I now turn to my second point. The nominee admonishes us not to be "preoccupied with minor abridgments of certain rights in authoritarian states." Let us look at these minor abridgments in three states, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.

All three once had remarkably significant scientific communities. In the course of killing untold thousands, their present regimes have all but destroyed science and educational systems. Eighty percent of the physicists, chemists, and biologists of the University of Santiago were removed by the Pinochet regime. In Uruguay, 80 percent of the agriculture faculty was dismissed. I have a list of 43 Argentinian scientists who have disappeared. Many others were killed.

Let me leave statistics for human beings. The Argentinian physicist Frederico Rojas and his wife were abducted in front of their three young children and have disappeared. The Argentinian physicist Gabriela Carabelli was abducted with her 3-year-old daughter. All that has been found was the mother's burnt body.

Jose Luis Massera is a distinguished Uruguayan mathematician, now 64, arrested in 1975, who to this very moment is in Libertad Prison. Note the name. please. Liberty Prison. It is actually a South American Dachau. According to the International Red Cross, it holds a thousand political prisoners, and I quote, "all without exception have been tortured."

The facts are that our colleagues in Soviet labor camps suffer from starvation, forced labor and punishment cells, while those in South America are exposed to medieval torture and outright murder. Our colleagues languish in Soviet psychiatric prisons and in Libertad.

But these facts also show that the nominee's attempts to correlate the brutality of a dictatorship with its political ideology do not stand up to scrutiny. In short, the nominee is not an objective observer.

I do not have time in this brief statement to go into further detail, but I can document, in some instances, that he is not the scholar that many people here claim. Statements and documents issued under his authority would not be accepted as objective by our own citizens or our democratic allies.

The Government's human rights policy would be perceived as mere propaganda, which would render it totally ineffective. That would also undermine the efforts of citizens groups such as ours.

To summarize, the confirmation of Dr. Lefever would not only incapacitate our Government's human rights effort; it would also be a blow to the international human rights movement, which has come to look to the United States for leadership and inspiration.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Gottfried's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KURT GOTTFRIED

I am most grateful for the opportunity to appear before this distinguished Committee on this significant occasion. I am Professor of Physics at Cornell University, and currently chairman of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society. I have been involved in human rights activities for some years. I am chairman of the Committee on International Freedom of Scientists of the Physical Society, and a member of the Executive Committee of Scientists for Sakharov, Orlov, and Shcharansky. Today I appear on behalf of SOS. In recent years, the U.S. scientific community has mounted a vigorous cam

paign on behalf of colleagues across the globe who suffer from political oppression. Because of the significance of Soviet science, and the numerous personal ties between American and Soviet scientists, a major portion of this effort has been devoted to Soviet scientists. Many European scientists have also become involved, and strengthened us greatly. The most focused and most international campaign is that of Scientists for Sakharov, Orlov and Shcharansky. SOS is an ad hoc group of scientists and engineers acting independently of their governments. We have advocated that tangible support for our colleagues requires us to deprive the Soviet Union of some of the benefits of Western science and technology. The most recent SOS action is a moratorium on scientific cooperation with the Soviet Union that lasts until the end of the Madrid Conference on the Helsinki Accords. It is adhered to by 7,900 prominent scientists and engineers in 44 countries, including 33 Nobel prize winners, 187 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and 82 Fellows of the Royal Society of London. The Moratorium, and earlier actions 3 by SOS, have received widespread attention in both the West and the Soviet Union. We have been attacked at length in Pravda, in other Soviet publications, and on Soviet radio.

Hearing all this, and knowing the nominee's attitude towards the Soviet Union, one might expect us to welcome the nomination. That is not the case.

Though we have devoted all our efforts to Soviet scientists, we have never forgotten that human rights are indivisible. Indeed, our concern for the welfare of Sakharov, Orlov and Shcharansky rests on the recognition that their heroic struggle is of universal significance. We would make a mockery of their sacrifices were we to shut our eyes to brutal repression that occurs outside the Soviet bloc calamities that we know well for they have engulfed many hundreds of scientists.

As we see the record 5-7, the nominee does not view human rights as universal rights to be striven for everywhere impartially. In his testimony before the House he said':

"It should not be necessary for any friendly state to pass a human rights test before we extend normal trade relations, before we sell arms, or before we provide economic or security assistance. This approach, I believe, should be adopted towards adversary states like the Soviet Union."

