government officials. The House International Relations Subcommittee on International Organizations brought to public attention the South Korean Government's efforts to secure support for continuing U.S. military and economic aid to South Korea by dispensing payments and gifts to Members of Congress and other U.S. officials.3

The status of human rights in Indonesia, the Philippines, India, South Korea, and North Korea was the subject of hearings conducted by the House Subcommittee on International Organizations. These investigations resulted in section 502B of Public Law 94-329 which calls for the termination of security assistance to any foreign government that engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, and several provisions affecting the U.S. defense role in the Republic of Korea (ROK).

SELECTED ASIAN ISSUES: SOUTH KOREA; JAPAN; VIETNAM

U.S.-Korean relations

As a result of the U.S.-ROK mutual defense treaty, approximately 42,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, and several hundred nuclear weapons are maintained there. A number of Members of the 94th Congress challenged the continuation of U.S. commitments to South Korea in light of the Sino-American rapprochement, the termination of the Indochina conflict, and political repression within South Korea.

U.S. aid to South Korea

Congressional opponents of a reduction in U.S. aid for the ROK maintained that a cut in U.S. assistance could seriously restrict South Korean efforts to become militarily self-sufficient, endanger the military balance in northeast Asia, and could possibly precipitate a North Korean strike into South Korea. Supporters of the reduction argued that since U.S. assistance to Korea has been based upon a commitment by South Korea to a democratic form of government, the authoritarian measures of President Park raise the question of the appropriateness of continued U.S. assistance to Korea. The necessity for U.S. ground troops in Korea was also contested by some Members of Congress, given South Korea's 2-to-1 edge over North Korean ground troops, and several asked if the presence of U.S. troops might provoke rather than deter a Korean conflict. This argument was sharpened by the August 1976 killing of two American military personnel by North Korean soldiers in the demilitarized zone.

The Security Assistance Act (Public Law 94-329) places a ceiling on grant military assistance to the ROK for fiscal year 1976 ($55 million) and fiscal year 1977 ($8.3 million), but it places no ceiling on

3 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations. Subcommittee on International Organizations. Activities of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, Part I. Hearings, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Mar. 17, 25, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Ibid. Part II. Hearings, 94th Cong., 2d sess., June 22, Sept. 27 and 30, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on International Relations. Subcommittee on International Organizations. Human Rights in Indonesia and the Philippines. Hearings, 94th Cong., 1st and 2d sess.. Dec. 18, 1975; May 3, 1976. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Ibid. Human Rights in the Philippines: Report by Amnesty International. Hearing, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Sept. 15, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Ibid. Human Rights in India. Hearings, 94th Cong.. 2d sess., June 23, 28, 29; Sept. 16 and 23, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Ibid. Human Rights in North Korea. Hearing, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Sept. 9, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

foreign military credit sales or cash sales of arms. The House International Relations Committee had recommended a ceiling of $290 million on all forms of security assistance to the ROK for fiscal year 1976 and fiscal year 1977 "because of the gross violations of human rights which continue in South Korea." By a 241-159 vote, however, the House approved an amendment which restored the full amount requested by the administration ($488 million). The House International Relations Committee also had recommended reducing U.S. food assistance to South Korea to $175 million, $104 million less than President Ford had requested for the 2-year period. This reduction was deleted on the House floor.

Both Senate and House committees of the 94th Congress debated the feasibility of U.S. troop reductions in South Korea. In 1975, the Senate report (S. Rept. 94-146) on the defense authorization bill (Public Law 94-106) had directed that the Department of Defense study security arrangements with the ROK and U.S. troop levels in South Korea. Similarly, the House Appropriations Committee recommended in its report on the 1976 defense appropriations (Public Law 94-212) that, given certain conditions, plans should be made for trimming the entire U.S. presence in Korea to a force of approximately 20,000 persons by fiscal year 1978.

In 1976, although a House subcommittee amendment calling on the President to take steps to withdraw the 42,000 U.S. troops from South Korea was defeated in committee, section 668 of Public Law 94-329 was enacted. This provision requires the President to submit at least annually, for the next 5 years, reports on the self-defense capabilities of the ROK and on prospects for a phased reduction of U.S. Armed Forces assigned to duty in the ROK, in coordination with the timetable of the ROK for military self-sufficiency. In accordance with section 688, the President submitted to the Congress on September 29, 1976, a report on South Korean defense capabilities and the U.S. role concerning those capabilities.5 The report concluded that the present time is not right for U.S. troop reductions, but that the U.S. force presence will be under continual examination "with a view toward further adjustments as they become appropriate." The President's report received strong congressional criticism for "shortsightedness" and "sterile thinking." One member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee remarked that the report could "in no way be considered a serious response to [congressional] sincere concerns"-and that "it could have been written 5 or 10 years ago.' Congressional actions concerning human rights in South Korea

Congressional concern about the policy of giving aid to repressive governments is reflected in the actions taken in 1976 concerning the status of hu an rights in South Korea. A letter of April 2, 1976, from 120 Members of Congress to President Ford states "that under present circumstances it is increasingly difficult for us to justify military support for South Korea to our constituents." (On Mar. 26, 1976, the South Korean Government indicted 18 persons who called for the restoration of political freedoms restricted under the ROK 1972 constitution.)

5 Hubert Humphrey. Korean defense. Congressional Record (daily ed.), vol. 122, Oct. 1, 1976. pp. S18057-18061. • Ibid.. S18058.

