NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

Suite 605, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-3136 • Telex 5106015068 NDIIA

December 20, 1988

DEC 22 1988

Chairman

Walter F. Mondale

Vice Chair

Madeleine K. Albright

Secretary

Rachelle Horowitz

Treasurer

Peter G. Kelly

President

J. Brian Atwood

Board of Directors

Elizabeth F. Bagley
James B. Booe
John C. Culver
John P. Dunfey
Thomas F. Eagleton
Geraldine A. Ferraro
Maurice Ferré
Arvonne Fraser
Marifé Hernandez
John T. Joyce
Penn Kemble
Elliott F. Kulick
John Lewis
Leon Lynch
Lewis Manilow
Kenneth F. Melley
Julius Michaelson
Mark A. Siegel
Michael Steed
William Thomas
Esteban Torres
Frank A. Weil
Marvin F. Weissberg

Senior Advisory Committee
Michael D. Barnes
John Brademas
Bill Bradley
Richard F. Celeste
Mario M. Cuomo
Richard N. Gardner
Madeleine M. Kunin
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Edmund S. Muskie
Charles S. Robb
Stephen J. Solarz
Cyrus Vance
Anne Wexler
Andrew J. Young

Chairman Emeritus

Charles T. Manatt

Executive Vice President

Kenneth D. Wollack

Senior Consultant

Patricia J. Keefer

Mr. Carl Gershman
President
National Endowment for Democracy
1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 203
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Carl:

Needless to say, I am all for the NED getting positive publicity as was the case in George Will's December 18 column. Yet, the inaccuracies contained in that piece concerning NED and Chile raise a larger issue concerning the autonomy of the NED grantees. Since this is not the first time the problem has come up, I decided — reluctantly, and with some fear I will be misunderstood — to plead for a change in your public relations approach.

My basic point is you should make it clear that NED funds operations and institutions that interact with foreign institutions to promote democracy. NED does not — should not — conduct projects itself. The reason for this, as envisioned in the original legislation, is simple: NED does not represent an established American institution. It is a grant-making body of very recent vintage, a creation of Congress and a very effective one. It does not naturally fit in the realm of political parties, labor unions, business associations or even academic entities. To the extent it tries to be any of these things, it looks to the foreign observer to be phony and becomes an easy target for the foes of democracy e.g., a public CIA.

Does this mean NED can never take public credit in the U.S. and elsewhere? Of course it can. We need to talk about our successes if we are to increase our overall budget. Certainly, your annual conferences on democracy are good occasions to bring it all together.

What I am asking is that your public relations initiatives respect the independence and autonomy of your grantees. In so doing you will enhance our ability to do our work while amplifying the NED image through identification with effective organizations. If we are seen as appendages — or worse, agents — of NED, we will lose our international standing and our natural domestic constituencies.

conducting nonpartisan international programs to help maintain and strengthen democratic institutions

®

The Washington Post

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1988 C7

George F. Will

Seed
Money for
Democracy

LOS ANGELES—The National Endowment for Democracy, one of this decade's good deeds, last week celebrated its fifth birthday as quietly as it does its work and with the scant public acclaim that usually comes to institutions that are unobtrusively useful.

This private and bipartisan grant-making body, which is funded by Congress, was originally viewed with suspicion by people too fastidious to countenance any U.S. "interference," however delicate, in the "internal affairs," however promising, of any nation, however situated. Today, NED's spending is the biggest bargain in government. It is one reason why the percentage of the world's population-classified by Freedom House as living, in "free" countries is 38.3 percent; an all-time high.

The people at NED know too much about the complexities of popular government to claim inordinate credit for the undeniable progress of democracy in this decade. But they are teachers of the learned art of democracy. They know how to prepare the stony ground of authoritarian societies for the seeds of democratic skills—organization, mass persuasion.

NED's mission is to direct open support, financial and technical, to groups working to enrich the institutions of civil society beneath the brittle crust of oppressive regimes. NED contributed to the crumbling of that crust in Chile in October.

In the referendum against the Pinochet dictatorship, democracy won a narrow (54 percent) victory because of a huge turnout (92 percent of the electorate). The margin of victory can reasonably be credited to polling and

other assistance from American political consultants organized by NED. Funds from NED helped 200,000 poor voters acquire the small photographs required of voters. This cost just $25,000.

NED is one reason why Poland today has a thousand independent cultural institutions—publishers of books and periodicals, film-makers, schools. Such small efforts can, cumulatively, crack political concrete.

Carl Gershman, NED's president, believes that for many centuries many factors—"the Crusades, which decimated the nobles; the printing press, which spread knowledge to all classes; the discovery of America, which gave opportunity to millions"—have had a tendency to help democracy. But he also knows that a tendency is not an inevitability. And he knows that this century, with its most important political innovation, totalitarianism, has posed the danger that new tendencies (bureaucraticization, refinements of terror, propaganda and other means of social control) might mean that democracy is an arrangement accessible only to a minority of privileged nations.

The year 1975 was pivotal. Indonesia fell to communism and India Gandhi's state of emergency turned the world's largest democracy into the world's second-largest dictatorship. But regimes in Portugal, Spain and Greece were democratized. For the first time in history, Western Europe was cleansed of dictatorship.

Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution, writing in The Washington Quarterly, notes that since then there has emerged "a kind of global Zeitgeist for democracy." Starting from various points, there have been varieties of progress in the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Haiti, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, Uruguay, Nigeria, among other nations.

In North Atlantic nations, democracy often came gradually and from

above, with the slow widening of competition among elites. Today the task in the Third World is the transition from authoritarianism by means of gradualism from below. What Diamond calls the "efflorescence of associational life" requires "the reconstruction of a boundary between the state and civil society." Such reconstruction is NED's speciality.

Authoritarian regimes become porous as civil society becomes enriched with independent business, labor, religious, cultural and other mediating institutions serving as buffers between the individual and the state. As the autonomy of society grows, so do channels for articulating interests. Something else grows—the most potent solvent of hegemonic regimes, the broad and rapid diffusion of ideas, aspirations, information and awareness of possibilities.

Modernization destabilizes all but modern—pluralistic and democratic—societies and regimes. Modernization accelerates the circulation of people and information and the evolution of political consciousness. This confronts authoritarian regimes (South Korea has been a case study), with what Diamond calls "a legitimacy contradiction, a kind of Catch-22."

If such regimes do not produce socioeconomic dynamism, they lose legitimacy because such progress is their justification for monopolizing power. If they do produce dynamism, it has political repercussions in intensified demands for participation, which the regimes cannot satisfy without liquidating themselves.

NED is a forthright but deft instrument for helping others bring about peaceful liquidations. Yet its tiny budget ($15.8 million), the source of so much leverage, has been repeatedly cut. Surely the government can find a more eligible target for frugality.

L9

December 6, 1988

MEMORANDUM

DEC 8 1988

TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: INFORMAL PROPOSAL REVIEW MEETING, ENCLOSURES

The informal proposal review meeting prior to our January 19th Board meeting is scheduled for Friday, January 6th at 9:00 a.m. at the Endowment. I look forward to seeing those of you able to attend.

A copy of the Fall issue of the Endowment's newsletter is enclosed; we would be happy to send you additional copies. Also enclosed are recent press clips on Endowment activities.

I am also enclosing an important document that we have just received - the "Democracy for All" Manifesto of the newly established Movement for Civil Liberties in Czechoslovakia.

1101 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 203, Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Otrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

A Publication of the National Endowment for Democracy

Vol. 1, Fall 1988

Chile: Toward Democracy

The October 5th Chilean plebiscite, in which a majority of the 7.2 million voters rejected the proposal to extend General Augusto Pinochet's rule until 1997, has opened the way for a peaceful transition to democracy there. For a country as polarized as Chile, which had experienced 15 years of authoritarian rule precipitated by a breakdown of the traditional democratic system, the plebiscite represented a remarkable display of democratic moderation. The fact that the government allowed such a process to go forward and has acknowledged and respected the results, and the fact that the democratic opposition acted with judicious restraint and unexpected unity all are a tribute to the character of the Chilean people.

The Endowment and its core gran-
tees are proud to have played some
small role in this great drama. Our
focus has been to strengthen and rein-
force the principles contained in *The
National Accord*, an agreement in-
itiated by the Church in 1985 and en-
dorsed by all 11 political parties from
the democratic right to the democratic
left. In the period leading up to and
including the plebiscite, the Endow-
ment supported efforts to promote
civic education, to broaden political
participation, and to help ensure the
integrity and fairness of the entire
process. But it is the Chilean people
who were responsible for this
democratic triumph—a decisive stage
in the process of transition. It is our
profound hope that their courage and
commitment will ensure the estab-
lishment of a democratic order.

Prospects for Change
in the Soviet Bloc

Excerpts from a speech to the Congres-
sional Seminar on Democracy by
Zbigniew Brzezinski, April 27, 1988.

We live in an age in which human rights has become the historic inevitability of our times. More than the idea of revolution or any particular ideology, it is the issue of human rights that is motivating political change worldwide. The idea of human rights is one that some two hundred years ago was restricted essentially to a very small segment of Western Europe and thirteen British colonies on the Eastern shore of this hemisphere. Today, human rights as an idea truly motivates political conduct worldwide. If you look at any continent in the world, under a variety of political systems, the impulses for change ultimately stem from the fact that mankind has become politically conscious and alert, and has an instructive notion of what ought to be the proper relationship between the individual and society, between society and the state. That relationship is diametrically opposite to the one that prevails now in many parts of the world, particularly the Soviet Union.

There is presently a systemic crisis
in the communist systems of the
Soviet Bloc. This crisis is applicable to
all communist systems and is rooted
in the irrelevance of their ideological
principles, the sterility of their institu-

tions and the over-bureaucratization
of their political power.

This crisis varies in degree in East-
ern Europe and the Soviet Union. East-
ern Europe is, in many respects, in
what I would term a classical pre-
revolutionary situation; the Soviet
Union, although in a stage of mount-
ing turmoil, is not.

Why do I call the situation in East-
ern Europe essentially prerevolution-
ary and what does that mean? It does
not mean that there is going to be a
revolution tomorrow or the week
after, but that objective conditions
exist which make a revolution pos-
sible. In Eastern Europe a few sparks
could set something off which would
then become a revolution. This condi-
tion is rooted in the growing gap be-
tween political change and economic
deterioration. Across the board in East-
ern Europe there is large scale
economic stagnation and deteriora-
tion. On the one hand, there exists a
catastrophic economic situation and,
on the other, political ferment, even
reform in some cases, experimenta-
tion, or political outbreaks in the
cases where reform is not being at-
tempted.

One trend line points toward a
growing disaster and another points
toward greater political activism. This
is exactly what a prerevolutionary
situation entails—a growing gap be-
tween two conditions creating frustra-
tion and despair, but also hope and

*continued on page 2*

2

BRZEZINSKI, from page 1

self-confidence. In such a setting, a
small spark can ignite a sudden and
uncontrollable explosion. Indeed, very
often revolutions break out not be-
cause they have been planned, but be-
cause they simply happen and then
people try to catch up with events and
assert leadership over them.

Poland is a good example: there is
an economic crisis of staggering
proportions, and the quality of life is
dropping dramatically. The disaster is
across the board. Yet, at the same
time, there is a great deal of inde-
pendent political activity and a mas-
sive political underground which has
operated for six years on a scale
without precedent in Communist his-
tory. This underground political cul-
ture is no longer even underground,
but "above ground" in the sense that
an open political dialogue by political
activists is taking place.

In Poland one can meet with politi-
cal opposition leaders who have spent
time in jail for organizing underground
radio stations, intercepts of television
programs, demonstrations and other
activities of this sort against a Com-
munist regime. These are the kinds of
things which, in 1950, would have led
you to the gallows in very short order,
to your family being exiled, and to
your friends being put in prison. Yet
these people operate relatively openly
today not because the government has
become liberal, but because it has be-
come fundamentally weak. In that set-
ting, the situation is inherently
unstable and prerevolutionary.

The same is true and is becoming
more so in Hungary, where economic
reforms have been unsuccessful and
political problems are accentuated by
a struggle for succession. Political ac-
tivism is on the rise there. There are
manifestations of this phenomenon in

Czechoslovakia and Romania, and also
now in Yugoslavia.

In the Soviet Union the situation is
more ambiguous, historically less ad-
vanced, and certainly politically less
threatening. Nonetheless, it too is un-
dergoing a great deal of ferment in the
face of opposition and in the context
of uncertainty. In my judgment,
perestroika is not an accurate term for
the restructuring taking place in the
Soviet Union since it is not happening
in any far-reaching and fundamental
sense. It will more likely become a
protracted period of internal difficul-
ty—continued turmoil in a setting of
escalating internal debates.

How is this related to the question
of democratic change? First, it is impor-

I am reasonably
confident that
democratic change in
some countries and
democratizing changes
in others can continue
to evolve. That is what
we must foster.

tant to distinguish between change
that is democratic, and democratizing
change, which democratizes but
doesn't produce democracy. In some
Eastern European countries there is
theoretically a chance of actual
democratic change taking place—the
transformation of the existing system
into one which, in some significant
respect, justifies the term "democratic"
being applicable to some, perhaps
even important, aspects. I would in-
clude in this category Poland, Hun-
gary, and Czechoslovakia.

I am much more skeptical about the
other countries in Eastern Europe, in-
cluding Yugoslavia. Democratizing
changes, yes, if by that we are

essentially saying they are becoming
less totalitarian, less brutal, less rigid.
But this is a question of labels. You
can call it democratizing change or
change that makes them less
totalitarian—"detotalitarianizing"
change might be a more accurate
description.

There is an important distinction
here: in the case of Hungary, Czecho-
slovakia and Poland there is the poten-
tial for the change actually producing
something which, with whatever
qualifications one wishes to use,
would make the word "democracy" ap-
plicable.

But, outside of some significant
change in East-West relations, limits to
democratic change exist for external
reasons. At some point a collision be-
tween the processes of democratic
change and external imperatives
would occur. This clash would in-
evitably bring these changes to a halt
unless they became associated in
some fashion with a larger alteration
in the external East-West context.

Regarding the Soviet Union, I am
even less optimistic about the term
"democratic change" applying.
"Democratizing," yes, if by this we
mean that Stalinist crimes are being ex-
posed; that glasnost permits you to say
what you think more openly, and read
things which offer you more choice;
that people have the ability to criticize
ongoing policies in terms of their per-
formance, though not perhaps in
terms of the leadership that in-
augurates them. All of these changes
are taking place and I do not wish to
deny their salience nor their impor-
tance; they do involve a significant
change in the nature of what we
know in the Soviet Union. They are, in
that sense, reducing the brutal sharp
edges of the traditional totalitarianism
that we have been accustomed to

*continued on page 3*

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
Chairman

Charles T. Manatt
Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels
Secretary

Jay Van Andel
Treasurer

Polly Baca
Zhigniew Brzezinski
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison
Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

The National Endowment for Democracy.
a private organization incorporated in the District
of Columbia, was created in 1983 and has
received an annual appropriation from the U.S.
Congress. Governed by a bipartisan Board of
Directors, the Endowment is a tax-exempt,
non-profit corporation as defined in Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

3

associate with the Soviet system. But
they are not really democratic changes.

In that sense there is a very basic
gap between the Soviet Union and the
more forwardly evolving East
European countries in which these
changes do have some potential for
democratic alteration of the existing
systems, provided always that the inter-
national context is changed. Ultimate-
ly, of course, the question that needs
to be thought about much more is
whether the Communist parties them-
selves can evolve and my guess is that
inherently, because of both ideology
and bureaucratic discipline, they will
resist. However, in some cases they
are so weak and unauthentic that even
their capacity to resist is very limited.
This is why in the cases I have iden-
tified, the possibility of democratic
change exists.

