of the United States Armed Forces missing in action) in the conduct of foreign policy. The Secretary of State shall carry out his responsibility under section 502B of this Act through the Assistant Secretary.

"(2) The Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs shall maintain continuous observation and review of all matters pertaining to human rights and humanitarian affairs (including matters relating to refugees, prisoners of war, and members of the United States Armed Forces missing in action) in the conduct of foreign policy including

(A) gathering detailed information regarding humanitarian affairs and the observance of and respect for internationally recognized human rights in each country to which requirements of sections 116 and 502B of this Act are relevant;

(B) preparing the statements and reports to Congress required under section 502B of this Act;

(C) making recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Agency for International Development regarding compliance with sections 116 and 502B of this Act; and

(D) performing other responsibilities which serve to promote increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries. Mr. Lefever's statements opposing the spirit of the Helsinki Accords and the requirements of domestic law are legion. Here are a few:

"In my view, the United States should remove from the Statute books all clauses that establish a human rights standard or conditions that must be met by another sovereign government before our government transacts normal business with it, unless specifically waived by the President. 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. This approach, I believe, should be adopted toward adversary states like the Soviet Union."

(Testimony, Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. July 12, 1979.)

[O]ur policies of nuclear deterrence should be determined by our understanding of the Soviet nuclear threat and our trade policies toward Moscow should be determined by our economic and security interests. Neither should be influenced, much less determined, by the extent of human rights violations in the Soviet Union. Likewise, in dealing with Third World countries, their foreign policy behavior should be the determining factor, not their domestic practices." -"The Trivialization of Human Rights" in Policy Review, Winter 1978.

"Economic and military aid should be given or withheld to encourage sound external policies, but not to reform domestic institutions or practices, however obnoxious. When domestic practices have a significant and adverse impact on external affairs, the United States has a right to respond." -"Limits of the Human Rights Standard," The New York Times, January 24, 1977.

To our knowledge, Mr. Lefever has not repudiated any of these statements. We are aware that he may have modified some of his views, expressed over a period of several years, during the several months that have passed since he was nominated to hold the post as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Without questioning the sincerity with which he may now hold new views, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to place so recent a convert to different views, if indeed he is a convert, in this particular post. As the legislation establishing the post makes plain, a principal purpose is to make the person who holds the post an advocate for human rights within the Department of State. His job, as the legislation states, is "to promote increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries." Mr. Lefever's colleagues in the Department should not have to direct him to be concerned with human rights. They have other important concerns. Congress established this post to make certain that while the Secretary of State and his associates attend to other concerns, someone continues to direct their attention to the effects of the policies of the United States on the internal human rights practices of other countries.

Another reason that we oppose confirmation of Mr. Lefever is that his appointment would convey a message to other countries that would injure the cause of human rights. That message is that the United States has chosen one of its most outspoken critics of making the internal human rights practices of other countries a factor influencing American foreign policy as the person to take charge of human rights policy. Other governments would certainly comprehend this mes

sage. Those that have been restrained in abusing human rights out of concern that abuse would adversely affect their relations with the United States would be relieved of such worries.

Our opposition to confirmation of Mr. Lefever is also based on what Mr. Lefever and other members of the Reagan administration have told the United States Helsinki Watch Committee about the way they will pursue efforts to promote human rights. They have said that they propose to protect human rights in other countries by "quiet diplomacy." We agree that this is often the best way to alleviate a particular abuse of human rights. But we believe that quiet diplomacy is effective only when it is manifest that the United States believes those things that it is trying to further through quiet diplomacy. Mr. Lefever has been very noisy in insisting that the United States is not concerned with the internal human rights practices of other countries. Accordingly, confirmation of his appointment would undercut the effectiveness of the United States in protecting human rights by quiet diplomacy.

I want to emphasize that my colleagues and I in the United States Helsinki Watch Committee do not view our efforts to oppose confirmation of Ernest Lefever as a way to oppose the Reagan administration's approach to protecting human rights. On the contrary, we oppose confirmation of Mr. Lefever because we think that his wildly publicized views contrast sharply with the views expressed by the President and other administration spokesmen. On April 30 at a White House "Day of Remembrance" for victims of the Holocaust, President Reagan said, in words that we believe reflect the views of the American people, that: "The persecution of people, for whatever reason-persecution of people for their religious belief-that is a matter to be on that negotiating table or the United States does not belong at that table."

Compare that statement with the statements by Mr. Lefever quoted above. Compare the statements of Max Kampelman at the Madrid Review Conference with the statements by Mr. Lefever that I have quoted. And, while the United States Helsinki Watch Committee does not share the views expressed by Secretary of State Haig and Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick suggesting that the United States should be less concerned with human rights abuses in "friendly" authoritarian countries than in adversary totalitarian countries-it is the nature of the abuse, we believe, that should influence American policy-their views also contrast with those expressed by Mr. Lefever. As the statements I have quoted make clear, he opposes making human rights abuses in an adversary totalitarian country like the Soviet Union a factor in shaping American foreign policy.

