that is sometimes overlooked by some of the human rights constituencies. The scope of action and the kind of advocacy advanced by voluntary activist groups must differ in significant ways from those of gevernmental departments. It would probably be harmful to human rights to have a governmental leadership which is not constrained by a sense of its responsibility to other governmental policies.

Similarly, it would be harmful to have a voluntary activist group that is inhibited by governmental directive. As elsewhere in the democratic system the role and the responsibility of the public body and the private agency differ. Continuing through the door that Mr. Bernstein opened, I agree entirely that public policy is most effective when there are vocal private constituencies. Governmental policy is most effective in its use of quiet diplomacy when there is the threat of going public. Similarly, I agree with Professor Gottfried. At the Sakharov meeting in New York several weeks ago, where I was present, I recall the commitment of many scientists, as he said, to support a moratorium on exchange with Soviet scientists on an individual basis.

I also recall that Professor Philip Handlin of the National Academy of Science recognized that as an official agency committed to various types of scientific exchange, their place was limited. Only with great anguish, and over minority vote, the Academy decided that certain types of scientific exchange would not take place, though in effect they had simply shifted the budget to other kinds of individual programs. That, if I may respond to your question, sir, is the fundamental fact: We are not here in a situation as the critics, of absolute, clear truths as to the right way to achieve luminous ideals. In 1780, when the fledgling American Republic sent an emissary, Francis Dana to St. Petersburg, he came with the ideal of human rights, but he also wanted Russian recognition. During the 2 years that the czar kept him waiting I am sure he did not go out of his way to rebuke czarist Russia.

By the same token, there is a dilemma here. On the one hand I agree entirely we lose our credibility if we do not have a single standard to all countries. On the other hand, everyone knows that if we cannot influence North Korea and we then criticize South Korea to the point of weakening it we have simply moved to replace a bad regime, in the case of South Korea, by a much worse one in the case of North Korea, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor.

Dr. SIDORSKY. If I may draw this to a close. In the similar situation in Iran and Iraq, we had no influence with Iraqui Premier Hussein, whose violations were so much worse than those of Iran. The result is that our policy was not a successful one in human rights terms.

This is why I believe that there is no general formula for Eastern Europe, sir. You would have a different policy for Rumania than for Hungary, and that is different for Czechoslovakia, and much different for Bulgaria or Yugoslavia, even though you would aim at a single standard in each case.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Gottfried, may we have a quick clarification on what you said before? You indicated that in your judgment, Dr. Lefever is not an objective observer. Could you provide more evidence to back up that assertion?

Dr. GOTTFRIED. I would just repeat, in that article that he considers to be the new "human rights bible," there is a statement, "there have

been political prisoners in Chile and there may be a handful now." As I said, during the previous year a thousand Chileans had actually been arrested for political activities.

Now I am aware of the point Dr. Sidorsky raised. The point raised by Dr. Sidorsky is that one could interpret the statement to say that there are only a handful now because the others were all dead. But in fact, the thousand that were arrested were arrested that year. They were not disappeareds; they were arrested.

In addition, there is a list of 600 disappeareds which was presented by Amnesty during the month that the Lefever article was published. So I don't think that from reading the article in full a reader of that article would emerge with the impression that there were any significant number of political prisoners in Chile when, in fact, they numbered in the thousands, and there were many, many cases of

torture.

I wasn't here yesterday, but I am told that Dr. Lefever said in testimony before you that there were on the order of 12 disappearances in Argentina in 1980, and none this year. Now the State Department report to this committee says there were 30 disappearances last year in Argentina. This agrees very well with what Amnesty says. It agrees extremely well with private letters that we at the Physical Society have received. There have been four disappearances this year. It is not true that there haven't been any. There were two during the time that Viola was in Washington and one afterward.

Now these people haven't been killed. In fact, these cases demonstrate that the Government is able to make disappeared people reappear. These people disappeared in the following sense. They were abducted, writs of habeas corpus were refused, then there was an outcry from various organizations, and within a week or two they reappeared, having been tortured.