What are the implications of this for
the United States? I subscribe to the
view that revolutionary change in East-
ern Europe is not desirable because it
will not succeed. I have nothing
against it on its merits. In fact, if I
thought it would be successful, I
would be enthusiastically for it.
However I believe that if there were
revolutionary changes they would be
suppressed by the Soviet Union. And
this would then be not only worse for
the East Europeans involved, but ul-
timately worse for the so-called
democratizing or detotalitarianizing
changes in the Soviet Union itself. It
might help to restore some degree of
repressive discipline in the Soviet
Union sooner than might otherwise be
the case, and I am all in favor of con-
tinued ferment in the Soviet Union for
many years to come.

So, while I am not in favor of revolu-
tion, I do believe evolutionary change
is something with which the Soviets
have much more difficulty coping.
They are, in effect, always faced with
a trade-off—do they accept this new
evolutionary phase or intervene mas-
sively against it and pay a huge politi-
cal and military price because of
military intervention. And if confronted
with such a choice, human nature is
usually inclined to take the easier
route, namely, accommodation. I am
reasonably confident that democratic
change in some countries and
democratizing change in others can

continue to evolve. That is what we
must foster, rather than encouraging
revolutionary activities which would
be unproductive.

The U.S. is now in a position to do
a great deal more than ever before to
promote evolutionary, democratic,
and democratizing change both in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
We have already done a great deal
and I think the United States deserves
to be proud of its record. We are the
only ones in the West who prevented
total Stalinist isolation and indoctrina-
tion of a large portion of humanity in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
We are the ones who financed and
sustained Radio Free Europe and
Radio Liberty over the years with no
help from our allies. We are the ones
who are now, through the National
Endowment for Democracy, doing
what needs to be done on a broader,
more dispersed scale, and I think at
this moment the chances for doing
much more are infinitely greater than
ever before.

We are dealing with a
totalitarianism that is porous, acces-
sible, sick, corrupt and very suscep-
tible to the contagion of liberty and
freedom. This is so for a variety of
religious, nationalist and class
reasons. We have a unique oppor-
tunity to duplicate in the Soviet Union
what has transpired in Eastern
Europe: the fostering of magazines,
dissent, discussion groups, new infor-
mation, alternative domestic
programs, and a sense of identity that
is political, cultural, and philosophical
which has been prevented from
emerging for over sixty years. There
exist enormous opportunities for us to
foster positive evolutionary change if
we capitalize on the assets that we
have, use them intelligently and give
them the means to do what is pos-
sible.

Zhigniew Brzezinski, a member of
the Endowment Board, is Counselor,
Center for Strategic and International
Studies and Herbert Lehman Professor
of Government at Columbia Univer-
sity. From 1977 to 1981 he served as
Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs.

Solidarity's View

Recent events in Poland have
been dramatic; the August strikes
were more widespread and
dynamic than those of this spring
as Polish workers protested their
deteriorating standard of living
and again demanded legalization
of Solidarity. Legal status for the
banned trade union is now a key
issue on the agenda for the
proposed round-table talks.

During this eventful period two
top Solidarity officials, National
Secretary Andrzej Celinski and Na-
tional Spokesman Janusz
Onyszkiewicz, travelled to
Washington. They stressed the
need for continued support for
Solidarity's efforts to be legalized.
Celinski said that "the current
strike wave has demonstrated that
there can be no positive reform
*until* Solidarity is legalized."

"It is in the interests of
everybody to work towards chang-
ing Poland into a stable country,"
Onyszkiewicz argued. "But what
does it mean to create stability in
Poland? It means that Poland
should have a viable economy
and democratic mechanisms built
into the system."

Onyszkiewicz addressed the
Endowment-sponsored Congres-
sional Seminar on Democracy on
September 23rd, co-hosted by
Reps. Howard Berman and John
Miller. He urged the audience to
continue to support Solidarity's ef-
forts to attain democracy and
economic reform. He also ex-
pressed the union's gratitude to
the Congress, the AFL-CIO and its
Free Trade Union Institute, and
NED for the assistance they have
provided to the union.

In a related matter, Congress
recently approved the foreign
operations bill which contained a
measure providing $2 million in
economic support funds for
Solidarity through the Endow-
ment. The funds will be split even-
ly between general assistance to
the union and support for its in-
novative medical fund. [For more
on the medical fund, see p. 6.]

4

on
Democracy

by William E. Brock and Charles T. Manatt

In a year of partisan political rivalry, Democrats and Republicans who share a common commitment to democracy are heartened by the impressive growth of the National Endowment for Democracy. When the Endowment was established just four years ago, many people questioned its purpose and potential. But the Endowment survived repeated challenges to its existence and has built a program as bold and far-reaching as it is essential to our nation's security. With broad bipartisan support in Congress and enthusiastic backing from democrats around the world, the National Endowment for Democracy has truly come of age.

The Endowment was founded upon the belief that the world's greatest democracy should help others who share our democratic values and are striving to build free and democratic societies. The concept guiding the Endowment's work is that the existence of autonomous economic, political, social and cultural institutions is the foundation for the democratic process and the best guarantor of individual rights and freedoms.

The Endowment has acted upon this idea by providing support through counterpart U.S. institutions, thereby enlisting the energies and talents of the American citizenry and the U.S. private sector.

Thus, assistance to trade unions, business associations and political parties has been provided, respectively, through the Free Trade Union Institute of the AFL-CIO, the Center for International Private Enterprise of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Democratic and the National Republican Institutes for International Affairs. Support has also been given to civic organizations of women and youth, public policy institutes, cooperatives, and a variety of free communications media, including newspapers, journals, books, videos and films.

Acting with prudence, imagination, and democratic dedication, the Endowment has adhered to three basic principles: all grants are open to public scrutiny, its support is responsive to the needs and initiatives of the democratic groups abroad, and the approach is consistent—not veering to the left or to the right but holding faithfully to a democratic course.

The programs have differed from country to country, depending upon the nature of the situation and the level of

The National Endowment
for Democracy Has
Come of Age

democratic development. In authoritarian countries such as Haiti, Chile and Paraguay, the Endowment has helped those working for a peaceful democratic transition. In newly established democracies such as Argentina, the Philippines and Guatemala, the Endowment has helped those working to strengthen the institutional infrastructure of democracy. In the Communist societies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and in Cuba as well, the Endowment has supported independent groups working for greater openness and for the revival of civil society. Even in conflict-ridden countries such as South Africa and Nicaragua, the Endowment has been able to aid those working peacefully to make democracy possible when the violence ends.

That this difficult work has been carried out successfully is largely due to the courage and commitment of people abroad who are working to further the democratic cause in their own countries. For them, democracy is not something to be taken for granted. It is a precious ideal whose value is enhanced by the very precariousness of its existence in some countries, or by its denial by force in many others.

The Endowment embodies a broad, bipartisan U.S. commitment to democracy. This is evident even in the composition of our Board, comprised of leading citizens from the mainstream of American political and civic life—liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, representatives of business and labor, and others with long international experience. In the course of our work over the past four

> The democratic revival of the
> 1980's is not a transitory
> phenomenon but a fundamental
> development that is rooted in
> historical forces.

years, we have discovered a remarkable degree of bipartisan consensus on behalf of the proposition that the United States *should* actively support those working without violence to promote democracy abroad.

This consensus is clearly evident in the recent passage of legislation to provide support "to assist non-violent groups working to bring democracy to Nicaragua" through the Endowment. This bill has broad bipartisan support from Members of Congress who have been on both sides of the

5

debate over U.S. policy in Central America. Here, they have
been able to reach a consensus on the issue of support for
democracy and, specifically, support for those who are
working peacefully to strengthen democratic institutions.
This kind of cooperation and consensus is not only benefi-
cial to those we are assisting abroad. It is also a good thing
for our own democracy in this year of partisan politics if we

Among these are the spread of democratic cultures and
economic growth, the rise of newly affluent middle classes
in many Third World countries, the turn from statism to free
market economies, and the decline of anti-democratic
ideologies.

It makes sense to help our democratic friends. It serves
our interests, because democracy is the prerequisite for a
world of peace and prosperity. And it serves our ideals.

Though still a young organization, the Endowment has al-
ready proven its worth. Potentially the most effective instru-
ment we have for advancing our ideals in the world, it is
cost-effective, activist, engaged. It not only provides con-
crete assistance to democrats on the frontlines of political
struggle, but sends a message of solidarity and democratic
commitment. It gains goodwill for our country even as it as-
sists our friends and thereby advances our own interests as
well.

The Endowment's success is good for the country and
good for the world. The next Administration, whether
Democrat or Republican, should see this creative new in-
stitution as a vital asset and an essential part of its global
strategy for peace and freedom. It is an essential organiza-
tion that can make a real contribution to a better world—
one in which all Americans can take pride.

William Brock serves as Chairman of the National Endow-
ment for Democracy's Board of Directors; Charles Manatt is
Vice Chairman. Both Messrs. Brock and Manatt were
founders of the Endowment.

It makes sense to help our
democratic friends. It serves our inter-
ests, because democracy is the pre-
requisite for a world of peace and
prosperity. And it serves our ideals.

can find common ground on an issue that has divided us
and which is so important to the future of our country and
hemisphere. The fact that the Endowment's bold, innovative
and authentically democratic program has also been unify-
ing and consensual demonstrates how broad and deep is
the commitment to democracy in our own country and in-
deed throughout the world.

The Endowment has a crucial role to play in assisting
democratic movements in the world. The democratic revival
of the 1980's is not a transitory phenomenon but a fun-
damental development that is rooted in historical forces.

NED to Convene Major
World Democratic Conference

"The Democratic Revolution" will be the theme of the Endowment's second world democratic conference, to be held in Washington, D.C. on Monday and Tuesday, May 1st and 2nd, 1989. In regional panel sessions, conferees will explore the quiet but sweeping democratic changes, and pressures for change, taking place throughout the world—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The conference will be addressed by democratic activists supported by the Endowment who are at the cutting edge of this historical development.

Following this world survey, the
second and concluding day of the
conference will concentrate on defin-
ing the democratic philosophy that
can unite movements from the dif-
ferent countries and regions already
discussed. This is "The Idea of
Democracy." The session will ex-
amine the prospects for establishing
a foundation of democratic belief—a
set of democratic ideas and ideals—
both to sustain the world democratic
movement in the decades ahead and
help it prevail over its non-
democratic rivals.

The conference will culminate with
an award presentation to an in-
dividual from each of the major

regions addressed by the conference
who has made a unique and decisive
contribution to the democratic cause.

"The Democratic Revolution" will
build upon the success of the
Endowment's first conference, "The
Challenge of Democracy," which rep-
resented an unprecedented gathering
of democratic activists from all over
the world.

Further information on the May
1989 conference may be obtained by
contacting: Diane Bettge, Director of
Public Affairs, National Endowment
for Democracy, 1101 Fifteenth Street,
N.W., Suite 203, Washington, D.C.
20005, (202) 293-9072.

6

NEWS & NOTES

NEWS & NOTES

NEWS & NOTES

Conciencia gathers Argentine presidential candidates • CSIS hosts democracy

forum in Portugal • New Solidarity ambulances presented to the Polish people

Conciencia Brings Presidential
Candidates Together

In an unprecedented display of democratic harmony, Argentina's three presidential candidates appeared together for an election year celebration of their country's democracy, thanks to the efforts of the nonpartisan civic group Conciencia. The occasion was the annual "Citizens Night" sponsored by Conciencia, a women's action movement similar to the U.S. League of Women Voters which has received NED support for its civic education programs. Some 800 journalists, political leaders, cultural figures, civic activists and students attended the September 7th celebration in Buenos Aires. Prior to the May 1989 elections—the first in 36 years that the presidency will be transferred from one democratically-elected president to another—Conciencia will sponsor a series of televised debates among the presidential candidates. Leading a toast to Argentine democracy are, from l. to r., Eduardo Angeloz (Union Civica Radical), Alvaro Alsogaray (Union del Centro Democratico), Conciencia President Maria Rosa S. de Martini, and Carlos Menem (Partido Justicialista).

Solidarity Ambulances Presented

The Polish trade union Solidarity established a Social Foundation last year to provide desperately needed health care to the Polish people. A special congressional appropriation of $1,000,000 in 1987 enabled the union to purchase ambulances and other equipment; diagnostic clinics are also being established.

The Social Foundation turned over the first of three ambulances to the municipal ambulance service of Wroclaw, Poland on June 21st. Ceremonies were subsequently held for the presentation of the second and third vehicles, all of them fully equipped for resuscitation, in Glogow and Gorzow Wielkopolski, industrial cities in Southwest Poland. In Glogow the ambulance was paraded around the city, and in Gorzow Wielkopolski the Bishop conducted a special mass which was attended by 5,000 people to mark the occasion.

Pictured in the photo above taken at the Wroclaw ceremony are, from l. to r., Wladyslaw Frasyniuk, the principle Solidarity representative in Wroclaw; U.S. Ambassador John Davis; Bishop (of Wroclaw) Adam Dyczkowski; and Dr. Krzysztof Wojtylo, a member of the Solidarity Social Foundation resident in Wroclaw. The sign on the ambulance reads "Gift of the Solidarity Social Foundation."

CSIS Hosts Democracy Forum

"Pluralism, Participation, and Democracy: Prospects and Prescriptions into the Twenty-First Century" was the focus of the Center for Strategic and International Studies' International Leadership Forum in Lisbon, Portugal, in June. Over one hundred democratic activists, scholars, and intellectuals from 60 countries participated in the forum chaired by Zbigniew Brzezinski. The participants' consensus was that political democracy is increasingly seen as the best guarantor of peace, justice and human rights, and that a degree of historical optimism is not unwarranted.

In his address to the forum, NED President Carl Gershman noted the significance of the Portuguese experience 13 years ago to the state of democracy today. It "marked a point in history when the momentum that had been running against democracy began to turn in its favor. Since 1975 there have been setbacks to the democratic cause ... but the democratic trend has been broad and strong enough, and sufficiently sustained, to have assumed the character of an historic development—a democratic revolution."

7

Through its worldwide grant program, the Endowment encourages the development of vigorous, independent private sector organizations which strengthen the institutional and intellectual infrastructure of democracy. Highlights of recent Endowment grants follow.

## AFRICA

— The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) is helping the *Southern Africa Black Taxi Association* expand and enhance its communications infrastructure. Equipment provided to SABTA is expected to build membership, strengthen activity, and increase its ability to defend black entrepreneurs from government coercion.

— The *Center for Study and Research on Pluralist Democracy in the Third World* (based in Dakar, Senegal) studies and evaluates the problems encountered in the introduction of pluralistic, liberal democracy in the Third World, especially Africa. With NED support, the Center will convene seminars on civic and political education and publish two editions of a journal on democracy.

— With support from the Free Trade Union Institute (FTUI), the *Organization of African Trade Union Unity (OATUU)* is establishing a *Women's Department*. This will expand opportunities for African women to play leadership roles in the trade union movements of the continent.

## ASIA

— The Afghanistan Relief Committee supports two publication projects. The *Writers Union of Free Afghanistan*, a nonpartisan association of Afghan intellectuals, publishes a quarterly journal in Pashto/Dari. The *Afghan Information Centre* publishes a monthly bulletin on developments inside Afghanistan in English for an international audience.

— With CIPE support, the *All China Federation of Industry and Commerce* is working to increase the ability of provincial business federations in China to advocate policy

## RECENT GRANTS

### AWARDED:

### HIGHLIGHTS

changes to the government which will further liberalize the economy, advance reforms encouraging the decentralization of economic decision-making, and generally reduce direct state intervention.

## EASTERN EUROPE AND THE SOVIET UNION

— An Endowment grant assists the *Bulletin* of the Committee to Aid Democratic Dissidents in Yugoslavia in providing information on the latest democratic developments and representations in Yugoslavia. The London-based Serbo-Croat newspaper *Nasa Rec* (Our Word) also received support to continue publication and increase its distribution in Yugoslavia.

