without moral purpose. Our country was founded on a commitment to individual .. rights, a commitment sometimes sorely tested, but ultimately reaffirmed throughout our history. That commitment is an important element of national cohesion and a sense of shared purpose among our people. If nothing else, the integrity of our own traditions and beliefs and our national self-esteem demand that we exercise a leadership role in human rights advocacy. Secretary of State Vance has said that "an abiding respect for human rights is a human value of fundamental importance *** that must be nourished." If the Carter administration continues to nourish that value, as it has done so far, it will also be nourishing our national interest. Mr. SHESTACK. By way of background, the International League for Human Rights was founded in 1942 by Roger Baldwin, who is also the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. He just celebrated his 94th birthday and is very vigorous and active. Mr. Baldwin says that what keeps him young is always to have an unpopular cause at hand. So, I commend that course to the members of the committee. For many years, the International League has worked in the human rights field, being the only international human rights organization headquartered in New York, and it has been rather in barren and lonely soil. It is very encouraging to see that advocating human rights has now become popular. But, it is perhaps wise to remember that, though much credit is due to the Carter administration for the emphasis on human rights, it was Congress that took a most helpful initiative, through the kind of work that this and other committees have done through their hearings, long before the present administration came into office. Already, even though human rights is popular today, one hears voices saying, is it strident, is it evangelical, is it counterproductive? Does it really do any good? Mr. LONG. Or, is it any of our business how badly countries treat their own people? Mr. SHESTACK. I am glad you raised that question, Mr. Long, because you do hear that, and very often. In the press, it is often a question of, are we interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. I think there is a simple answer to that. Human rights are a matter of international commitments. They are part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international covenants, including such agreements as the Helsinki declaration. Therefore, when the President or Congress calls upon other nations to observe these commitments, they are really asking for adherence to a rule of law and a stable world order, and a recognition of international commitments. This is not an inappropriate interference in internal affairs. Most of the scholars in the field who have studied the question for years, indeed, since the beginning of the U.N. Charter, recognize that international commitments are appropriate matters of international concern and, therefore, are not considered matters of domestic jurisdiction solely. One might also ask that if a nation is not a reliable partner on international commitments with respect to human rights, such as found in the Helsinki agreement, can they be a reliable observer of international commitments on arms limitation, drug control, or other areas? So, I think the internal interference argument is a kind of a red herring that should be rejected. I believe it is also important recognize emphasis on human rights is not just an independent moral exercise, but that human rights are very much related to foreign policy goals, and to the national interest; that when you do stress human rights, you are furthering the national interest. There are a number of reasons why this is so which may be worth noting very briefly. One, as President Kennedy once said, in the last analysis, is not world peace a matter of human rights? The striving for human rights does advance world peace. Second, it also underscores the importance of a rule of law and world order. A third reason is that our national secruity is really helped by advancing human rights values. Professor McDougal of Yale made the point that a nation which respects human dignity, and which has human rights values, has more restraints on arbitrary action and is certainly going to be more consistent with the values which make for peace rather than for war. Fourth, in terms of our own aspirations for world leadership, the face that we have to offer the world cannot be one only of power and self-entrepreneurism, but must reflect a dedication to our own principles. Fifth, emphasis on human rights also wins support for foreign policy. There has been mention, for example, of Korea as a security interest. But, the fact of the matter is that military aid to Korea has been jeopardized just because there has been a failure to stress the human rights equation. Congress may well cut down or deny that aid because of the gross violations in Korea. Had more attention been paid to human rights concerns, both in our own diplomatic relations and by the Korean Government, that security interest would be more secure in terms of what the American people are likely to support. In other words, the American people over the long run rarely support a foreign policy that ignores the human rights equation. Finally, a human rights emphasis in foreign policy strengthens our own sense of ethical values and moral cohesion. So that one should not look at Mr. Carter's human rights emphasis as just the ideas of a Baptist Sunday school teacher who has attained national office, but as someone who is really stressing the national interests of the United States in a deeper philosophic and long-term sense. We must also scrutinize the arguments that support of repressive regimes, Mr. Chairman, is necessary in terms of our national interest. History hasn't proved that. Our support of the Greek junta, for example, had a bad aftermath, as we know, now that democracy has been restored in Greece. Mr. LONG. I don't think anybody is arguing