The human rights of the people of South Korea have been seriously violated since the establishment in 1972 of the repressive Yushin ("revitalization") Constitution. In the period since the death of President Park Chung-hee in October 1979, there seems to have been some genuine movement toward the formulation of a democratic constitution. It is, nevertheless, a regrettable fact that freedoms of speech, press, and assembly, the very basis of democracy itself, continue to be denied the Korean people by means of martial law and many persons continue to be incarcerated or restricted for political reasons.

It is true that in the past 25 years Korea has achieved significant economic growth. The standard of living of the population has increased substantially. These achievements, however, were made at the expense of workers and those who are not in the privileged economic class.

The United States, as the primary nation involved in the formation of the Republic of Korea, has a unique responsibility for the flourishing of genuine representative government there, and has supported

Korea's governments with military and economic aid ostensibly in order to preserve democracy. However, the US government has been reluctant to pursue a strong course for human rights in Korea in deference to perceived American national security interests.

Our religious faith calls us to affirm the dignity and worth of every human being and to struggle with our oppressed brothers and sisters for justice in order "to preach good news to the poor... to proclaim release to the captives. . .to set at liberty those who are oppressed."

Therefore, be it resolved that we, the General Conference of The United Methodist Church:

1. Express our continuing support for our brothers and sisters who struggle and suffer for the sake of social justice in Korea;

2. Call on the United States government to insist on an immediate end to martial law in Korea and the withdrawal of military officers from civilian governmental affairs, making it clear that the continued distortion of their proper defense role by the ROK military threatens the basis of the United States' commitment to the security of Korea.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP

The International Human Rights Law Group was established in 1978 by the Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute in order to fill the increasing need for skilled human rights legal practitioners to service, on a pro bono basis. individual and nongovernmental clients. The Law Group has conducted a series of seminars to educate the legal community with respect to international human rights law and its domestic implications and has represented individual and organizational clients before the UN Human Rights Commission, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, UNESCO, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Law Group, through the PAIL Institute is a nongovernmental organization having consultative status with the United Nations.

In addition to its general educational and research efforts, the Law Group has dealt with specific human rights issues in a wide range of countries. Clients have included groups as diverse as the Hungarian minority in Rumania, Yugoslav dissident writers, Haitian refugees in the United States, the Korean minority in Japan, and the Inter-American Commission of Women of the OAS. The Law Group has intervened as amicus curiae in U.S. court proceedings concerned with the right of education for undocumented alien children in Texas (Doe v. Plyler, 5th Cir.), the status of torture under international law (Filartiga v. Pena, 2nd Cir.), and the rights of Cuban prisoners sent to the United States during the mass exodus of Cubans in 1980 (Rodriguez Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 10th Cir.). In addition to the compilation, U.S. Legislation Relating Human Rights to U.S. Foreign Policy, the Law Group during the past year has also been preparing a study on implementation of the human rights statutes within the executive and legislative branches of government.

We thus approach the issues surrounding the nomination of Dr. Ernest W. Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs from a broad perspective that is grounded in the international and domestic protection of human rights through the legal process. We believe, as stated by Senator Moynihan in comments in the Senate on March 3, 1981, that: "... the cause of human rights is not merely an expression of the preference of people around the world who care about liberty. Far from it. It is instead a matter of international obligation; it reflects the notion, first, that the future of peace in the world is dependent on the spread of liberal democratic political institutions; and second, that there is an international community with a legitimate interest in the protection of human rights. . . the United States must stand in firm opposition to both [authoritarian and totalitarian regimes]; if we do not. our opposition to one of them alone will matter little." (Cong. Rec., S1732, 1733)

As a matter of international law, the principle that concern for human rights in any country is a legitimate concern of all countries is beyond dispute. The UN Charter and dozens of international agreements dealing with human rights underscore the fact that human rights are no longer solely within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. Dr. Lefever's assertion that "international law forbids any state from interfering in the internal political, judicial, and economic affairs of another" (N.Y. Times, January 24, 1977) is true with respect to armed intervention, but it does not follow that public or private concern with human rights violations in any country is impermissible.

Some of the confusion on this point seems to stem from the identification of human rights with American or other purely nationalistic values. For example, Dr. Lefever has indicated that "Americans have no moral mandate to transform other societies," implying that public expressions of concern for human rights are inappropriate and arrogant.

However, "human rights" are not an American invention, although it is very true that the United States can make legitimate pride in the role it has played in the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international documents. Rather, as recognized clearly throughout U.S. legislation in this area, our concern is with "internationally recognized human rights" (emphasis added) which the United States is in fact under an obligation to promote under Articles 55 and 56 of the U.N. Charter.

It should also be noted that the restrictions on U.S. security and other assistance contained in sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, are brought into operation not for the "relatively minor imperfections" dismissed by Dr. Lefever as unimportant but rather only in those situations

where a country "engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person." (emphasis added)

The Law Group strongly urges continuation of this international standard of human rights, which has received bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress since 1973.