— *Small independent publications and publishing houses in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary* receive Endowment assistance through the Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe. Many of these publications still rely on typewriters and carbon paper for duplication; the Institute provides them with the means to acquire more up-to-date equipment and technical assistance.

## LATIN AMERICA

— NDI organized a *multi-party international observer delegation to the October Chilean presidential plebiscite* which included political party leaders, former heads of state, parliamentarians and election experts from 30 countries. Delegate teams observed the plebiscite in Santiago, Valparaiso, Concepcion and the northern and southern parts of the country.

— A nationwide survey of public opinion, sponsored by the National Republican Institute for International Affairs (NRI), provided Chilean voters with vital statistical information and analysis on which to base electoral

decisions. NRI then supported a second *study measuring voter attitudes and opinions* before the plebiscite.

— *The National Reconciliation Commission of Guatemala*, a non-governmental institution, was created in 1987 to advance the prospects for peace and democracy in that country. With NED support, it is working to establish an institutional framework for a permanent dialogue among all sectors of Guatemalan society.

— With CIPE support, the *Chamber of Commerce of Nicaragua* is developing a program to unify the Nicaraguan private business sector into a more aggressive advocate for free enterprise and individual economic initiative. A Chamber economic information office will analyze the country's economic situation and make this information available to the Nicaraguan public.

— Inspired by the success of the NED-funded Conciencia organization in Argentina, a group of 30 women came together in 1987 to create a similar organization to provide civic education and promote citizen participation in the democratic process in Peru. In the coming year, *Conciencia Peru* will implement its civic education program and establish additional chapters.

## MULTI-REGIONAL

— To enhance and expand the circulation of mainstream democratic thought available to a broad spectrum of newspaper readers throughout the world, FTUI is supporting a program to circulate appropriate editorial features to newspaper editors, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, through *INTERCO Press*, an AFL-CIO editorial features distribution service.

— The American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) conducted a *Democracy Conference and U.S. Election Study Tour* for over 150 delegates from forty-six countries. Initiated in 1986, the biennial tour provides participants with a comprehensive, in-depth understanding of the U.S. political system and familiarizes them with the electoral process.

8

ILD Credited with Continuing
Success in Peru

In the midst of a deepening economic crisis in Peru, the Lima-based Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD) has expanded its impressive efforts to open and revitalize the country's economic system.

Supported by the Center for International Private Enterprise (the Endowment's core grantee for business programs), the focus of the ILD's work has been its study of Peru's massive informal economy. This informal economic sector is composed of small businessmen and homeowners who operate outside of the official legal system to avoid an array of suffocating and ever-changing rules, licenses, permits, and bribes required by the government.

ILD estimates that 60 percent of the Peruvian workforce operates outside the formal economy, accounting for approximately 38 percent of Peru's gross domestic product. Further estimates show that 95 percent of Lima's public transportation is operated by informals and 98 percent of new homes are built without required permits.

In June, ILD director Hernando de Soto brought formal and informal businessmen together to discuss common problems and possible solutions. The two groups joined forces in the "Formal-Informal Union," and began a united campaign to deregulate the Peruvian economy.

ILD's success in simplifying the mortgage title process has enabled many informal households to finally gain legal title to their homes. In August ILD successfully negotiated the creation of a new popular mortgage insurance system with government authorities under which homeowners can now obtain home improvement and small business loans. By 1992, ILD estimates that the system will create access for a quarter of a million inhabitants of Peru's young towns to $201 million in credit.

For further information, contact Dr. John Sullivan,
Program Coordinator, Center for International Private
Enterprise, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20062,
(202) 463-5901.

Bulk Rate
U.S. Postage Paid
Permit No. 800
Rockville, MD

1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 203
Washington, D.C. 20005-5003

Return Postage Guaranteed

11/15/88

A11

PAKISTAN PRAISED
ON OPEN CAMPAIGN

International Observers Say
Disruptions and Violence
Were Largely Avoided

By BARBARA CROSSETTE
Special to The New York Times

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Nov. 14 — An international delegation preparing to monitor elections in Pakistan this week said today that it was "favorably impressed" by preparations for the voting and by the openness of the political campaign.

The campaign, which ended tonight, has been remarkably free of violence and disruption. On Wednesday, Pakistanis will chose a National Assembly, the lower house of the national legislature. On Saturday, they will vote for provincial assemblies.

The 18-member international monitoring team, which will visit all the country's provinces, is sponsored by the Washington-based National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, affiliated with the Democratic Party.

Led by the institute's president, J. Brian Atwood, and Ruairi Quinn, a former member of the Irish Parliament, the nonpartisan delegation includes politicians and scholars from Malaysia, Tunisia, Turkey and Britain as well as Democrats and Republicans from the United States.

A separate monitoring team of constitutional experts from India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal said in a statement last week that it "noted with satisfaction the resolve and determination to conduct a free, fair and and impartial election."

Close of Campaigns

Political parties today held their last rallies and motorcades, including a long and exuberant motorized procession of members of the Pakistan People's Party of Benazir Bhutto around Islamabad, the capital.

Ms. Bhutto made a hastily arranged trip to the North West Frontier Province following two days of mixed results in Punjab, the country's most populous province.

On Sunday night, Ms. Bhutto, whose campaign became increasingly disorganized toward the end, kept a loyal crowd of party supporters waiting nearly eight hours on a cold night in Lahore. A rally announced for 8 P.M. had begun to draw a crowd by late afternoon. Ms. Bhutto did not arrive until 3:15 A.M. today, by which time her audience, small by the standards of earlier rallies elsewhere in the country, had dwindled further.

She said that while she might be denied a landslide, she was confident that her party could win a majority.

One of Ms. Bhutto's main rivals, the Punjab's acting Chief Minister, Nawaz Sharif, staged his final rally in Lahore.

On Wednesday, Pakistanis vote to fill 205 National Assembly seats. In two other districts, candidates have died and by-elections will be held later. In addition, 10 seats will go to non-Muslims — predominantly Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Parsis — who in effect vote as segregated electoral communities. When the National Assembly convenes, it will chose 20 members for seats reserved for women. Women are free, however, to run on general ballots.

The election this week is expected to return the country to its parliamentary system, largely suspended under President Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, with political parties in the National Assembly determining who will head the government.

Under the Constitution, the President, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, who stepped in as interim head of state after President Zia was killed in a plane crash in August, will officially name a Prime Minister after the composition of the assembly becomes clear.

The National Assembly will in turn elect a President, according to the Constitution, but there are disagreements here over the sequence of choosing the two top officials.

The Washington Post

November 9, 1988

Democracy in Pakistan

IMPORTANT aspects of the legacy of Paki-
stan's President Zia, who died in an air crash
last August, are still being upheld: military-
based nationalism, Islamization, support for the
Afghan resistance. Fortunately, however, one
aspect of his legacy is being at least tentatively
reversed: his distaste bordering on contempt for
democratic ways. National elections are to be
held next week. Not only will they be conducted
by political parties, which President Zia deeply
distrusted, but they are also being conducted
under generally fair laws and regulations and in
conditions where intimidation or fraud can be
readily detected. So testifies, among others, the
National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs in Washington, which has been watching
closely.

No one who is aware of the easy and sometimes
cruel way the army has intervened in the politics of
Pakistan over its 41 years of independence will
imagine that the military has retired from the
political scene. But it seems that the crash that
took the lives of President Zia and other top
members of the military command, though it left
the armed forces still believing they are ultimately

responsible for what goes on in the country, also
left them reluctant to inject themselves into these
elections. There is no guarantee that the military
(which takes 60 percent of the state budget) will
stay on the sidelines afterward, especially in the
event of communal violence or official paralysis.
But it is helping to bring about conditions to make
the next, elected government acceptably legiti-
mate, though perhaps not fully empowered.

The parties are rusty after 11 years of Zia-en-
forced inactivity, and they are wheeling and re-
aligning in a dizzying manner. Benazir Bhutto, heir
to her father, the aristocrat-turned-populist prime
minister executed by President Zia, heads a party
whose potency quickly forced a very mixed bag of
traditional power brokers (but far from all of them)
to organize an uneasy coalition against her. It is
not at all clear which if either group will be able to
form a government—and then to govern. Pakistan
deserves respect, however, for acting on the
premise that democratic procedures offer it better
prospects for dealing with its harsh circumstances
than further direct military rule. Democracy is also
the best way for Pakistan to keep up close ties
with the United States.

A27

ON MY MIND

A. M. Rosenthal

11-22-88

The Office
On West
30th Street

Open the door of the bare office on West 30th Street. Across the room a man stands up, moves forward. Walk toward him, shake hands, embrace.

Pyotr Ruban on West 30th Street! Twenty-two years eating the mean bread of imprisonment in Soviet political jails, finishing one sentence for speaking his mind, arrested again, incarcerated again, exiled, re-arrested and imprisoned, isolated from family and world for more than two decades — and here is Pyotr Vasilovich Ruban on West 30th Street, smiling and walking forward and hugging.

Can this be? Later, other men come into the room. You know their names and suffering but not their faces or the way they walk or talk.

Here is Vladimir Davidoff, imprisoned in the "psychiatric hospitals" — prisons where jailers wear white coats and drugs are used to give pain, not kill it. Here Aleksei Murzhenko, 21 years of prison.

Over there is Aleksandr Pavlovich Lavut, sent into eight years of exile, working as a cook on a fishing crew. He is in the U.S. just for a few days along with six other dissidents. Andrei Sakharov insisted they be part of his journey to the United States.

Everybody drinks coffee and smokes. They talk about many of their friends who lived in the cells and some who are still there or in the cold villages of exile.

They ask themselves what will convince them that the movement toward some liberty will endure and not be tied to the fate or will of one man.

They say that the laws must change so that thinking and speaking never becomes a crime again. And they say there must be moral restitution, the history of the Gulag faced clearly, and the guilty called to account. They spell out the names of those still imprisoned, to be written down.

Sometimes it is hard to sort out the talk in the small office of the Center for Democracy, a group of Soviet and American citizens who struggle for Soviet prisoners and other freedom causes.

Mostly that is because your own mind is grappling with the one stunning fact that these men so familiar and yet so unknown are here, not in the Ural and Siberian prison camps, but here in this very room on West 30th Street.

You know it would not have happened without Mikhail Gorbachev's rise. Prisoners were locked up for decades for saying some of the things about tyranny and failure that he now says himself. And all those people in the Soviet Union and the U.S. who keep the names of the prisoners alive — they helped make it politically embarrassing for the Gorbachev regime to keep the cells full.

But only the prisoners themselves matter, so later, search out Mr. Ruban again, this time at the office of Helsinki Watch, which fights for political prisoners everywhere.

This is how heroes look: Natan Sharansky is short and bald. Dr. Sakharov's shoulders droop. Pyotr Ruban is slight and wiry, and his moustache sags.

Mr. Ruban is a Ukrainian nationalist. He knows that there were collaborators with the Germans in the movement. He says those in the Ukraine were shot and that there are few now in America. He demands full Ukrain-

Meeting
the men
who have
survived
the gulag.

ian political rights and freedoms but no longer fights for secession.

He was arrested once for a bungled robbery to get funds for the movement. But mostly the years of arrest and incarceration were for speaking and writing about brutalities of the whole Soviet system.

His last indictment, in 1985, condemns him for opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, praising Polish Solidarity, denouncing international terrorism, claiming that Soviet agriculture is in a bad way and promoting nationalist feelings in the Soviet republics. Today it reads like a summary of the news in Pravda. He got nine years in the special hard-time camps, and four more in exile.

On May 23, 1988, Mr. Ruban was in the punishment cell of a political prison in the Urals; his 47th day, this time. He was taken out, brought to the warden, who told him he was being released and put out his hand. "I do not shake hands with murderer," Mr. Ruban says was his response.

Seven days later, Mr. Ruban was at a dinner in the American Ambassador's residence in Moscow, seated next to George Shultz. On July 13 he arrived in the United States.

He spends his time speaking to Ukrainian-American groups and setting up a company to get financial help for private enterprise cooperatives in the Soviet Union. He thinks they are a good way to keep on fighting the system.

Pyotr Ruban now lives in the town of Irvington, in the state of New Jersey.

FOREIGN POLICY REPORT

Eye on the East

Fast-moving developments in Eastern Europe have persuaded some diplomatic experts that this region must be at the center of future superpower relations.

BY CHRISTOPHER MADISON

In an era of improved U.S.-Soviet relations, through four summit meetings between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev, one issue has not been on the superpower agenda: the status of Eastern Europe. But for Reagan's successor, it will almost certainly be high on the list.

The U.S.-Soviet relationship has dominated U.S. foreign policy, especially during Reagan's second term, when a dramatic improvement in superpower relations resulted in the signing of a major arms control pact, progress toward a second and a general relaxation of tensions.

As that relationship continues to improve, American policy makers will be paying more attention to Eastern Europe.

Fast-moving developments—political instability as well as reform—are on display in Eastern Europe, and those factors could disrupt the improving U.S.-Soviet ties if they are not handled carefully and correctly in direct talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, some Eastern European specialists say.

"From a security standpoint," Dimitri K. Simes, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said, Eastern Europe "is the most likely source of instability and tension in the superpower relationship. If Eastern Europe remains a major source of tension, nothing else can bring stability and security to the U.S.-Soviet relationship. The Cold War was born in Eastern Europe. It can be buried there."

Although the Reagan Administration has declined to talk to the Soviets about Eastern Europe, it has, during Reagan's second term, pursued an activist if quiet policy toward the region that the next Administration can build upon.

The objectives of this policy have been modest but not insignificant—to increase U.S. ties to the governments and people of

Eastern Europe, taking advantage of an unexpected atmosphere of reform spurred by Gorbachev's policies.

Ultimately, the U.S. government hopes to encourage the countries of Eastern Europe to become more independent, politically and economically, of the Soviet Union. Others outside the government would take that policy a step further: They believe that a reduction in direct Soviet control over these countries could figure in future superpower talks on conventional arms control.

The Administration's policy has been driven at a high diplomatic level and has been personally managed by deputy secretary of State John C. Whitehead, who has made six trips to Eastern Europe, the latest as recently as mid-October.

The results have been modest but tangible. In recent weeks, the regime of Wojciech Jaruzelski in Poland has expressed willingness to hold talks with the Solidarity trade union. This is a change from 1981, when Solidarity was outlawed and martial law was imposed, leading to a freeze in U.S.-Polish relations.

As part of its "step-by-step" policy, the Administration has been directing words of praise at the Jaruzelski regime for its growing openness. Direct U.S. support for Solidarity has come through the National Endowment for Democracy, a government-supported entity not directly connected to the Administration.

Early in 1987, the Administration ended its economic sanctions against Poland after political prisoners were freed.

Jim McConogue

2772 NATIONAL JOURNAL 11/5/88

In August, after Solidarity leader Lech Walesa met for the first time with government officials to discuss his union's role in the country's economic and political processes, a State Department spokesman called it a "welcome and significant step forward" on "the path of dialogue and national reconciliation."

In the coming weeks, the Administration may soon offer more-tangible, though still modest, benefits, such as a signal to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of U.S. endorsement of a pending IMF agreement to provide economic aid to Poland.

Hungary has also felt the U.S. warming trend. During the summer, Reagan welcomed Hungarian Communist Party leader Karoly Grosz to the White House with these words: "I believe that you are intent on providing the kind of leadership that will give scope to the energy, ingenuity and vision that Hungarians possess in such abundance."

Grosz, in response, said: "Hungary has to face enormous tasks today. It will reorganize its economy. This can only be done, we are aware, if the people, if the

have arisen between Romania and the Soviets over the same issue.

U.S. officials are eager to encourage the reform trend throughout the region by engaging each of the countries in closer diplomatic ties and by offering modest carrots of encouragement when reforms occur.

This active diplomacy has won wide bipartisan praise, although some hard-liners fear that the Administration has been too eager and too optimistic about the warming trend. In the end, these analysts say, the subject will have to be discussed directly by the two superpowers.