This happened as late March and April of this year. It is in my written testimony in detail.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for your thoughtfulness and for being here to testify. If any of you have a further comment that you would like to make we will keep the record open for you, but we must proceed now with the last panel.

Mr. Schifter, do you have something urgent to say?

Mr. SCHIFTER. I just wish to introduce something into the record. The CHAIRMAN. Of course.

Mr. SCHIFTER. Mr. Chairman, a statement was made with regard to Dr. Lefever's views on the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King. May I introduce his article on that subject, as well as two related articles?

The CHAIRMAN. It will be incorporated in the record. [The documents referred to follow:]

[From the Reader's Digest, September 1967]

MARTIN LUTHER KING'S TRAGIC DECISION

(By Carl T. Rowan)

(What has caused him to jeopardize, by his ill-advised pronouncements on Vietnam, the movement he has so ably served? Another distinguished Negro looks at the man and his motives.)

On a crisp, clear evening last April 14, the Rev. Martin Luther King stood in New York City's Riverside Church and delivered the most scathing denunciation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam ever made by so prominent an American. He labeled the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and accused it of "cruel manipulation of the poor." He said that the people of Vietnam "watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops."

He stated that U.S. troops "may have killed a million South Vietnamese civilians mostly children." He said that American soldiers "test out our latest weapons" on the peasants of South Vietnam "just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." He accused President Johnson of lying about peace overtures from Hanoi, and urged Americans to become "conscientious objectors."

Reaction across the nation and around the world was immediate and explosive. Radios Moscow and Peking picked up King's words and spread them to distant capitals. In the White House, a Presidential aide shouted, "My God, King has given a speech on Vietnam that goes right down the commie line!" President Johnson, reading the wire-service reports, flushed with anger.

Civil-rights leaders wrung their hands and began to plan steps to take the already splintered movement for Negro equality out from under the onus of King's broadside. Such prominent Negroes as Roy Wilkins, executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Ralph Bunche, Nobel Prize-winning United Nations under-secretary, and Sen. Edward Brooke disagreed publicly with King. The directors of Freedom House called the program that King advocated "demagogic and irresponsible in its attack on our government." The Washington Post, long a supporter of King, said, "Dr. King has done a grave injury to the great struggle to remove ancient abuses from our public life. He has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country and to his people."

What sort of person is this man who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and denounced as a knave, all within three years? What do Martin Luther King and his recent actions mean to the nation and to the searing disputes that now rend the civil-rights movement?

Sired by Fighters. To understand King's unique position in American life, we must go back to January 15, 1929, when Michael Luther King, Jr., was born in a comfortable 13-room house in Atlanta, Ga. His father and his maternal grandfather, the Rev. A. D. Williams, had become, via Ebenezer Baptist Church, two of the great preachers of the South.

By the time "Little Mike" was six (when his father changed both their names to that of the leader of the Protestant Reformation), he was well aware of the racial struggle around him. Grandfather Williams had been an early leader at Georgia's chapter of the NAACP. His father fought for equal salaries for Negro teachers and to abolish Jim Crow elevators in the Atlanta courthouse. And young Martin soon knew at firsthand the hurt and humiliation of discrimination. He has recalled as one of his angriest hours a bus ride from Macon to Atlanta, when a bus driver called him and his teacher "black sons of bitches" because they were slow in surrendering their seats to white passengers.

A bright, sensitive student, King entered Atlanta's Morehouse College at 15, toying with the notion of becoming a lawyer or doctor. There he read Thoreau's "Essay on Civil Disobedience," and became convinced that he had to involve himself in social protest, and that only through the ministry could he function effectively. From Morehouse, King, went to Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pa., where a lecture on Mohandas Gandhi led him to devour every book and article written about India's great leader of non-violent protest.

