the friend of governments? What about the thousands of individuals, ordinary citizens who are struggling against repressive governments each day? Are their cries to be totally ignored in favor of the corporate and geopolitical interests in this country? Our caucus says no. If we choose to aline ourselves only with the powerful because of short term expediency, we will reap the whirlwind of resistance and revolutionary movements who will eventually gain freedom for the oppressed. Dr. Lefever would only lead us in a retreat in the struggle for human rights, a retreat this country can ill-afford. It is surprising to me, as a theologian myself, that Dr. Lefever, who also admits to being a theologian, remains unable to see that his own views are in direct contradiction to scriptural teaching. The words of the Prophet Jeremiah are illustrative of my point: Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor. But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by my self, saith the Lord, that this house shall become a desolation. I urge this committee, Mr. Chairman, to avoid a desolation in our human rights policy. Do not confirm Ernest Lefever as the Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to express appreciation to each of our colleagues from the Congress in taking the time to be with us this morning. We very much appreciate it as a committee. Because we have very limited time today with four panels, I suggest that we try to confine ourselves to 5 minutes or less in questioning. I have just one question for Senator Tower and Congressman Hyde. Do you agree with Dr. Lefever that the United States can have very limited influence on human rights practices in other countries? Senator Tower? Mr. HYDE. The Senator has vielded to me. I don't think that is so. I think we can have great influence on the human rights practices in other countries, depending on the country. I think if it is a country that is allied with us or has similar goals and purposes, if we have trade with them, I think all of these things are very important. But some countries, no matter how much we try, we are not going to influence. But I might just respond on the question of linkage. I remember my good friend Mr. Harkin testifying before one of my subcommittees that we ought to extend greater facility for trading with China, the People's Republic of China, and grain with the Soviet Union. There is no linkage involved when it comes to exporting Iowa grain to Communist countries. Then linkage becomes a lost word. But I just wanted to make that comment. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Tower. Senator TOWER. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, I believe that through quiet diplomacy and whatever pressures we may apply through that channel we can have an impact. I don't think that we can through rhetoric, statute, even international accords or economic sanctions. The Helsinki Accords have been mentioned, but the Helsinki Accords actually have done nothing to promote a respect for civil liberties in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. As a matter of fact, if anything the situation has deteriorated since the Helsinki Accords. The Soviets, of course, eagerly accept the fact that the Helsinki Accords legitimize their hegemony over Eastern Europe, but have not accepted that basket in those accords which promotes or is designed to promote a respect for individual liberty and freedom of choice and freedom from oppression. The only thing in my view that has stayed the Soviets' hand in Poland has been the fear of the political price that they would have to pay in Western Europe and in the Third World, not the Helsinki Accords, not any declarations by political leaders, not any statutes on the books of the United States of America. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tower. Senator Pell. Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Bonker, you suggested that we ask Dr. Lefever if he had ever advised at any time that the U.S. vote against extending the Working Group on Disappearances in Geneva. I did ask Dr. Lefever that very same question yesterday, and he said he did not offer such advice, had not offered such advice, even in the contingency that consensus could not be reached. Do you have any reason to believe that that is not so? Mr. BONKER. When I was in Geneva, Senator Pell, we attempted to track the source of instructions that led to the U.S. position. I can only say it was rather confusing. We didn't know whether the instructions came from the U.N. Office of the Ambassador or whether it came from the State Department. I rather imagine that the U.S. Ambassador to Geneva played a moderating role in trying to persuade the Argentine delegation to accept and support the consensus resolution, because if Argentina didn't, the United States would be voting, it would be very awkward, would be voting with the Argentines. But I have nothing that would lead me to believe that those instructions came from Dr. Lefever. I doubt very much whether he was in a prominent position to influence those decisions at the time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. I have no questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tsongas. Senator TSONGAS. I would make just two quick points. Mr. Chairman, last night I also was at the dinner with Mr. Timerman, and I was pained during that dinner that the rest of the committee could not have been there. It was one of the more remarkable experiences of my life. Senator PELL. I was. Senator TSONGAS. Senator Pell was there, and I am sure he would agree that you don't walk away from that kind of meeting the same person. I just make two points that Mr. Timerman made. I did not ask him permission to say this, and I do it with some hesitance, but two things stuck in my mind beyond the personal experiences that he had. The man has a remarkable intellect. He has more than personal physical courage, but his mind has an enormous capacity to project. Two things were said that bear repeating. We were discussing the problems with a Human Rights Secretary who only speaks out against Soviet bloc violations and is willing to live with those of our so-called allies friends and neutrals. Mr. Timerman said that what you end up with then is an Assistant Secretary of State for Soviet insults. I think that was a rather compelling view of what the selective approach would mean; human rights would be thrown out the window, and we would have an assistant secretary whose job was to issue press releases condemning our enemies. The second point he made was that human rights is not a fringe issue, but an ideology that could be remarkably effective in competing with that of our adversaries. Mr. Timerman believes that one of the reasons that we have had the troubles we have had is that the West has not for a long time come up with ideas to compete with those of our adversaries, but that human rights is a remarkable powerful instrument and an ideology, which could have a very devastating effect on the ideologies of our adversaries. But if the West were to voluntarily abandon or reduce its support for human rights, that would only play into the hands of our adversaries. Senator PELL [presiding]. Senator Cranston. Senator CRANSTON, I have no questions. Senator PELL. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. I have no questions. Senator PELL. Mr. Chairman, the Senators have finished their questions. The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you very much, indeed. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Harkin. Mr. HARKIN. I would like to make one final statement. Mr. Hyde used my name. I was talking about the linkage in the Helsinki agreements. Senator Tower referred to that also. I believe this is where we speak on parallel paths and never quite meet. The Helsinki agreement, of course, was based on linkage, the third basket to the border issue. Bevond that, when people say that the Helsinki Accords have not really influenced the governments so much behind the Iron Curtain, I would say that that is approaching it perhaps from the wrong end. What it has done is given the people of those countries behind the Iron Curtain something to stand on. There hasn't been one dissident, one refusenik from the Soviet Union that I have talked to that didn't mention the one thing they always could hold up at every meeting was a copy of the Helsinki Accords, and it has put the Soviet Union on notice in each one of those countries, and even in Poland, and I submit to you that the people in Poland understand what those Helsinki Accords mean, and that is the way it ought to be looked at. Senator TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, might I pursue that? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tsongas. Senator TSONGAS. Last night Mr. Timerman asked us to imagine ourselves in a Soviet prison with a Soviet guard saying to a dissident. that the United States talks about concern for you, concern about antiSemitism in the Soviet Union. But they have said nothing about antiSemitism in Argentina. Mr. Timerman's point was that of the confidence of that prisoner in what the United States stands for would quickly erode and vanish. The impact of U.S. human rights policy on the individual in that prison would be negligible if the United States was perceived to engage in selective morality and that, in turn, would diminish human rights as an ideology. That particular scenario would be a powerful argument for the Soviets to use, and the tragedy would be that we gave it to them by stepping back from our support for human rights everywhere. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Did you want to put something in the record? Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask consent, if I might insert with my comments a letter from Mihajlo Mihajlov. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that will be incorporated in the record. Mr. HARKIN. And also a letter signed by, I believe, 37 of my other colleagues to you dated February 27, 1981. The CHAIRMAN. It will be incorporated. [The letters referred to follow:] THE DEMOCRACY INTERNATIONAL, DISSIDENTS IN YUGOSLAVIA, Hon. CHARLES H. PERCY, DEAR SENATOR PERCY: AS Chairman of the Board of Democracy International and Co-chairman of The Committee to Aid Democratic Dissidents in Yugoslavia. there has been so much said and written by American and International human rights organizations and others whom I respect concerning the nomination of Dr. Ernest Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs that I have trouble knowing exactly what to think. Despite all I have seen, Mr. Lefever may well be a prudent and strong supporter of the cause of human liberty world wide. I do not know. What I do know, however, is that such an office must be directed by a person who is a prudent and strong supporter of liberty and international human rights. To do otherwise would be a terrible mistake. In the present day political and ideological struggles between democracy and totalitarianism, the question of human rights is the most powerful weapon of the free world and much more dangerous to all totalitarian states than any types of arms and bombs. It is absolutely correct to make one level of violation of Human Rights in both Right Totalitarian and Left Totalitarian states. And of course this violation is much worse in totalitarian systems. But, it will be a terrible mistake for the foreign policy of the United States to forget that unconditional support of right-wing dictatorships, in spite of the violation of human rights can only help communist totalitarian movements. As I wrote recently in The New Leader the "right wing dictatorships are in fact fifth column of Communist totalitarianism." Democracy cannot be protected by the limitation of freedom. As I said, I do not know whether one should support Mr. Lefever or not. I do know that, today, America must support a fair and even-handed human rights policy or be seen as weak and even hypocritical. That is the test I hope you can put to Mr. Lefever for us. Thank you. Sincerely yours, MIHAJLO MIHAJLOV. Hon. SENATOR CHARLES PERCY, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., February 27, 1981. Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: You will soon be holding confirmation hearings on Mr. Ernest Lefever's appointment as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. We have serious reservations about this appointment and request that the following points be considered during your examination of Mr. Lefever's qualifications. First and foremost, as Members of Congress who have endeavored over the past several years to incorporate human rights in U.S. foreign policy, we are concerned over Mr. Lefever's outspoken antipathy toward a human rights policy, particularly one embodied in law. In 1979, Mr. Lefever testified before the House International Operations Subcommittee, stating: "In my view, the United States should remove from the statute books all clauses that establish a human rights standard or conditon that must be met by another sovereign government before our government transacts business with it *** It should not be necessary for any friendly state to 'pass' a human rights 'test' before we extend normal trade relations, sell arms, or provide economic or security assistance." It is difficult for us to believe that a man with such an attitude would faithfully monitor and implement current human rights law, let alone serve as advocate in Administration policy decisions. Second, we in Congress have found the religious community of the United States to be an important and reliable source of information on human rights conditions abroad. The Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Office is appropriately perceived as the office which maintains close liaison with non-governmental organizations capable of documenting human rights violations. Mr. Lefever has often denounced the U.S. religious community, most notably the National Council of Churches, as Marxist, communist sympathizers and as an agency which abets terrorism. Such remarks can only lead to an antagonistic relationship which impairs the effectiveness of the office. Third, there have been numerous allegations that Mr. Lefever has a financial relationship with the government of South Africa. If this should prove to be true, then Mr. Lefever faces a serious conflict-of-interest in his appointment. We would be grateful, Mr. Chairman, if you would investigate these charges and set the record clear, once and for all. We urge you to ask for specific financial records from Georgetown University relating to this matter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom Harkins, Pat Schroeder, Harold Ford, Ron Dellums, Mike The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, thank you all very much. I would suggest because of the crowded room, it may be easier for you to come right up behind the desk here and go out through the room in back of us. The Chair will call the next panel, Charles Burton Marshall, Michael Novak, Robert Gessert, Prof. Louis Henkin, the Honorable Don Fraser, mayor of Minneapolis, and Marvin Frankel. Gentlemen, we welcome you very much indeed. In accordance with the arrangements made with you, if you would be good enough to summarize your statements and limit your oral comments to 5 minutes, that would enable us to maximize our time |