Some also believe that the issue must be brought into the negotiations on reduction of conventional arms because the issue of lessened Soviet control over Eastern Europe is inextricably linked to the notion of reduced levels of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe.

If the Soviet Union is confident NATO armies won't move through Eastern Europe to attack it, it might be willing to reduce its conventional forces in Europe, and NATO could then cut its forces.

The Administration, in the face of

"There has been greater continuity over the years in the objectives of America's East European policy than of its policy toward the USSR," wrote Lincoln Gordon, a former diplomat and Brookings Institution guest scholar, in *Eroding Empire: Western Relations with Eastern Europe* (Brookings, 1987).

American objectives during the past three decades—since the Soviet Union's military suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1956—"focus on national self-determination and respect for human rights and political liberties, amounting in effect to a goal of gradual and peaceful detachment from Soviet political control," Gordon wrote.

Prior to the 1956 Hungarian crackdown, U.S. policy was characterized by the phrase "rollback," under which the Eisenhower Administration maintained the rhetorical premise that its policy was to liberate Eastern Europe. But the passive U.S. reaction to the Soviet move into Hungary in 1956 "underscored the holowness of the rollback idea," F. Stephen Larrabee, a former NSC staff member who is now vice president of the Institute for East-West Security Studies, wrote in the spring issue of *Foreign Policy*.

In the aftermath of the failed Hungarian revolt, the notion of liberating Eastern Europe gave way to a policy of encouraging peaceful change, and this policy has persisted to the present day. Variations on the theme depend as much on events in the region as on changes in the U.S. mood.

"Differentiation" is the buzzword used to describe the current variation: the proposition that Eastern Europe is separate from the Soviet Union and that each Eastern European country is separate from the others in the region. Inherent in this formulation is the notion that the United States does not acknowledge Soviet domination over Eastern Europe.

"We are not treating them as Soviet satellites," Whitehead said in an interview. "We are treating them as the independent, separate countries that they are, each with their own history, each with their own culture, each with their own language."

Whitehead, who has had special responsibility for Eastern Europe, is given credit for moving the United States into a more aggressive stance.

"We are engaged—heavily engaged, very much engaged," he said. "As a government, we ignored them more than we should have."

A nongovernment expert who asked not to be quoted by name said of the Administration's more-engaged policy, "I'm sure that there is a sense that the opportunities have grown a lot—that the environment is very ripe" for progress.

Deputy secretary of State John C. Whitehead

"If they desire to have closer relationships with the West, we want to respond."

Richard A. Blousin

citizens, will enjoy more rights, more freedoms."

The other Warsaw Pact countries included under the Eastern Europe umbrella—Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Romania—are further behind Poland and Hungary on the reform track. In fact, some are resisting.

But Gorbachev seems to have irrevocably injected the dynamics of reform into the political debate in Eastern Europe. The recent government crisis in Czechoslovakia, for example, was caused by a split between advocates of reform and those urging a go-slow strategy. Tensions

strong objections by Secretary of State George P. Shultz, has resisted putting the issue on the U.S.-Soviet agenda, despite efforts by senior officials at State and on the National Security Council (NSC) staff to put it on the table.

But Simes and other experts believe that the next Administration, whether headed by George Bush or Michael S. Dukakis, will take that next step.

### "DIFFERENTIATION"

The current U.S. stance toward Eastern Europe is in no sense a radical departure from previous U.S. policy.

NATIONAL JOURNAL 11/5/88 2773

Trading with the East Bloc

U.S. exports to the Communist countries of Eastern Europe in 1985 totaled $781 million and imports from those six countries stood at $1.7 billion.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>1970</th><th>1975<br>(millions of dollars)</th><th>1980</th><th>1985</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>East Germany</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exports to</td><td>$33</td><td>$17</td><td>$478</td><td>$73</td></tr><tr><td>Imports from</td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>49</td><td>102</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Czechoslovakia</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exports to</td><td>23</td><td>53</td><td>185</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Imports from</td><td>25</td><td>38</td><td>75</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hungary</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exports to</td><td>28</td><td>76</td><td>80</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>Imports from</td><td>7</td><td>38</td><td>118</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Poland</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exports to</td><td>70</td><td>583</td><td>716</td><td>238</td></tr><tr><td>Imports from</td><td>104</td><td>263</td><td>460</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Bulgaria</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exports to</td><td>15</td><td>30</td><td>162</td><td>104</td></tr><tr><td>Imports from</td><td>3</td><td>21</td><td>27</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Romania</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Exports to</td><td>66</td><td>191</td><td>722</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td>Imports from</td><td>14</td><td>147</td><td>147</td><td>951</td></tr></tbody></table>

SOURCE: International Monetary Fund

He attributed the new opportunities to two closely related factors: economic failures in Eastern Europe and Gorbachev's extension to the region of his emphasis on economic reforms.

"Eastern Europe is certainly operating in a crisis situation, mainly of an economic nature rather than a political one," a State Department official said. "There has been a systemic breakdown: Socialism, the whole Marxist-Leninist model, has failed to deliver the goods."

He summed up Soviet policy this way: "Their ideas about Eastern Europe haven't changed. They do not want Eastern Europe to drift away. That's a given. But they also want the draining of Soviet resources to stop."

In his *Foreign Policy* article, Larrabee wrote: "For the first time in a quarter of a century, the impetus for change in Eastern Europe is emanating from the Soviet Union, not from Eastern Europe itself. Although Gorbachev has not tried to force the Soviet model on Eastern Europe, he has pressed his allies to improve their economies' efficiency and urged policy changes...."

An illustration of Gorbachev's aggressive reform stance on Eastern Europe came in early October, when Romanian

leader Nicolae Ceausescu was treated on a visit to Moscow to a Gorbachev lecture on the need for socialist economies to undergo "profound reforms." In a speech, Gorbachev said that "the success of each of [the economies] will be a common ideological achievement, but the failure of any can, alas, mean a common setback."

Romania, in contrast with Hungary and Poland, is considered resistant to economic and political reforms and has been under pressure from both the Soviet Union and the West to open up its economy and its political system.

It also has come under heavy criticism for ill-treating the Hungarian minority living in Romania. Evidence of the erosion of the rigid structure of the Soviet bloc can be found in Hungary's efforts to get the United States to press Romania to improve its treatment of Hungarians.

Some Members of Congress would like the United States to respond to the Hungarian request, but so far, the Administration has refused to takes sides. The irony of the situation has not gone unnoticed. Some Eastern European regimes "are an embarrassment to the Soviets," Simes said. "The most heated conflict is not East-West but East-East."

Gorbachev's reform-oriented policy to-

ward Eastern Europe is a logical extension of *perestroika*, but it is surprising nonetheless in that it puts the United States and the Soviet Union on the same side of an issue—economic reform in Eastern Europe—that is supposed to divide them, and in a region that has been a source of tension for 40 years.

"It is ironic," Whitehead said, "that all of these countries were much further along toward reform than the Soviets, and now Gorbachev's reforms have overtaken some of them."

The policy is also risky in that it contradicts an established dogma of Soviet foreign policy.

"Eastern Europe remains a very fundamental problem for Gorbachev," said Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, D-Ind., chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East. "The domination of Eastern Europe has been the centerpiece of Soviet foreign policy, and Gorbachev is contending against forces that are pulling it in the opposite direction—toward the West." At the same time, he said, the Soviet president is encouraging the drift toward the West by promoting economic reforms.

For the West to accept the policy switch at face value may require some new thinking on its part. "What it requires is an almost revolutionary redefinition of what Soviets interests are," Gordon said in an interview. "We have to be more flexible in thinking about what is possible."

## EXPLOSION IN WAITING?

As a result, most U.S. officials are cautious about spinning out rosy scenarios for the region.

Some experts underline the unusual convergence of interest between the United States and the Soviet Union in pushing for economic reforms in the region and see this common ground as an opportunity for the United States.

Publicly, however, the Administration has taken a cautious approach, especially in its rhetoric.

That is partly because of deep skepticism about the ramifications of the resiliency in several Eastern European countries and in the Soviet Union itself. In the spring issue of *Foreign Affairs*, former White House national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski called Eastern Europe a "region of potentially explosive instability, with five countries already in a classic prerevolutionary situation. Economic failure and political unrest are becoming the dominant characteristics of life in Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and... Yugoslavia. In any one, or even in several at once, a spark could set off a major explosion, given the intensity of popular dissatisfaction."

2774 NATIONAL JOURNAL 11/5/88

Despite this warning, however, he does not diverge significantly from the current U.S. policy prescription: "A major eruption in Eastern Europe would almost certainly precipitate not only a Soviet intervention but the end of *perestroika* itself," Brzezinski wrote. "The United States and its European allies should focus actively on an effort to forge a more stable relationship with Eastern Europe. A more co-ordinated Western policy of political and economic engagement should be designed to facilitate the evolutionary dismantling of the Stalinist relics in the region."

Discussing the "explosiveness" of the situation at a session earlier this year of Hamilton's panel, Rozanne L. Ridgway, the assistant secretary of State for European and Canadian affairs, said: "I do not predict explosion the way the experts seem to have, but I certainly do predict a period of very real tension between parties and political authorities on the one hand and people on the other.... There's a very real friction building up."

There is broad agreement that the United States should not precipitate an explosion of discontent in Eastern Europe because of the dangers Brzezinski cited, but there seems to be less concern lately about an explosion in countries such as Poland, where the regime has responded with some political openings.

But there are dangers elsewhere. Some experts see a potential explosion—and reaction—in the Soviet Union's Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania or in the Ukraine, where there have been protests against Soviet rule.

If the Soviets crack down on such internal dissent—which some experts consider not out of the question—the U.S.-Soviet relationship could be damaged.

Some Administration critics are concerned about what they see as an undercurrent of U.S. policy that says, as one put it, that if the cauldron of change heats up too much, it will undermine the reform movement.

A critic who follows Eastern European trade union issues said, "It is the ferment that is bringing these governments toward reform," and the United States should not act to dampen it.

Other critics fear that if the Administration warms up to Eastern European governments too quickly, it could be letting them off the hook.

"The Soviet empire is in the process of disintegrating," one of these critics said. "It is in a prerevolutionary phase. The United States should not be stepping in to help reverse this process. The United States does not want a bloody clash, nor should it try to meddle in the process that's taking place. We can accomplish more by doing less, and less by doing more."

Despite these concerns, the United States has developed a quiet, low-risk strategy based on the premise that the United States is not the key actor in the drama but can gain as the play unfolds.

The objective of U.S. policy toward the Eastern European countries, Whitehead said, "is to persuade them, to the greatest extent possible, to become more independent of the Soviets politically and economically. If they desire to have closer relationships with the West, we want to respond to that. I see each of these countries, some moving faster than others, moving toward greater independence from the Soviets," both politically and economically.

At the same time, Whitehead expressed doubt that the Soviets would crack down on reforms anytime soon.

"I don't see many signs that the Soviets are standing in the way of this," he said. The Gorbachev message of *glasnost* and *perestroika* for Eastern Europe is "that these countries are free to go their own way. I believe Gorbachev is encouraging that. I believe it is to a large extent irreversible. You can't put the genie of freedom back in the bottle once you've let it out."

## OFFERING CARROTS

In response to the region's economic crisis and the new Soviet attitude toward its satellite countries, the Administration has developed a "step-by-step" policy of offering carrots to Soviet bloc countries that show signs of reform. So far, U.S. government credits and other forms of aid are not on the menu.

"We're opposed to repeating the mistakes of the 1980s—throwing aid money at the problem," a State Department official said. Instead, the policy has emphasized less-direct benefits.

At the beginning of the U.S.-Polish raprochement two years ago, for example, the United States signaled its encouragement of Poland's efforts to free political prisoners by withdrawing its objections to Polish membership in the IMF.

In light of recent moves by the Polish government to negotiate with Solidarity, discussions between U.S. and Polish officials are centered on ways that the United States can help Poland in its negotiations with the IMF for economic assistance to Poland in return for economic reforms.

Whitehead hinted that the United States might take a more aggressive position in support of the IMF aid if the Polish government broadens its cabinet to include figures from outside the ruling Communist Party.

Whitehead said the Poles are also pressing for loans from private U.S. banks. "As we see greater progress toward pluralism—one can almost say, to-

ward greater democracy—we will be prepared to respond," he said.

The Administration has been criticized in Congress and among U.S. labor leaders for not pushing hard enough on the legalization of Solidarity. Labor officials said the Administration should look to Polish recognition of Solidarity rather than a broadening of the Polish cabinet in considering when and how to respond to that government's various reform moves.

Some critics say the Administration fumbled a response to recent reforms in Hungary. Under Grosz's leadership, Hungary has embarked on an effort to tackle its serious economic crisis.

Earlier this year, during House consideration of a bill to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corp. (OPIC), an agency that offers insurance to U.S. companies investing in high-risk countries, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., offered a proposal to extend OPIC insurance coverage to investment in Hungary. His move was defeated by a coalition of U.S. labor unions and conservatives.

"The Administration did not have its act together on the vote in the House," a critic said. "The next Administration will get another shot at that." Whitehead said that he would recommend that Congress be asked to act to make Hungary eligible for OPIC insurance.

Sources said another "carrot" for Eastern Europe—trade concessions to East

Richard A. Blagon

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, D-Ind.

*It's a problem for Gorbachev.*

NATIONAL JOURNAL 11/5/88 2775

Germany—proposed by State Depart-
ment officials was recently taken off the
table by the White House, the Treasury
Department and the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative.

The issue grows out of an informal un-
derstanding between U.S. and East Ger-
man officials, negotiated by assistant sec-
retary of State Ridgway when she was
U.S. ambassador to East Germany, that

has investment by American companies
there. But interest is picking up as evi-
dence mounts of economic reforms, par-
ticularly in Hungary and Poland.

"There's a great deal of interest.
There's also a great deal of caution," said
Donald J. Hasfurther, director of East-
West trade for the U.S. Chamber of Com-
merce. "Events of the last year have had a
major impact on U.S. business evaluation

of Eastern Europe," he said, but
it will be a "slow
process" that
hasn't begun to
show up in any sig-
nificant way in
East-West trade
statistics.

As part of the
process of building
credibility in the
region, U.S. offi-
cials have made a
determined effort
not to "freeze"
countries out dip-
lomatically be-
cause they have
not embarked on
reform.

In his most re-
cent trip, for exam-
ple, Whitehead in-
cluded Romania
on his itinerary de-
spite skepticism in
the State Depart-

ment and Congress that anything could
be achieved now through another U.S.
visit.

"We want to improve our relationship," Whitehead said. "My continuing willingness to talk to the government, to continue to have a dialogue—that's the purpose of the trip. Romania is a country we should have a relationship with. We should try to understand them."

UNCERTAINTIES

No one is sure how far the reform pro-
cess in Eastern Europe will go; the uncer-
tainties are substantial. Will the United
States gradually entice the Eastern Euro-
peans into a closer relationship with the
West? Will the Soviet Union at some
point seek to pull the East Europeans
back into its exclusive orbit?

These questions are so critical for the
U.S.-Soviet relationship that the subject
has to be discussed by the two superpow-
ers, some experts believe.

"John Whitehead deserves a good deal of gratitude" for pursuing a vigorous diplomatic exchange with the countries of Eastern Europe, Carnegie's Simes said. But "I don't know what else we can do. We reach a point where very little can be

done directly unless we put it on the U.S.-
Soviet agenda."

Simes's argument is elegantly simple: Eastern Europe is at the heart of the Cold War, and U.S.-Soviet relations can be improved only if that irritant is removed. But that will have to await the new Administration.

In preparing for Reagan's trip to Mos-
cow earlier this year, a senior NSC official
proposed that Eastern Europe be included
among the regional conflicts to be dis-
cussed by Reagan and Gorbachev.

