Even before the publication of the subcommittee's report, the Department of State had appointed an assistant legal adviser for human rights. Later, Representative Fraser was informed that each of the regional bureaus had designated a human rights officer. The human rights officer in the regional bureaus had existing responsibilities which they would continue to hold after being assigned to the human rights task. (Most of them were labour advisers.) In addition to these changes, the rank of the officer in charge of human rights in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs was upgraded and designated a Deputy Director of the U.N. Political Affairs Office. Also, the International Organizations Bureau assigned another officer to handle human rights matters.

These changes would not necessarily ensure that human rights factors were given adequate consideration in the policymaking process. None of the human rights officers mentioned above are at the senior level positions where policy is frequently made. Consequently, on July 10, Representative Fraser wrote to Deputy Secretary Robert Ingersoll suggesting that he assume responsibility for overseeing the consideration given to human rights in foreign policy, and that he assign a special assistant in his office to handle that assignment. The letter suggested:

. the Department should have someone at the policymaking level who would ensure that human rights factors are given reasonable consideration. A special assistant on human rights in the Deputy Secretary's office would fulfill that role. It would be his responsibility to ensure that when decisions are being made with significant human rights implications, the appropriate human rights officers in the regional bureau, the Legal Adviser's Office and the International Organizations Bureau would participate in the making of those decisions. Human rights has not traditionally been considered an element in the decision-making process. Consequently, it is particularly necessary to have someone with overall responsibility who could oversee developments in human rights and decisionmaking in this area."

RESPONSE TO FRASER

Fraser's suggestion was propitiously timed. As indicated earlier, Ingersoll had already become involved in human rights through questioning by Representative Fraser during the foreign assistance hearings regarding Korea and section 32. Upon becoming Deputy Secretary, Ingersoll was given responsibility for overseeing the implementation of section 32 and the attention given to human rights generally in foreign policy. Consequently, it was natural that Secretary Ingersoll decided to have an officer in his office responsible for human rights, and he so advised Representative Fraser:

"I plan to have an officer in my own office who can advise me regarding overall progress in these matters (human rights in foreign policy) and ensure full consideration of human rights factors in decision making. For the present, I have asked the Acting Legal Adviser to help me in this way. I appreciate your interest and assure you that I will continue to give my personal attention to the development of the most effective staffing we can devise." "

On April 18, 1975, Secretary Ingersoll wrote to Representative Fraser informing him that James Wilson had been appointed Co-ordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, Secretary Ingersoll stated that the new position was:

66

expressly created to bring a clear focus on human rights issues to activities throughout the Department, and to assure attention at the highest level, as these issues deserve.

"Mr. Wilson will be charged with coordinating the efforts of all the existing officers within the Department engaged in work which is directed toward, or impinges upon, human rights and humanitarian affairs.

"In short, I am instituting centralized direction of the Department's efforts on human rights, refugees, humanitarian assistance, prisoners of war and with the Red Cross, other voluntary agencies and such related institutions.

"I would like to stress that our objective in creating this new position, and appointing Mr. Wilson to fill it, is to expand and upgrade the time and attention devoted to human rights considerations in the work of the Department of State. In so doing, we intend to consult with you and your colleagues in Congress, a task to which Mr. Wilson will be devoting special effort." 10

Letter from Robert S. Ingersoll, Deputy Secretary of State, to Congressman Donald M. Fraser, dated Aug. 14, 1974.