The United States Helsinki Watch Committee is committed to the view that the United States must display consistent concern for human rights in its policies toward all countries. As an organization especially concerned with human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and East Europe, it is especially important to us that American criticism of those abuses be matched by criticism of abuses elsewhere. If that does not take place the Soviet government and the governments of East Europe can readily dismiss what we say as a cold war exercise. That only harms the dissenters whose rights we try to defend. It is only when outspoken advocacy of human rights and clear recognition of its significance as a factor in shaping foreign policy is implemented as a universal principle that we can effectively advance human rights.

We call on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate to decline to confirm the appointment of Ernest Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. He is the wrong man for the job.

(Statement by Ludmilla Alexeyeva, Representative Abroad of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group on behalf of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group on the importance of United States leadership in defending human rights wherever they are violated.)

Let me begin by saying that I do not feel that I have the right to address specifically the issue of Dr. Lefever's confirmation to the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. I have not been in this country long enough, nor am I sufficiently familiar with many of its problems, to feel that my opinion warrants special attention. Moreover, my role as the official representative abroad of the Moscow Helsinki Watch Group prevents me from speaking on this particularly political matter; we have always stressed that ours is not a political association and that our only goal is the promotion of

the implementation of the humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Accords in the Soviet Union. However, since today's discussion is closely tied to the role of the Bureau for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, I feel that I might be able to add some substantive comments for the knowledge of this Committee and the person who will fill this post. I have devoted 15 years of my life to the defense of human rights in the Soviet Union and I would like to speak on the perception of the United States' position from the other side, so to speak.

In the beginning of the movement, human rights activists in the Soviet Union addressed their appeals to the West on the assumption that the entire world, and not just the citizens of our country, had a stake in the observance of human rights by the Soviet government. Nevertheless we addressed our appeals to public opinion in free countries-and not to their governments-since at the time not a single government had shown any interest in these problems, considering the relationship between governments and their citizens to be the internal affair of a nation. The first country to afford the international human rights movement with tangible support was the United States. This new era for human rights was heralded by the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975, a document based on the concept that international security and human rights are closely linked. This diplomatic innovation made the human rights record of each country a matter of mutual concern for all the Helsinki signatories and provided legal grounds for international monitoring of human rights compliance.

All strains of dissent in our country and in Eastern Europe took up the Helsinki Accords as their banner. As far as governments were concerned, however, the United States alone focussed on the humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Accords at the Belgrade review meeting in 1977. This policy of support for human rights was reflected also in the creation of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, which, to my knowledge, is unique in the world. I am pleased to note the continuity in the human rights policies of the various administrations, from President Ford, who signed the Helsinki Accords, through President Carter's administration, through President Reagan's; the progress of the Madrid Conference, which has worked through a change of administrations, where the position of the American delegation has remained unchanged, demonstrates this continuity.

I can testify to the fact that the United States' human rights stance has borne wonderful fruit in the Soviet Union. Despite the colossal efforts of the official Soviet propaganda, it has failed to spread an anti-American sentiment among Soviet citizens; on the contrary, Soviet citizens remember American assistance during the starvation of the 920's and during World War II. Most effective, however, in fostering the United States' positive image has been your stand on human rights in connection with the Helsinki Accords. For millions of Soviet citizens, the United States has become over these last years a symbol of freedom and democracy. This is shown by the letters from Soviet citizens-from average Soviet citizens, not dissidents-to the President and the Congress regarding violations of their human rights.

The history of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union convincingly shows that the popular sentiment of any nation is behind those who defend peace and liberty wherever they are violated. It has long been felt that idealism and politics are incompatible, but today, when the media regularly presents for public scrutiny the policies of all governments and politicians, in the last analysis, those who honestly pursue a righteous policy are those best able to attract and maintain popular support.

This is an important lesson for the United States-the only country where the defense of human rights has become a concern of the government as well as for citizens a lesson which provides it with great opportunities applicable not only to the Soviet Union, but everywhere human rights are violated. In those countries where there exist serious anti-American feeling, the public defense of human rights is the only means of subduing these feelings, even though it might take time.

The United States has achieved respect and credibility in speaking out publicly and forcefully against human rights violations around the world. A continuation of this universal policy is essential to the human rights movement in the Soviet Union as well as to the image of the United States as the leader of international human rights.

I would like to hope that the future head of the Bureau for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, whoever it may be, will maintain an awareness of the

singular importance of this department in the restraint of passions in the world, and in strengthening the image of this country around the world. I sincerely wish him or her success.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bernstein, for your statement.

