Shestack: human rights are 'indivisible part of Helsinki process' (12/28/80)

Shestack: human rights are 'indivisible part of Helsinki process'

Below is the full text of a statement by Jerome J. Shestack, U.S. representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and senior advisor to the U.S. delegation to the Madrid Conference. The address was delivered in Madrid on November 24.

For the past months I have sat in the General Assembly of the United Nations and have become quite accustomed to hearing some of my colleagues illustrate a point through parables and folk tales.

Hence, I hope you will indulge me as I begin with a brief tale of two young shepherds, Peter and Ivan, who often grazed their flocks side by side.

One day, Peter said: "Pray, Ivan do you love me?"

"Of course I do," said Ivan.

Peter went on: "Tell me Ivan, do you know what gives me pain?"

"How do I know what gives you pain?" replied Ivan.

"Well then," Peter said, "if you do not know what gives me pain, how can you say you love me?"

Mr. Chairman, detente is not quite love. Yet is not the lesson of this story that we cannot have detente unless we understand what causes one another pain and tension?

I believe that my country and some like-minded nations here have expressed understanding of what causes the Eastern nations pain and tension. We recall painfully the war which bore so heavily on civilian populations and ravaged town and country. We are equally mindful of the tensions caused by an arms race and escalations; we certainly are as passionately committed to peace; we surely share the view espoused by the Soviet delegate that the alternative to detente is unthinkable.

But what we do not comprehend is why there is no reciprocal understanding of what causes us tension and pain. We spoke clearly. Very early in the session Belgium described the human face to detente and others echoed that cry. Very early the Netherlands precisely pointed out that, to have the trust that must underlie cooperation on security, we must have cooperation on human rights and human contacts. Very early Canada said that the Final Act is about people. And others have eloquently affirmed those expressions. Those statements were not polemics. Those of us who stress human rights come from nations which went through their own revolutions and struggles for human rights. Some rights were obtained early such as those won at Runnymede in 1215, secured by the French masses against Louis XVI, by the American settlers against George III; some came later. All the European nations who spoke of the human face of detente know from their own experience how precious liberty is and how fragile.

The Eastern nations must appreciate therefore that human rights and human contacts provisions are to us an indivisible part of the Helsinki process. Violation of them gives us pain; it undercuts detente. As the delegate from Ireland put it: for our people the very validity of the Helsinki Final Act depends on these provisions.

What is particularly disturbing is that when nation after nation raises matters relating to the human face of detente, the response is that such matters are "internal affairs." That answer is deficient in logic and is contrary to international law.

Consider it logically. If the object of detente is to defuse tensions, and concern over human rights and human contacts causes tension among 20 or 25 nations or more, then how can you hope to achieve detente without addressing those concerns? Since human-rights violations are clearly a "breeding ground of tension," why not frankly address these tensions, regardless of whether one nation - wrongly, in our view - categorizes them as internal matters, or another as external. Or shall the tension continue and thus undermine detente?

Of course, from an international law viewpoint, the internal affair argument is so untenable that now it is employed at the United Nations only by the most repressive nations. The reality is that at the United Nations are regularly criticized for alleged human-rights violations. At the Commission on Human Rights, for example, many of the nations here, including the Soviet Union, joined in a thorough review of human-rights violations of some 19 nations - with nary a whisper about internal affairs. Surely world events in recent years have dramatically demonstrated that massive human-rights violations are not just internal matters, but affect peace and stability. So let us put aside that scratchy old record called "The Ballad of Internal Affairs" and get down to serious work.

Mr. Chairman, it was encouraging to hear the distinguished Soviet delegate say that he wanted to proceed in a "businesslike manner." He said that in his opening speech, not once, but twice, and repeated it in his second speech.

Perhaps, then, we can set forth two principles that we regard as businesslike. First, in a businesslike discussion, each party should be entitled to raise issues and engage in discussion on them in a constructive effort to resolve differences.

Second, in a businesslike discussion, one should get as specific as possible.

Principles advance through specific applications. Therefore, we shall emphasize specifics. Some of the Eastern nations consider us too specific because we often recite names. Should an international body take up its time with any particular name? The question deserves an answer. There are, in fact, a number of reasons.

