cal considerations. Thus, in Chile, both the Allende Government and the Pinochet Government committed violations of human rights, but those who protest most strongly against the inequities of one are usually blind to the human rights violations of the other.

The fact is inescapable that what Americans consider important human rights to be safeguarded at all cost are not respected in many other parts of the world. Human dignity, freedom, due process of law, and democratic liberties are not, one must honestly admit, the standards by which most organized societies of the world operate today. When we talk about the promotion of human rights under international law, we usually mean only the most basic rights-such as the right not to be tortured and the right not to be imprisoned or executed arbitrarily or for political reasons. In theory, other rights are protected by international law, but in fact, this protection seems meaningless. We must achieve respect for the most fundamental rights before trying to build higher.

Another obvious limitation is found in the use of influence. In countries with which we have few contacts and little influence, we can relatively easily denounce gross violations of human rights, but we cannot, by and large, do much to stop such violations. In countries with which we have many contacts and considerable influence, we can, by use of our leverage, produce a greater impact, but the cost may well be high for our other interests. We may agree that, if people are tortured by the government of a country we support and with which we have close relations, this torture to some degree debases our Government because of this close, supportive relationship, but we must recognize that it is likely to prove extraordinarily difficult and costly for us either to end the relationship or reform the other government.

One may ask whether it is not more in our national interest to ignore violations of human rights abroad than to accept the burden of trying to do something about them. Certainly in the nuclear age where the prevention of nuclear holocaust must rank as a fundamental duty of the statesman, it is easy to see why an agreement on strategic weapons should not be delayed until reforms are made in the sorry human rights record of the Soviet Union. But it is apparent that not everyone is prepared to reach the same conclusion about an agreement on trade. And opinions seem to be divided as to whether we should continue to support allies who help to maintain a balance of power in part of the world but who also repress the civil and political rights of their people.

During the American Civil War, President Lincoln faced a dilemma with certain similarities to some of the human rights issues I have just described. His overwhelming objective was to preserve the Union. If that could best be accomplished by freeing the slaves, he would free them; if it could best be accomplished by refusing to free them, he would refuse. In the end, of course, Lincoln found the Emancipation Proclamation indispensable. Today, the statesman is constantly facing choices that force him to decide when, where, and to what degree the promotion of human rights in other countries is either compatible with or indispensable to the promotion of peace and the security and welfare of the United States.

The questions we must face in factoring human rights into foreign policy are what can we accomplish in the promotion and observance of basic human rights in other countries and at what costs to our other national interests.

A common perception of human rights issues is that they are strictly internal matters. It is, of course, comfortable to relax with the thought that human rights questions in other countries are internal matters into which we may not intervene, or at least into which we may intervene only hesitantly, gently, and with the slightly quilty air of one who lectures his neighbor for being too hard with his children. In practice, this perception of human rights questions as internal matters will naturally commend itself readily to the diplomat whose overriding perceived interest may be in maintaining friendly relations with the state to which he is accredited.

In fact, this perception of human rights questions as internal affairs is totally wrong, although it is so widely held that it cannot totally be ignored. Members of the United Nations have a legal duty to promote respect for and protection of human rights around the world. Despite the ambiguity of this duty-what actions are required to promote human rights is far from clear-this is one of the great advances in international law since the Second World War, and regrettably it has taken many diplomats and even international lawyers a long time to discover it. The Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the basic texts in this field. I would point, in particular, to Articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter in which all members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action for the achievement of, and I quote, "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." The United States recognizes these obligations and is determined to live up to them.

In his address to the Pacem in Terris Conference in October 1973 Secretary Kissinger said: "We shall never condone the suppression of fundamental liberties. We shall urge humane principles and use our influence to promote justice. The issue comes to the limits of such efforts." Recently Deputy Secretary of State Ingersoll elaborated on our commitment in a letter to the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He said:

"... we take seriously our obligation under the United Nations Charter to promote respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. No matter where in the world violations of human rights occur, they trouble and concern us and we make our best efforts to ascertain the facts and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. At the same time, it must be recognized that the United Nations Charter does not prescribe how to fulfill that obligation in respect to particular violations by others. Thus there are usually complex questions of policy and tactics to be considered in deciding whether and how the United States can best seek to discharge its obligations in a particular case consist

ent with its commitment to other goals, including that of maintaining international peace and security. Such questions include the seriousness of the violation, the various options for United States action, and the consequences of inaction."

Our promotion of human rights will understandably be more effective in cases where there is strong congressional and public support. By this I do not mean mandatory aid termination provisions. What is important is public awareness and concern with respect to human rights issues and the willingness of the Congress to give the Executive Branch the authority it needs to make its human rights efforts effective. The threat that the Congress may legislate sanctions is, by and large, helpful to the Executive in its approaches to foreign governments. If the threat fails and sanctions are invoked, however, the task will usually become far more difficult. Obviously, it is important for the two branches to have roughly similar views as to the acceptable costs in terms of damage to our other interests. Regrettably, it is difficult for two persons to agree about such a weighing of diverse interests, let alone two branches of government. Clearly there will be cases where the termination of aid would be an unsuitable sanction, such as where it would substantially damage our national security interests or where the aid benefits the people of the recipient country and its termination predictably would not improve respect for human rights. Our duty to promote human rights does not require us to act in blind disregard of our other national interests or of the interests of the people we are trying to assist.