The thinking of Gandhi and Thoreau was still burning inside King when I first met him, late in 1955. He was then involved in his first major test of non-violence and civil disobedience in the Deep South. On December 1 of that year, a Negro seamstress. Mrs. Rosa Parks, had boarded a bus in Montgomery, Ala., where King had recently become pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. When the driver ordered Negroes to stand so that whites could sit. Mrs. Parks refused and was arrested. Within hours, Negroes had launched a 99-percent effective boycott that threatened to ruin the bus line.

As a reporter for the Minneapolis Tribune, I went to Montgomery and was permitted to sit in on the strategy sessions of the Negro leaders. King's gift of artic

ulateness, his apparent lack of personal ambition, his willingness to stand up to tough-talking city officials made him the natural leader of the movement. The city arrested 115 Negro religious and political leaders; a bomb exploded on King's front porch. But the boycott held firm for 382 tense days, and led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing bus segregation. The Negroes of Montgomery had won a great victory, and Martin Luther King was world-famous.

"Breastplate of Righteousness." How did King rise to the pinnacle? He had charisma-a down-to-earth sincerity, an ability to wear the mantle of the church in such a way as to suggest a special closeness to God. He won the grudging admiration of white Americans and the support of millions of foreigners through his dignity, his willingness to take verbal abuse, to go to jail quietly—and to turn the other check in the process-in order to achieve his goals. He seemed impervious to provocation. He earned the reputation of a selfless leader whose devotion and wisdom were larger than life.

When a group of badgered, beaten Negroes in Gadsden, Ala., were on the verge of violence, King asked them to put down their arms. "Get the weapon of nonviolence, the breastplate of righteousness, the armor of truth, and just keep marching," he pleaded. They did, And when the young minister said to whites, "We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will not hate you, but we cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws," he disarmed many who held latent hostility toward the Negro.

"There is no arrogance about him, no intellectual posturing," reported the New York Times in 1961. "He voices no bitterness against the whites who have handled him roughly." If he became involved in crisis after crisis-the restaurant sit-in in Atlanta in 1960; demonstrations in Albany, Ga., in 1961; the explosive Birmingham protests of 1963; the Selma, Ala., march of 1964-it was because, as one of his aides said, "You've got to have a crisis to bargain with. To take a moderate approach, hoping to get white help, doesn't work.

The Halo Slips. But, inexplicably, something began to happen after a while. King seemed to develop an exaggerated appraisal of how much he and his crisis techniques were responsible for the race-relations progress that had been made. He could, indeed, make a pretty convincing argument that it was the crisis he and his followers precipitated in Birmingham in 1963 that capped the Negro's revolution and won the support necessary for the passage of the civil-rights laws of 1964 and 1965. But other Negro leaders, while not belittling demonstrations, argued that the Negro could never forgo a reliance on the law. They pointed out that Negroes might still be walking instead of riding buses in Montgomery had the lawyers not won their case in the Supreme Court. They said that the Negro had to continue to seek strong legislation and just court decisions. They argued that the cause required a shrewd, sometimes sophisticated wooing of public opinion.

Negroes had, in fact, begun to grow uneasy about King. He no longer seemed to be the selfless leader of the 1950's. There was grumbling that his trips to jail looked like publicity stunts. When arrested in Albany, Ga., in 1961, he had declared dramatically that he would stay behind bars until the city desegregated public facilities. Two days later, he was out on bail. In St. Augustine, Fla., after getting Negroes fired up for massive demonstrations, he went to jail amid great fanfare. But two days later he was bailed out again, so he could receive an honorary degree at Yale University.

Sinister Murmurings, King really gave both critics and admirers serious cause for concern in 1965, when he began to talk about foreign policy. In July of that year, he told a Los Angeles group that the issues of racial injustice, poverty and war are "inextricably bound together." When advisers expressed doubts about the wisdom of linking the three, he retorted: “One cannot be just concerned with civil rights. It is very nice to drink milk at an unsegregated lunch counter-but not when there is strontium 90 in it."

