Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

a reason. All the evidence indicates, however, that the authorities in Taipei have made concerted efforts, over the

years, to meet international human rights standards and

enhance the life circumstances of the population on Taiwan

and associated territories. There is no convincing evidence
of a concerted government policy violative of human rights
in the ROC.

At best, any action by the United States governnent as a consequence of the unfortunate Liu case, in terms of sanctions against the authorities in Taipei would be premature. Whatever its failures in the past, the government of the Republic of China on Taiwan has been sensitive to U.S. concerns with respect to fundamental, civil and political human rights. As we have seen, in the judgment of the U.S. Department of

States, the "outlook for continued improvement in human rights

[on Taiwan) appears favorable." Any actions on the part of the government of the United States which would obstruct that

improvement, by increasing the measure of threat under which

the governnent in Taipei nust operate, would be counterproductive.

Any imposition of sanctions would contribute to the measure

of threat--and should be abjured. They would do nothing to increase the availability of human rights on Taiwan, and could very well threaten very fundamental V.S. and Chinese interests.

Notes to the Henry Liu Murder Case

the discussion in A. James Gregor and Maria Hsia

1. See the discussion in A. James Gregor and Maria Hsia Chang, The Republic of China and U.S. Policy: A Study in Human

Rights (Washington, D.C. : Ethics and Public Policy, 1983).

2. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1979

(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, 1980), p. 526.

3. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983 (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1984), p. 756.

4. See the testimony of A. James Gregor, before this subcommittee in Martial Law on Taiwan and United States Foreign Policy Interests (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing office, 1982), pp. 7-46.

5. See the comprehensive discussion in Raymond D. Gastil (editor), Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1983-1984 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1984).

6. In this regard, see the discussion in Hungdah Chiu, Chinese Law and Justice: Trends Over Three Decades (Baltimore: University of Maryland School of Law, 1982) and Socialist

Legalism: Reform and continuity in Post-Mao People's Republic

of China (Baltimore: University of Maryland School of Law);

Tao-tai Hsia, "Legal Development in the People's Republic of China, 1949-1981," in Hungdah Chiu and Shao-chuan Leng (eds.), China: Seventy Years After the 1911 Hsin-hai Revolution

(Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1984).

7. For a discussion of the importance of the ROC to American interests, see A. James Gregor and Maria Hsia Chang, The Iron Triangle: A U.S. Security Policy for Northeast Asia (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1984).

8. Martin L. Lasater, Taiwan: Facing Mounting Threats (Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1984), and A. James Gregor, "U.S. Interests in Northeast Asia and the Security of Taiwan," Strategic Review, Winter 1985.

APPENDIX 2
VOLUME 25, NUMBER 1, WINTER 1984

Liaison and the Law: Foreign Intelligence Agencies Activities in the United States

Michael J. Glennon*

A student leaves his country, a United States ally infamous for its human rights violations, to attend college in the United States. He socializes with fellow nationals on campus. Discussions center on repression in his homeland, and he joins an anti-regime organization. Through it, he attends meetings, distributes pamphlets, and joins demonstrations. But he soon hears of dissident friends who, upon returning home, are confronted with detailed accounts of their activities in the United States and are imprisoned and tortured. So he withdraws into silence, leaving dissent to the foolhardy. For him, the majesty of the first amendment exists only in government propaganda.

1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, concern has arisen among people in the United States that certain states “friendly” to the United States engage in activities within this country that are inconsistent with a congenial state of bilateral relations. The most prominent events generating such concern have included the assassination of the Chilean diplomat Orlando Letelier, the operations of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, and the death of an American professor allegedly murdered in Taiwan because of his dissident activities in the United States. 2 Less publicized are charges that foreign intelligence agents have harassed, intimidated, and monitored dissident students and emigres located in the United States. In addition, concern has arisen that certain states less friendly to the United States engage in similar activities. The Libyan government, for example, allegedly supported an assassination attempt in Colorado.4 It is asserted that elements of the United States intelligence and law enforcement community acquiesced, if not actively cooperated, in some of these activities. Public apprehension has thus arisen that not all residents of the United States are secure in the exercise of their constitutional rights.

* Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; former Legal Counsel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The events discussed or assumed in this article are intended as hypothetical examples of occurrences which may have particular legal consequences. Footnoted references to information available in the public record are intended merely to demonstrate the plausibility of the hypothetical examples given and are not intended to suggest the existence of additional occurrences or facts.

1. See STAFF OF SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE OF INTELLIGENCE, 95TH CONG., 2D SESS., ACTIVITIES OF “FRIENDLY” FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES: A Case STUDY (Comm. Print 1978) (hereinafter cited as COMMITTEE ON "FRIENDLY” FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES); Investigation of Korean-American Relations: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House Comm. on International Relations, 95th Cong., 1st & 2d Sess. (1977-1978); SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 95TH CONG., 20. SESS., INVESTIGATION OF KOREANAMERICAN RELATIONS (Comm. Print 1978); Glennon, Investigating Intelligence Activities, in TETHERED PRESIDENCY 141-52 (T. Franck ed. 1981). No congressional committee has yet engaged in a comprehensive and systematic investigation of the activities of foreign intelligence agencies in the United States, nor of the ramifications of liaison between the United States intelligence community and foreign intelligence agencies. The “Rockefeller Commission” decried the invasion of individual rights in the United States by foreign intelligence agencies, but referred only to the domestic activities of hostile, communist states. Commission on CIA Activities within the U.S., Report to the President 7-8 (1975).

REPRINTED FROM HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL

This Article explores the international and domestic legal framework applicable to the problem. It identifies weaknesses in the existing legal structure and makes specific proposals for change in administrative practice as well as federal law. The Article argues for a fundamental change in diplomatic policy by contending that the United States cannot support or acquiesce in the systematic imposition of sanctions by foreign governments on United States residents for political activ

2. On July 3, 1981, the body of Wen-Chen Chen, a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was found at the National Taiwan University, in Taipei. Taiwan security officials said he had committed suicide because he had confessed to anti-government activity and feared imprisonment. An autopsy revealed 13 broken ribs, a broken spine, a broken pelvic bone and internal injuries, and also revealed that he died six and a half hours after being released from interrogation (which, according to Taiwan officials, lasted 13 hours). N.Y. Times, July 21, 1981, at A2, col. 3. See Hearings on Taiwan Agents in America and the Death of Professor Chen Wen-Chen Before the Subcomm. on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the House Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. (1981) [Taiwan Agents in America); S. REP. No. 141, 96TH CONG., 1st Sess. (1979); Cyert, Death Chills a Campus, N.Y. Times, Aug. 27, 1981, at A25, col. 1; Professor Chen Goes Home, NEWSWEEK, Aug. 3, 1981, at 49.

3. Amnesty International has reported such activities as those of the Iranian secret police agency SAVAK:

SAVAK's activities extend beyond Iran to all countries which have sizeable Iranian communities. In particular, Iranian students studying abroad are subject to surveillance; Amnesty International (AI) is aware of instances in which students have been arrested and imprisoned upon their return to Iran, presumably because of their participation in political

activities while abroad. Iran, Amnesty International Briefing 2 (Nov. 1976).

This was not the first time that Amnesty International reported coercion of Iranians living abroad by SAVAK. In June 1976, for example, it said that "[t]here has been an identifiable increase in the repression of opposition within Iran and an extension of the activities of SAVAK ... to states in which Iranians are living abroad, in an attempt to prevent criticism of the Iranian regime." AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THE AMNESTY-INTERNATIONAL REPORT, 1 JUNE 1975–31 May 1976 (1976). See also The SAVAK-CIA Connection, THE NATION, Mar. 1, 1980, at 229–30.

4. N.Y. Times, Dec. 5, 1981, at 1, col. 1; Gaddafi's Western Gunslingers, Time, Nov. 16, 1981, at 33.

« AnteriorContinuar »