One reason is that names often have great symbolic as well as individual significance. In the case of Academician Andrei Sakharov, for example, he is a symbol for all of those who are denied human contacts, for all the suppressed Helsinki monitors in his country, for the Charter 77 and VONS members, and for repressed persons everywhere.

A second reason is that the people named often suffer for the very reason that they have sought to carry the banner of Basket III and other provisions to which the nations here have committed themselves. Therefore we have a specific obligation to them and those they represent. A Vladimir Slepak or Ida Nudel representing those refused the right to emigrate; a Balys Gajauskas representing those jailed because of contacts with families of political prisoners; a Lev Lukianenko and an Arvydas Chekhanavicius representing those incarcerated because of their views on freedom; a Vyacheslav Chornovil and Yuriy Shukhevych representing those arrested because of their monitoring activities. These names are often short ways of identifying a group and they signal our interest, concern and obligations.

Third, reciting names has many precedents in the United Nations an other international bodies, and the recitation has proved beneficial sufficient times that we need no longer shrink from it.

Finally, and by no means least, there is the humanitarian objective. Governments should have compassion; certainly they include many compassionate men and women. The Final Act is for people, and names are the human face of detente. Humanitarian response to these names can only create confidence and further detente. Every name we mention is said not in hostility but in hope.

Mr. Chairman, I wish now to sketch some of the highlights of our interest in Basket III questions which interrelate, of course, to principles in the Final Act. The details will need to be filled in as the subsidiary working body proceeds systematically through its tasks.

While my remarks will cover a number of problem areas, I would emphasize, however, that the record is not unmixed. There has been some progress, as we have already noted in earlier statements. There are also others which merit citation.

For example, in recent months private American citizens, members of the Lutheran Church, have experienced increased opportunities to have contacts with Soviet citizens who share the same religious faith. All such instances of fulfillment of Final Act pledges serve the interests of all of us. They build understanding between private citizens and create a better basis for that cooperation which the Final Act seeks to foster.

It is also of importance to us that a number of Eastern European countries have made substantial efforts to resolve family reunification cases in the past year. And we have been encouraged by the Soviet government's recent decision to grant writer Lev Kopelev permission to travel for reasons of a professional nature.

These actions come at a time when the political climate between East and West has cooled. Even in such uncertain times, it is reassuring that steps under Basket III continue to be taken. Indeed, it is particularly in times of political tension that we need to highlight the Final Act's objective to build security and cooperation through practical, humanitarian steps of benefit to individuals. The accomplishments under Basket III in all 35 participating states should reinforce our resolve to build upon them further.

It is in this spirit, Mr. Chairman, that I also wish to indicate today a number of problem areas which indicate how far we still have to travel. We recall that the Soviet delegate spoke of a businesslike approach to conditions for the reunification of families. Since this is an area of particular interest to us and comes at the beginning of Basket III, it is a good place to start.

We are puzzled why some nations have adopted a policy that family reunification is limited to first-degree kinship, namely spouses, parents and children. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights calls for free emigration with only a few exceptions. Is it possible that the Final Act is being used as a limitation on the covenant? If so, that is wrong. Furthermore, why should reunification ever be limited to first degree kinship when the Final Act calls for participating states to deal with reunification in a "positive and humanitarian spirit?" Such restriction is hardly in that spirit. Can we not, as a modest measure and in the spirit of the Act, at least follow the broader definition of family? Some say new restrictions came in retaliation against nations who have raised the Afghanistan issue. But I cannot believe any signatory would hold emigres hostage in that way.

We also find that major obstacles are placed in the way of reunifications. Basket III precisely calls for dealing with applications expeditiously, for reconsideration of refusals at short intervals and for no adverse affect on applicants. Too often, these provisions are not observed. All of us know how Kafka-like procedures can bewilder and frustrate and discourage. Most desperate is the condition of those persons labeled "refuseniks" - persons invited to join their families and who have been refused permission. In the USSR, for example, these persons, numbering in the thousands, often lose their jobs, are dismissed from universities, and are denied benefits. Such persons are deprived, in effect, of a life in the present.