Shultz rejected the notion, sources said,
because it would be too direct and public
a recognition of Soviet domination of
Eastern Europe and would be a provoc-
tive issue that could damage the super-
power relationship if the two countries
disagreed fundamentally on it.

The issue arose again when U.S. offi-
cials arrived in Moscow for the summit.
Soviet diplomats proposed a discussion on
a possible "joint declaration of nonuse of
force" in Europe by which both super-
powers would pledge not to wage an of-
fensive war against the other in Europe.
That move was also rebuffed.

The declaration in essence would have
been a starting point for a mutual pull-
back of Warsaw Pact and NATO forces.
Its proposal by the Soviet Union follows
recent Soviet declarations that it may be
prepared to change its strategic military
posture in Eastern Europe from an offen-
sive to a defensive one.

"Most of us have felt for a long time
that the traditional Soviet view, that
somehow NATO was poised to invade
Eastern Europe, had a large shibboleth to
it," Gordon of the Brookings Institution
said.

Simes, Gordon and others say that the
Eastern Europe issue should not only be
put on the U.S.-Soviet agenda but should
also become a vital part of the conven-
tional arms control talks that are sched-
uled to convene this month.

The two issues are already linked. To
bring about a reduction of Soviet forces in
Eastern Europe, as well as a mutual re-
duction in NATO forces, both sides will
have to come to at least a tacit under-
standing of their respective roles in East-
ern Europe.

Troop reductions could become easier
to negotiate and more meaningful in size
and scope if the Soviet Union was con-
vinced that NATO was not going to at-
tack it across Eastern Europe and if the
West saw evidence of a reduced Soviet
role in Eastern Europe. And that could be
tied to present reform moves in these
countries.

"You want to convince the Soviets,"
Gordon said, "that liberalization in East-
ern Europe does not pose a threat to their
security."

Carnegie Endowment's Dimitri K. Simes

The issue must be placed on the superpower agenda.

Richard A. Bloom

the United States would respond with
trade benefits if East Germany was forth-
coming in settling Jewish and other
claims left over from World War II.

But so far, the U.S. government has
been unwilling to move forward on trade
issues, and settlement negotiations have
come to a standstill, according to congres-
sional sources. Despite that, some prog-
ress has been reported in talks between
East Germany and the American Jewish
community on the claims issue. Whether
this will lead to a U.S. offer of trade con-
cessions is not clear. But the issue is sure
to resurface in the next Administration.

Because Whitehead and other officials
are firm in ruling out U.S. loans to East-
ern Europe, the only other major eco-
nomic benefits of improved relations are
the prospects for U.S. trade and invest-
ment in that region. Whitehead said he
would encourage U.S. firms to invest in
Eastern Europe but added that "they
should be careful and wary. A wise and
careful investment represents a great
opportunity. This is a huge market. But
one of the reforms has to be a welcoming
of Western and American firms."

So far, U.S. trade with Eastern Europe
has been minimal (see table, p. 2774), as

2776 NATIONAL JOURNAL 11/5/88

DEMOCRACY FOR ALL

Manifesto of the Movement for Civil Liberties

DEMOCRACY FOR ALL
Documents of the Movement for Civil Liberties

Published in November 1988 as No. 1 in the series DOSSIER by The Documentation Centre for the Promotion of Independent Czechoslovak Literature (ČSDS), Scheinfeld-Schwarzenberg, Federal Republic Germany

Translated from Czech by A. G. Brain

© 1988 ČSDS, Scheinfeld-Schwarzenberg

The time has come to get involved in politics.

Let us engage in an activity which people treat with universal suspicion because of the dictatorial and incompetent way it has been pursued over the past decades by those who have monopolised it.

Politics must be rehabilitated as a sphere of activity. It must once more become the focal point for the expression and advancement of society's authentic interests.

What the Czechoslovak state has to show for its seventy years' existence gives no cause for rejoicing. Our entire society is experiencing a period of grave moral decline. Undemocratic conditions prevail. Our national and state sovereignty are both curtailed. Our economy and the level of our technology are going from bad to worse. Because of manipulation from the centre, our society's creative potential is permanently stifled. Our natural environment is in an ever more appalling state. Generation after generation of our citizens have abandoned their homeland in disgust. Our country, which was once one of the most advanced in Europe, is sinking so rapidly that we will soon be numbered among the most backward.

The present regime is aware of this crisis and has declared its intention to institute certain piecemeal reforms. However, it is incapable of changing its nature and abandoning its totalitarian style of government, which is the root cause of the crisis.

That is why the time is ripe for society itself – in other words, all of us – to enter the political arena.

Taking this demand of the times as our starting point, and basing ourselves on Charter 77's years of effort to provide a truthful

3

["picture of conditions in our country, as well as drawing encourage-\nment from the work of other independent initiatives, both in Cze-\nchoslovakia and elsewhere in the Soviet bloc, we have decided to\nset up the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES. We intend it as\na loose association of political groups and clubs which are being\ncreated freely and autonomously in different parts of our Republic\nas meeting points for people who are not indifferent to our coun-\ntry's future and are prepared to engage in open debate about politi-\ncal issues of every kind, while respecting the principle of pluralism\nand being ready to engage in direct political action. This could\nmean setting up discussion forums at their place of work or in their\nneighbourhood, advancing various demands, both general and lo-\ncal, putting up independent candidates in elections, or other initia-\ntives. In this way, the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES should\nprovide scope for citizens freely to express their political aspira-\ntions, and help crystallise various more specifically political or sec-\ntional endeavours.", "We herewith submit to all our fellow-citizens - in other words,\nall potential supporters of the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBER-\nTIES - some of the main ideas and goals we have so far agreed on,\nas a starting point for debate, as proposals requiring further atten-\ntion, or as shared principles in the broadest sense.", "1. OURS IS A TRADITION OF DEMOCRACY", "After all the lamentable events of our most recent past, many\nCzechs and Slovaks have wondered whether it was wise to have dis-\nmembered the Austrian empire in order to set up an independent\nCzechoslovak state, which, as a small country in the middle of Eur-\nope, has been ill-equipped to resist the pressures of its more power-\nful neighbours. Such people forget that Masaryk and his supporters\n- both Czech and Slovak - envisaged the creation of our Republic\nas part of an epoch-making democratic revolution, and the move-\nment towards a gradually created community of democratic states.\nTheir conception was based on the demands of a modern world in\nwhich all sections of society aspired to equality of opportunity and\nin which boundaries between nations and countries would inevi-\ntably become less important. In other words, their plans were nei-\nther provincial nor chauvinistic. However painful the past decades\nof this century have been, the wisdom of Masaryk's long-term vi-", "4", "sion is now being confirmed. As evidence one can cite among other\nthings the process of growing unification in diversity which has\nbeen going ahead in Western Europe for many years already. How-\never, the direst perils confronting both Europe and the world,\nwhether in terms of war and peace or ecological damage, will not be\nheld off indefinitely if the ideal of democratic unity is only fulfilled\nin one part of our continent. That is why more and more people\nboth West and East are coming to realise that the only way for-\nward, for all of us, is to work for complete democracy throughout\nEurope, including, therefore, the part we inhabit. We are con-\nvinced that it is the only possible path for Czechoslovakia as well.\nSo far we cannot tell how our country will go about achieving de-\nmocracy, nor what form that democracy eventually will assume.\nA simple return to the past is out of the question. None the less we\ndo believe that the ideals and values out of which our state was\nborn, and the experiences - both good and bad - which it under-\nwent during its first two decades, represent an enormous legacy\nand inspiration on which we can draw.", "Our principal concern, therefore, should be to achieve GE-\NUINE DEMOCRACY, i.e. DEMOCRACY FOR ALL, by which we\nunderstand a system based on intellectual, political and economic\npluralism and mutual tolerance.", "Democracy will come about only through a complete moral re-\nnewal of society and a revival of its creative capacity, not on the ba-\nsis of some bureaucratic decree. However, until democratic struc-\ntures have been established, society's moral and creative energy\ncannot fully evolve and be put to good use. The one must go hand\nin hand with the other: the civic courage of individuals with the\ncreation of new social conditions and structures.", "2. POLITICAL PLURALISM", "As proponents of intellectual freedom we want to make it imposs-\nible for the state to impose one particular outlook or doctrine to the\ndetriment of all others. This situation must no longer be enshrined\nin the Constitution or other legislation as it is a present. The only\ninstance in which the equality of ideas, or their expression should\nbe restricted is in respect of those who demonstrably deny and re-\nstrict such equality themselves. As proponents of democracy we\nare opposed to any clause in the Constitution confirming the lead-", "5"]

ing role of the Czechoslovak Communist Party or any other political party, or of any broader alliance of organisations which might arrogate the right to speak on behalf of everyone else. The country should be run by those who win the confidence of the people. If they lose that confidence let them hand over the reigns of government to those who acquire it. We are opposed on principle to the elevation of one social group above another. There must be no division of citizens into higher and lower categories. The system of privileges for Party members and career discrimination against others must be abolished. There must be no regulations making adherence to a particular political viewpoint a criterion for public office.

### 3. A NEW DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION

These principles should form the basis for a new Czechoslovak Constitution which would positively guarantee citizens equality before the law and all basic civil rights, including the rights to freedom of thought, expression, assembly, association and fulfilment of political aspirations.

No clause of such a Constitution must call in question Czechoslovak state sovereignty.

Citizens must all be guaranteed the right to travel freely, including the right to leave their homeland and return to it. As a result, exile as a phenomenon would cease to exist. Any cases where it would be necessary to limit this right must be clearly laid down in the Constitution and any abuse of such limitations by means of any other law, decree or arbitrary interpretation must be expressly prohibited. No citizens may lose Czechoslovak citizenship without their own consent.

The Constitution should introduce the institution of referenda on certain matters of major concern to society as a whole. It should strengthen the authority of the state President and institute presidential elections by universal suffrage. It must establish an administrative judiciary. It is vital that a Constitutional Court be set up as the final arbiter on constitutionality.

While the future Constitution should be quite clear and unequivocal in its basic principles, it should also be concise and avoid any extraneous detail (such as in respect of the structure of the national administration) that might limit scope for subsequent evolution.

6

Specific legislation on elections and political organisations should be enacted in conjunction with the new Constitution. In the democratic spirit of the latter it would authorise free political activity and specify the ways in which various representative bodies of citizens may campaign for electoral support and participate in public administration.

Clubs and associations have always been a natural expression of a multifarious cultured society and the bedrock of its political life. A new law on clubs and associations must therefore be enacted in conjunction with the new Constitution so as to revive this sector which is stifled under present legislation.

We are fully aware, of course, that even the most perfect Constitution cannot of itself automatically guarantee genuine democracy. However, in the prevailing conditions, the implementation of a democratic Constitution would undoubtedly mean a great stride towards that goal.

### 4. OVERHAUL OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Judicial practices, knowledge of legal rights and judicial security are all declining in our country. As a first step towards remedying this situation, the entire legal system should be gradually overhauled. It must be made simpler and more accessible, and divested of all totalitarian features.

First and foremost, it is vital that our entire legal system should be brought unconditionally in line with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which have been subsequently enshrined in the international human rights covenants and other international legal norms to which this country has formally subscribed; this must be done in such a way as to forestall any evasive manoeuvres.

The penal code must be revised, eliminating all politically abusive elements inconsistent with a democratic Constitution, and there must be a similar revision of civil, economic and administrative law in order to ensure a proper balance between the rights of the individual and society.

The total independence of the judiciary must be reintroduced, with a guaranteed right to legal defence and public oversight of judicial practice. The legal profession should be administered autonomously and defence counsel should enjoy the same rights in

7

court as the prosecution. By establishing an administrative judi-
ciary the role of the prosecutor can be limited to representing the
state's case in criminal trials.

A new scheme for the prison system needs to be drawn up, re-
flecting the latest knowledge and experience, and transferring
prisons to civilian administration. Prisons must be humanised.
Convicted citizens must not suffer physical or mental humiliation in
the guise of re-education, nor must their labour be exploited. Sus-
pects should be held on remand only where this is shown to be ab-
solutely necessary, and the principle of presumption of innocence
should prevail.

There must be a revision of police legislation whereby all offi-
cers of the National Security Corps (SNB) would be trained to act
as protectors of their fellow-citizens, instead of dominating them.
The police should be subject to supervision by representative as-
semblies and the general public.

State Security, that immense, awe-inspiring, omnipresent and
all-powerful instrument, used by the regime to manipulate citizens,
whose actual field of operations far and away exceeds even its pre-
sent jurisdiction, should be overhauled so as to perform only essen-
tial counter-espionage and anti-terrorist functions. As a result its
ranks could be radically reduced in number.

The reform of the economic system will require a thorough
transformation of economic law. The present incoherent tangle of
laws, including constant amendments, decrees and regulations,
needs replacing by the simplest, most accessible and stable legal
code possible, which would enable enterprises and individuals to
be reliably informed of the regulations governing the various kinds
of economic activity.

Other areas that needs simplifying and humanising are social,
housing and, above all, administrative legislation. Citizens must
lose their fear of officialdom as some sort of latter-day gentry, and
officials must be answerable to representative assemblies and the
general public. It is inadmissible, for instance, that members of lo-
cal National Committees should be no more than trappings or
adornments of the administration. National Committees will make
a mockery of their name if their members fail to act with greater
authority than the old imperial district administration.

8

5. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Our countryside and our health are gravely imperilled. The air is
poisoned with industrial emissions, rivers and streams are polluted
with effluent, our soil and food products are contaminated with
chemical fertilisers. Our forests are on the losing side in the chemi-
cal war being waged against them, and they are being barbarously
destroyed as an easy source of raw materials for the timber industry
of countries which take steps to protect their own forests. More and
more people are being obliged to live in dreary barrack-like hou-
sing-estates which are almost exclusively constructed using obso-
lete prefabricated-panel technology. Life on such high-rise hou-
sing-estates goes from bad to worse and creates new social pro-
blems. Our country is building gigantic power stations and in the
process it is destroying extensive tracts of our territory along with
their ecosystems, at a time when our backward industry is one of
the worst squanderers of energy in Europe. While we welcome
every purification plant, we realise that purification plants alone
will not solve the problem. Our entire economy must overhaul its
style of thinking and operation and finally realise that ecologically-
harmful operations make the least economic sense in the long term.
We cannot go on exploiting our own future and paying for short-
term economic gains by leaving a wasteland for our grandchildren
to live in. We are convinced that a pluralist economy - one capable
of reacting flexibly to people's experience and scientific discoveries
- will facilitate that change. It will not guarantee it, however. It will
require courageous, organised pressure by all those who realise the
harmfulness of current practices. Any projects that might disturb
the natural environment should take into account the views of the
local population and respect their opinions.

6. PATHS TO ECONOMIC PROSPERITY

Experience has shown that there can be no economic pluralism
without political pluralism. Likewise, without economic pluralism
a country's economy stagnates and goes into decline. It will there-
fore require the sort of changes which we advocating in the political
system if there is to be any hope of a truly radical economic reform
freeing enterprises from the tyranny of the central bureaucracy.
The enterprise sector can be effectively influenced by means of fi-

9

nancial instruments and conscious support for promising branches
of the economy, but above all by restoring the principles of supply
and demand, competition and monetary/market relations.

We believe that a natural component of a radical economic re-
form on these lines should be the pursuit of new forms of social
ownership, including self-management. We are in favour of exten-
sive support to the co-operative movement. We want to see a plu-
ralism of different types of ownership and decision-making, and
the creation of such conditions as enable the various economic sec-
tors and industries to seek forms of organisation which are most ap-
propriate to their particular needs and make optimal use of peo-
ple's enterprise as the best way of achieving their prosperity.

