nation of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, which stipulates in Article 5, paragraph d, subsection 2 that everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.

Not only did the Soviet Union vote for this convention but, most important of all, its Supreme Soviet ratified it, on January 22, 1969. The U.S.S.R. is thus bound by international law to observe the right to leave; the evidence is overwhelming.

ON REUNITING FAMILIES

Furthermore, the Soviet Union has accepted another fundamental principle of international law; the right of persons to leave for the purpose of reuniting families. In 1959 there was an exchange of correspondence between the then Vice President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Andrei Gromyko, in which both committed themselves to the principle of the reunion of families.

In fact, the Soviet Union has acted on the international scale to give effect to this principle. In 1958 they permitted Soviet citizens of Spanish origin, who had been in the Soviet Union since 1937 or 1938, to go back to Spain because they wanted to go back to their homeland. They have permitted Greeks to go back to Greece, Greeks who had been living in the Soviet Union since the time of Alexander the Great. They have permitted Poles to go back to Poland and Mongols to go back to Mongolia and Koreans to go back to Korea.

Indeed, it has also worked the other way around. In 1955 the U.S.S.R. established a committee to encourage former Tsarist citizens to return to the homeland. It appealed to Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Georgians, scattered in various parts of the world, to "come home." The committee put out newspapers in these four languages urging return from all over the world, notably from the United States and from Argentina. (There were one thousand Russians and Ukrainians who had been living in Argentina since the Revolution of 1917, who emigrated to the U.S.S.R. on the basis of the reunion-of-families principle.) Most massive of all has been their effort to convince Armenians to return to the Soviet Union, and 200,000 Armenians have returned since 1946, on the principle of the reunion of families and in response to appeals made by the Soviet government in terms of this principle. But so far as Jews are concerned, until December 1966, this principle was observed only in the breach.

On December 3, 1966, at a press conference in Paris (reported in Pravda and Izvestiia on December 5th), when Mr. Kosygin was asked specifically whether Soviet Jews could be reunited with their families in Israel as the Armenians and Greeks had been united with theirs, he answered that there was no obstacle in their path. Soviet Jews would be allowed to leave in order to reunite with their families. For a while the principle was partially fulfilled and Soviet Jews often carried copies of Pravda and Izvestiia in their pockets when they approached the local offices of the Ministry of the Interior to seek their exit permits. Then the gates were banged almost completely shut.

80,000 APPLICATIONS TO LEAVE

The situation today is, as you know, spotty, if slightly encouraging. As a result of a tremendous outcry of world public opinion, this year some recognition has been given to the right-to-leave principle. By the end of the year perhaps as many as 10,000 Jews will have been permitted to leave. But a total of approximately 80,000 applications to leave have been filed which, when one adds entire families, means that one-quarter million Jews are still hemmed in by what the Soviet physicist and humanist Sakharov calls a "gilded cage."

Any attempts at harmonizing law and reality over these fifteen to twenty years, whether in terms of ethnic rights (a few token concessions) or in terms of religious rights (a few token concessions, such as baking matzo); any sensitivity on the part of the U.S.S.R. to the problem of anti-Semitism (in dealing, for example, with Judaism Without Embellishment), any attempts to harmonize Soviet obligations and principles under international law with actual Soviet practice concerning the reunion of families, have all been the result of world public opinion, emanating from many broad sectors of the globe. The Kremlin is not so monolithic that there are no crevices through which to direct appeals.

The fact is that the U.S.S.R. is responsive to world public opinion when (a) its vital interests are not at stake, and (b) when moral pressures are clear and intense. I am convinced that men of good will have taken to heart the dictum of George Santayana that he who chooses not to recall the past is doomed to relive

it. Having chosen to recall the past so that it will not be relived, men of good will have determined to give this item the highest prioriy on the agenda of the world conscience.

Democratic governments have a role to play both in regard to airing the Soviet Jewish issue in international forums and through the negotiating process of quiet diplomacy. American interest in the condition of Russian Jewry has a long history. Throughout the last decade of the 19th century and, especially, during the first decade of the 20th century, the United States Government vigorously protested the Tsarist programs and anti-Jewish discriminatory actions, just as it offered a haven for tens of thousands of persecuted Jews. More recently, in the course of the past ten years, the United States Government has frequently raised the issue of the plight of Soviet Jewry in various international forums, particularly in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

It would be consistent, therefore, with United States tradition and with its bistoric role in championing international human rights, to place the issue of Soviet Jewry on the agenda of the UN General Assembly. Sensitizing world public opinion to the condition of Soviet Jewry is central to the purposes of men of good will. Dr. KOREY. First, Mr. Chairman, Professor Morgenthau has made the reference to the question of terror and the question of the comparison with the Nazi period. Let me reemphasize here, and I am sure that everybody is aware of this, that nobody in any responsible position, whether in academia or the Jewish community, makes a comparison between the Soviet policy to Jews today and the Stalin terrorist period or the Nazi period.

So that this is really a kind of strawman that is inappropriate for our discussion. The other point that warrants comment has reference to the question of the conduct of the Soviet Union during the course of the past few years; whether the situation of Jews has been aggravated during the course of the past few years.

I have in my formal statement, Mr. Chairman, outlined five major areas of contradiction between law and reality in the Soviet Union and it is this dialectical contradiction that has generated a renaissance of Jewish national consciousness in the Soviet Union.

A RECENT CAMPAIGN

The testimony that I have given does not go into the time factor but I would like to emphasize the time factor. It so happens that since 1967, August 1967, the Soviet Union, its highest organs, have unleased a propaganda campaign, the nature of which echoes the propaganda of the old Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

We find in this kind of propaganda the basic themes, the same themes that were stated back in 1903 when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was introduced, the subversion of the established order, in today's case, the subversion of Communism or national liberation States by the so-called Zionists, the Elders of Zion.

We find, too, that one section, the segment of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion carried an echo in the U.N. chambers only a week or 10 days ago when the Ambassador of the Soviet Union, Mr. Malik, made reference to the concept of "the chosen people" as a racist concept.

At the very heart of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, you have this malicious and distorting conception of the "chosen people" and it is significant to note that in 1968 for the first time, to my knowledge, this concept again appeared in a publication in the Soviet Union called "Judaism and Zionism" by a notorious bigot whose name is Trofim Kichko. Kichko had published a book back in 1963 in the Soviet

Union called "Judaism Without Embellishment." That book was so sharply criticized in the world press and by Communist parties throughout the world that even Soviet authorities, the Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, was obliged in April 1964 to withdraw that book and castigate it as offensive to Jews and stimulative to anti-Semitism. Lo and behold, in 1968, he reappears again.

After having been honored by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukraine with a certificate of honor, he reappears with this new book and it has a critical key quotation talking about the chosen people as a racist concept. The source of racism, fascism, et cetera. And this kind of bigotry then finds its expression in the chambers of the United Nations when the Ambassador of the Soviet Union virtually quotes this statement. I submit to you, therefore, that a characteristic of the propaganda campaign since 1967 has been such as to stimulate and reen force anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union.

OTHER EVIDENCE CITED

But I bring into evidence further points, further facts, not offered necessarily by authorities in the West. In the West, I call to your attention a book published by Oxford University Press, edited by Lionel Kochan in 1970, with some 12 leading authorities in the West as contributors. The book is entitled "Jews in Soviet Russia Since 1917." The book notes that since 1967 the conditions of Soviet Jews have worsened.

But aside from Western scholars-aside, too, from the petitionersSoviet petitions since 1968 carry considerable documentation of harassment and intimidation, considerable documentation of the character of the anti-Semitic press campaign, I want to cite two sources that are of pertinence to us. One is Andrei Sakharov. Andrei Sakharov is a prominent member of the Soviet Committee on Human Rights. He is one of the world's most distinguished physicists. He is the coinventor of the hydrogen bomb.

His manuscript, written in June 1968 and which was published a couple of years later by W. W. Norton & Co., records him asking, in 1968, whether it was not disgraceful to hear a speech by the president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, a man named Keldysh, which carried antisemitic overtones; was it not disgraceful to allow backsliding and anti-Semitism in our appointment policies?

Sakharov was referring at that time to a backsliding in the party's appointments policies, an open form of discrimination conducted by the party. But even more significant, Mr. Chairman, a distinguished Soviet democrat and historian, Roy Medvedev, in 1970, wrote a long document which is entitled, "The Near East Conflict and the Jewish Question in the U.S.S.R." Mr. Medvedev is not Jewish but he has a deep concern, as men of good will and as democrats everywhere do, for the problem of the Jews in the Soviet Union.

This document was later to appear in what is called Politicheskii Dnevnik, the political diary, under his own name. And he points out in several places in this very long manuscript that, very recently, for example, a circular was distributed among party leaders saying, "Individuals belonging to nationalities associated with State organizations

which pursue unfriendly policies with respect to the U.S.S.R., that these people should not be appointed to various positions of authority." Mr. ROSENTHAL. Dr. Korey, are all of these things documented in your presentation?

Mr. KOREY, No, I said that I am going to elaborate on those things. Mr. ROSENTHAL. We are going to be denied the pleasure of your elaboration by the votes which are coming now.

