own societies by their own means. Third, it should use traditional and effective means of quiet diplomacy to urge either allies or adversaries to correct their own human rights violations.

These emphases seem to me to be eminently sound and positive as a framework for a credible and effective human rights policy. But this Committee and the Congress may want and expect more and has so indicated by certain congressionally mandated requirements. I, of course, have no power to commit Dr. Lefever, but my judgment is that it and the United States will get more from confirmation of Dr. Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.

Dr. Lefever is known for his tough-minded realism, his factual knowledge. his tireless work. Beyond that and integrating that, he is a dedicated public servant who has always applied sensitive and discriminating ethical criteria to policy formation and has responded to constructive criticism and correctiveness of his peers and colleagues as well as to human events and social change. In virtually all matters of state where issues of applying public remedies to problems of injustice are involved, Dr. Lefever has typically asked three types of questions. These are: first, is the cause or end sought just? Second, are the means available for pursuing the cause or achieving the end just? In particular, are they discriminating and proportional (i.e.. fitting) to the end sought and not in violation of other ends or values? Finally, are the means contemplated likely to succeed in achieving the ends sought and to do so without causing more harm than good?

Although such questions derive from classical just war doctrine, they are pertinent to other matters of state, as Dr. Lefever has himself illustrated in an exceedingly thoughtful essay on "The CIA and American Intelligence," which appeared in the Lugarno Review in 1975.

My firm conviction is that Dr. Lefever's commitment to human rights, his realism and his own ethical analysis of policy in the mode suggested above will lead him to formulate imaginative and positive ways to make U.S. foreign policy more supportive to human rights around the globe. I am confident he will fill this post with humaneness as well as distinction.

ATTACHMENT 1

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 27, 1981.

Senator CHARLES PERCY,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PERCY: I have known Dr. Ernest W. Lefever for almost twentyeight years as a friend and colleague in Christian social ethics.

My association with Dr. Lefever dates back to the time he was on the staff of the Division of International Justice and Good Will of the National Council of Churches in New York City and a member of the Executive Council of an organization called Christian Action, which I served as Executive Secretary in 1953 and 1954. From 1961 to 1964, we served together as staff members of the International Studies Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses, working on issues of arms control. On several subsequent occasions he asked me to serve as an adviser or consultant to various projects he conducted for the Brookings Institution, Battelle Memorial Laboratories, and the Institute for American Strategy. In addition, Dr. Lefever and I have been in frequent contact in professional associations such as the American Society for Christian Ethics, the Society for Values in Higher Education, the Council on Religion and International Affairs, the Council on Christian Approaches to Defense and Disarmament, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

During all the time I have known Dr. Lefever. I have found him to be a man of high personal integrity and deep devotion to principles of Christian social ethics as seen through a tradition shaned primarily by Reinhold Niebuhr. Although be has not previously held a position in the U.S. Government, the has been a public servant in all essential respects, devoting his tough scholarship and his tireless energy to public issues, particularly in the foreign policy area, and bringing the insights of his Christian faith and ethics to analyses of these issues.

Dr. Lefever and I have always agreed on our analyses of public issues, but I have always found his analyses to be fully informed, rich in insight into political

relationships, sensitive to human aspirations and rights, and guided by consistent principles of justice and order. Where he and I have disagreed, I have found our differences to be in nuances and in degree more than in kind. Where others have seen significant change in Dr. Lefever's political and ethical positions over the years, I have seen admirable and well-founded consistency combined with adaptability to signficantly changed circumstances, including the regrettable polarization of public debate about foreign policy in general and human rights in particular that has taken place over the past decade or so.

I am confident that you intend to give Dr. Lefever's nomination as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights the fairest possible hearing. It may help you to know that I strongly support this nomination as a life-long registered Democrat as well as an associate of Dr. Lefever's in an unconventional Christian ministry that includes a shared dedication to civil and human rights and to international justice and order. If I may be of further help, please do not hesitate to contact me at the General Research Corporation (893-5900) in McLean, Virginia or at my home (244-7576) in the District.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT A. GESSERT.

ATTACHMENT 2

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 9, 1981.

Senator CHARLES PERCY,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PERCY: Pursuant to my letter of 27 March 1981 (Enclosure 1) concerning the nomination of Dr. Ernest W. Lefever to be Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rrights, and in view of published articles opposing his nomination by, among others, Jack Anderson, I hereby request an opportunity to testify on behalf of Dr. Lefever's nomination when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee formally considers it.