There must be the complete revival of private enterprise in the
field of self-employment, crafts, and small and medium-sized
firms, as well as in one section of agriculture and in the field of cul-
ture. Scope should be created for farmers to run family farms or
lease land on a long-term basis from co-operatives, on the grounds
that the success of their personal endeavours is likely to benefit so-
ciety as a whole. Without the contribution and initiative of the self-
employed, small co-operatives and small independent firms it is im-
possible to provide the population with adequate services, ensure
a wide range of consumer goods or encourage innovation. It is
a sector that will require generous support in the shape of long-
term credits and tax relief, as well as material assistance in the early
stages of trading. This could also create new employment opportu-
nities for those who will lose their jobs as a result of necessary staff
cuts in the overgrown civil service and the suppression of unprofit-
able operations. Proper legislation must be enacted for the small
business sector protecting those involved in it from being deprived
of the fruits of their work.

Large industry will have to be reconstructed in order to ensure
that considerations of economic profitability are not subordinated
to political considerations, such as artificial employment or priori-
ties geared to unnatural international economic relations. The Cze-
choslovak economy should naturally be integrated into the global
economy on the basis of a generally advantageous international di-
vision of labour.

10

7. FREE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY

None of our country's problems will be solved without the freedom
to speak and write about them publicly. There is a sense in which
intellectual and cultural activity, as well as the mass media, act as
society's brain or nervous system, in other words, as the means
whereby society can become conscious of itself. They represent for
society a source of knowledge and self-knowledge, and provide
scope for it to reveal and define its own ethical consistency and
identity. Hence the basic precondition for any change for the better
is freedom of culture in the broadest sense of the world.

First and foremost, therefore, there must be the abolition of all
overt and covert forms of censorship, as well as of every kind of
central manipulation of this sphere. There must be freedom for in-
dependent communications media, publishing houses, literary
agencies, theatres and other cultural facilities to be created and
operate, irrespective of whether they are run as state enterprises or
on a co-operative or private basis. No central authority or state-
manipulated unions shall be allowed to restrict intellectual activity
or evaluate its worth. The public must decide. The authorities
should do no more than provide material and organisational condi-
tions for cultural activity. The role of the unions in this sector
should solely be to represent their members' occupational, profes-
sional or social interests. No unions should be allowed to enjoy mo-
nopoly status nor prevent the creation of others.

A thorough transformation of the education system is also vi-
tal, in view of its present alarming state of decline. Education
means far more than just training young people for occupations re-
quired by the national economy, and it certainly does not mean
ideological indoctrination of any kind or fashioning a submissive
population incapable of independent thought. The aim should be
to provide students with an all-round education while fostering in-
tellectual freedom, opening young people's horizons and providing
them with moral guidance. Education should be run according to
the principle of pluralism of institutions and ideas. The inviolability
of academic soil should be guaranteed and political considerations
must no longer play a role in the selection of teachers, pupils and
students, nor in the bestowal of academic titles. In all instances, the
only criteria should be a candidate's talent, professional suitability
and personal qualities.

11

Scope must also be created within the field of science for the set-
ting up of independent workplaces, research institutes and deve-
lopment workshops funded either by the state or individual enter-
prises, coops, organisations or foundations. The free movement of
people and ideas always used to be taken for granted within the
academic world and universities. Unless it is restored we shall be
the first to suffer.

8. FREEDOM OF BELIEF

Spiritual pluralism does not only mean equality and mutual respect among people with different beliefs, but also mutual respect for their right to express their beliefs within relevant institutions and in public. Therefore we fully support the demand for the separation of Church and State, as well as the demand that believers in our country should enjoy the same rights as in all civilised countries. Religious orders, both of men and women, must enjoy the guaranteed freedom to pursue their activity in accordance with their centuries-old traditions. Religious freedom is not merely the concern of individual communities but the concern of us all. So long as Christians are unable truly to live as Christians, then no other citizens either, including atheists, can live fully according to their beliefs. State supervision of churches is amoral because it creates inequality within society, with a given section of society subject to one more restriction than the rest of the population because of their faith, and it is a restriction enshrined in law. We believe the recent actions by catholics in support of the rights of believers and of civil liberties to be enormously significant in historical terms.

9. INDEPENDENT TRADE UNIONS

Workers must have the right to establish their own trade unions at grassroots level, as well as to organise within them in whatever way they judge acceptable and use them to defend their own authentic occupational and social interests. Experience clearly shows that the right to pluralism is as important in the trade-union movement as anywhere else. The state-run monopoly unions cannot be anything but another instrument of totalitarian power, however much they try to do their best. If the State is not to be the sole employer of all working people in this country, nor the one and only representative

12

of their interests, then it is inconceivable that it should be both at
once. Trade unions must be independent of the State and the em-
ployers if they are to fulfil their proper function, if we are to have
a sound economy, and if we are to halt the growth of latent social
problems.

10. STOP THE MILITARISATION OF SOCIETY

For many different reasons, ranging from ethical and social considerations to international political and economic factors, we believe that the following demands are particularly relevant at the present time: a shortening of the period of national service and the institution of alternative service for the benefit of those citizens with a conscientious objection to the bearing of arms; a reduction of military budgets and their publication; the humanisation of military service; the disbanding of all paramilitary organisations and unlawful armed units, and the demilitarisation of children's education and of civilian life in general. The existing situation in this sphere is a relic of Stalinism. We also demand the opening of talks on the withdrawal of Soviet units from Czechoslovakia. We reject the argument that they have to be here in order to maintain a strategic balance, since it was these very units whose arrival destroyed the strategic balance and their presence here helps maintain the current asymmetry in conventional forces in Europe - which is even acknowledged by the Warsaw Pact.

11. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

Czechoslovakia was created as the first ever joint state of two kind-
dred nations, the Czechs and Slovaks – the first time in history they
had combined in one independent state. frontiers. It was also
a state with considerable national minorities. Twenty years ago it
rightly became a federation. Our view is, however, that this fede-
ration will lose all relevance if it continues to be no more than an
administrative expression of undemocratic centralised power. To-
talitarian federalisation must be replaced by a democratic federa-
tion, as the unmanipulable expression of the desire of our two na-
tions for a common state. It must allow them to evolve in a truly
sovereign way, in accordance with their authentic aspirations. Ef-

13

forts in favour of democratic pluralism will have to go hand in hand
with heightened understanding for the natural differences in social
structures that will manifest themselves in the two national repub-
lics, and in the lives of the minorities.

A democratic relationship between the majority and the na-
tional minorities living in Czechoslovakia, i.e. Hungarians, Poles,
Germans and Ruthenians should display a profounder respect for
the rights being claimed by those minorities themselves, and the
manner in which they themselves implement them. It is necessary
to recognise the ethnic individuality of citizens with Jewish or Ro-
many nationality and the rights that flow from it.

Our modern state already has quite a number of bitter experi-
ences connected with lack of respect for national differences, whet-
her on the part of our own state or neighbouring countries. For that
reason alone it should have a great understanding for national is-
sues than is in fact the case on account of the system which currently
dominates it.

12. CZECHOSLOVAKIA AS PART OF EUROPE

We regard Czechoslovakia's path to democracy as part and parcel
of the wider process currently under way in various forms in most
countries of the Soviet bloc. Citizens are beginning to claim their
freedoms while governments are beginning to realise that the tota-
litarian system is stuck in a blind alley.

However, for us this process does not imply any attempt to
break the historical links that have been created between our
countries. On the contrary, our hope is that these ties will also
undergo a democratic transformation, so that they are based on
equal rights and full respect for the wishes of all the countries invol-
ved. Our aim is therefore not to cause destabilisation, insecurity,
and conflict, but instead to transcend the vestiges of Stalinist impe-
rial policies. We are also concerned to break with the legacy of the
Cold War and traditional policies of trying to balance superpower
interests in Europe, as well as with the mistaken conviction that the
only way to achieve peace is to maintain the status quo. True and
lasting peace can only be based on the mutual confidence of sover-
eign nations and democratic states. Such confidence is not built,
however, by diplomats in negotiating chambers. It is there that
confidence can be transformed into practical measures, but first it

14

must come into existence and grow within the European commu-
nity as a whole. And that can only happen when people begin to
convince themselves every day in specific and practical ways that
respect for the rights of citizens and nations is growing – above all
in that half of Europe where this has so far been least the case so
far. This crucial condition must be fulfilled if the democratic
integration of Europe is to become a reality.

As can be seen, our efforts in favour of democracy are not
aimed against any one state or nation. On the contrary we consider
them as part of the lengthy struggle for genuine understanding, sin-
cere trust and an ever more authentic co-operation among all. It is
a struggle that should culminate in what T.G.Masaryk once called
"humanity as an all-embracing community of friendship".

***

We are neither utopian nor impatient. We are fully aware that
Czechoslovakia will not be transformed into a prospering demo-
cratic state overnight. We all have still a lot of arduous work ahead
of us. However it is work that cannot be delayed any more; we have
to get on with the job without waiting for anything else. There are
too many threatening clouds gathering above contemporary civili-
sation, and the crisis in which our country finds itself is too deep for
us to permit ourselves such a luxury.

We appeal to all our fellow-citizens to take the path we suggest
in the manner they see fit. They can do so not only by signing this
Manifesto but also through practical activity in favour of demo-
cracy in our country.

Prague, Brno and Bratislava, 15th October 1988.

15

The undersigned endorse this Manifesto and support its aims:

František Adamík
Milan Balabán
Pavel Barša
Rudolf Batték
Jarmila Bělíková
Tomáš Bělíka
Antonin Bělohoubek
Václav Benda
Rudolf Bereza
Karel Biňovec
Irena Boruvková
Pavel Bratinka
Marcela Brunclíková
Jana Bucharová
Jan Čarnogurský
Jiřina Čechová
Albert Černý
Josef Danisz
Ivan Dejmal
Stanislav Devátý
Jiří Dienstbier
Viktor Dobal
Blanka Dobešová
Jan Dobrovský
Martin Dohnal
Přemysl Fialka
Markéta Fialková
Karel Freund
Eduard Geissler ml.
Jaromír Glac
Štefan Gürtler
Vladimír Hajný
Václav Havel
Ladislav Hejdánek
Ivan Hoffman
Marie Holubcová
Jiřina Hrábková
Ludvík Hradilek
Tomáš Hradilek
Jana Hradilkova
Simona Hradilkova
Lenka Hrachová

16

Jozef Jablonicky
Bohumír Janát
Drahoslava Janderová
Milan Jelínek
Miroslav Jodl
Jarmila Johnová
Milan Jungmann
Petr Kabeš
Jiří Kanturek
Eva Kantúrková
Božena Komárková
Jan Kozlík
Daniel Kroupa
Jiří Křivský
Marie Rút Křížková
Bohumír Kuba
Marie Kubová
Miroslav Kusý
Ivan Lamper
Ján Langoš
Aleš Lederer
Ladislav Lis
Jan Litomiský
Sergej Machonin
Jiří Machovský
Vladimír Maňák
Anna Marvanová
Jaroslav Mezník
Vladimír Mlynář
Dana Mrtvá
Michal Mrtvý
Pavel Nauman
Jaroslav Opat
Martin Palouš
Radim Palouš
Jan Payne
Lenka Payneová
Karel Pecka
Petr Placák
Drahuše Proboštová
Lenka Procházková
Tomáš Pštross

Miloš Rejchrt
Zdeněk Rotrekl
Jan Ruml
Jiří Ruml
Jan Schneider
Anton Selecký
Jiří Skalický
Dušan Slávík
Karel Srp
Andrej Stanković
Jan Šabata
Jaroslav Šabata
František Šamalík
Dolores Šavrdová
Jaroslav Šebesta
Jiřina Šiklová
Milan Šimečka
Jan Šimsa
Jan Štern
Olga Sulcová
Petruška Šustrová
Jáchym Topol
Jan Trefulka
Jakub Trojan
Vladimír Turek
Miroslav Tyl
Milan Uhde
Jitka Uhdeová
Václav Umlauf
Zdeněk Urbánek
Eduard Vacek
Ludvík Vaculík
Eva Vidlářová
Tomáš Vlasák
Josef Vohrycz
Alexandr Vondra
Josef Vydrař
Pavel Vydrař
Tomáš Zelenka
Rudolf Zeman
Vít Zukal
Kateřina Zukalová

The Movement for Civil Liberties can be contacted at the following addresses, to which reports of further signatures to the founding manifesto may also be sent:

Rudolf Batték, Křížikova 78, Praha 8, 186 00
Václav Benda, Karlovo nám. 18, Praha 2, 120 00
Jan Čarnogurský, Adlerova 10, Bratislava-Dúbravka, 841 02
Tomáš Hradilek, Zahradní 892, Lipník nad Bečvou, 751 31
Jiří Kanturek, Xaveriova 13, Praha 5, 150 00
Jan Kozlík, Pionýru 69, Praha 6, 169 00
Ladislav Lis, Šiškova 1228, Praha 8, 182 00
Anna Marvanová, Jeronýmova 2, Praha 3, 13000
Jaroslav Šabata, Chorázova 3, Brno, 602 00
Jan Štern, Bělčická 2846, Praha 4, 141 00
Alexandr Vondra, Trojanova 1, Praha 2, 120 00

APPEAL TO EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION

After being suppressed for many years, 28th October was once again proclaimed a national holiday this year. Right up to the last minute, democratically-minded citizens in Czechoslovakia were hoping to hold a peaceful and dignified demonstration in the historic areas of Prague to mark the seventieth anniversary of the Republic's foundation, at which representatives of six citizen's initiatives would be allowed to make public speeches lawfully expressing the views of socially-committed citizens.

Now as we pen this appeal in hiding from the secret police, we know that it is not to be. The regime has plumbed new depths in its contempt and hatred for the non-communist majority of citizens in this country by fulfilling its threat to frustrate and suppress any expression of independent democratic thinking. It has mounted a mindless and provocative repressive operation. From the early hours of 27th October 1988 operational units of the State Security (secret) police started searching people's homes in almost every part of the country, often in the most brutal fashion, and they have arrested or detained dozens of citizens who for years now have been at odds with the totalitarian regime because of their demands for the implementation of human rights and civil liberties. The cynical and brazen behaviour of the present rulers knows no bounds. The way they are hve tried to feign support for the traditions and legacy of republican democracy and their desperate attempts to win the favour of a nation that no longer believes them only demonstrates the extent of their moral and spiritual bankruptcy. We watched on our television screens the

17

STATEMENT OF THE PROVISIONAL
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
OF THE MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES

The Movement for Civil Liberties came into existence on 15th October 1988 with the publication of a manifesto entitled *Democracy for All*. The manifesto was signed by 120 citizens from Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. Twelve of the signatories offered the use of their addresses so that other citizens who agree with the manifesto's aims and proposals may send in their signatures, suggestions and critical comments.

The manifesto describes the community in creation as a free association of people ready to take action in support of the proposals outlined which include the rehabilitation of political debate and political culture in our country. In the spirit of Masaryk's motto that „democracy is discussion”, the text of the manifesto is open to further suggestions and polemic on specific points, as the case may be. There is nothing in the document that suggests that people should engage in disorderly or unlawful activity.

In the early hours of 27th October 1988, almost all the manifesto's signatories were arrested by the State Security and held in custody for 96 hours. The secret police carried out searches at the homes of those signatories whose addresses were published, and at the homes of a number of others, and investigations were initiated against them on the suspicion of incitement. As the dozens of manifesto signatories at Ruzyně Prison and in other remannd cells stood facing the wall with the hands behind their backs in regulation fashion, the 4y had the opportunity to reflect on the possibility of dialogue with a brick wall. They included people whose work has won them international acclaim and of whom any rationally governed country would be proud. The boorishness of the entire operation can be judged, among other things, by the fact that 71-year-old writer and translator Zdeněk Urbánek was held in prison for four days and that even 85-year-old Professor Božena Komářková of Brno was not spared police harassment, and they are both such gentle and kindly people. Some 90 civil liberties activists were held in Ruzyně along with representatives of other independent campaigns and the total number of those held in different parts of the republic is estimated at 200-300 people.