In short, he would focus official human rights concerns on states that are viewed as our enemies, and shield from our scrutiny oppressive states whose support we seek. He does not appear to recognize that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other international agreements, impose obligations on our government, for he has stated: "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."

He seems unaware of the political strength and growing reach of the international human rights movements-a movement that often transcends geopolitical, economic, and religious differences-a movement that should resonate naturally with the best traditions and highest aspirations of the United States. His appointment would fail to tap this invaluable national resource, as if we

1 The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Mathematical Society, the American Physical Society, and the Association for Computing Machinery, all have human rights committees. Science, Physics Today, Chemical and Engineering News, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, and Nature, report regularly on the human rights concerns of scientists. Other scientific organizations active in human rights are the Committee of Concerned Scientists, and the Federation of American Scientists. For a Congressional appraisal of the scientific human rights effort, see George E. Brown, Jr., "Science, technology and human rights a view from Congress", Physics Today, March 1981, p. 27.

2 The moratorium was announced in press conferences held simultaneously in Washington, London, Paris and Geneva. See, for example, Washington Post, October 19, 1980, Editorial; The Economist, London, October 25, 1980, p. 46.

3 See, for example, R. Kaiser. Washington Post. March 2, 1979, p. 1; Wall Street Journal, March 6, 1979, Editorial; Le Monde, March 3, 1979.

Yu. Ovchinnikov et al., Pravda, April 23, 1979. Two of the authors are vice-presidents, the others members, of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. For a translation, see Chemical and Engineering News, August 27, 1979.

5 See, in particular, Ernest W. Lefever, "The Trivialization of Human Rights", Policy Review. November-December 1978, p. 11; according to an interview in Newsweek (March 30, 1981), Dr. Lefever views this article as the Administration's human rights “Bible".

Ernest W. Lefever, "Limits of the Human Rights Standard", New York Times, January 24, 1977, Op-Ed page.

7 Ernest W. Lefever, testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, July 12, 1979.

had a Secretary of Agriculture who did not believe in the value of wheat as a foodstuff or as an export commodity.

What are the facts on which we base our views? Though largely drawn from our knowledge of the world's scientific communities, they have broader implications. I only have time to address two specific questions that are relevant to Your deliberations. The first is :

7

Have international human rights agreements had any significant impact? I pose this question because the nominee appears to believe, that the effort to incorporate human rights provisions into national and international law is often counterproductive, and at best futile. In examining this view I confine myself to the agreement that we scientists know best, the Helsinki Final Act. When signed in 1975, it was widely believed that Basket III was empty rhetoric. That this is not so is now clear, especially to the Soviet authorities. Within a year of Helsinki, physicist Yuri Orlov had founded the Moscow Helsinki Watch," which soon spread to Armenia, Georgia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, and into Czechoslovakia and Poland. It was the first nation-wide organization in Soviet history to systematically question the legality of certain governmental actions. We are proud that so many Soviet Helsinki monitors are scientists and engineers.

The Helsinki movement has spread to the West. Thanks to the Congress, we have a very effective U.S. Helsinki Commission. There is also a vigorous citizens' U.S. Helsinki Watch, whose testimony you will hear today.

Though the majority of the founders of the Soviet Helsinki Watch are in prison or exile, the Soviet Helsinki movement is not dead. It has laid down hardy seedlings that survive on hostile soil. And the Soviet Union has paid dearly for that hostility: its access to the European and American scientific communities has been drastically reduced." No one doubts that it values that access."

10

The Helsinki Act shows that an international human rights agreement need not be a paper tiger; if it evokes the commitment of thousands, it acquires teeth.

I now turn to my second question:

Can one correlate the brutality of a dictatorship with its political ideology? I pose this question because the nominee, among others," has told us that "authoritarian" and "totalitarian dictatorships differ greatly in their violations of human rights: authoritarian regimes only impose minor abridgements of certian rights, and do not disturb the traditional rhythms of work or habitual family relationships, whereas totalitarian regimes, in their omnipotence, control all aspects of life and thought. These definitions could play a useful role if handled with careful attention to the facts. But in the nominee's hands, these categories are transformed into a veil that obscures from full view the ugly features of certain regimes that are thought to be in our camp.

To illustrate this, I focus on three states that have had large scientific communities, and that supposedly fall into the “authoritarian" category: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.

8 J. Rubenstein, "Soviet Dissidents-Their Struggle for Human Rights," Beacon Press, Boston 1980; "The Helsinki Monitors," Commission on Security and Exchange in Europe, December 10, 1979.

