grams to help the urban and rural poor in their access to legal rights and protections, and sponsorship of studies and conferences on human rights and development. Country teams were requested to report and advise on these matters and to offer suggestions or plans by January 6, 1976.

Dept. of State File AIDTO Circular A-687, Dec. 9, 1975.

Section 310 of the International Development and Food Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-161; 89 Stat. 860), approved December 20, 1975, added the following new section to Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n):

SEC. 116. HUMAN RIGHTS.—(a) No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.

(b) In determining whether this standard is being met with regard to funds allocated under this part, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate or the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives may require the Administrator primarily responsible for administering part I of this Act to submit in writing information demonstrating that such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country, together with a detailed explanation of the assistance to be provided (including the dollar amounts of such assistance) and an explanation of how such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country. If either committee or either House of Congress disagrees with the Adminstrator's justification it may initiate action to terminate assistance to any country by a concurrent resolution under section 617 of this Act.

(c) In determining whether or not a government falls within the provisions of subsection (a), consideration shall be given to the extent of cooperation of such government in permitting an unimpeded investigation of alleged violations of internationally recognized human rights by appropriate international organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, or groups or persons acting under the authority of the United Nations or of the Organization of American States.

(d) The President shall transmit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, in the annual presentation materials on proposed economic development assistance programs, a full and complete report regarding the steps he has taken to carry out the provisions of this section.

Ambassador Philip C. Habib, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in a statement on June 24, 1975, to

the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House Committee on International Relations, criticized recent repressive measures taken by the Philippines and Korea but called attention to the security relationships of the United States with those countries to justify continued military assistance. Excerpts from his statement follow:

.

.. in those cases where we can be effective, we . express to other governments our views on human rights matters and assure that they clearly understand the strongly held views, not only in the Congress but certainly among the American people, on human rights matters. We have done this both in Korea and the Philippines.

At the same time. . . we must recognize that we are dealing with sovereign countries with different political systems. We can neither determine the course of internal change nor be certain as to what the outcome will be in situations where there are internal tensions. Further, our policies toward individual countries represent a mix of interests, objectives, and relationships differing in almost every case. We know that neglect of human rights may well adversely affect the achievement of other important objectives. We also know that internal popular support is essential to long-term political stability.

. . . I would like to . . . comment on the human rights situation in the Philippines as we see it and to explain the rationale for our military assistance to the Philippines.

The Department of State recognizes that the consequences of martial law in the Philippines have included the suspension of certain democratic processes and human rights. Specifically,. . . there have been wide-ranging arrests since the commencement of martial law, and a number of these people have been held for over two years without trial. In addition, freedom of the press has been curtailed, and under martial law, freedom of assembly and the entire spectrum of democratic processes have been strictly regulated. Several referenda have taken place, but were held under conditions of martial law.

In regard to the question of mistreatment or torture of prisoners, we have heard charges that this has occurred. We do not, however, have any evidence that mistreatment of prisoners or torture is either a policy of the Government of the Philippines or a general practice. The Philippine Government has acknowledged that some abuses have occurred, particularly in more remote areas, and has taken steps to punish the offenders and to better regulate the system as a whole. We have been advised in this regard that the Government of the Philippines has agreed to accept a mission of the International Commission of Jurists and to afford its fullest cooperation in every aspect of its investigation.

While we support the Philippine Government's avowed intention to promote improvement in the social, economic, and admin

istrative areas and think that there has been measurable progress in some of these, we do not believe that the ends justify or require the curtailment of human rights.

we feel strongly that the future of the Philippines and that of its form of government are for the Philippine people to determine, not us. Regarding the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, we can only express our concerns, as we have, and hope that governments will realize that free people inevitably come down on the side of that which is good for the country as a whole.

Since the establishment of martial law in September 1972, we have continued to maintain friendly relations with the Philippine Government while avoiding any comment either in condemnation or support of the declaration or continuation of martial law.

In security matters the Philippines has traditionally been one of our closest and most important treaty allies in East Asia. The defense commitments and mutual security interests of both countries are formally embodied in longstanding agreements. We have military bases in the Philippines, the existence of which is important both for Philippine defense and for broader security interests of the United States. We have long considered it important that the Philippine Armed Forces be well prepared, and it is to these ends that our military assistance has been directed since 1946.

