[Attachment to Rabbi Siegel's statement follows:] REMARKS ABOUT ARGENTINA Argentina is in the news. The publication of the book of prison memoirs by Jacobo Timerman has caught the attention of the American public. News stories about the confirmation hearings of Doctor Ernest Lefever featured Mr. Timerman's presence in the caucus room. Argentina is pictured as a savage country about to explode in a Hitlerite flood of anti-semitism and cruel repression. Doctor Lefever is castigated by his opponents because he believes that the United States policy of promoting human rights-to which he and all citizens of good will subscribe should not include excommunicating the Argentinians from fraternal relations with our country. I know Argentina well, especially the Jewish community. I helped found a rabbinical seminary in Buenos Aires and have taught and visited there many times. There have, undoubtedly, been lamentable instances of torture and excusable excesses in the wake of restoring order after the virtual civil war that existed there before the advent of the present junta. There are, undoubtedly, anti-semites in Argentina as there are in all places where Jews live. It would be wrong to believe that the Jews of Argentina are in the same situation as the Jews of Europe during the years of Nazi oppression. The Jewish community numbering 400,000, has created an impressive network of cultural and religious institutions which function at the present day without fear or threat. The community conducts a wide variety of activities, including efforts on behalf of the State of Israel. Jews have distinguished themselves in the scientific, cultural and industrial life of the country. There is an active Zionist organization which promotes the study of modern Hebrew and pro-Israel efforts. There is a Jewish press in Spanish and Yiddish. Most of the Jews I spoke to in my recent visits to the country are thankful that the junta has finally restored order in a country torn by civil strife and guerrilla bands. Most important of all, there is free emigration out of Argentina. Any individual who feels that the political atmosphere is threatening can leave together with his assets. This is not to excuse the horrors that were certainly experienced, especially during the early days after the transfer of power. However, it is important to see all that has been reported in context and not to draw conclusions which would result in the delegitimization of the present regime and probably the return to the instability and killings which were everyday occurrences in previous times. Argentina occupies a strategic place in our hemisphere. It is to our interest that the regime remain friendly to the United States and the West. It is also obviously important that all efforts be made to encourage the development of democracy and liberty. This has been the policy of the United States both under President Carter and President Reagan. Doctor Lefever has frequently expressed support for the promotion of human rights around the world. The important difference between the present administration and the previous one is that now we believe that our objectives will best be served by friendly dialogue and fraternal urging. The present leadership of our nation believes that more will be achieved by effective result-oriented policies than by moralistic posturing. We don't want only to feel good; we want to do good. We want to improve our friends, not lose them. Argentina is our friend. It has a long way to go on the road to liberty and democracy. We can best help them by remaining friends while pointing out their weaknesses with firmness and understanding. Senator CRANSTON. Thank you very much. Reverend Deppe. STATEMENT OF M. WILLIAM HOWARD, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, you already have my testimony. So I would like to use the brief time that I have to address you to say in summary why I think it is so important that your committee not confirm the nominee as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. STANFORD LIBRARIES As I speak, I want you and members of your committee to know that I do not speak in a vacuum. I speak as a person who has many friends in the universal Christian church who are advocates for human rights. Some of them today are in jail. Some of them have been in exile. Some of them have even been killed. So I speak with a sense of sobriety in light of this fact. For the last few years, as president of the National Council of Churches, I have had the unique and treasured opportunity, sir, to travel the length and breadth of our Nation meeting with our fellow citizens in their local churches and in their town halls. I have had the privilege of being engaged by them on local radio talk-back shows and of receiving their constant flow of unsolicited mail on many issues of concern to them. Because of this experience, I firmly believe most Americans want to know that their country has a strong human rights commitment. They believe that we should be a leader in the concern for international human rights and not a quiet follower. As a nation which enjoys a leading position in the world, but even more because of our special national heritage, the United States of America must stand firmly for human rights in the conduct of our international affairs. The American people know well that if the nations of the world hold our country in high esteem, it is because we have boldly and historically declared our belief in the dignity of the human person. We are not without serious shortcomings in this regard. We all know that. But we have been able because of our resolve to continue improving our democratic processes, to discuss these shortcomings openly and with the utmost candor, and we have never abandoned our commitment. Today we simply cannot afford to change this commitment to human rights in form or in content. Rather than retrenching or even appearing to, we must redouble our efforts and do more about it. Furthermore, we