Human rights considerations are a key factor in examining and determining military assistance levels and where security and economic considerations are integral to that process. In addition, we can and have used the tools at our disposal to deny economic assistance, vote against multilateral development banks, deny export of munitions control and crime control and detection equipment, and have issued public statements, in some cases, denouncing human rights violations. The United States has also supported the creation of the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, which seeks to provide victims of torture with assistance in their physical and mental rehabilitation. It is currently collecting contributions, and we hope in the nottoo-distant future to provide funding for it. We are currently providing funds under section 116(e) to a wide variety of human rights projects around the world. No discussion of torture, I think, would be complete, Mr. Chairman, without pointing out that there are extremist groups which deliberately seek to provoke government repression and torture in an effort to polarize society and undermine democratic institutions. In all too many Third World governments, governments have fallen into this trap, set by revolutionaries as security forces brutalize the population in a vain attempt to restore order. However, the experience of the Federal Republic of Germany, of Italy and of Japan, suggest that it is possible to develop a humane antiguerrilla strategy, and, this, in turn, underscores the need to provide governments under siege with the necessary assistance and training to develop such a strategy. Unfortunately, the role of the United States in eliminating human rights abuses is constrained by section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which precludes the use of foreign assistance to fund police training. The report of the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America, the Kissinger Commission, so-called, had section 660 in mind when it wrote: "Another obstacle to the effective pursuit of antiguerrilla strategy is a provision of current U.S. law under which no assistance can be provided to law enforcement agencies." I won't read the entire report in the interest of time, but the Commission does note that "the paradoxical effect of 660 is to inhibit our efforts to improve human rights performance" as in the case of El Salvador, where we are unable to give the kinds of police training that we would like to give. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure all this agrees with the intent of section 660, which is to prevent the United States from being associated with police forces which engage in brutality, is altogether praiseworthy, but if the effective 660 were to block efforts at improving human rights performance, then I would strongly argue that a reconsideration of its provisions would be warranted. To inculcate in police and security forces more professional standards of conduct is one way, I think, of improving human rights performance in a variety of countries. And, I would note that training procedures is one of the matters that is raised in Amnesty's own 12-point program. There are still a large number of police forces in the world where they simply don't understand that they can effectively do their work without indiscriminate violence and brutality. Perhaps if they learned a little bit more about modern professional police tactics, they would be more effective and more compassionate. There was a time in history when police and security functions were attended by brutality and torture as normal practices in almost every country. In many countries, this time is now very distant, and that is due, in part, I think, to the professionalization of police work. In the process of professionalization, police and security forces ceased to think of themselves as the clutch of people with weapons and power, and started to think of themselves as a profession with its own standards of conduct. So, I want to propose that we do need to rethink the blanket ban which is imposed by section 660, and wonder, I do wonder whether it is the most effective way of achieving the goals that it states. Let me conclude these remarks by pointing out that just as there is no simple cause of torture, so, too, there is no panacea that can eliminate it quickly and completely. As I've already noted, democracy is the nearest thing we have to a guarantee of human rights. For this reason, President Reagan has made the encouragement of democracy a central goal of our foreign policy. Yet, until many more of the world's governments are democratic, it is safe to assume that torture will remain a human rights problem of the first magnitude. For this reason, we must continue to oppose specific human rights violations such as torture over the short term, whenever we encounter them. Such a policy is bound to be frustrating, it does not at all detract from the fact that it is the only honorable course of action open to us as Americans, and, indeed, as human beings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Mr. Abrams' prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE ELLIOTT ABRAMS, BUREAU OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS IT IS A PLEASURE AND A PRIVILEGE FOR ME TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF TORTURE. I WILL BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE IN MY OPENING REMARKS, SO AS TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS. THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION AGAINST TORTURE. ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY IN 1975. STATES THAT "TORTURE CONSTITUTES AN AGGRAVATED AND DELIBERATE FORM OF CRUEL. INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT." ADMITTEDLY, THIS DEFINITION IS SOMEWHAT BROAD AND IMPRECISE. NONETHELESS, I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT TORTURE IS. INDEED. JUSTICE POTTER STEWART'S FAMOUS COMMENT ON OBSCENITY APPLIES EQUALLY WELL TO TORTURE: WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DEFINE IT PRECISELY, BUT WE KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS. OF COURSE, PROFOUNDLY AND UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO ANY AND ALL FORMS OF TORTURE. THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH ABHORRENT PRACTICES, WHICH OFFEND THE CONSCIENCE OF MANKIND AND VIOLATE EVERY MORAL LAW. YET DESPITE THE VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS AND CONVENTIONS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE UNIVERSAL ADHERENCE TO HUMAN RIGHTS, THE TRAGIC FACT IS THAT TORTURE IS WIDELY PRACTICED BY GOVERNMENTS TODAY. ACCORDING TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S RECENT REPORT. TORTURE IN THE EIGHTIES. PRISONERS HAVE BEEN TORTURED OR CRUELLY TREATED IN AT LEAST ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE COUNTRIES WITHIN THE PAST FOUR YEARS. THE METHODS OF TORTURE WHICH AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS. RANGING FROM THE PRIMITIVE TO THE SOPHISTICATED. ARE A TERRIBLE 37-536 0-84--11 REMINDER OF MANKIND'S CAPACITY FOR INHUMANITY AND EVIL. MAGNITUDE. THE FACT THAT TORTURE IS PRACTICED BY SO MANY GOVERNMENTS IN SO MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS NO ONE EXPLANATION TO ACCOUNT FOR ITS PERSISTENCE. SOME REGIMES LACK POPULAR LEGITIMACY, AND RESORT TO TORTURE IN ORDER TO PUNISH AND INTIMIDATE DISSIDENTS. OTHER REGIMES FEEL THEMSELVES UNDER SEIGE BY TERRORISTS, AND REGARD TORTURE AS A MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE. STILL OTHER GOVERNMENTS BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN MINORITIES THE BAHA'I IN IRAN ARE AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE DESERVE TO BE TREATED CRUELLY AND INHUMANELY. IN SHORT. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GENERALIZE ABOUT THE CAUSES OF TORTURE. THERE IS ONE CONCLUSION ABOUT TORTURE, HOWEVER. WHICH CAN BE ADVANCED WITH A GOOD DEAL OF CERTAINTY. GENERALLY SPEAKING. DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS ARE FAR LESS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN TORTURE THAN NON-DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS. THIS IS BECAUSE SUCH INSTITUTIONS AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION, AND FREE ELECTIONS HAVE BUILT RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTO THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT. THUS, ALTHOUGH CASES OF TORTURE CAN AND DO OCCUR IN A DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THESE CASES TO LIGHT AND PUNISH THE CULPRITS. BRINGING TORTURE TO LIGHT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL. FOR AS JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS ONCE OBSERVED. "SUNLIGHT IS THE BEST DISINFECTANT." AMONG NON-GOVERNMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. NONE HAVE BEEN MORE ACTIVE THAN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IN PUBLICIZING CASES OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE. AMNESTY'S RECENT REPORT ON TORTURE IS A CASE IN POINT. WE WELCOME THIS REPORT, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOTH FOR ITS WEALTH OF INFORMATION AND FOR THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS IT CONTAINS. I HAVE ALREADY MET WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. AND I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT ONE OF AMNESTY'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CONCERNING THE NEED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SECRET DETENTION CENTERS, IS ALREADY RECEIVING SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION BY THE DEPARTMENT. WITH ITS REPORT. AMNESTY HAS REPEATED ITS TWELVE-POINT PROGRAM FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE. I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO THREE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT POINTS IN THIS PROGRAM. ال POINT TWO CALLS FOR LIMITS ON INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION, AND POINT THREE OPPOSES SECRET DETENTION. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL HAS MADE A VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION IN CALLING ATTENTION TO THE DANGERS OF INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION AND. ABOVE ALL. OF SECRET DETENTION. THESE PRACTICES GREATLY INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO TORTURE UNDETECTED. AND THUS INCREASE THE CHANCES THAT IT WILL TAKE PLACE. IN CLOSED SOCIETIES WHERE WE HAVE LITTLE PRECISE INFORMATION ON TORTURE. I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD TAKE PROLONGED INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION AND SECRET DETENTION AS RED FLAGS THEY SHOULD ALERT US TO THE VERY REAL LIKELIHOOD THAT TORTURE IS TAKING PLACE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEPARTMENT IS, AS I |