It appears that Dr. Lefever's objections to introducing human rights standards into foreign assistance legislation extend not only to the general prohibitions referred to above but also to the human rights concerns which are presently required to be considered with respect to international financial institutions (Foreign Assistance and Related Program Appropriations Act, 1978, sec. 507; International Financial Institutions Act of 1977, sec. 701, 703; Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1979, sec. 611), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, sec. 239(1), 240A), and the Export-Import Bank (Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, sec. 2(b)(1) (B)). Specific legislative action has also been taken with respect to named countries, i.e., Argentina, Chile, Cuba, South Africa, South Korea, Uganda, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Laos, Vietnam, Zaire, Mozambique, and Angola.1

The office to which Dr. Lefever has been nominated was created by Congress in 1978 as a means of institutionalizing concern for human rights as a component of U.S. foreign policy (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, sec. 624 (f) (1)). Under this legislation, it is declared that "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” (emphasis added). It is not the prerogative of any administration or individual to alter this Congressional mandate through the appointment process or through administrative circumvention of statutory requirements. Yet Dr. Lefever has stated, in a well-known article, published in 1978, that "[i]n a formal and legal sense, the U.S. Government has no responsibility-and certainly no authority— to promote human rights in other sovereign states." ("The Trivialization of Human Rights," Policy Review, Winter 1978, at 23) It is difficult to understand how this statement can be reconciled with the clear directive of sec. 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act, cited above, which defines the responsibilities of the Assistance Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. It is simply not true that "there is little the U.S. Government can or should do to advance human rights, other than using quiet diplomatic channels at appropriate times and places," as has been stated by Dr. Lefever. (Id.) While quiet diplomacy is, of course, appropriate in some instances, it must not be allowed to serve as a smokescreen for inaction and acquiescence. Nor must quiet diplomacy in bilateral relations be permitted to obscure or vitiate the valuable contributions that the United States can and has made in multilateral form such as the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

While it is not the Law Group's intention to offer advice on specific tactics which should or should not be followed, we do think it important to emphasize the hypocrisy that could fairly be inferred were the United States to abandon human rights concerns internationally at the same time that it held itself out as a "city of hope" or "beacon on the hill" championing democracy and liberty. As noted in the brief introductory remarks describing the activities of the International Human Rights Law Group, our concerns are universal and include the human rights situations in countries with varying forms of political and economic systems. It is essential that balance and impartiality be maintained in the U.S. approach to human rights issues. If the policies of the previous administration are to be criticized on the grounds that they overemphasized the defects of allies (although a look at press clippings concerning President Carter's remarks about the U.S.S.R. soon after he took office would hardly suggest a pro-Soviet bias), the solution is to restore that balance and not to err by ignoring the defects of allies and criticizing our perceived enemies. These are not new concerns, and the President of the Law Group's parent body, the Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute, noted the need for

1 These and other human rights statutes are set forth in U.S. Legislation Relating Human Rights to U.S. Foreign Policy (2d ed. July 1980), prepared for the International Human Rights Law Group by Professor Richard B. Lillich, copies of which have been made available to members of the committee and to Dr. Lefever.

greater executive branch cooperation and Congressional oversight of U.S. human rights legislation in his 1979 testimony before the House Subcommittee on International Organizations. ("Human Rights and Foreign Policy", Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organization of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 96th Congress, 1st Session, prepared statement of Richard B. Lillich, at 94-106.) Other relevant concerns contradicting the positions taken by Dr. Lefever were expressed in 1979 by Raymond D. Gastil, Director of Freedom House's Comparative Survey of Freedom :

. . . a relatively consistent concern with human rights should characterize American policy. Although in the short run, this policy may have mixed results, in the long run it represents our best claim to legitimacy. . . . we should maintain a single human rights standard against which all nations will be measured . . . Evenhandedness is ultimately the only way to gradually win worldwide acceptance and eventual affirmation of human rights (Id., statement of Raymond D. Gastil, at 261, and letter of August 27, 1979, from Mr. Gastil to Subcommittee Chairman Bonker, at 405-6.)

A point of view which bases human rights consideration on an a priori classification of governments as totalitarian or authoritarian is unacceptable and detrimental to U.S. interests. While degrees of repression certainly exist, the fact that a situation is worse somewhere else should never be an excuse for condoning violations on specious grounds of realpolitik.

There is no doubt that the rest of the world perceives the new administration as "soft" on human rights violations by authoritarian allies of the United States, and there have been indications that such regimes have themselves become more repressive because of their belief in tacit U.S. approval. If these perceptions and beliefs are mistaken, it is up to the administration-and particularly the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs-to set the record straight. In our view, this has not yet been done.

Based on a careful consideration of the record, public statements, and conversations with Dr. Lefever, the International Human Rights Law Group has concluded that his nomination would not be in the best interests of the United States or the cause of human rights and would be unlikely to preserve the spirit, as well as the letter, of U.S. or international law. We respectfully urge the Committee to reject Dr. Lefever's nomination.

Senator CHARLES PERCY,

THE DEMOCRACY INTERNATIONAL,
L'INTERNATIONALE DÉMOCRATIQUE,
Washington, D.C., May 23, 1981.

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR PERCY: We appreciate the opportunity afforded us by your committee of putting on record our position on the question of the confirmation of Mr. Ernest Lefever as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.

The Democracy International is, as our founding declaration puts it, "a movement to promote pluralist democracy-to strengthen democracy where it exists; to revive democracy where it has been destroyed; and to inspire democracy where it has been too long a distant dream."

Ours is an organization composed of exiles, and their sympathizers, from both communist totalitarian regimes and right wing dictatorships. Among our board members are Pavel Litvinov, organizer of the 1968 Red Square protests against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia; Elena Mederos Gonzales, Fidel Castro's first Minister of Social Welfare, until she broke with him over the lack of democracy in Cuba; Dr. Kang Young-che, of the Korean Congress for Democracy and Unification found by Kim Dae Jung; Paul Louis Cassagnol, president of the Union Patriotique Hatienne; N. H. Wang, in charge of international affairs of the Overseas Alliance for Democratic Rule in Taiwan; Constantine C. Menges, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare; James Finn, vice-president of the Council on Religion and International Affairs N.Y.); and the undersigned is a writer who was active in the anti-Nazi and anti-Communist resistance in Hungary, now in exile in this country for over 25

years.