Why are these people refused permission? Should the reasons not be carefully set forth for each person and regularly revived? Sometimes persons are refused because they had access to classified information. Professor Zivs, the vice-president of the Association of Soviet Jurists, has noted that moratoriums on classified information expire relatively early due to the rapid stride of science. Yet, although Alexander Lerner's access to classified information ended nine years ago, he is still also waits, although since 1972, his only access to "classified information" has been as an elevator operator, janitor or ticket inspector on public buses.

Often persons are refused permission because they had served in the army and, therefore, allegedly had access to classified information even though they completed their army service some 10 years ago. Is that not time enough?

Even more disturbing is the fact that many are incarcerated or internally exiled where it seems to us their only crime was pressing for emigration and protesting refusal.

There are also pathetic cases of long separation from loved ones. Many of those involve American citizens seeking reunification with close relatives from the Soviet Union. Some of these I know personally. Galina Golsman Michaelson of Moscow has been trying to rejoin her husband, Anatol, now in Florida, for over 24 years! This couple, by now, are elderly and in poor health. Grigory Gimpelson of Leningrad has been separated from his wife and son in the United States for three years. Uldis Kaps, an Estonian, has been trying since 1968, first, just to visit and later to rejoin his sister and 80-year-old mother in the United States. A distinguished physicist, Eduard Lozansky, emigrated in 1977 and has been seeking permission ever since for his wife and daughter to join him. Also of particular concern to us are the American citizens living in the USSR who have been repeatedly denied exit permission and, like many of the divided family cases, are subject to harassment by local authorities.

Similarly, practices in Czecho-Slovakia, the GDR, Bulgaria and Rumania too often show a disregard for Basket III objectives. We frequently find there the imposition of a maze of procedural obstacles to reunification, numerous whimsical and arbitrary denials and exertion of psychological and material pressures against people requesting exit visas. Many of the obstacles to reunification and emigration appear to have no basis in the laws of the nations involved. They surely are contrary to the language and spirit of the Final Act.

Perhaps, too, in a businesslike way, we can discuss the larger issue of free movement of peoples under Basket III. Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union had been encouraging after Belgrade but why has it dropped more than 50 percent this year when the number of those who want to leave has risen? The relaxation of emigration of Armenians is encouraging; still many Armenians are not allowed to leave. For a Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian or Russian to be reunified with his family is extraordinarily difficult even in cases of first degree kinship. And we would like to know why some 50,000 Pentecostals, Baptists and other Christians currently are not allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

Mr. Chairman, the signing of the Final Act raised great hopes and expectations among the people of all 35 signatory nations: That they would be able to travel more freely, visit their relatives and rejoin family members abroad; expectations that the participating states would honor their commitments; hopes that human rights and human contacts would be the cornerstones of peace. While we acknowledge that progress has been made for the most part, those great expectations have not yet been realized. We should address those hopes in this Conference.

From freedom of movement it is natural to take up various cultural and social rights of those who remain; these are protected by language in Basket III. The United States has a deep interest in these areas also and is working hard to overcome our own remaining deficiencies in treatment of ethnic minorities in our country.

Here the record in some Eastern European nations is dismal. For example, a large group in the Soviet Union that suffers from widespread loss of cultural as well as religious rights are Ukrainians whose language, culture and institutions are being eroded through a steady campaign of harassment by soviet authorities.

The Soviet state also restricts the rights of Jews to live as members of an ethnic and religious minority. There is a lack of Jewish schools for the study of Jewish culture and the Hebrew language. A would-be teacher of Hebrew imprisoned in Siberia for two years because he chose to teach Hebrew. There is also a great shortage of rabbis of synagogues and of religious articles to meet the needs of the Jewish population. There are disturbing accounts of discrimination against Jews in education and sciences and of increasing difficulties in gaining admission to universities and graduate studies. But that is not all. There are also most disturbing reports of voluminous anti-Semitic sentiments thinly disguised as anti-Zionism appearing in the Soviet press and media.

Still another deplorable discrimination is that against the 500,000 Crimean Tatars. In 1978, the Soviet authorities issued legal decrees which prevented Crimean Tatar families from returning to their homeland in Crimea after their exile in Central Asia. Families in the Crimea were harshly expelled and Tatars who protested such treatment were imprisoned. This is only one example of Soviet discriminatory practices against its Muslim minority.