Congressman Derwinski, I wonder if you would care to join the panel and give your testimony at this point. We are very happy to have you here now and are sorry that you could not be here this morning for our congressional panel. We are pleased to have you this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ILLINOIS

Representative DERWINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I appreciate that this hearing has drawn great interest. I have submitted for the record a rather detailed statement, which I presume is available, and therefore I will very briefly touch the highlights.

The CHAIRMAN. Your full statement will be incorporated in the record, of course.

Representative DERWINSKI. Thank you.

I am pleased to testify in favor of the confirmation of Dr. Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian. Affairs. In the last few years he has testified before our House Committee on numerous occasions and I have learned to respect his views and appreciate his ability and his real grasp of world affairs. And I think it is such that his nomination is most practical.

I would point out, and I am sure that because of the controversy you have all carefully scrutinized his background, that he has a long record of experience in foreign policy matters. He is an author and has an interesting background as a missionary. I think all of these things together give him the personal stature and experience to very effectively serve in the position to which he has been nominated.

Normally, the impressive credentials that he possesses would mean that his nomination would be carried through without any real controversy. Obviously, that is not the case here.

But I think the issue before us is one of political realism. I note in reading yesterday's news reports that a great deal of attention has been focused on Dr. Lefever's views, for example, of the Government of Argentina. The other day, in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, when we were debating the imposition of the grain embargo, one of the arguments used against reimposition of the grain embargo was that Argentina hadn't cooperated.

Well, in the last 4 years, they were receiving nothing but the back of the hand from the previous administration and they were neither in the position nor obviously the mood to cooperate when being lectured week after week by the State Department. I think that showed a lack of political realism, which really hurt us at a time Argentina might have been most cooperative in what I consider to be one of President Carter's strongest and soundest positions, that of imposing the grain embargo.

Dr. Lefever has made it clear that he supports humane democratic

governments, that he finds any repressive regime, whether it is right, left, or center, distasteful to him. And yet we live in a world where we tend to oversimplify labels of regimes.

There is one quote of his that caught my eye, and I thought I would conclude on that note. He has been quoted as saying that he believes that the primary threat to the survival of the western way of life comes not from the imitators of Francisco Franco but from the successors of Joseph Stalin.

Now, if I look at our hemisphere, that would mean to me that he is quite logically far more concerned with a threat to our way of life and freedom from Fidel Castro than from the present President of Argentina. I think that is realistic. I think that is practical. And I think that is where our foreign policy is going.

I am convinced that Dr. Lefever will carry out the foreign policy positions that the President will set down. I have no doubt that he will take orders very effectively from former General, now Secretary, Haig. Mr. Haig is not the type that permits his Under Secretaries to wander off in their own wild blue yonders. So I have no doubt that Dr. Lefever will be a team man, a very effective progressive, reputable. and strong member of a strong foreign policy team.

Therefore, I completely support him and without any hesitation, recommend that you distinguished members of this committee give him your strongest possible support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Representative Derwinski's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for granting me the opportunity to appear before the distinguished Foreign Relations Committee today. I am pleased to testify in favor of the confirmation of Dr. Ernest Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Dr. Lefever has himself appeared before House committees on numerous occasions. I have learned to respect him and his views. I believe that his program is sound and practical and am pleased to support his nomination.

Dr. Lefever, whose nomination is now being considered by this body, was one of those called upon to provide balance to the human rights question. His testimony before congressional committees and his incisive and thought-provoking writings helped clarify the issues. Dr. Lefever's reflections have been of great value in providing desperately needed perspective on this complex subject.

Dr. Lefever is an ordained minister. He has been a missionary, a student of ethics, a scholar and researcher and was once an advisor to the late Senator Hubert Humphrey. He worked as a civil rights activist for 15 years with such luminaries as Bayard Rustin and James Farmer. He has taught or done research at Gorgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities. For 12 years he was on the senior foreign policy study staff of the Brookings Institutions in Washington, leaving that "think tank" to form his own, the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He has written, coauthored or edited more than a dozen books on ethics and foreign policy, and has published numerous articles in journals and newspapers. He has travelled widely, visiting more than 85 countries. He is of intellectual statute and high character and is competent in his chosen field.

There can be no doubt that Dr. Lefever has a long and honorable record in the service of many humanitarian causes. While a student and a graduate student in Christian Ethics at Yale, he spent six summers working as a volunteer with slum children and migratory workers. During World War II, he helped to relocate the first Japanese-Americans to be released from interment. After the War, he was for three years a YMCA field director, working abroad to resettle prisoners of war. Later he was associate executive director of the National Council of Churches' Department of International Affairs. As an ordained minister for 40