10 Letter from Deputy Secretary Ingersoll to Congressman Fraser, dated Apr. 18, 1975.

OFFICE OF COORDINATOR

II. The Office of Coordinator under the Carter Administration

With the strong commitment of the new administration to greater priority to human rights in U.S. foreign policy, the Office of Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs has naturally taken on more significance. Under theprevious administration the office served the "coordination" function in the strictly defined manner. It did not serve as an advocate for human rights, and conse-quently had relatively minor significance in terms of shaping U.S. foreign policy. Under President Carter, the Office has taken an active role in shaping the new emphasis on human rights by the administration and the Department. Ms. Patricia Derian, the Coordinator, has been active in the Democratic Party and was an early supporter of Governor Carter for the Democratic nomination. In view of her political ties to the President, she has been in a position to assert greater responsibility for policymaking than her predecessor. Her position is equated with that of Assistant Secretary of State which entitles her to participate in the senior level meetings of the Department. She has been publicly outspoken in support of a strong human rights commitment for U.S. policy. Her Deputy for Human Rights, Mark Schneider, formerly an aide to Senator Edward Kennedy, is equally committed. As both are non-career officers in the Department, they bring an independence which often-times the Foreign Service officer is not able to provide. APPENDIX

Text of Subsection (f) of Sec. 624 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended:

"(b) Section 624 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection.

"(f) (1) There is established in the Department of State a Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. The Coordinator shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. He shall be responsible to the Secretary of State for matters pertaining to human rights and humanitarian affairs (including matters relating to refugees, prisoners of war, and members of the United States Armed Forces missing in action) in the conduct of foreign policy. The Secretary of State shall carry out his responsibility under section 502B of this Act through the Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

"(2) The Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs shall maintain continuous observation and review of all matters pertaining to human rights and humanitarian affairs (including matters relating to refugees, prisoners of war, and members of the United States Armed Forces missing in action) in the conduct of foreign policy including

"(A) gathering detailed information regarding humanitarian affairs and the observance of and respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country to which requirements of sections 116 and 502B of this Act are relevant;

"(B) preparing the statements and reports to Congress required under section 502B of this Act;

"(C) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Agency for International Development regarding compliance with sections 116 and 502B of this Act; and

"(D) performing other responsibilities which serve to promote increased observance of internationally recognised human rights by all countries."

PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT ON ACTIVITIES OF CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

I. Introduction

(Paper by EP Delegation)

This document contains information concerning recent activities of certain organizations, in particular the European Community Institutions, on human rights questions. It is intended to contain a selection of the major items and may be extended to include details of other organizations not mentioned here. II. Activities of European Community Institutions on Human Rights

On 5 April 1977 the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission signed a Joint Declaration on upholding human rights, stressing the "prime importance these institutions attached to the protection of fundamental rights as derived in particular from the constitutions of the Member States, and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". The Declaration continues by stating "in the exercise of their powers and in pursuance of the aims of the European Communities these institutions respect and will continue to respect these rights".

The European Parliament has debated Human Rights issues on a number of occasions, and the Political Affairs and Legal Affairs Committees are regularly seized with issues concerning human rights, both within the European Community and in other countries of the world. Recent debates in the European Parliament included:

-a debate on Protection of Human Rights throughout the world, and in Europe, and the adoption of a resolution (11 May 1977);

-a debate on the oral question (Doc. 544/76) on repeated violation of human rights in Uruguay (February 1977) ;

-a debate on Mr. Jozeau Marginé's report (Doc. 557/76) on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee on the draft joint declaration on the protection of fundamental human rights (February 1977);

-the adoption of a resolution (OJ C259 of 4.11.1976) concerning the violation of human rights situation in Chile (October 1976);

-a debate on Mr. Jozeau Marginé's report on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee on the report of the Commission on the Protection of Fundamental Rights (Doc. 321/76), and the adoption of the resolution (October 1976);

-a debate on the oral question (Doc. 190/76) and the adoption of a resolution (Doc. 229/76) on violations of human rights in Argentina (July 1976); --a debate and the adoption of a resolution (Doc. 228/76) on the ill treatment of Valdimir Bukovsky in July 1976;

Oral and written questions have been submitted on the Council and the Commission on resolutions with certain countries in view of the human rights situation in them. Amongst the countries concerned are Uganda, Angola, Iran, and most recently Greece.

Other debates on issues such as the Helsinki CSCE and the forthcoming Belgrade Conference have also touched on human rights.