I understand that hearings will be conducted sometime toward the end of this month or in early May. With the exception of May 4-6, when I am scheduled to be in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I will be prepared to testify on twenty-four hours notice. So that you will know something of my own background as a potential witness, I have enclosed a copy of my professional resume (Enclosure 2). Most sincerely yours,

ROBERT A. GESSERT.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gessert. Mr. Marvin Frankel, our final witness in this panel, chairman of the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights in New York. STATEMENT OF MARVIN E. FRANKEL, CHAIRMAN, LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS. NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS, ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Mr. FRANKEL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

As you said. I chair the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights. I also chair the Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. I appear here on behalf of both those committees in an extraordinary action, perhaps unprecedented. in opposition to a Presidential nomination, a position that we take after the gravest kind of deliberation, and only as a result of what we deem the most compelling considerations calling for the rejection of this appointment, despite our sharing the views that have been expressed here as to Dr. Lefever's patriotism. intelligence, and probable qualifications for other posts, perhaps other posts in the State Department.

I will attempt to be brief, and I will say that our committee, as reflected in a statement I have filed with this committee, share the views that have been expressed by others, by Mayor Fraser, by Professor Henkin, and I will not repeat the things that they have said.

I do wish to underscore one point that has also been touched, but that seems to us to be a matter of capital importance, and that is the recorded position of Dr. Lefever expressing what has been referred to repeatedly as a kind of double standard in the enforcement of international human rights, a double standard that Dr. Lefever has expressed over and over again in various ways, sometimes in a most regrettable fashion as in his reference concerning Latin America to what he chose to describe as, and I am quoting, "the normal level of police abuse," I quote again, which he describes as "a residual practice of the Iberian tradition." One may doubt that those who know about and care about the Iberian tradition would feel comforted by that expression as a reason for looking the other way when abuses occur in Hispanic countries while we press hard against abuses in Communist countries, which pressures Dr. Lefever seems to treat as worthy and important, and which presumably he would continue as they are being continued right now in the Madrid Review under this administration as under the last, under the Helsinki Charter.

It is our position that that is a profound and seriously injurious mistake, and that it alone would be disqualifying for the office to which Dr. Lefever has been named.

It is our position that the kidnaping and murder of dissidents in Uruguay has to be no less reprehensible to us in the United States than the inhumanities practiced against dissidents in the U.S.S.R., that torture and lawless imprisonment of an Argentine Jew because he is a Jew is an atrocity equal in our view to similar treatment of a Russian Jew. And Congress has so decreed in the statute that declares our policy to press for observance of fundamental human rights "by all countries." It won't do, in our respectful view, to say that we will denounce Soviet brutalities with public declarations while we use quiet and unobserved diplomacy in dealing with equally harsh brutalities elsewhere. That sort of distinction, visible to everyone, would brand us before the world as a nation of hypocrites, and deprive us of what we rightfully claim, of an effective role of leadership for international human rights.

I have included in my statement a personal observation, not by any means because my own activities in this field have been major or important, but because it is illustrative of a position. I also have the privilege to chair the National Lawyers Committee of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry. In connection with the concerns of the Conference on Soviet Jewry, I went on a visit some years ago to the Soviet Union to press there the concerns of Jewish and other dissidents, of refuseniks, and to argue and plead with Soviet officials against their oppressive treatment of the human rights of their citizens.

More recently I joined another mission, a mission of the Association of the Bar of the city of New York on a trip to Argentina to inquire into the course of kidnaping and killings of Argentine citizens suspected, correctly or not, of being at odds with the military junta ruling that troubled country. What I am saying and emphasizing here is that in our view it is in no way consistent with American ideals to say that

the Argentine Government's murders are less atrocious than those in the U.S.S.R., that we should wink at one while denouncing the other.

Dr. Lefever's record of that kind of untenable distinction has been made repeatedly, and in our view is indelible in the sense that he symbolizes something wrong and mistaken in connection with international human rights, and therefore, with whatever regret, we very respectfully but very earnestly urge that his nomination not be approved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Frankel's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARVIN E. FRANKEL

My name is Marvin E. Frankel. I am a practicing lawyer in New York City and a former Federal District Court Judge. I am appearing here today on behalf of two committees of which I serve as Chairman, the Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights. I am also the Chairman of the National Lawyers Committee of the National Conference on Soviet Jewry and have devoted considerable time and attention to the human rights struggles of Soviet Jews.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York is an organization of over 12,000 lawyers from the United States and 38 foreign countries. Throughout its 100-year history, it has sought to protect fundamental rights and to promote adherence to the rule of law worldwide It is in the spirit of this long-standing concern that I present the testimony of the Association's Committee on International Human Rights.

The Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights is a non-governmental human rights organization that seeks to promote respect for international human rights law. It was founded in 1975 by the International League for Human Rights and the Council of New York Law Associates. The Committee serves as a legal resource center for various human rights organizations. In the past three years it has represented individual clients in a variety of casesincluding applicants for visas from various foreign countries and refugees seeking political asylum in the United States. In addition, the Lawyers Committee has prepared and submitted complaints to international organizations detailing human rights violations in specific countries. The Committee has urged the adoption of international legal standards and norms in appropriate domestic cases, and has attempted to utilize domestic law to help promote human rights in foreign countries.

The Committees for which I speak oppose Dr. Lefever's nomination. The decision to take that position has not been an easy one. We recognize that under our system of government policies can and often do change quite dramatically with the change of administrations. We are well aware that in the evolving area of human rights a wide range of strategies and approaches may be useful. We also recognize and subscribe to the view that in the present highly complex and difficult world situation concern for human rights should be only one of many factors shaping American foreign policy.

There is on these grounds a substantial degree of latitude in enforcing the current U.S. law on human rights. But the basic goal of that legislation cannot and must not be ignored. Section 502B (a) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act. passed under the Ford Administration, provides: “[a]s a principal goal of the Foreign Policy of the U.S. . . . the increased observance of internationally recog nized human rights by all countries."

In reviewing Dr. Lefever's nomination, this Committee is charged with responsibility for analyzing his qualifications and itness to carry out effectively that legislative mandate. It is important for that purpose to evaluate carefully the ideas and beliefs he has expressed in past writings and testimony. Those expressions comprise substantial grounds for concluding that Dr. Lefever is not qualified for the sensitive office to which he has been named.

1. Dr. Lefever has declared unacceptable the basic premises upon which the Foreign Assistance Act is based

Largely through sections of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibiting or restricting economic or military assistance to govern ments which are gross viola

tors of human rights, Congress has mandated that the furtherance of human rights is a vital element in our foreign policy. The Act acknowledges the obligations of the United States under the Charter of the United Nations and under our own democratic traditions.

"The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries."1

Far from supporting the goal Congress established to "promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries," Dr. Lefever has repeatedly expressed the belief that the United States may not properly promote human rights in other countries at all. He has testified:

"In a formal and legal sense, the U.S. Government has no responsibility-and certainly no authority-to promote human rights in other sovereign states."2 Further, he has written:

"Advocates of the "human rights standard" fail to appreciate the legal and practical limits of foreign policy. International law forbids any state from interfering in the internal political, judicial, and economic affairs of another." 3

This view-reiterated as recently as March 30, 1981, in an interview with Newsweek magazine-is not a sound one for America, and it is not the policy Congress has chosen.

In this respect, though we are certain he is not generally sympathetic to the Soviet Union, Dr. Lefever's position is far closer to that of the U.S.S.R. than that of the U.S.A. The Soviet Union, wishing to avoid scrutiny of its own human rights violations, argues stridently that external pressures to enforce basic human rights interfere with the internal affairs of a state. For example, Dr. Kovtashkin, a Senior Researcher of the Institute of State and Law in Moscow, has frequently expressed the Soviet position in words similar to Dr. Lefever's:

"[T]he ensurance and direct protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the internal affair of every state. . . . [T]he U.N. Charter, as well as the post-war agreements in the field of human rights refer the direct provision and protection of human rights and freedoms exclusively to the domestic jurisdiction of the states. They speak not about "international protection" of human rights but of promotion of international cooperation with the aim of encouraging respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms."

The U.S.S.R. has steadfastly promoted this position, most forcefully at the current Helsinki Review Conference in Madrid.

Dr. Lefever's similar point of view is that the United States cannot and should not attempt to alter the internal practices of a country, no matter how abusive of the human rights of its citizens, even if that country is our enemy. He has made this explicit :

"It is arrogant to attempt to reform the domestic behavior of our allies or our adversaries. . . . Economic and military aid should be given or withheld to encourage sound external policies, but not to reform domestic institutions or practices, however obnoxious.”

5

That stark pronouncement recalls terrifying chapters of recent history that we have resolved never to relive. The United Nations was created in a world coming to terms with the full horror of Nazi Germany; all member nations, especially the United States, recognized, in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter, that violations of the basic human rights of the citizens of a country by their government were a legitimate and necessary international concern. It is our obligation, as expressed in the U.N. Charter and the Foreign Assistance Act, to promote the observance of human rights in all countries.

1 Section 502B (a) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

2 Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy, Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 96th Cong., 1st sess., July 12. 1979. p. 235.

3 The New York Times. Jan. 24. 1977.

As quoted in Leary, V.. "When Does the Implementation of International Human Rights Constitute Interference into the Essentially Domestic Affairs of a State?" in International Human Rights Law and Practice, by J. C. Tuttle, ed., pp. 16-17 (August 1978).

The New York Times, Jan. 24, 1977 [emphasis added].