... At least one of the purposes of this assistance has been to help the Philippine Army develop a capability for maintaining internal security. . . . We are aware that U.S. military equipment is being used to counter Moslem insurgency in the southern Philippines as well as the smaller threat posed by Communist guerrillas in the north and central Philippines. We keep our military units strictly out of the Moslem areas, and we screen our assistance program in terms of equipment provided. It has been U.S. policy and practice to stay out of Philippine efforts to suppress both of these domestic insurgencies.

Our small U.S. Military Advisory Group is not involved in combat operations of any kind. JUSMAG (Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group] Philippines is assigned a military assistance role only at the national level. U.S. Army personnel do not perform direct advisory functions below the level of the Department of Defense, the Armed Forces of the Philippines General Headquarters, or service headquarters, all of which are located in the Manila area. These advisory efforts do not directly support operations of the Philippine Armed Forces but are limited to military procurement, distribution, utilization, maintenance, and the like.

When we turn to the Republic of Korea, the issue of human rights is a matter of continuing concern. . . .

Since the hearings last year, the original four emergency measures have been lifted. A total of 203 persons were tried

under these emergency measures. Subsequently all but 35 were released, although the prominent poet Kim Chi Ha has since been arrested on other charges. Further, of the 35 persons whose sentences were not suspended, eight reported members of the People's Revolutionary Party were executed on April 9 after the Supreme Court confirmed their original sentence.

On May 13 a new Emergency Measure No. 9 was instituted by President [Chung Hee] Park and continues in force. The provisions of this measure are broad in their terms and significantly inhibit political expression, including advocating constitutional revision; they further prohibit political activities on the part of students and form the basis for severely restricting press coverage of certain major domestic political issues. The measure provides for minimum sentences of one year although, unlike the earlier measures, trial is in the civil court, not by court martial. In addition, any Korean criticizing the government or constitution to foreigners in Korea or abroad could be subject to the antislander law passed in March of this year.

The Korean Government has justified its latest emergency measure by the threat from the North, which it believes is accentuated in the post-Viet-Nam situation..

.. I wish to make it clear that the United States Government is neither involved nor associated with the Korean Government's internal actions. My remarks are a description, not a justification, of the Korean Government's domestic policies. In the case of the execution of the eight reported members of the People's Revolutionary Party, we publicly expressed our regret at this action. We continue to assure that the Korean Government is aware of the public impact within the United States of certain of its actions. While I believe this may have some limited effect, the Korean Government views its domestic policies as internal matters not subject to consultation with other governments.

At the same time, we do have close relationships with the Republic of Korea extending over the 27 years of its life. These close ties encompass a continuing concern in the development of functioning representative institutions within a framework of respect for human rights. Beyond that, we also have a direct and vital interest in the maintenance of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula. We have a Mutual Defense Treaty obligation, and our military presence and military assistance have been essential elements in maintaining the military balance on the peninsula. This is in our own interest as well as that of the Republic of Korea and of its people. Very obviously our security relationship contributes importantly to the peace and security of Northeast Asia and is so recognized by our allies, including Japan.

We should not misjudge the determination of the people of South Korea to resist North Korean aggression nor the internal cohesion of the nation on this issue. What is most important to

the Koreans, whatever their view of their own government, is the preservation of their military security and integrity. The continuation of our bilateral relations is essential to that objective.

... We neither associate ourselves with, nor justify, internal repressive actions and will continue to make clear our concern and that of the American people over the protection and preservation of human rights. At the same time, we will continue our security policies which serve the interest of Korea, the region as a whole, and the United States. The preservation of peace on the peninsula remains the essential prerequisite for political development and the exercise of human rights in Korea.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1883, July 28, 1975, pp. 123–127.

United Nations Structure and Procedures

On February 14, 1975, Philip E. Hoffman, United States Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, made a significant statement of United States policy regarding U.N. procedures for considering private complaints of human rights violations. He announced United States support for thorough studies by the Commission of alleged human rights violations anywhere in the world-whenever the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities refers a situation indicating a consistent pattern of gross violations if the allegations are reasonably supported by the evidence available, and the violations appear to be continuing.

The Human Rights Commission, at its 31st session in Geneva, February 3-March 7, 1975, undertook to deal for the first time with the thousands of private communications relating to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms which are addressed annually to the United Nations. Under the procedures established by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in Resolution 1503 (XLVIII), adopted in 1970, such communications were reviewed initially by the Human Rights Commission Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which in turn referred to the Commission for confidential consideration particular situations which appeared to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights requiring consideration.

In the public debate, which preceded the consideration of individual country cases in executive session, the United States Representative made a statement reading in part as follows: