« ÎnapoiContinuați »
counsel that government on all aspects of the rescue operation. If demands are made on the U.S. Government, it will normally respond through the negotiating host government.
3. Should the matter of a monetary ransom arise, the U.S. Government would make known to the host government that, as a matter of policy, it does not pay such money. While we believe that other governments, companies, and individuals should follow suit, the U.S. Government has no legal means to restrain such parties if they choose to do otherwise.
4. The wishes and rights of the hostage's family or employer are borne in mind by the U.S. Government, which seeks to harmonize them with those of the host government within the context of established policy considerations.
5. During and following an incident, the U.S. Government uses every appropriate influence to induce governments to adhere to the principle of arrest or extradition of terrorists. The full resources of our Government are used to pursue such terrorists and to see that they are brought to justice. The broadest multilateral cooperation is sought toward these ends in the U.N., ICAO, and other appropriate forums, The U.S. Government seeks to ensure that bilateral agreements, such as the U.S.-Cuba accord of February 1973, and traditional extradition treaties, include effective legal deterrents to terrorism.
6. The U.S. Government seeks to identify the causes of international terrorism and to remove them. When such causes are within the domain of other governments, our influence is restrained by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country, and by other interests which the U.S. Government may be obliged to protect in those countries. At the same time, we reserve the right to criticize other governments if they show irresponsibility in transferring international terrorists to the international community in cases which do not involve probable further bloodshed.
7. The U.S. Government wishes to share its counterterrorism techniques with other governments. It also seeks, for antiterrorist and other reasons, to encourage the development of societies striving for social-political-economic justice, thereby reducing legitimate grievances and the potential for terrorism. Hearings on Terroristic Activity, International Terrorism, before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Part 4, May 14, 1975, pp. 230–232. For a chronology of significant terrorist incidents involving U.S. diplomatic/official personnel, see ibid. at pp. 220–227.
On August 11, 1975, Secretary of State Kissinger, in an address to the annual convention of the American Bar Association at Montreal, decried the "contemporary plagues” of aircraft hijacking and international terrorism and stated that the international community could not ignore these affronts to civilization and had a duty to act vigorously to combat them. He said, in part:
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
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.
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.
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 effec
tive 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. 34110, 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