There will, of course, be situations in which the only action we can reasonably take to promote respect for human rights in another country is to state our views. Although such generalizations are risky, I believe private statements are more likely to be effective than public statements in most cases. Public statements can make us look good at home, and they can make us feel virtuous, but they may make it more difficult for the other government to act. We must keep our eyes on our goal-improving respect for human rights in practice. The diplomat, the Congress, and the public will be well advised to focus on the practical consequences of what we do and say, rather than on the building of an oratorical or legislative record that will make us feel good and look virtuous but will be ineffective in improving the human condition.

In the nearly 200 years of our history as a nation we have usually tried-although not always successfully-to stand for respect for the rights of man. In today's interdependent world this traditional stance has become a matter of deep self-interest. Recognizing the world as it is, we cannot expect miracles, but we can, and should, strive for a national consensus on this subject that will enable us to be as effective as possible in promoting respect for human rights in our foreign relations.

Dept. of State File L/HR.

On December 13, 1974, Linwood Holton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, wrote to Representative Donald Fraser,

Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in reply to several questions dealing with U.S. human rights policy.

Many of the questions raised by Representative Fraser dealt with human rights in Chile. Among them was the following: "Since July 22nd [1974], how frequently and forcefully has Ambassador [David] Popper raised human rights issues with Chilean Government officials? How strongly has the Department encouraged the Ambassador to raise such issues?" Mr. Holton replied as follows:

The Department has supported and encouraged Ambassador Popper's frequent and we believe effective efforts to keep the Chilean Government aware of the importance we attach to the human rights issue. On at least seven occasions since the beginning of the year, the Department has instructed our Embassy in Santiago to make inquiries and express our views on various aspects of this problem. The human rights issue also has been raised with Chilean officials in informal exchanges of views in Chile and in the United States on innumerable occasions. The number and intensity of our approaches reflect the course of developments. Our efforts have not abated. For example, in the wake of the disturbing findings of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IAHRC), Ambassador Popper has already discussed the Commission's report with the Chilean Government.

Another question on Chile was as follows: "In view of the continued oppression in Chile and the failure to release political prisoners, would we support a General Assembly resolution urging the Commission on Human Rights to study the reported violations of human rights in Chile?" Mr. Holton replied:

We abstained on the October 22 (Third Committee) and November 6 (UNGA plenary) votes on human rights in Chile. We were prepared to support a resolution calling for a U.N. Human Rights Commission study of reports of violations of human rights in Chile. We proposed to the cosponsors of the original draft resoluton language acknowledging reports of improvements in the Chilean situation. Our suggestions were not accepted by the cosponsors and for this reason we abstained.

Dept. of State File No. P74 0117-1294. On Nov. 6, 1974, the U.N. General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 90-8-26 (U.S.), Res. 3219 (XXIX) on protection of human rights in Chile. The text is as follows:

The General Assembly,

Convinced of its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,

Recalling that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile or to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Recalling also its Resolution 3059 (XXVIII) of November 2, 1973,

Taking into account the deep concern expressed by the Commission on Human Rights about reports from a wide variety of sources relating to gross and massive violations of human rights in Chile, particularly those involving a threat to human life and liberty,

Taking note of the appeal made by the Economic and Social Council, in its Resolution 1873 (LVI) of May 17, 1974, to the Chilean authorities to take all necessary steps to restore and safeguard basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in that country, particularly in those cases involving a threat to human life and liberty,

Noting that the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in its Resolution 8 (XXVII) of August 21, 1974, made an urgent appeal to the Chilean authorities to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to comply with the International Covenants on Human Rights signed and ratified by the Government of Chile,

Noting also that the International Labor Conference, in its Resolution X of June 24, 1974, urged the Chilean authorities, inter alia, to cease violations of human rights and trade union rights, to guarantee the life and freedom of arrested, deported or imprisoned workers, militant workers and trade union leaders and members of any political party, to put an end to the practice of torture, to close down the concentration camps and to abolish the special tribunals, and decided to urge the speedy expedition to Chile of the Factfinding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association as well as the setting up of a commission of inquiry,

Considering that, notwithstanding all the appeals made by various organs of the United Nations system, gross and massive violations of human rights, such as arbitrary arrest, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of political prisoners and detainees, including former members of the Chilean Government and Parliament, continue to be reported,

1. Expresses its deepest concern that constant flagrant violations of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile continue to be reported; 2. Reiterates its repudiation of all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

3. Urges the Chilean authorities to respect fully the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to take all necessary steps to restore and safeguard basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly those involving a threat to human life and liberty, to release all persons who have been detained without charge or imprisoned solely for political reasons and to continue to grant safe conduct to those who desire it;

4. Endorses the recommendation made by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in its Resolution 8 (XXVII), that the Commission on Human Rights at its thirty-first session study the reported violations of human rights in Chile, with particular reference to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; 5. Requests the President of the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General to assist in any way they may deem appropriate in the reestablishment of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile in the light of paragraph 3 above;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report to the General Assembly at its thirtieth session on the action taken and progress achieved under paragraphs 3 and 5 above.

With respect to refugees from Chile, see this Chapter, § 4, supra, pp. 108-109. The Report of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IAHRC) on human rights in Chile is at O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser. G: CP/doc.381/74, Nov. 21, 1974.

Genocide Convention

Right to Life

The United States Senate, on February 5 and 6, 1974, defeated a cloture motion introduced to close debate upon a pending resolution of