The Directorate General of Research and Documentation is in the course of preparing in response to a request by the Legal Affairs Committee certain documents on human rights, in particular a review of the constitutions of the Member States, and of other relevant sources, to isolate fundamental rights which are guaranteed by the Member States. The review includes comparisons of certain fundamental rights in Member States.

The European Parliament will also be represented at the Conference of Presidents of European Parliaments (i.e., parliaments of the Member States of the Council of Europe) which is due to take place in Vienna in June 1977. The agenda of this Conference includes a discussion on human rights.

Human rights issues have also been discussed in the context of meetings between Delegations from the European Parliament and from other parliaments, in particular from the U.S. Congress, from the Parliament of Canada, and from the Latin American Parliament. Meetings with the U.S. Congress and with the Latin American Congress in July 1977 will include discussions of human rights issues.

III. Activities of the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is intimately concerned with the protection of human rights in its Member States, particularly in view of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols. Document H (76) 16 of the Council of Europe contains a detailed review of its activities in the field of human rights in 1976. This review itemises the activities of the European Commission on Human Rights, the European Court on Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It also describes the present situation concerning the Protection of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of the European Social Charter.

The Council of Europe has prepared an extensive bibliography relating to the European Convention on Human Rights H (73)13 and further bibliographical notes, most recently one on documents relating to the European Convention on Human Rights (20 February 1976 H (76)2).

IV. Activities of the United Nations

The United Nations has been concerned with human rights since its inception. On 10 December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The General Assembly holds periodic discussions on human rights issues and certain associated organizations are particularly involved in the question. These include the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council, the Sub-Commission on discrimination and the protection of minorities, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, UNESCO, and the International Court of Justice.

In 1976 two covenants entered into force, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with its Optional Protocol. These covenants require countries ratifying them to recognize and protect a wide range of human rights. The United Nations has published a wide range of documents on human rights.

V. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

The "Final Act" of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe contains clauses in the main body of the text supporting the protection of human rights, in particular through the recognition of responsibilities under the United Nations Declaration and of the other International Covenants. "Basket 3" of this Final Act is concerned with the free movement of persons and of information, aspects which are covered in these international covenants and in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Progress following the Final Act is to be assessed at the forthcoming Belgrade Conference in June and October 1977.

Monday, July 11, 1977, Afternoon

SUMMARY

B. WORKING GROUP ON NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

(Papers by Mr. Fithian and Mr. Scott-Hopkins)1

Mr. Fithian, introducing his paper said he was deeply worried by the lack of safeguards at world level against the spread of nuclear facilities which could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He spoke about the problems of energy demand and supply and why nations might wish to acquire nuclear reprocessing facilities.

He also expressed his fears about the spread of terrorism and the possible attraction which the nuclear industry might have for extraconstitutional groups.

He believed that the development of what he referred to as the "plutonium society" could lead to much greater risks for humanity, as knowledge of nuclear technology was now relatively widely available.

In reply to a question from Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Fithian said that plutonium could easily be carried without adverse effects, though it could cause cancer and death through inhalation of dust.

Mr. Fithian discussed the question of radioactive waste removal and storage, and the problem of fast breeder reactors which generate more plutonium than they consume. He enumerated areas in which he was in agreement with Mr. Scott-Hopkins' paper, namely on:

(i) the need for further controls on the spread of nuclear

weapons;

(ii) the need to develop nonproliferation technology (for instance, plutonium might be stored in a "dirty" form so that though still suitable for use in a reactor, it could not easily be transported); and

(iii) the difficulty of restricting the availability of nuclear fuels to nations short of energy resources.

NUCLEAR OPTIONS LISTED

Mr. Fithian next elaborated on other options mentioned in his paper, particularly the possibility of regional nuclear fuel repositories and his idea of leasing nuclear fuels so as to restrict the spread of reprocessing plants. He mentioned arguments in favor of the internationalization of certain aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and referred to the possibility of an international security force or a strengthened International Atomic Energy Agency or Euratom inspectorate. He believed that the Non-Proliferation Treaty should be strengthened and advocated a moratorium on the spread of reprocessing and enrichment plants.

1 See p. 47.