A month later, he announced that he intended to write President Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam, and the leaders of South Vietnam, Russia and the United States in an effort to move the war to the conference table.

Then, in September 1965, he called on Arthur Goldberg chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations, and urged the United States to press for a U.N. seat for Communist China. Also, he asked for a halt in American air strikes on North Vietnam, and he recommended negotiations with the Vietcong. At this point, even some of his strongest supporters began to demur.

The New York Herald Tribune said: "Dr. King is already committed to a massive, unfinished task in an area in which he has great innuence. He can only dissipate that innuence by venturing into fields that are strange to him." In a harsher comment, liberal columnist Max Freedman asked, "Is he casting about for a role in Vietnam because the civil-rights struggle is no longer adequate to his own estimate of his talents?" NAACP leader Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young, executive director of the Urban League, Socialist leader Norman Thomas, and Bayard Rustin, a chief planner of the great civil-rights march on Washington in 1963 and himself a pacifist, all pleaded in vain with King not to wade into the Vietnam controversy.

Why did King reject the advice of his old civil-rights colleagues? Some say it was a matter of ego-that he was convinced that since he was the most influential Negro in the United States, President Johnson would have to listen to him and alter U.S. policy in Vietnam. Others revived a more sinister speculation that had been whispered around Capitol Hill and in the nation's newsrooms for more than two years-talk of communists influencing the actions and words of the young minister. This talk disturbed other civil-rights leaders more than anything else. I report this not to endorse what King and many others will consider a "guilt by association" smear, but because of the threat that these allegations represent to the civil-rights movement. When King was simply challenging Jim Crow, murmurings that he was associating with or influenced by, "enemies of the United States" had only limited impact. Most Congressmen and editors knew that American Negroes did not need a communist to tell them that they disliked being herded into the rear of buses, the balconies of theaters, the back doors of restaurants or a rainshackle school across the briar patch. But now that King has become deeply involved in a conflict where the United States is in direct combat with communists, the murmurings are likely to produce powerfully hostile reactions. They cannot help but imperil chances of passage of the civil-rights bill that would protect civil-rights workers in the South and make housing discrimination illegal. New Strain. King answered his critics. He had become convinced, he said in his April 4 speech at New York's Riverside Church, that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor "so long as adventures like Vietnam continue to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube." He told the Riverside audience that "We are taking black young men who have been crippled by our society and sending them 8,000 miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they have not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem."

The latter is an old cry that some Negroes have uttered in every American war. But in no conflict has a Negro with King's prestige urged Negroes to shun battle because they have nothing to fight for. King must have assumed that the "new Negro," full of frustration as he is, would be sympathetic to this argument. But a recent Harris survey showed that almost one of every two Negroes believes that King is wrong-and another 27 percent reserved judgment.

I find this opposition to King remarkable considering the amount of emotion and anger involved in the Negro revolution. It suggests that most Negroes are proud of the integrated performance of colored GIS in Vietnam; that most Negroes still think of America as their country and do not want to seem unpatriotic.

Beyond doubt, King's speech at Riverside Church and his subsequent remarks have put a new strain and new burdens on the civil rights movement. He has become persona non grata to Lyndon Johnson, a fact that he may consider of no consequence. It is also likely that his former friends in Congress will never again listen to or be moved by him the way they were in the past. This, too, may not bother King. But it can make the difference between poverty and well-being for millions of Negroes who cannot break the vicious circle of poverty and unpreparedness that imprisons them unless the President provides leadership and Congress provides the circle-breaking programs and laws.

Martin Luther King has alienated many of the Negro's friends and armed the Negro's foes, in both parties, by creating the impression that the Negro is disloyal. By urging Negroes not to respond to the draft or to fight in Vietnam, be has taken a tack that many Americans of all races consider utterly irresponsible. It is a tragic irony that there should be any doubt about the Negro's loyalty to his country-especially doubt created by Martin Luther King, who has helped as much as any one man to make America truly the Negro's country, too.