Mr. KOREY. I will be finished in one moment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. It would be useful to the subcommittee, and let us be the judge of what is more useful, if you could itemize those areas where we should direct our attention to and how should we do it.

THE HUB OF THE PROBLEM

Mr. KOREY. The hub of the problem in essence is this, that the Jews, notwithstanding constitutional rights and statutory pronouncements as well as ideological pronouncements in five areas, do not find those rights fulfilled, that is to say, in the area of culture, ethnic culture as a national group, in the area of religions, in the area of civil rights, particularly in job opportunities and educational opportunities, in the area of anti-Semitism specifically involving the press campaign.

And finally, on the question of the right to leave, while considerable progress has been made this year, it is no way commensurate with the expression of the desire to leave on the part of Jews of the Soviet Union.

The moral impact of the world is of a character that does affect the Soviet Union on matters that do not involve their vital concerns, their vital policy.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. What you are saying is, if there was a matter of their vital national security, we could not do anything about it. Where it is a peripheral value, it is your view that some pressure will have some effect and anything we do will be to the good.

Mr. KOREY. That is right.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much.

Reverend McClellan, could you stay a little longer and permit me 6 minutes out of the room while I vote?

(A short recess was taken.)

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Reverend McClellan, I apologize for the interruption but we have to cast these votes for freedom very often. We are pleased to hear your statement.

STATEMENT OF REV. GRAYDON E. MCCLELLAN, GENERAL PRESBYTER, PRESBYTERY OF WASHINGTON, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

BIOGRAPHY

Address: 9606 Dewmar Lane, Kensington, Md. 20795. Born May 7, 1914, Goliad, Texas.

Family: Wife (Music Ed. graduate of UCLA; soloist, pianist, organist, choir director); and four children.

Denomination: United Presbyterian Church, USA.

EDUCATION

1932-1937, University of California at Los Angeles-B.A. degree;

1937-1939, San Francisco Theological Seminary;

1941-1943, B.D. and M.A. degrees;

1946 (5 wks.), Biarritz Army University, Biarritz, France;

1957-1958, Ecumenical Fellow at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University, New York.

EXPERIENCE

1939-1940, Social case worker, State Relief Administration, Santa Rosa, California;

1940-1941, Organizer and director of Westminster Center, Board of Church Extension, Los Angeles Presbytery, Los Angeles, California;

1942-1953, Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Santa Rosa, California; 1944-1946, Chaplain, Army of the United States; served with troops in the European theater for eighteen months;

1953-1957, Pastor, Highland Park Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles, California;

1957-1958, Assigned to Department of Social Education and Action of the Presbyterian Church, USA, while enrolled as an Ecumenical Fellow in the Program of Advanced Religious Study, Union Theological Seminary, New York, N.Y.; June 1958-May 1961, Executive Director, Department of the Ministry, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America; 1961-1962, General Presbyter, Presbytery of New York;

1963-March 1966, General Presbyter, Presbytery of New York City; March 1966, General Presbytery of Washington City.

BOARD AND AGENCIES

Member of the Board of Trustees, San Francisco Theological Seminary, 19511957;

Member of the General Board of the National Council of Churches, 19551958;

Member of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, USA, Nominating Committee for three years; secretary of the Committee for two.

PUBLICATIONS

Sons of Calvin and Responsible Freedom, a booklet for the Dept. of Social Education, UPC, USA;

One Ministry (Editor), findings of the National Consultation on the Negro in the Christian Ministry;

"Dazzled By Grace and Glory" (a study of John Calvin), Jubilee Issue of Presbyterian Life, June 1, 1959;

"Vocation, Enlistment and Ministry", pamphlet published by National Council of Churches 1961;

"New Frontiers of Christian Ministry" (Chapter in book, New Frontiers of Christianity, Association Press, 1962).

Honorary degree: L.H.D., June 1, 1969, Davis and Elkins College, Elkins, West Virginia;

President, Council of Churches of Greater Washington, two terms, 1968 and

1969.

Reverend MCCLELLAN. Thank you. The statement is brief. It begins with a preacher's introduction which I ask you to forgive. It includes the action of our 183d general assembly, the highest agency of the United Presbyterian Church in this country, meeting in May of this year.

I ask that my complete statement be inserted into the record. (Reverend McClellan's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF Rev. Graydon E. MCCLELLAN, General PreSBYTER, PRESBYTERY OF WASHINGTON, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

The freedom to be religious is fundamental to being free. Surely this nation, child of liberty and committed by its founders to religious freedom, will speak up spontaneously and officially on behalf of any people whose freedom to be religious is threatened. To do so is not an act of self-righteousness but testimony that what we've experienced is both precious and essential to human dignity.