am not completely persuaded that the way to do it is through Yiddish language broadcasts because I am not certain that there are that many Jews who actually speak Yiddish. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Do you see the problems of Soviet Jewry interfering at all into United States-Soviet relations on other matters, such as the SALT talks or European disarmament, or things of that nature? Mr. POLANSKY. I think Mr. Davies might be able to answer that better than I can. Mr. DAVIES. Sol is much too respectful. BROADER UNITED STATES-SOVIET RELATIONS No, Mr. Chairman, I don't see that they would or should interfere with or make more difficult our negotiations on other subjects. I might say I think this is a broader problem than just the problem of Soviet Jewry. Fundamentally it is the problem of civil rights in the Soviet Union and beyond that generally in the world. This is a particularly striking and sharp example of that problem. This Government has, as you know, taken a clear position, as it is bound to in the light of American tradition, on the problem. I believe the problem should be handled as that, as a matter of working for greater civil rights for people in the Soviet Union as we do in other parts of the world and here at home. I don't think this needs to interfere with or get into the way of any other dealings that we have with the Soviet Government. Mr. ROSENTHAL. So the Department is not put off or offended when the Soviets will say, at some point they may have already said, "Why are you bothering yourself about internal operations in our country?" Mr. DAVIES. We have our own point of view which we must express to them. They have their point of view which they will express to us. It is not a question, so far as we are concerned at any rate, of taking offense. I regard this as the normal give-and-take of our relations, given the nature of this problem. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Let me ask you this rather directly, Mr. Secretary. Do you think there is enough commitment within the State Department for a resolution or at least an improvement on this problem. Mr. DAVIES. I think the question raises two points. I break it into two parts. In the first place, it seems to be based upon an assumption that the State Department has a very significant role to play here. Now we talked about diplomatic communication, that is myself or another officer of the Department talking to an officer of the Soviet Embassy or conversely, somebody in the American Embassy in Moscow talking to somebody in the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is my own strong belief that the expression of our view in this kind of forum is not a very effective way to go about working out the probem. Mr. ROSENTHAL. I want to improve my question a bit. You can escalate your activities. Some witnesses suggested, for example, that the United States break off the disarmament negotiations until there is progress on this issue. There are things you can do besides diplomatic notes. What are you prepared to do beyond simple public statements or protestations or diplomatic negotiations? What is the next step up the road you are willing to go? NEED FOR BALANCE, DISCRETION Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Chairman, I have already tried to indicate that I believe the problem should be handled as a discrete one. I do not believe that attempting to make other negotiations contingent upon a resolution of this problem would be effective. In fact, I think it would be just the opposite. I think you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee and of the Committee on Foreign Affairs who are familiar with the importance of Soviet-American relations and the importance of the subjects on which we are dealing with the Soviets, would want to consider the relative value to the American people, to the United States, of doing the kind of thing you suggest. If you are talking about breaking off the SALT talks Mr. DAVIES. If other people are suggesting that we break off the SALT talks, I think this would be something that would not be in our interest to do at all. We are trying to begin a process of controlling armaments which we hope will lead eventually to disarmament, to a reduction of the danger that we are going to destroy ourselves and everybody else in the world. Mr. ROSENTIAL. Let me ask a specific question: Does the consideration and hopeful passage of a resolution similar to the AndersonO'Neil resolution, or almost the one you have rewritten for Congressman Annunzio-does consideration of the passage of that resolution help apply the kind of pressure which may be effective in dealing with the Soviet Union? Mr. DAVIES. Yes, sir, I think it does because that sort of resolution indicates to the Soviet Government that this body has a certain view. I believe the Soviet Government is as well aware as we are of the importance of the Congress in the American governmental system. I should think on the Soviet side there obviously are certain hopes about the improvement of relations. I don't suggest that this is an immediate and direct kind of action which would produce any fact which is identifiable as the result of that action, but I believe the passage of such a resolution giving the sense of the Congress on this issue would have a very definite effect. My point here is the one I made in the statement, or tried to, that it is the force of world public opinion through all its various emanations of responsible opinion, the responsible opinion of people who have thought about these matters and are concerned about them, that will have an effect; not, I regret to say, a conversation in camera between myself and an official of the Soviet Embassy. Such representations are discounted by the other side as under somewhat different circumstances we might discount something they would say. Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you both very much. I am grateful to you. I would like to hear more about your 3 years some time unofficially if it is easier for both of us. Mr. DAVIES. There is no problem about that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROSENTHAL. The subcommittee will adjourn until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION The Subcommittee on Europe met at 2 p.m., in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. ROSENTHAL. The subcommittee will be in order. Since the hearing commenced this morning there is a change. Congressman John Dow is presently involved in the amending of the pesticides bill on the floor. My distinguished colleague from New York, Congressman Koch is appearing. I know you have an important story to relate and we will be glad to hear you. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD I. KOCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. KосH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the invitation. I was originally scheduled to speak tomorrow. Had I come on at the regular time I would have prepared and filed with you a formal statement but, as you pointed out, Congressman Dow is now commencing the debate on certain amendments and I am speaking a day earlier than scheduled. As soon as there are votes on the floor, of course, I will have to be there but meanwhile I did want to take the opportunity that was available, particularly so to comment on the statement which has been filed with you and, if I understand correctly, read before your committee by Mr. Davies of the Department of State, it is my intention to give you the benefit, if you will, of my experiences in the Soviet Union which are somewhat different from those that would appear to be the experiences of the people who drew up this statement of the Department of State. I went to the Soviet Union in April of this year because my constituents were very concerned about individual families, the husbands of those families being then in jail. Two names that have become |