In an article by Messrs Kojzar, Podzimek and Walter in Rudé právo of 31st October 1988, the manifesto is labelled a "counterrevolutionary pamphlet" and its proposals are totally misrepresented. For instance, the proposal that people who so wish should be allowed to set up a family farm (as is now common practice in the Soviet Union) is portrayed by Rudé právo as a call for the dismemberment of farming cooperatives. The proposal for the restoration of private enterprise in certain areas of manufacturing and the service sector (which substantially parallels what is planned

impassive faces of the regimented crowds at the official rally on 27th October, totally oblivious to the ideological somersaults being performed by the speakers. It was a painful and undignified spectacle. This was no celebration, but rather the picture of a fading era of totalitarian rule, with all its tragi-comic overtones. Anyone who knows the truth about the past seventy years of Czechoslovak history must have felt the same way. To speak about „the homeland”, „rights” and „freedom” at the very moment when hundreds of uniformed and plain-clothes police were harassing citizens for proclaiming the democratic ideals of an open society, and then, the following day, on 28th October, to send thousands more police to attack demonstrators in the most savage and ruthless manner, is not just an act of moral perversion, it is a sign of desperation.

The truly popular commemoration of our national holiday that took place today embodied the spirit of the nation-wide citizens' movement for political rights and freedoms.

The police raids in the early hours of 27th October were directed against signatories of the *Democracy for All* manifesto who have spoken up in support of the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES. It is conceivable that the regime will seek to indict them and put them on trial. This would be to throw down the gauntlet to European democratic opinion at a time when efforts to achieve a consensus about peaceful coexistence throughout Europe are at the heart of all current international political talks. By mounting this drastic operation against its own citizens, the regime is torpedoing those efforts in the most baffling way. Foreign governments, and not only those in Europe, will be obliged to consider very carefully to what extent they can trust the words and deeds of the present Czechoslovak government.

We appeal to European public opinion and the leaders of countries re-
presented at the Vienna talks on European security and cooperation not
to countenance any further terrorisation of democratically minded citi-
zens in our country. We also ask them to voice their protests in order to
prevent the prosecution and imprisonment of members of all citizens' in-
itiatives here. We demand the immediate release of all those citizens arre-
sted or detained. We believe in the justice of our cause and the objective
need for our society to develop and fulfil the democratic humanitarian
ideals and principles of the first President of the Czechoslovak Republic
T. G. Masaryk, which also inspired the *Democracy for All* manifesto.

Rudolf Batték

Ladislav Lis

Signatories of the Manifesto of the Movement for Civil Liberties

Prague, 28th October 1988

18

19

or even in practice in Hungary) is also counter-revolutionary according to them. As for the recommendation that citizens who agree with the manifesto's proposals should support it by adding their signatures or in some other suitable manner, this is interpreted by the authors of the article as incitement to terror and violence.

In other words, it is the same old tactics that have always been employed when arrests and political trials are in the offing. Instead of seeking to eliminate mistakes and the faults of the system this is yet another blatant attempt to eliminate and intimidate their critics. But it now makes even less sense than ever, now that a large section of the population, and in particular a large proportion of young people, are undergoing a revival of civic awareness. Their yearning for greater freedom is not going to respond to the traditional remedy of unbridled repression, trials and imprisonment. The only remedy for such yearning, is greater freedom. To call this section of the general public and citizenry "anti-social elements" - in other words, a rabble - as Czechoslovak television described the thousands who demonstrated on Wenceslas Square, is not just insulting it is political folly. The massive operation mounted against civil rights activists and against the demonstration in the centre of Prague has already seriously tarnished the reputation of our country's leaders and of Czechoslovakia itself in the eyes of ddemocrats everywhere.

Any attempt to portray the signatories of the *Democracy for All* manifesto as criminals and put them on trial would be seen not only here, but elsewhere in Europe and the world as deliberate torpedoing of efforts to achieve international understanding. It would discredit once and for all the proposal for a "zone of trust". The manifesto is alleged to be "a call for a government take-over by counter-revolutionary forces" (again according to Rudé právo of 31st October 1988). This is totally untrue. The Movement for Civil Liberties does not seek to take power. What it wants is for Czechoslovakia to have an honest and truly democratic administration and government. The proposals contained in the *Democracy for All* manifesto are therefore not motivated by any hankering for power but by a desire to put the Czechoslovak house in order.

Finally, we would like to thank all those citizens who have spoken up for us in these difficult moments, and all those who have voiced sympathy for our cause. To date, a further 53 citizens have signed the manifesto.

On behalf of the Provisional Coordinating Committee of the
MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES:

Rudolf Batték

Ján Čarnogurský

Ladislav Lis

Václav Benda

Tomáš Hradíek

Jaroslav Šabata

Prague, Brno, Bratislava, 4th November 1988

[10]

DEMOCRACY FOR ALL

DEMOCRACY FOR ALL

3

["picture of conditions in our country, as well as drawing encourage-\nment from the work of other independent initiatives, both in Cze-\nchoslovakia and elsewhere in the Soviet bloc, we have decided to\nset up the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES. We intend it as\na loose association of political groups and clubs which are being\ncreated freely and autonomously in different parts of our Republic\nas meeting points for people who are not indifferent to our coun-\ntry's future and are prepared to engage in open debate about politi-\ncal issues of every kind, while respecting the principle of pluralism\nand being ready to engage in direct political action. This could\nmean setting up discussion forums at their place of work or in their\nneighbourhood, advancing various demands, both general and lo-\ncal, putting up independent candidates in elections, or other initia-\ntives. In this way, the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES should\nprovide scope for citizens freely to express their political aspira-\ntions, and help crystallise various more specifically political or sec-\ntional endeavours.", "We herewith submit to all our fellow-citizens - in other words,\nall potential supporters of the MOVEMENT FOR CIVIL LIBER-\NTIES - some of the main ideas and goals we have so far agreed on,\nas a starting point for debate, as proposals requiring further atten-\ntion, or as shared principles in the broadest sense.", "1. OURS IS A TRADITION OF DEMOCRACY", "After all the lamentable events of our most recent past, many\nCzechs and Slovaks have wondered whether it was wise to have dis-\nmembered the Austrian empire in order to set up an independent\nCzechoslovak state, which, as a small country in the middle of Eur-\nope, has been ill-equipped to resist the pressures of its more power-\nful neighbours. Such people forget that Masaryk and his supporters\n- both Czech and Slovak - envisaged the creation of our Republic\nas part of an epoch-making democratic revolution, and the move-\nment towards a gradually created community of democratic states.\nTheir conception was based on the demands of a modern world in\nwhich all sections of society aspired to equality of opportunity and\nin which boundaries between nations and countries would inevi-\ntably become less important. In other words, their plans were nei-\nther provincial nor chauvinistic. However painful the past decades\nof this century have been, the wisdom of Masaryk's long-term vi-", "4", "sion is now being confirmed. As evidence one can cite among other\nthings the process of growing unification in diversity which has\nbeen going ahead in Western Europe for many years already. How-\never, the direst perils confronting both Europe and the world,\nwhether in terms of war and peace or ecological damage, will not be\nheld off indefinitely if the ideal of democratic unity is only fulfilled\nin one part of our continent. That is why more and more people\nboth West and East are coming to realise that the only way for-\nward, for all of us, is to work for complete democracy throughout\nEurope, including, therefore, the part we inhabit. We are con-\nvinced that it is the only possible path for Czechoslovakia as well.\nSo far we cannot tell how our country will go about achieving de-\nmocracy, nor what form that democracy eventually will assume.\nA simple return to the past is out of the question. None the less we\ndo believe that the ideals and values out of which our state was\nborn, and the experiences - both good and bad - which it under-\nwent during its first two decades, represent an enormous legacy\nand inspiration on which we can draw.", "Our principal concern, therefore, should be to achieve GE-\nNUINE DEMOCRACY, i.e. DEMOCRACY FOR ALL, by which we\nunderstand a system based on intellectual, political and economic\npluralism and mutual tolerance.", "Democracy will come about only through a complete moral re-\nnewal of society and a revival of its creative capacity, not on the ba-\nsis of some bureaucratic decree. However, until democratic struc-\ntures have been established, society's moral and creative energy\ncannot fully evolve and be put to good use. The one must go hand\nin hand with the other: the civic courage of individuals with the\ncreation of new social conditions and structures.", "2. POLITICAL PLURALISM", "As proponents of intellectual freedom we want to make it imposs-\nible for the state to impose one particular outlook or doctrine to the\ndetriment of all others. This situation must no longer be enshrined\nin the Constitution or other legislation as it is a present. The only\ninstance in which the equality of ideas, or their expression should\nbe restricted is in respect of those who demonstrably deny and re-\nstrict such equality themselves. As proponents of democracy we\nare opposed to any clause in the Constitution confirming the lead-", "5"]

6

7

8

5. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT

Our countryside and our health are gravely imperilled. The air is
poisoned with industrial emissions, rivers and streams are polluted
with effluent, our soil and food products are contaminated with
chemical fertilisers. Our forests are on the losing side in the chemi-
cal war being waged against them, and they are being barbarously
destroyed as an easy source of raw materials for the timber industry
of countries which take steps to protect their own forests. More and
more people are being obliged to live in dreary barrack-like hou-
sing-estates which are almost exclusively constructed using obso-
lete prefabricated-panel technology. Life on such high-rise hou-
sing-estates goes from bad to worse and creates new social pro-
blems. Our country is building gigantic power stations and in the
process it is destroying extensive tracts of our territory along with
their ecosystems, at a time when our backward industry is one of
the worst squanderers of energy in Europe. While we welcome
every purification plant, we realise that purification plants alone
will not solve the problem. Our entire economy must overhaul its
style of thinking and operation and finally realise that ecologically-
harmful operations make the least economic sense in the long term.
We cannot go on exploiting our own future and paying for short-
term economic gains by leaving a wasteland for our grandchildren
to live in. We are convinced that a pluralist economy – one capable
of reacting flexibly to people's experience and scientific discoveries
– will facilitate that change. It will not guarantee it, however. It will
require courageous, organised pressure by all those who realise the
harmfulness of current practices. Any projects that might disturb
the natural environment should take into account the views of the
local population and respect their opinions.

9

10

7. FREE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY

First and foremost, therefore, there must be the abolition of all overt and covert forms of censorship, as well as of every kind of central manipulation of this sphere. There must be freedom for independent communications media, publishing houses, literary agencies, theatres and other cultural facilities to be created and operate, irrespective of whether they are run as state enterprises or on a co-operative or private basis. No central authority or state-manipulated unions shall be allowed to restrict intellectual activity or evaluate its worth. The public must decide. The authorities should do no more than provide material and organisational conditions for cultural activity. The role of the unions in this sector should solely be to represent their members' occupational, professional or social interests. No unions should be allowed to enjoy monopoly status nor prevent the creation of others.

11

8. FREEDOM OF BELIEF

9. INDEPENDENT TRADE UNIONS

12

11. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY

13

forts in favour of democratic pluralism will have to go hand in hand
with heightened understanding for the natural differences in social
structures that will manifest themselves in the two national repub-
liics, and in the lives of the minorities.

14

***

15

František Adamík
Milan Balabán
Pavel Barša
Rudolf Batték
Jarmila Bělíková
Tomaš Bělka
Antonín Bělohoubek
Václav Benda
Rudolf Bereza
Karel Biňovec
Irena Boruvková
Pavel Bratinka
Marcela Brunclíková
Jana Bucharová
Jan Čarnogurský
Jiřina Čechová
Albert Černý
Josef Danisz
Ivan Dejmal
Stanislav Devatý
Jiří Dienstbier
Viktor Dobal
Blanka Dobešová
Jan Dobrovský
Martin Dohnal
Přemysl Fialka
Markéta Fialková
Karel Freund
Eduard Geissler ml.
Jaromír Glac
Štefan Gürtler
Vladimir Hajný
Václav Havel
Ladislav Hejdánek
Ivan Hoffman
Marie Holubcová
Jiřina Hrábková
Ludvík Hradilek
Tomaš Hradilek
Jana Hradilková
Simona Hradilková
Lenka Hrachová

16

Jozef Jablonický
Bohumír Janát
Drahoslava Janderová
Milan Jelínek
Miroslav Jodl
Jarmila Johnová
Milan Jungmann
Petr Kabeš
Jiří Kanturek
Eva Kanturková
Božena Komárková
Jan Kozlík
Daniel Kroupa
Jiří Křivský
Marie Rút Křížková
Bohumír Kuba
Marie Kubová
Miroslav Kusý
Ivan Lamper
Ján Langoš
Aleš Lederer
Ladislav Lis
Jan Litomiský
Sergej Machonin
Jiří Machovský
Vladimir Maňák
Anna Marvanová
Jaroslav Mezník
Vladimir Młynar̆f
Dana Mrtvá
Michal Mrtvý
Pavel Nauman
Jaroslav Opat
Martin Palouš
Radim Palouš
Jan Payne
Lenka Payneová
Karel Pecka
Petr Placák
Drahuše Proboštová
Lenka Procházková
Tomaš Pštross

Miloš Rejchrt
Zdeněk Rotrekl
Jan Ruml
Jiří Ruml
Jan Schneider
Anton Selecký
Jiří Skalický
Dušan Slávík
Karel Srp
Andrej Stankovič
Jan Šabata
Jaroslav Šabata
František Šamalík
Dolores Šavrdová
Jaroslav Šebesta
Jiřina Šiklová
Milan Šimečka
Jan Šimsa
Jan Štern
Olga Šulcová
Petruška Šustrová
Jáchym Topol
Jan Trefulka
Jakub Trojan
Vladimír Turek
Miroslav Tyl
Milan Uhde
Jitka Uhdeová
Václav Umlauf
Zdeněk Urbánek
Eduard Vacek
Ludvík Vaculík
Eva Vidlařová
Tomaš Vlasák
Josef Vohrycz
Alexandr Vondra
Josef Vydraŕ
Pavel Vydraŕ
Tomáš Zelenka
Rudolf Zeman
Vít Zukal
Kateřina Kalučová

Rudolf Batték, Křížikova 78, Praha 8, 186 00
Václav Benda, Karlovo nám. 18, Praha 2, 120 00
Ján Čarnogurský, Adlerova 10, Bratislava-Dúbravka, 841 02
Tomaš Hradilek, Zahradní 892, Lipník nad Bečvou, 751 31
Jiří Kanturek, Xaveriova 13, Praha 5, 150 00
Jan Kozlík, Pionýru 69, Praha 6, 169 00
Ladislav Lis, Šiškova 1228, Praha 8, 182 00
Anna Marvanová, Jeronýmova 2, Praha 3, 13000
Jaroslav Šabata, Chorázova 3, Brno, 602 00
Jan Štern, Bělčická 2846, Praha 4, 141 00
Alexandr Vondra, Trojanova 1, Praha 2, 120 00

After being suppressed for many years, 28th October was once again pro-
claimed a national holiday this year. Right up to the last minute, demo-
cratically-minded citizens in Czechoslovakia were hoping to hold a peace-
ful and dignified demonstration in the historic areas of Prague to mark the
seventieth anniversary of the Republic's foundation, at which representa-
tives of six citizen's initiatives would be allowed to make public speeches
lawfully expressing the views of socially-committed citizens.

