PART I—THE HUMAN RIGHTS FACTOR IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY The human rights factor is not accorded the high priority it deserves in our country's foreign policy. Too often it becomes invisible on the vast foreign policy horizon of political, economic, and military affairs. Proponents of pure power politics too often dismiss it as a factor in diplomacy. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude has led the United States into embracing governments which practice torture and unabashedly violate almost every human rights guarantee pronounced by the world community. Through foreign aid and occasional intervention-both covert and overt-the United States supports those governments. Our relations with the present Governments of South Vietnam, Spain, Portugal, the Soviet Union, Brazil, Indonesia, Greece, the Philippines, and Chile exemplify how we have disregarded human rights for the sake of other assumed interests. Many human rights practices in other countries are not and should not be of material concern to our Government in determining bilateral relations or our policy in international organizations. Moreover, human rights should not be the only factor, or even always the major factor, in foreign policy decision-making. But a higher priority is urgently needed if future American leadership in the world is to mean what it has traditionally meant-encouragement to men and women everywhere who cherish individual freedom. Describing the high example the world expects of the United States, Congressman John Buchanan quoted Chaucer: "If gold doth rust, what will iron do?” 1 Respect for human rights is fundamental to our own national tradition. It is expressed unequivocally in our Constitution. Respect for human rights in other countries is a rightful concern of Americans not because of any assumed mission on our part to impose our own standards on others; rather, it is that not only have many other countries used our Bill of Rights as a model for their constitutions, but international standards have been established by the U.N. Charter and other treaties which obligate governments to uphold most of the same rights which are basic in our own system. Furthermore, an increasingly interdependent world means that disregard for human rights in one country can have repercussions in others. The horrible atrocities of Nazi Germany and the tragic massacre in Bangladesh are examples of how gross violations of human rights precipitated bloody wars. The situations in southern Africa of racism and colonialism have the potential for international conflagration. Thus, consideration for human rights in foreign policy is both morally imperative and practically necessary. 1 Testimony by Representative John Buchanan of Alabama at a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements and the Subcommittee on Africa, Oct. 17, 1973. (9) HUMAN RIGHTS IN FOREIGN POLICY The subcommittee's inquiry into U.S. bilateral policy was limited to situations abroad which represented the most serious violations of human rights, such as massacre, torture, and racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination. The hearings undertook several case studies: massacre in Bangladesh in 1971, massacre in Burundi in 1972; widespread torture in Brazil and Chile; and racial discrimination in southern Africa. In these cases the subcommittee found the response of the U.S. Government to be lacking in view of the magnitude of the violations committed. The State Department too often has taken the position that human rights is a domestic matter and not a relevant factor in determining bilateral relations. When charges of serious violations of human rights do occur, the most that the Department is likely to do is make private inquiries and low-keyed appeals to the government concerned. It is rarely known whether these acts of "quiet diplomacy" have desirable effects. However, the effectiveness of quiet diplomacy would obviously be enhanced were the government concerned to realize that other actions with more serious effects would take place if quiet diplomacy failed to bring results. Such actions could include public condemnation of the violations, raising the matter before an appropriate organ or agency of the United Nations, suspension of military assistance or sales, and suspension of economic assistance. It is essential that a policy of "even handedness" be applied in reviewing the practices of states. We must not impose a higher standard on those countries with whom we have unfriendly or distant relations. Too often we criticize them but remain silent about equally serious violations in friendly countries. As the importance of ideology in international relations continues to wane, our Government should adhere to objective human rights standards-those that have been articulated by the international community. Certainly protection of human rights is often a better measure of the performance of government than is ideology. During the hearings Mrs. Rita Hauser, former U.S. Representative to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, criticized this double standard in U.S. foreign policy as follows: We speak out against violations of countries we are not particularly close to or where we feel we can do so with some measure of safety politically, and we are largely silent, as are other countries, when human rights violations occur on the part of our allies or friendly countries we do not wish to offend. I think myself that has been the fundamental failing in the whole approach to basic violations of human rights. If you assume, as we do, substantive standards by which we can judge countries and their behavior, it seems to me impera 1 Hearings, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, International Protection of Human Rights: The Work of International Organizations and the Role of U.S. Foreign Policy, Sept. 19, 27; Oct. 3, 18; and Dec. 7, 1973. tive that we be objective to the maximum of our ability and judge friendly, neutral and unfriendly countries equally." Mrs. Hauser cited the case of Northern Ireland as an example. She reported that while serving as U.S. Representative to the U.