that. They are saying there are occasions in which support of an oppressive regime may be necessary. That is the point. Not always. I don't think anybody would argue always. Mr. SHESTACK. I think that is right. What is required. Mr. Long, is a closer analysis of just what our security interests are. It tends to become a rote word, that we have security interests in places where analysis shows there is not really a security interest at all. Therefore, I think Congress can scrutinize just as well, and often better, than the State Department. That brings me to one of the main points I would like to make. For Congress to exercise its judgment, it needs information. The situation used to be that there was an adversary, hostile relationship between the State Department and Congress. I think that is no longer true, as Mrs. Derian so exemplifies. I think she is a good exponent of détente between the State Department and Congress. But, what I would like to suggest is that the reports you are getting still are not very accurate in many cases, and that some of the Carter candor has not yet seeped through to levels of the State Department where these reports are prepared. For example, with Iran, Department's Human Right of March, 1977, says that there freedom of thought is observed in Iran. Unfortunately, the freedom of thought that exists there must be so quietly expressed that it cannot be articulated because if you articulate the freedom of thought you wind up very quickly in jail, and there are a great many students who have been jailed. The report says there is no "known verifiable evidence of the use of torture." But, the International League, the International Commission of Jurists and Amnesty have all verified torture in Iran. There are many Iranian students who have testified to torture in Iran. It is a rather cavalier statement to say there is no verifiable evidence of torture. Now, what these reports sometimes do is, as a supplement, is to describe a report of organizations like Amnesty, the International League for Human Rights, or the ICJ, but it is almost presented as extraneous documentation, instead of trying to see whether that document is true. In Panama, for example, State Department reports say that violations of human rights occurred before 1971, and they have not been substantiated. But, the Panamanian Committee on Human Rights can offer ample substantiation of numerous violations, including violations in 1976 and 1977. That committee's reports are available for the Department. For the United Kingdom, for example, there is the report that says that torture has stopped. But, the fact of the matter is, it has not stopped. There was a woman from Ireland in to see me yesterday whose son is in Long Kesh jail. His name is Dennis Nelis, and there is a letter which I am submitting for the record that was smuggled out of that jail telling of forms of torture, of prisoners kept naked, of beatings of prisoners by British guards, and the like. [The letter follows:] Many of you may not be fully aware of the situation in the concentration camps and prisons of the occupied six counties, because of the black-propaganda exercise being carried on by the jet-set group of the so-called peace people and the press hand-outs from the British Foreign Office. I hope this letter contributes in helping all concerned in the struggle for Irish liberation in America understand fully the truthful situation throughout British prisons in Ireland. At the present time 82 Republicans are in solitary confinement 24 hours per day. They are being held at the new extension to Long Kesh, now called the H blocks, because they are built in a H shape, but are now known among Republicans as "Hell Blocks." The men in the blocks are naked except for a coarse hair blanket, which they wear to keep warm, and have become affectionately known as the "blanket men." The reason why these men are in this predicament is because the British Government has refused to give them their rights as politica APPENDIX 6 CONGRESSIONAL PRESENTATION, FISCAL YEAR 1978 SECURITY ASSISTANCE I. POLITICAL SITUATION Panama is a republic governed under the provisions of a constitution which entered into force October 11, 1972. The present government came into power in 1968 following a coup. Organized opposition by political parties is not permitted. A transitory provision of the 1972 Constitution grants General Omar Torrijos broad powers as Chief of Government for a six-year period. Torrijos has based his government on broad support within Panama, and has made a number of consessions to both the left and the right to assure the continuation of this support. II. LEGAL SITUATION The Constitution guarantees equality before the law. It guarantees a hearing before a competent authority within 24 hours of detention, and writ of habeas corpus. Warrants are required before a search can be undertaken. The Constitution also guarantees freedom of movement, religion, assembly and expression. These guarantees are generally observed. Justice is generally administered fairly and without regard to race, social class or wealth. III. OBSERVANCE OF INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS A. Integrity of the person Article 3.-Panamanians enjoy the guarantee of life, liberty, and security of person. A very few exceptions have occurred where individuals engage in political activities which the Government considers inimical. Nearly all of the exceptions involving arbitrary imprisonment occurred prior to 1972. The noteworthy exceptions in recent years occurred when 14 participants in the January 1976 political protests and three persons who allegedly fomented riots in September 1976 were exiled. Article 5.-There is no evidence that the Panamanian Government makes a practice of arbitrary imprisonment, torture, or murder for political purposes. A "Panamanian Committee for Human Rights" has published an anonymouslyauthored pamphlet alleging brutality on the part of the Government. There is no independent corroboration of the allegations and it appears that nearly all of the alleged incidents are believed to have occurred during the 1968-71 period. Article 8.