Appendix: Statement of Hon. Claire Boothe Luce- Prepared statement of Herman Feshbach, the American Physical Soci- Prepared statement of the American Jewish Congress, New York, N. Y Letter to Senator Percy from the Mexican-American Legal Defense Page 521 522 525 527 530 Letter to Senator Percy from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 531 Appointment of Assistant Secretary Lefever Hit-reprinted from Translation of excerpts of article from "De Waarheid" February 21, Prepared statement of the Board of Church and Society, United Prepared statement of the International Human Rights Law Group. An appointment to mock human rights—reprinted from the Boston Letter to Senator Percy from Edward S. Herman, the Wharton School 575 Letter to Senator Pell from Jerome J. Shestack, dated May 18, 1981, 576 NOMINATION OF ERNEST LEFEVER MONDAY, MAY 18, 1981 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1202, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles H. Percy (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Percy, Helms, Hayakawa, Lugar, Boschwitz, Pell, Sarbanes, Zorinsky, Tsongas, Cranston, and Dodd. The CHAIRMAN. This morning the Committee on Foreign Relations will begin consideration of the nomination of Ernest W. Lefever to be Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. The position of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights was created in 1977 and carries with it as principal functions, first, the coordination of a wide range of humanitarian interests within the Department of State, with a special focus on human rights in foreign policy decisionmaking; second, advising the Secretary of State on overall progress in human rights matters, and bringing a clear focus on human rights issues to activities throughout the Department, assuring attention at the higher levels; and third, coordinating the efforts of all existing offices within the Department engaged in work where it is directed toward or impinges upon human rights and humanitarian affairs. The Assistant Secretary is, in addition, directly responsible to the Secretary. Dr. Lefever brings to this hearing a long record of academic achievement and involvement in religious affairs. He received a bachelor of divinity degree and Ph. D. in Christian ethics from Yale University. The first 3 years after World War II he was a field secretary for the World Alliance of YMCA's in Europe working among German prisoners of war. He also worked as an international specialist for the National Council of Churches. Dr. Lefever has been a professorial lecturer at Georgetown University and for 12 years was associated with the Brookings Institution where he focused on U.S. foreign and military policy toward the Third World. In 1976 Dr. Lefever founded the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a nonprofit educational corporation which he has headed since that time. Recently Judge Thomas Buergenthal, dean of the American University Law School, and a noted expert on human rights and international law, spoke about human rights and the U.S. national interest. Judge Buergenthal said, (1) In today's world, ideology is as much a weapon as is sophisticated weaponry. A sound human rights policy provides the United States with an ideology that distinguishes us most clearly from the Soviet Union and seriously undercuts the ideological appeal of Communism. It is the only ideology, the only dream. if you will, that the people of the United States share with the majority of people of the Second and Third Worlds. The search for sound human rights policy is the key to this nomination hearing, for as Judge Buergenthal so rightly noted, the quest for human dignity is what fundamentally binds our people to millions, yes, billions, who are less fortunate. My own belief is that a clearly enunciated and effectively implemented human rights policy is an essential element in our struggle against totalitarian concepts. This implies that the United States must have a human rights policy which is accepted by the American people, is understood throughout the world, and is carried out in a manner consistent with other foreign policy objectives. I look forward to hearing Dr. Lefever's views on how the United States can best achieve an effective human rights policy. I am especially interested in learning how Dr. Lefever would work, if confirmed, to win the support of our allies, and make clear to our adversaries that what distinguishes us from them in the eyes of the world is our unflagging respect for the sanctity of the individual. I will also look to Dr. Lefever for his analysis of the Carter administration's human rights policy, its successes and its failures, and look to him for the philosophy and the practice he would develop on behalf of the Reagan administration, how he would go about the conduct of his office if confirmed. Finally, I would like to indicate, as Dr. Lefever knows, that the Chair is uncommitted but has an open mind on this nomination. I will want to give Dr. Lefever every opportunity to make his views known to the committee. This is an important post that demands the talents of an individual who is sensitive to human rights abuses and who will work effectively to correct such abuses whenever and wherever they may occur. We are pleased to have with us today a distinguished and valued member of this committee, Senator Hayakawa, to present Dr. Lefever to the committee. But first, I would like to turn to other committee members, starting with our ranking minority member, Senator Pell, for any comments that he would like to make. Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr Chairman. The nomination of Dr. Lefever to be Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs is clearly as controversial a nomination as our committee has received from this administration. Dr. Lefever is an outspoken critic of the human rights policies carried out by the Carter administration. Three years ago in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee he advocated removing all human rights legislation from the statute books. Although I understand he has reversed himself on that position, the question remains as to what Dr. Lefever's views are on the role of human rights advocacy in our foreign policy. Does he stand essentially for a change in style, relving more on quiet diplomacy than was the case under the Carter administration, or does he believe that human rights, whether pursued quietly or loudly, should not figure prominently in our foreign policy? Will he be concerned about human rights violations only in Communist countries, or will he be just as concerned about blowing the whistle on abuses committed by right wing dictatorships? These are some of the questions that ought to be answered clearly during the course of these hearings. I must add here that I am very impressed by the exemplary personal life that Dr. Lefever has led. His attachment to religious values and willingness to help other human beings as individuals are well documented. But this committee is not charged with determining whether Dr. Lefever is a good person-and he clearly is rather, we must decide whether he is competent to hold the job for which he has been nominated, and to judge whether his views on human rights are compatible with the responsibilities of the top human rights position in the State Department. I know in preparation for these hearings I have had the opportunity to read some of Dr. Lefever's writing, and I must say I think there is a good deal of merit to his thought that there is a difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian government. Totalitarian governments do not hold out promising prospects for democratic development while authoritarian ones are more likely to become democracies as we have seen in the case of Portugal. I also think that there is a good deal of merit in the idea of quiet diplomacy. I think quiet diplomacy can help relieve the personal sufferings and the torture being inflicted on particular individuals. On the other hand, I know I have just come back from a trip to Latin America, and I can't say the number of people who came up to me saying "thank God for Carter's human rights policies" because they had an effect, and had an inhibiting effect on the governments in that part of the world. My own view is perhaps there is room for both quiet diplomacy and public statements. The real trouble, I think, with this nomination is the symbolism that it has acquired, and I believe that from the viewpoint of symbolism, the message to the world will be or could be that this nomination means that the United States has slackened its interest in human rights around the world. I think it will appear to be as if one was putting to use the old phrase, the fox in the chicken coop to put Dr. Lefever in this particular job. Any other job, fine, but this particular job with his controversial views on human rights can be taken as being an indication that the United States is retreating from its traditional interest in human rights. Maybe this is the new policy of the administration. Maybe this symbolism is incorrect. I do not have a view at this time. I honestly do not know how I will vote. I look forward to listening to the testimony as attentively as I can, and wish Dr. Lefever good luck. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Pell, very much. Senator Boschwitz, do you have an opening comment? Senator BOSCHWITZ. No, Mr. Chairman. I share many of the ranking minority member's thoughts, but I have no opening comment. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tsongas? |