Ñ. Commission on Human Rights, she urged the State Department to take a position against violations in Northern Ireland, but was told that our Government would not take a position offensive to the government involved, the United Kingdom, because of our traditionally friendly relations with it. Traditionally, the United States has not hesitated to criticize violations of human rights in the Soviet Union and other Communist states. Current U.S. policy, however, has made it clear that Soviet violations of human rights will not deter efforts to promote détente with the Soviet Union. Indicative of this policy is a cautious statement made by Secretary of State Kissinger after the expulsion of Nobel Laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn from the Soviet Union: "The necessity for détente-does not reflect approbation of the Soviet domestic structure." Certainly it is in the interest of national security to find areas of cooperation with the Soviet Union. But cooperation must not extend to the point of collaboration in maintaining a police state. U.S. policy, therefore, must be ever mindful of the clear evidence that the Soviet Government is intensifying efforts to perpetuate the closed society as official contacts with the West are widened. Soviet leaders are not insensitive to international pressures on human rights, as can be seen in the commutation of death sentences for the Leningrad hijackers and increased emigration of Soviet Jews, for example. Recommendations 1. The Department of State should treat human rights factors as a regular part of U.S. foreign policy decision-making. It should prepare human rights impact statements for all policies which have significant human rights implications. 2. The Department of State should discourage governments which are committing serious violations of human rights through various measures such as: private consultation with the government concerned; public interventions in U.N. organs and agencies; withdrawal of military assistance and sales; withdrawal of certain economic assistance programs. Normal diplomatic relations with the government concerned should be maintained. 3. The Department of State should respond to human rights practices of nations in an objective manner without regard to whether the government is considered friendly, neutral, or unfriendly. 4. The Department of State should upgrade the consideration given to human rights in determining Soviet-American relations. While pursuing the objectives of détente, the United States should be forthright in denouncing Soviet violations of human rights and should raise the priority of the human rights factor particularly with regard to policy decisions not directly related to national security. 2 Testimony by Mrs. Rita Hauser before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Oct. 9, 1973. ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE The structure of the bureaucracy in the Department of State is not adequate for giving weight to human rights considerations. There is only one officer in the entire Department whose full-time responsibility is human rights. The regional bureaus of the Department usually have the strongest voice in decisions directly affecting bilateral relations. These bureaus have an interest in maintaining-to the fullest extent possible-amiable relations with the governments of the countries in their region and, consequently, are generally not inclined to press human rights issues. The regional bureaus have officers responsible for subjects including politics, labor, economics, and military, but they do not have any human rights officers. A human rights officer in each regional bureau could be responsible for ensuring that the human rights factor would at least be considered and weighed along with other factors whenever decisions are made on bilateral relations. The two bureaus in the Department with specific responsibilities in the human rights field are those of the Legal Adviser and International Organization Affairs. In testimony before the subcommittee, the heads of both these bureaus conceded that the Department was understaffed on human rights. Noting this situation, Acting Legal Adviser George Aldrich stated: One suggestion * * * is to assign to an office within each regional bureau responsibility for the protection of human rights in that region. If this were done, human rights considerations might more easily be seen as legitimate components of the policymaking process, not as external considerations to be avoided in that process.1 During the hearings, the subcommittee devoted considerable attention to a recommendation that there be created a separate Bureau for Human Rights Affairs in the Department of State. Although it still sees some merit in this idea, the subcommittee would prefer that the increase in attention to human rights be accomplished by greater emphasis and staff enlargement within the present organization of the Department. In this way, the human rights factor also might be better integrated with other important functions of the offices concerned. An advisory committee of private citizens with expertise and special interest in human rights could also be helpful to the Department by making suggestions for U.S. policy on international human rights issues. Such a committee outside the bureaucracy could be a source of fresh new initiatives. Other advisory committees with similar functions now exist in the Department. The committee would function under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 1 Testimony before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Sept. 20, 1973. The subcommittee urges the Department of State to act favorably on the organizational recommendations below in the hope that they will be effective. Should strengthening of the existing bureaucratic structure fail to achieve its objective, the subcommittee would be prepared to give further consideration to recommending creation of a new bureau. Recommendations 5. The Department of State should strengthen its organization in the human rights field through: (a) Creation of an Office for Human Rights within the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, with an appropriate increase of staff for these functions; (b) Assignment of an Officer for Human Rights Affairs in each regional bureau of the Department with responsibility for making policy recommendations and comments based on observation and analysis of human rights practices in the countries of the region and their significance in U.S. foreign policy relations with these countries; and (c) Appointment of an Assistant Legal Adviser on Human Rights in the Legal Adviser's Office.2 6. The Department of State should create an Advisory Committee on Human Rights which would advise the Department of State on U.S. policy with respect to international human rights issues. The committee should include selected representatives of nongovernmental organizations, scholars, and others active in the human rights field. 2 The subcommittee is pleased to learn that the Department has appointed an Assistant Legal Adviser on Human Rights. 29-692---74---4 |