must not be selective, but we must be consistent with friend and foe, out in the open, unapologetic in our insistence that universal human rights be a vital part of the international relations equation. Obviously on some matters of concern between nations different approaches should be taken. But human rights is too fundamental to our national identity and purpose to be soft pedaled. If you agree on the fundamental role that our historic commitment to principles of human rights plays in the world community, allow me then to assure you that confirmation of the nominee will not enhance that role. The basic problem is his credibility. He has testified, as you well know, before a House subcommittee less than 2 years ago that he believes laws which he would be obligated to uphold in the post for which he is being nominated should be abolished. Now he says he was not wise to take such a position. But who can believe that his revised position is other than an expedient one, taken with a view to making himself acceptable to your committee and to the American people? Who can believe this revised position, when he has shown himself to be so insensitive to some of the most grave human rights situations in the world? Will he be credible in South Africa among the victims of apartheid after he has enjoyed such a cozy relationship with the Afrikaaners, and when he has stated, It would be impossible for sophisticated, industrialized white South Africa to integrate culturally and politically 10 million largely illiterate Bantu without catastrophic consequences. Will he be credible in South Korea, where he has characterized the advocates of human rights in that country as "a mixture of naive utopians and power-hungry ideologues." Can he be credible in Latin America, where he seems willing virtually to ignore legitimate demands for human rights if he determines that taking up the concerns of human rights victims just might offend a friendly dictator? Can he be credible among our own people when he has so viciously attacked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for his moral stand against the war in Vietnam, and when he has characterized those who oppose his nomination here today as being orchestrated by Communists? Can he be credible among those of us whom he has sought to undermine through his unethical, and I repeat, his unethical collaboration with the Nestlé Corp. simply because we have opposed the promotion of infant formula in developing countries? Mr. Chairman, can he be credible? This is a serious matter. The nominee, whether he would if confirmed adhere to the letter of the law or not, is both domestically and abroad a symbol of the antihumanrights movement. Should you decide to confirm him to the post for which he has been nominated you will, although unintentionally, signal to the world that human rights for the "land of the free and the home of the brave" has been put on the back burner. Human rights advocates in this country and abroad, some of whom take up their causes at great personal danger, Jews in Argentina, Indians in Guatemala, clergy in South Africa, are often the best sources of information about the extent of human rights violations in their contexts. The vast majority of them, I tell you now, are not likely to regard the nominee trustworthy enough to communicate with him. So again, I urge you not to confirm the nominee and I urge you to make your decision quickly, because the lives of large numbers of people are at stake. Already his nomination has contributed to the recent impression that our country is no longer prepared to be that beacon of light in the world, which serves as constant warning to all who would trample the human spirit. Repressive governments have been encouraged by this impression, as my very recent visit to Central America confirms, South Africa's stepped up repression, particularly against my colleague Bishop Desmond Tutu, and its continuing intransigence regarding a Namibia settlement, must be seen in this light. Regarding all the talk about quiet diplomacy as an approach to human rights, if it has ever worked at all, the nominee has been too public for too long against human rights to be credible in this matter. Thank you very much. [Mr. Howard's prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF M. WILLIAM HOWARD I am M. William Howard, the President of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. with offices at 475 Riverside Drive in New York City. The National Council of Churches is a council of 32 Protestant and Orthodox Christian communions which "responding to the gospel revealed in the Scriptures, confess Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, as Savior and Lord. Relying on the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the Council works to bring churches into a life-giving fellowship and into common witness, study and action to the glory of God and in service to all creation." A few examples of the work of the NCC are: The search for Christian unity through study and consultation in matters of faith and order. The provision of over 2,500,000 tons of food, clothing and health supplies for emergency situations in the U.S. and around the world. The support of human rights for persons in the United States and under oppressive regimes in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. The development of uniform lesson outlines for church schools and other study materials for local churches. Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States is entitled to surround himself with key staff of his own choosing. Only obvious incompetence or serious incompatibility with the function to be performed traditionally would be grounds for the U.S. Senate to deny the President his choice. We are therefore aware that it is a serious matter to oppose a Presidential nomination. We regard the issues that revolve around this appointment with such grave concern that we cannot remain silent. Let me here note that in the mid-fifties Mr. Lefever was known to many associated with the National Council of Churches. He was briefly employed by the NCC from February 1, 1952, to October 31, 1954. He was at one time an ordained minister of a member communion of the NCC. I therefore present this testimony today in opposition to the nomination of Ernest W. Lefever to the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. I will speak to six issues: (1) The Conception of the Role of Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy: (2) South Korea; (3) Southern Africa ; (4) Use of Church Personnel in Intelligence Gathering by U.S. Intelligence Agencies; (5) Infant Formula Controversy; (6) Attack on Martin Luther King, Jr. CONCEPTION OF THE ROLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY On July 12, 1979, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Ernest Lefever declared : "In my view the United States should remove from the statute books all clauses that establish a human rights standard or condition that must be met by another sovereign government before our government transacts normal business with it, unless specifically waived by the President. "It shouldn't 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 toward adversary states like the Soviet Union." (P. 218.) The NCC supports the human rights statutes enacted by the U.S. Congress. We believe they have contributed to the building of an international consensus that recognizes basic human rights as an obligation owed by a government to its citizens; the right to be free of violations of one's person; the right to basic human necessities; the right to civil and political liberties. Mr. Lefever is strongly opposed to the body of Congressional human rights directives which have been enacted to assure that "a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States is to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights." (Section 502B, Foreign Assistance Act.) We believe it is cynical to nominate such a person to preside over the implementation of these statutes, let alone a man who clearly does not see these human rights statutes as in the U.S. national interest. We believe they serve our national interest and define in part who we are as a nation. SOUTH KOREA In regard to South Korea. Mr. Lefever stated in the New York Times of June 18, 1980: Mr. Carter seems unaware that South Korea, like most third world countries, has virtually no democratic tradition, no experience with competitive politics, and little concept of a loyal opposition. He seems to believe that Korean dissidents are authentic advocates of democracy and human rights rather than a mixture of naive utopians and power-hungry ideologues determined to pursue ill-defined goals illegally and by force. Like many Western liberals, he seems to regard mobs of youths as agents of desirable change and middle-aged generals as barriers to progress." Persons who are knowledgeable about South Korea including educators, missionaries and U.S. Government officials, are deeply troubled by his failure to recognize the persistent and legitimate struggle for greater political freedom and civilian participation in government. This struggle has continued only to be frustrated again and again, first by the long Japanese occupation and now by the South Korean military dictatorship characterized by Mr. Lefever as a "friendly authoritarian regime." Mr. Letever's remarks about the opposition ignore completely its patriotic character and the significant role in it of responsible Protestant and Catholic leaders. The office he will administer is entrusted by law to gather and disseminate accurate and reliable human rights information, particularly human rights offenses around the world. We seriously doubt that Mr. Lefever could provide such unbiased information, and that those suffering violations of their rights around the world would trust communication with a man who so denigrated and misunderstood their struggles. SOUTHERN AFRICA The 1969 U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 39 (NSSM39) assumed as a given that the white minority regimes of southern Africa would remain in power and could not be successfully challenged. Liberation soon followed for Mozambique and Angola. Now, earlier than we could have dared hope, a fairly stable majority-ruled black government exists in Zimbabwe, and Namibia will surely follow. The NCC in a November 10, 1977, policy statement said, "Today the question for the United States is no longer whether majority rule is possible in Southern Africa. The question is what is the best way to achieve it. The United States must not continue rheotorically to endorse majority rule while economically, politically, diplomatically and militarily supporting white minority rule." Ernest Lefever has consistently defended white minority governments in Southern Africa. In an article entitled "South Africa Should be a Close Ally of the United States." which appeared in the April 14, 1978, issue of South African Digest, an official South African government organ, Mr. Lefever accused the U.S. Government of being "primitive" and behaving "more like an adversary than an ally" toward South Africa. He favored arms sales (the NCC supports the United Nations embargo on all arms sales to South Africa). He supported South African policies in Namibia, recommended the recognition of the Transkei, and complained that U.S. insistence "on bringing in the Soviet and China-backed guerrillas" was obstructing an internal settlement in Rhodesia. He complained that "Rhodesia is under siege, not because it has a 'minority' regime, but because it has a white minority regime." U.S. policies, he charged, were "giving aid and comfort to the Marxists." He also wrote in the Wall Street Journal on June 26, 1976, "There is no quick way for Rhodesia to achieve majority rule in an honest sense of the term The ballot box provides no way for the view of traditional and tribal people to be translated into national policy." |