Some claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was largely responsible for this. We disagree, though we recognize that in the U.S. the situation is confusing. It is now estimated that all of the US-USSR science exchanges had been reduced by roughly 50 percent before the invasion. The rupture of official Academy exchanges was triggered by Sakharov's exile, not the invasion. In Europe there is no ambiguity: European scientists have never related their activities to Afghanistan. In France over 1000 scientists, acting independently of SOS. have formally proclaimed their refusal to collaborate with the Soivet until their Soviet colleagues are freed from labor camp. Over 500 physicists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland, have adopted a similar stance on behalf of Yuri Orlov. Among other European actions we mention the interruptions of cooperative research in the chemistry of catalysis (France) and the design of particle accelerators (CERN), and a multi-national campaign to move a forthcoming plasma physics conference out of Moscow.

10 Soviet specialists inform us that the size, and prominent authorship, of the Pravda article (Ref. 4) are an unusually strong response to the actions of a private group. Private communications from Soviet sources substantiate this opinion.

"Jeane Kirkpatrick, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," Commentary, November 1979, p. 44.

Chile and Uruguay 12, 13 had long-standing democratic traditions until the 1970's. Today their universities and research institutes are empty shells.

15

At the University of Santiago, Chile, 2 of the 22 physicists, 11 of the 34 chemists, and 7 of the 45 biologists who were on the faculty when the Pinochet regime assumed power retain their posts." This elimination of invaluable manpower continues. The newly announced university law abolishes the faculties of philosophy and humanities, and puts the pure sciences into the School of Pharmacology. In short, disciplines that have too often fostered critical thought have been eliminated or gravely weakened.

16

Uruguay, though the smallest country in South America, was probably the most advanced. The University of Uruguay drew students from all of Latin America. Since the military takeover, 65 percent of the Engineering and 80 percent of the Agriculture faculties have been dismissed; all science departments have lost almost their entire faculties." In their stead there is now a grotesque degree of thought control.18

Argentina has had a turbulent history. Despite this, it had a remarkably significant scientific community. Today, virtually all its leading scientists have either "disappeared" or are abroad. According to the Videla regime itself." thousands of academic employees were dismissed, including many hundreds of scientists. From reliable sources in Argentina I have the names and case histories of 43 scientists who have "disappeared". Many others are known to have died in prison.

These statistics show that "authoritarian" regimes in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, in the course of killing and imprisoning untold thousands, have all but destroyed science, intellectual life, and educational systems. But statistics cannot reveal the human dimension of this tragedy. A few sketches will bring home their true meaning.

Elena Sevilla is a young physicist who was arrested in her hospital bed five days after giving birth by cesarean section. Although never charged with any crime, and ordered freed by a federal judge, she was imprisoned for 3 years. She was lucky, because she is alive, and is now in the U.S. with her son. Frederico Eduardo Alvarez Rojas, a prominent physicist, and his wife Hilda Graciela, a computer scientist employed by Burroughs, were abducted by armed men in front of their three young children, and remain unaccounted for. Ernesto Silve, a chemistry professor, was arrested and tortured, and according to officials, committed suicide in his cell. Gabriela Carabelli, a physics professor. was abducted with her 3-year-old daughter; her burned body has been found, but not her daughter.

These are all Argentinians. I shall only describe one case in Urugay.19 Jose Luis Massera is an i'lustrious mathematician, now 64, and imprisoned since 1975. His wife was imprisoned for 3 years after she asked the Papal Nuncio for help, and their son-in-law was also tortured and imprisoned. Despite Massera's age, and offers from distinguished foreign universities, he is, at this very moment, still in Libertad Prison.

Note the name: Liberty Prison! Libertad is not one of George Orwell's prophetic visions, but, like Dachau in the 1930's, a concrete achievement of 20th Century man. This has emerged from an internal report of the International Committee of the Red Cross, published in "Freedom Appeals," a periodical

13 J. H. Street, "Political Intervention and Science in Latin America", Bull. Atomic Scientists, Vol. 37, Feb. 1981, p. 14. 13 J. Primack, "Human Rights in the Southern Cone", Bull. Atomic Scientists, Vol. 37, Feb. 1981, p. 24.