-In general, Panamanians can obtain an effective remedy from the courts if their rights are violated. Exceptions to this are more frequent for political opponents of the Government. Article 9.-The Government has exiled opponents who it felt threatened its existence. This occurred most recently in January and September 1976, when the government summarily exiled 17 prominent Panamanians. Although this latest group was composed primarily of lawyers and businessmen, opponents who have been exiled represent the full political spectrum including radicals on the left and leaders of the Communist party (PDP). Some exiled persons have been permitted to return to Panama after a time. Article 10.-The practice of amparo (habeas corpus), which requires that a hearing to determine charges and rights be held within twenty-four hours after arrest, is generally observed in Panama. Article 11.-Panamanian have reasonable assurance of obtaining a fair trial in the vast majority of civil and criminal cases. The guarantee of a fair trial might not be observed in a case with important political considerations, however. B. Other Important Freedoms The Government does not condone discrimination although some evidence of it remains in Panama's racially-mixed population. In general, Panamanians can move freely within the country and may travel abroad without restrictions. Property rights are respected. There is freedom of religion. Freedom of assembly is observed. However, political organization and activity are limited. Organized open political opposition is not tolerated. The media are monitored by the government. While strict censor ship is not imposed, editors and others in positions of responsibility are made aware of what will be tolerated by the government, and editors of one newspaper chain, which is owned primarily by high officials of the GOP, take guidance from the Government. While radio criticism of the GOP has occasionally been sharp, criticism appearing in the press is aimed primarily at low-level officials and at failures in the implementation of policies rather than broadside attacks on top leadership. IV. OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTING The Amnesty International Report on Torture, published in 1973, states that the most serious allegations of torture in Panama date from before 1970, but notes allegations of single instances in 1971 and 1972. The Amnesty International Report 1975-76 does not contain a section on Panama. Freedom House describes Panama as "not free". APPENDIX 7 PRESS RELEASE-EMBASSY OF Panama, DECEMBER 23, 1976 With reference to Jack Anderson's article published yesterday, stating that the recent terrorist activities in the Panama Canal Zone were carried out by members of Panama's National Guard, specifically the setting of explosives, and which cited as his sources of information "secret reports to the Pentagon" and "classified State Department cables from the United States Embassy in Panama", the government of Panama categorically and emphatically denies such statement. The Government of the Republic of Panama therefore has made public as follows, the confidential letter sent by the head of government, General Omar Torrijos Herrera, to the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger on November 29, 1976. The Secretary General of the United Nations was duly informed of the contents of said letter to Secretary of State Kissinger. NOVEMBER 29, 1976. Mr. SECRETARY OF STATE: In my capacity as head of government and commander-in-chief of the National Guard of Panama, through this confidential note which will be handed to you personally by my minister of foreign affairs, I wish to reply to the serious and grave assertions made in my office, according to his instructions, by Mr. William Jorden, Ambassador of the United States of America, on November 9, which may be summarized as follows: 1. That certain members of the national guard of Panama are involved in terrorist activities which have taken place in the Panama Canal Zone in connection with explosives which last October destroyed six automobiles and damaged certain buildings. 2. That the United States authorities had proof of their assertions, but that perhaps this was done without my knowledge and that you believed that the majority of the national guard did not know about these activities. 3. That any repetition of these activities would have serious consequences for our relations and for the negotiations aimed at a new Panama Canal treaty. 4. That the United States would not use this matter for publicity purposes and that for the moment he, as Ambassador, was not authorized to submit proof of those grave and serious charges but that the United States had solid evidence in support of them. On this question I wish to state the following: 1. That after full investigation which I have ordered within our single army institute, there is no evidence that such an accusation is well-founded. We Panamanians as sovereign over the territory where the inter-oceanic canal is situated, have always considered ourselves responsible for its security and smooth operation. 2. That, although I repeatedly asked for the so-called "proof" of the allegations, both directly and through Minister Boyd, Ambassador Jorden has refused to provide it. The government of Panama considers that the authorities responsible for maintaining order in the colonial enclave of the Canal Zone, in the face of their inability to preserve the calm of the "Zonians", who are expecting the prompt end of an era of discrimination and privileges have offered rewards to the so-called informants and have taken other measures which have increased confusion and tension among the inhabitants of this area. 3. After exchanging impressions of these developments with the Presidents of Colombia and Costa Rica, as I am accustomed to do in matters of foreign policy |