In a number of other nations in Eastern Europe national minorities are discriminated against and deprived of the opportunity to nourish their culture. The various obstacles preventing such minorities from preserving and advancing their language, culture, institutions and literature should surely be removed in compliance with the Final Act.

We turn now to the obligations under Basket III to "facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds." Basket III is closely intertwined with the portion of Principle VII which confirms "the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights and duties" in the field of human rights. We believe this was one of the outstanding achievements of the Final Act. The free flow of information is explicitly treated in Basket III and is certainly a fruitful contribution to the trust and confidence needed for detente to flourish. Unfortunately, much remains to be done to implement these provisions.

We emphasize that unless journalists are protected in their freedoms, the right to know is bound to be affected. Therefore, we view with particular concern developments which have threatened and harassed journalists.

For example, the GDR has recently taken steps to restrict Western journalists. All interviews and inquiries into state, economic and social matters must now be authorized by the government. In June 1979, the GDR made it a criminal offense for citizens to convey to foreign citizens any information which could be considered detrimental to the state. And there are other needless harassing impediments.

Surely we should address all such concerns. One of the unfortunate aspects of restrictions is that they often can become reciprocal. Would it not be productive for all of us to compile a list of restrictions that each nation places on the flow of printed, filmed and broadcast information and on journalists and to exhibit the will to eliminate them one by one? Hopefully, that will be done.

Mr. Chairman, the Helsinki Final Act also calls for "the dissemination of information by radio to meet the interest of mutual understanding among peoples." Similar provisions are contained in Article II of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 35 of the International Telecommunication Convention. Nevertheless the Soviet Union has jammed the broadcasts of Radio Liberty, and Bulgaria and Czecho-Slovakia have jammed the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe ever since the creation of the two stations; this jamming continues.

Moreover, the Voice of America has been jammed intermittently by the Soviet Union since 1948. On September 10, 1973, a month before the opening of the Geneva CSCE meeting, the Soviet Union ceased its jamming of VOA - an action which my government then welcomed publicly. However, on August 20 of this year, three weeks before the opening of the Madrid CSCE preparatory meeting, the Soviet Union reimposed its jamming on VOA - an action which was as negative a prelude to this Madrid meeting as its earlier action had been a positive prelude to the Geneva meeting. The BBC and Deutsche Welle were jammed at the same time. There can be no defense of this action, which is a clear violation of the Final Act and the other agreements. I would note in passing that Radio Moscow, broadcasting in English to the United States averages 87 hours and 30 minutes per week. It has never been jammed and it never will be.

Mr. Chairman, while expressing our concern, in our view none of these issues is beyond reconciliation. We are anxious to effect reconciliation. We hope that one of the outcomes of our sessions will be to evolve specific ways in the spirit of Basket Three for improving conditions for journalists and for insuring the free flow of information.

Mr. Chairman, on our part we wish to emphasize that the United States has sought to address many of the problems which were raised at Belgrade by Eastern signatory states. For example, in the cultural and educational area we are pleased by progress that we have made in furthering exchanges with many Eastern European states. We have initiated new programs to acquaint our citizens more fully with the culture and language of other signatory states. We have also undertaken studies of defects in our visa and passport administration and we hope to focus further on these subjects and others.

We have listened carefully to criticisms and suggestions and have made a good-faith effort to respond. And we stand ready to do so again. We ask only that others join with us in a similar spirit.

Mr. Chairman, because of prescriptions of time, we have highlighted only a few of our interests under Basket III. In the following weeks, we hope not only to have a more thorough review of implementation but to approach that review with an eye to ultimately evolving remedial measures. Our approach, which we hope will be appealing to others, will be:

a) to candidly acknowledge the areas where the implementation by any of us falls short;

b) to match review of shortcomings with practical suggestions later for remedial actions;

c) to appraise fairly the potential of each suggestion that will be made;

d) to consider establishing expert groups for specialized areas;

e) to encourage means to further advances in implementation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we must continue to work on Process and Progress. We sincerely hope that the human rights and human contacts provisions of the Final Act will not be viewed through an adversary prism but as steps to further human dignity, as building blocks to create the structure of detente, and as ways and means to inspire trust and confidence among all of our peoples.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

| Home Page |