14 E. Callen, B. R. Cooper and J. Parmentola, "Science and Human Rights", Technology Review, Dec.-Jan. 1980, p. 26.

15 Juan de Onis, New York Times, Feb. 5, 1980, p. 6, reports that 70 professors were dismissed during that month alone.

16 John Walsh, "New University Law Decreed in Chile", Science, March 27, 1981. p. 1403. 17 M. Otero, "Oppression in Uruguay", Bull. Atomic Scientists, Vol. 37. Feb. 1981, p. 29. 18 A concrete and ironic example: Books by the great Soviet physicist Lev Landau, studied throughout the world, are banned; yet Landau was imprisoned under Sta'in, and always out of favor with the regime. On thought control in Uruguay, see also Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1979-1980, Organization of American States, October 2, 1980, p. 131.

19 Clearing House Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, August 1980; U.N. Human Rights Committee Report, Document A/34/40, Ref. G/so 215/51 Uru guay (Geneva, August 1979).

largely devoted to repression in the Soviet bloc.20 According to this document, Libertad holds about a thousand political prisoners, and 21 ". . . all have been tortured, kept in secret places of detention, all of them without exception, . . . .' I cannot find words that adequately summarize this shocking report, and have therefore appended verbatim extracts to my testimony (Appendix A). But there is one paragraph to which I would draw your attention:

"The child who comes to visit (once a month) leaves his or her mother behind the barbed wire perimeter to meet his or her prisoner father in a pretty garden arranged specially for children's visits (sandboxes, slides, swings, etc.). The visit, which takes place on a bench, will be stopped as soon as the father makes an affectionate gesture. The punishment will be one or two months of disciplinary cell with no visits. ... following each visit the child is interrogated by a guard." All of us will agree that this is a diabolical disturbance of habitual family relationships; as is the imprisonment of a wife who seeks to help her husband; or arrest, without warrant or subsequent charges, in a maternity ward; or the abduction of parents before the eyes of their children; or the torture of people in full view of their closest kin. And these are not isolated examples: a new UN report states that in Argentina alone 60 pregnant women, 50 children, and 300 adolescents have "disappeared".

23

Many will say: Yes, this is horrendous; but is it not a thing of the past? Why stir up this cesspool?

Unfortunately we must. The statements by the nominee to which I referred were made some years ago, and they display a disquieting indifference to the situation at that time. Consider the following example," published in NovemberDecember 1978: "There have been political prisoners in Chile and there may be a handful now,..."

According to Amnesty International," in the year ending 30 June 1978 over a thousand Chileans accused of political activities were arrested, and detailed testimony about torture in scores of cases was received. On November 21, 1978, Amnesty presented a partial list of "disappeared", consisting of 600 names, to the Chilean government at a human rights symposium organized by the Catholic Church.

25

Furthermore, these are not things of the past-while there have been significant improvements, the truth is more complex. A thousand political prisoners remain in Libertad. In Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay during the past year political prisoners are known to have died because of suicide, torture, or under highly questionable circumstances. Fortunately "disappearances" have decreased markedly in Argentina, but there is a general consensus, as reported by the State Department,20 that some 30 persons "disappeared" in 1980. And “disappearances" continue: Two occurred just before General Viola visited Washington in March, and one shortly thereafter. Appendix B summarizes these recent developments; they indicate yet again that the governments themselves are directly responsible for these gross abuses.

I now return to my question: Can one compare oppression in "authoritarian" states with that in "totalitarian" Russia? I cannot comprehend how one is to do 20 Jean-Francois Labarthe, "Libertad Prison", Freedom Appeals, November-December 1980, Freedom House, 20 W. 40th Street, New York. Amnesty International reports (January 12, 1981) that interviews between this Red Cross representative and prisoners were secretly recorded by prison authorities. One inmate, the physician Mario Alberto Teti Izquierdo, is being held directly responsible for the contents of the Red Cross report; he has been tortured and threatened with death, and there are reports that he has "disappeared".

Torture in Uruguay is also described by a former military officer, Cesar Cooper, and a former prisoner, Alvaro Jaume, in Index on Censorship, Vol. 8, May-June 1979, p. 26. 22 Jacobo Timerman, "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number," Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1981; "Reflections: No Name, No Number", The New Yorker, April 20, 1981. p. 45.

23 Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 26 January 1981, p. 71. In many instances the newly born infants were returned to relatives by members of the security forces, with a warning "not to make inquiries or comments on the matter".

24 Amnesty International Report 1978, Amesty International Publications, London, 1979; pp. 108-111.

Amnesty International Report 1979, Amnesty International Publications, London, 1979: p. 54. 28 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Report by the Department of State to Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, and Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, February 2, 1981, 331. This agrees with a private communication to the American Physical Society, according to which some 25 disappeared from January to October 1980.