7 The New York Times, Oct. 28, 1976, p. 48.

86-757-77-14

Section 412 of Public Law 94-329, which was signed into law on June 30, 1976, states that "the Congress views with distress the erosion of important civil liberties in the Republic of Korea, and request that th President communicate this concern in forceful terms to the Government of the Republic of Korea within sixty days after enactment." Consequently, on August 30, 1976, letters were sent to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on International Relations by the Department of State affirming that the Ambassador of the ROK had been given a diplomatic note requesting him to bring the concern of Congress to the attention of the highest levels of his government.8

A letter of protest, sent to President Park from 154 Members of Congress on October 6, 1976, expressed "profound distress" over his "arbitrary action" in jailing the 18 political critics.

The investigation of the status of human rights in South Korea by the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Organizations led to the subcommittee's investigation of the activities of the South Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) in the United States after the issue of harassment of ROK emigrees to the United States by KCIA agents was raised. This investigation in turn exposed the South Korean Government's efforts to secure support for continuing U.S. military and economic aid to South Korea by dispensing payments and gifts to Members of Congress and other U.S. officials. Several present and former Congressmen have acknowledged receiving payments from South Koreans. Korean agents are alleged to have handed out up to $1 million a year for the past 5 years to key officials. Although the Department of State has not denied or clarified reports of the South Korean influence buying scheme and President Park's alleged direction of the operation, it has confirmed the offer of a $10,000 payment from ROK officials to a White House aide

in 1974.

In the autumn of 1976, the U.S. Department of Justice expanded its investigation of alleged corruption of U.S. officials by the South Korean Government. In early December 1976, a top KCIA official, who has reported to have been the coordinator in Washington of the Korean effort to buy influence in the United States, sought to remain in the United States, and gave the Department of Justice a pledge of full cooperation with its investigation.

The House Democratic caucus f 296 Members noted December 9, 1976, to order a congressional investigation into allegations of possible misconduct by Members who accepted funds from the South Korean Government. Chairman John Flynt of the House Ethics Committee said a probe of the alleged Korean influence-peddling could not begin before the new Congress convenes in January 1977. Other congressional investigations regarding South Korean activities are also expected to be scheduled when the 95th Congress convenes. United States-Vietnamese issues

The 94th Congress attempted to resolve outstanding United StatesVietnamese problems, especially the question of American servicemen listed as missing-in-action (MIA's) in Indochina (see Congress and

8 Letter from Assistant Secretary Robert J. McCloskey, Congressional Relations, Department of State, to Thomas E. Morgan, Chairman, House Committee on International Relations, and John Sparkman, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, dated Aug. 30, 1976. The New York Times, Oct. 28, 1976, p. 48.

Foreign Policy-1975, pp. 150-154), and the U.S. export controls regarding Vietnam which had been imposed by the executive branch. in 1975. Legislation (H.R. 9503) to partially lift the trade embargo of Vietnam, was first introduced in 1975 and subsequently was amended and incorporated into the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (S. 2662). Section 413 of the measure prohibited export controls on nonstrategic trade with Vietnam for purely "foreign policy" purposes, but it continued to allow controls. for national security and domestic supply considerations. Continuation of the limits on the embargo beyond 180 days after enactment of this section was contingent upon substantial accounting for missing Americans by the Vietnamese within that period. According to many Members of Congress, lifting the trade embargo could facilitate the provision of private humanitarian assistance to the people of Indochina, and could contribute to the process of normalization of U.S. relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. President Ford vetoed S. 2662 on May 6, 1976, because of its "unwise restrictions" cited in the President's veto message, including the following:

By removing my restrictions on trade with North and South Vietnam, S. 2662 undercuts any incentive the North Vietnamese may have to provide an accounting of our MIAs.

The provision lifting certain trade restrictions with Vietnam for 180 days was deleted from the final 1976 Security Assistance Act (Public Law 94-329).

Although the issue of U.S. aid to Vietnam was not addressed by the whole Congress in 1976, several individual Senators and Congressmen raised the question of a U.S. moral obligation to help rebuild Vietnam. However, the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1976 (Public Law 94-330, sec. 108) prohibited funds pursuant to the act to be used to provide assistance to Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos.

The House Select Committee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia, which was created by the 94th Congress in September 1975 to investigate the MIA problem, issued its final report in December 1976.10 The report contained the following conclusions:

(1) No Americans are still being held alive as prisoners in Indochina, or elsewhere, as a result of the war in Indochina.

(2) The whereabouts of 2,546 Americans remain unaccounted for following the end of the war in Southeast Asia. Of this number the governments of Indochina may be capable of returning the remains of more than 150 Americans, and are capable of providing information concerning a large but undetermined number of Americans.

(3) The most effective way an accounting may be obtained is through direct governmental discussions with the Indochinese governments.

Before the establishment of the Select Committee in September 1975, little progress on the MIA issue had been made. During its

10 U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia. Americans Missing in Southeast Asia: Final Report. Dec. 13, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.

15-month tenure, the committee held extensive hearings," and conferred with Indochinese and international officials in New York, Paris, Geneva, Hanoi, and Vientiane. These activities were instrumental in the opening of United States-Vietnamese talks in Paris on November 12, 1976; in the return of more than 70 American citizens and dependents who had been trapped in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon in April 1975; and in the reception of information relating to the MIA's from Vietnam and the People's Republic of China. The select committee has recommended that the House of Representatives maintain a POW/MIA oversight capability in the International Relations Committee to monitor any direct talks that may take place with the Indochinese governments.

11 U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Missing Persons in Southeast Asia, Part III. Hearings, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 4, 18, 25, Mar. 3, 17, 25, and 31, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Ibid. Americans Missing in Southeast Asia, Part IV. Hearings, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Apr. 7, May 12, 26, June 2, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976. Ibid. Americans Missing in Southeast Asia, Part V. Hearings, 94th Cong., 2d sess., June 17, 25, July 21, and Sept. 21, 1976. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976.