Now as we pen this appeal in hiding from the secret police, we know
that it is not to be. The regime has plumbed new depths in its contempt
and hatred for the non-communist majority of citizens in this country by
fulfilling its threat to frustrate and suppress any expression of indepen-
dent democratic thinking. It has mounted a mindless and provocative re-
pressive operation. From the early hours of 27th October 1988 operatio-
nal units of the State Security (secret) police started searching people's
homes in almost every part of the country, often in the most brutal
fashion, and they have arrested or detained dozens of citizens who for
years now have been at odds with the totalitarian regime because of their
demands for the implementation of human rights and civil liberties. The
cynical and brazen behaviour of the present rulers knows no bounds. The
way they are hve tried to feign support for the traditions and legacy of re-
publican democracy and their desperate attempts to win the favour of a
nation that no longer believes them only demonstrates the extent of their
moral and spiritual bankruptcy. We watched on our television screens the

17

Rudolf Batték

Ladislav Lis

Prague, 28th October 1988

18

STATEMENT OF THE PROVISIONAL

The manifesto describes the community in creation as a free associ-
ation of people ready to take action in support of the proposals outlined
which include the rehabilitation of political debate and political culture in
our country. In the spirit of Masaryk's motto that „democracy is discus-
sion", the text of the manifesto is open to further suggestions and polemic
on specific points, as the case may be. There is nothing in the document
that suggests that people should engage in disorderly or unlawful activity.

In the early hours of 27th October 1988, almost all the manifesto's
signatories were arrested by the State Security and held in custody for 96
hours. The secret police carried out searches at the homes of those signa-
tories whose addresses were published, and at the homes of a number of
others, and investigations were initiated against them on the suspicion of
incitement. As the dozens of manifesto signatories at Ruzyně Prison and
in other remannd cells stood facing the wall with the hands behind their
backs in regulation fashion, the4y had the opportunity to reflect on the
possibility of dialogue with a brick wall. They included people whose
work has won them international acclaim and of whom any rationally gov-
erned country would be proud. The boorishness of the entire operation
can be judged, among other things, by the fact that 71-year-old writer and
translator Zdeněk Urbánek was held in prison for four days and that even
85-year-old Professor Božena Komárková of Brno was not spared police
harassment, and they are both such gentle and kindly people. Some 90
civil liberties activists were held in Ruzyně along with representatives of
other independent campaigns and the total number of those held in differ-
ent parts of the republic is estimated at 200-300 people.

In an article by Messrs Kojzar, Podzimek and Walter in Rudé právo of
31st October 1988, the manifesto is labelled a "counterrevolutionary
pamphlet" and its proposals are totally misrepresented. For instance, the
proposal that people who so wish should be allowed to set up a family farm
(as is now common practice in the Soviet Union) is portrayed by Rudé
právo as a call for the dismemberment of farming cooperatives. The pro-
posal for the restoration of private enterprise in certain areas of manufac-
turing and the service sector (which substantially parallels what is planned

19

Rudolf Battěk

Ján Čarnogurský

Ladislav Lis

Václav Benda

Tomas Hradílek

Jaroslav Šabata

November 28, 1988

I am writing to call your attention to the fact that December 16, 1988, marks the fifth anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy Act.

The Endowment -- a private, nonprofit grantmaking organization -- was established in 1983 to strengthen democratic values and institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. It has acted upon this idea by contributing to the development, and in some cases the very survival, of a wide array of free institutions devoted to the values of democracy: trade unions, business associations and political parties (work carried out through our core grantees in these fields, the Free Trade Union Institute, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and the National Democratic and the National Republican Institutes for International Affairs), as well as civic organizations of women and youth, public policy institutes, cooperatives, and a variety of free communications media including newspapers, journals, books and films. The National Endowment for Democracy Act authorized that an annual Congressional appropriation be provided to the Endowment to carry out this work.

Our fifth anniversary is a milestone for the Endowment and offers an excellent opportunity to assess its development and accomplishments. As the enclosed materials indicate, we have come a very long way in a short time. The Endowment has established a global program of assistance in response to requests from hundreds of organizations. We have worked to strengthen new democracies, support democratic transitions, open closed societies, and aid those working peacefully for democratic goals in countries wracked by conflict and violence.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

Some highlights of Endowment efforts over the past five
years include:

- **Chile**, where the Endowment and its affiliated institutes worked to strengthen and reinforce the principles contained in the National Accord for a transition to full democracy. In the period leading up to and including the October 5 plebiscite, the Endowment supported efforts to promote civic education, broaden political participation, and help ensure the integrity and fairness of the entire process;

- **Poland**, where support has been given to Solidarity for its trade union work and its establishment of a special medical fund, as well as to independent journals, newspapers and publishing houses, and to other groups working to strengthen civil society;

- **The Philippines**, where the Endowment has been active both before and since the dramatic events of February 1986 in assisting labor, business, youth and women's groups working to achieve and then strengthen Philippine democracy;

- **Haiti**, where the Endowment has supported a political development institute that has brought together political and civic leaders committed to free elections and democracy;

- **Peru**, where the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, headed by economist Hernando de Soto, has worked with informal sector microentrepreneurs in the process of producing a new free market approach to development that is beginning to transform development theory and policy around the world;

- **South Africa**, where numerous organizations have received support for programs in the areas of community participation, democratic ideas, and mediation and reconciliation, including the Black Consumers Union and the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa;

-- Nicaragua and elsewhere in Central America,
where the Endowment has supported democratic labor,
business, political, human rights and youth groups
along with the independent newspaper La Prensa; as
well as the Costa-Rican based Libro Libre book
program which has produced a new democratic
literature for the region;

-- Women's Programs, where assistance has been
provided to Conciencia in Argentina, a women's civic
action movement that has spread to fifteen other
Latin American countries and the Philippines, as
well as to the newly established International
Institute for Women Political Leaders; and

-- Freedom of the Press, where assistance has
been provided to struggling independent publications
and press organizations -- including La Prensa in
Nicaragua, Radio Nanduti in Paraguay, and La Epoca
in Chile, as well as to numerous samizdat
publications in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
and to The Chinese Intellectual, a journal of
independent opinion circulating in China whose
editor has now established a major intellectual
center in Beijing.

Among its many other programs, the Endowment has
also assisted efforts by the International Coalition for
Human Rights in Cuba to broaden public awareness of
human rights violations in Cuba. The Coalition is
headed by Armando Valladares, the former Cuban political
prisoner who led the successful fight for the
establishment of a United Nations commission to
investigate Cuban human rights violations.

The Endowment is governed by a bipartisan Board of
Directors that reflects the broad diversity and vigorous
pluralism of American society. It has found support in
a growing bipartisan majority in Congress and acceptance
here and abroad among groups actively working to promote
democratic ends. All Endowment grants are public and
are made in response to the needs and requests of
indigenous democratic movements abroad.

With annual funding at half the level that was
originally anticipated ($15.8 million for FY 89 as
opposed to the original FY 84 authorization of $31.3
million), it is even more remarkable that this program
has been able to achieve so much. The Endowment has
shown that a little money can go a long way.

Indeed, the Endowment has sparked a worldwide
democratic movement which can help sustain the dramatic
democratic gains made in many parts of the world over
the last decade. Its success is an achievement in which
all Americans can take pride, and it shows what can be
accomplished when the Administration and members of
Congress from both sides of the aisle work together to
achieve commonly shared democratic goals.

Should you wish to take note of our anniversary by
commenting on it, we would, of course, be pleased to
answer any questions you may have and to provide you
with additional documentation. I look forward to
hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Carl Gershman

[L]

November 2, 1988

MEMORANDUM

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: ENCLOSURES

NOV 7 1988

Enclosed are some additional clips praising the Endowment's role in Chile. I especially call your attention to the article in the *National Journal* which gives the fullest account to date.

Also enclosed is a letter sent to the Nicaraguan government by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus supporting the Endowment's work to strengthen democratic institutions in that country. Given that government's recent passage of a resolution prohibiting internal groups from receiving U.S. support, the letter is particularly timely.

In addition, you will find letters from current and former Soviet dissidents defending the role of the Center for Democracy in the U.S.S.R., which as you will recall was the object of a defamatory article in the *Nation*. The letters are in response to Josh Muravchik's article in *Commentary*, also enclosed, which describes the whole affair. I think the letters represent a tremendous vindication of the Center and a tribute to its work.

I have also enclosed a tribute to labor leader Irving Brown who recently received the Medal of Freedom, and a *Washingtonian* interview with me that I hope you will find of interest.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

In 1986 and 1987 the United States abstained when Chilean applications for World Bank loans came up for approval, and got other nations to do the same, as a sign of displeasure with Pinochet's human rights abuses. Reagan critics in Congress and elsewhere asserted that the United States should have voted "No." Administration officials claimed that the United States could not have blocked the loans anyway and would have looked weak trying, and that Chile was practicing an exemplary economic policy that the United States did not want to disrupt.

In any event, Santiago clearly considered the Reagan administration an adversary. Pinochet supporters, especially Adm. Jose Toribio Merino, repeatedly denounced "foreign intervention" whenever the administration issued a human rights criticism. In three years Pinochet has refused to receive Barnes more than a handful of times. "Barnes is not the most grata of personae," an opposition leader said recently. "He is the best ambassador the United States could have sent." After Communist guerrillas attempted to assassinate Pinochet in September 1986, the general suggested in a newspaper interview that the CIA might have played a role in the attempt. When Congress voted $1 million in aid to help democratic groups organize for Pinochet's plebiscite this month, the government denounced them as hirelings of the United States.

It is partly Pinochet's own fault, and mostly due to the moderation and energy of Chile's democrats, that he was defeated by a margin of 55 percent to 43 percent. In an act of supreme hubris, he had called the vote, believing that the people would keep him in power as thanks for his establishing stability and suppressing communism. Instead, the country voted "No," in keeping with democratic traditions interrupted when the army overthrew Salvador Allende in 1973. Contrary to leftist myth, the United States did not engineer that coup, though it certainly did finance opposition to Allende's Marxist regime.

This year the United States again had a hand in aiding the opposition—but this time, in an open manner, through the National Endowment for Democracy, and in public warnings on the eve of the plebiscite that there should be no interference with the vote. American sources say Pinochet supporters in the army and the intelligence service were tempted to prevent Pinochet's defeat but that the air force, navy, and National Police objected.

The vote does not ensure democracy in Chile. The Chilean constitution guarantees that Pinochet can stay in power until March 1990, and that he can remain as commander in chief of the armed forces and a member of the all-powerful National Security Council until 1994. Opposition forces naturally want constitutional change; the moderates will settle for it after elections scheduled for next year, whereas left-wing parties want it sooner. The role for the United States is not to interfere, but to urge that the next phase of elections takes place and that all parties be willing to negotiate peaceably. There is a good chance that this right-wing dictatorship will change into a democracy, and the United States—after a bad start—can take credit for helping the process along.

# NOTEBOOK

## □ TNR FALL FASHION GUIDE (HARD-TO-PLEASE DEPT.):

"Dukakis has a long way to go in making voters feel comfortable with him. For the life of me, I don't understand why he wears those forbidding dark suits with coat buttoned ...

—TNR, September 26

"First ... he dressed up like GI Joe. ... Two days later ... he donned crisp khaki pants, suede outdoorsy jacket, and unscuffed Timberland boots. ... Why did Dukakis look so silly?"

—TNR, October 10

(thanks to Jeffrey Segall, Santa Barbara, California)

## □ CARDS ON THE TABLE: When Bush calls Dukakis "a card carrying member" of the ACLU, is this a malicious allusion to Joe McCarthy's "card carrying Communists"? Or is it fair game—as Republicans maintain—since Dukakis himself used the phrase during the Democratic primary campaign? We think the slur is not saved by this fact. A label applied by others can take on a very different implication than one applied to oneself. For example, blacks sometimes ironically call one another "nigger," but for a white to call a black by this term is invariably offensive. Dukakis used the term "card carrying member" precisely because of its history as a McCarthyite slur. He was expressing solidarity with the victims of civil liberties abuse and their protectors. When Bush applies the label to Dukakis, the connotation is very different.

## □ CASTRO CONVERTIBLE:

### Talks on Cuban Pullout Adjourn Without Accord

—Washington Post, September 30

### Accord on Cuban Pullout From Angola Reported

—New York Times, same day

(thanks to Bill Pascoe, Arlington, Virginia)

# CAMPAIGN '88

## THE OTHER DUKE

NOT LONG AGO, a group of scholars decided to find out what "Dukakis" means in the original Greek. For months they sifted through ancient texts and finally came up with an answer. It means "McGovern."

A funny joke, perhaps, but not very telling. Michael Dukakis is a liberal, but he's hardly a clone of George McGovern. The idea of a McGovern presidency is scary. A Dukakis presidency isn't. I suspect his administration would be, on balance, only slightly to the left of a Bush administration. But there's another aspect of Dukakis that I do find troubling—the Duke himself. He's slippery, de-

8 THE NEW REPUBLIC

THE NEW
REPUBLIC

OCTOBER 31, 1988

TWO CHEERS FOR CHILE

The Kirkpatrick Doctrine, set forth by Jeane Kirkpatrick in her famous 1979 *Commentary* article "Dictatorships and Double Standards," always had two possible interpretations to guide American policy. The Reagan administration has pursued both—one to its shame, the other to its considerable credit. The basic doctrine is that authoritarian dictatorships of the right are preferable to totalitarian dictatorships of the left, both for American interests and for the welfare of their own populations. One of its two possible corollaries is that the United States should support right-wing dictatorships—or, at least, not try to destabilize them, as Kirkpatrick accused Jimmy Carter of doing—because their collapse could lead to Communist takeovers, as in Nicaragua.

The other corollary is that, since right-wing dictatorships are susceptible to democratic reform in a way that Communist dictatorships are not, the United States should pressure them to change incrementally and thereby head off a possible Communist revolution. Kirkpatrick claims that this was always what she meant when she wrote her article, but Interpretation No. 1 clearly captivated the early Reagan administration, which turned a blind eye to death squads in El Salvador and military repression in Guatemala, employed agents of the brutal Argentine junta to train the Nicaraguan *contras*, and sought to repair U.S. relations with dictators such as Pinochet in Chile and Marcos in the Philippines. (This last was accomplished either by ending public criticism or by rewarding small human rights improvements with lavish praise, such as George Bush's celebrated remark to Marcos in 1981, "We love your adherence to democratic principles and democratic processes.")

In the case of Chile, the Reagan administration initially reversed the Carter policy of publicly criticizing Pinochet for torturing political prisoners and restricting liberty. It also stopped voting against Chilean applications for World Bank loans. Reagan sent as his first ambassador a political appointee, the late James Theberge, who carried out a policy of quiet diplomacy—very quiet diplomacy—that failed to move Pinochet toward reform any more than had Carter's policy of loud sanctions.

The Reagan policy toward Chile changed substantially, though, beginning in 1985. This was part of a general shift

from Kirkpatrick Corollary No. 1 to Kirkpatrick Corollary No. 2 as the guide for American policy in several parts of the world. Some of the credit goes to Congress, which made it clear that it would not provide military aid to El Salvador unless the government stopped death squad killings. Part of the credit goes to countries such as Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru, which independently ousted military regimes, established civilian governments, and demonstrated to the Reagan administration that democracy could be a viable alternative to both right-wing and left-wing dictatorship. By the end of Reagan's first term, democracy seemed to be the wave of the future in the Western Hemisphere, and the Reaganites, hoping to claim some responsibility, looked for ways to sustain it.

The example of the Philippines reinforced their hopes. A group of Reagan administration officials, mainly in the State Department, realized early on that the longer Marcos remained in power, the more likely the Philippines was to go Communist, with the resultant loss of strategic U.S. bases. The stunning success of "people power" seemed to validate the approach of these democratic activists in the administration. Their number included—hard to believe as it may be for critics of his Central America policies—Elliott Abrams. Some Chilean democrats think, in fact, that they are the beneficiaries of attempts by Abrams and Secretary of State George Shultz to balance a policy on Nicaragua that arouses criticism all over the world with a policy toward the notorious Pinochet that attracts the world's praise.

However that may be, since 1985 the administration has pursued a praiseworthy policy. That year it sent a new ambassador to Santiago—career diplomat Harry Barnes—who immediately set about identifying with Pinochet's democratic opposition. Christian Democrats and moderate Socialists, previously shunned, got high-level attention when they visited Washington. In early 1986 the United States sponsored a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights denouncing Chilean human rights abuses. When then-White House chief of staff Donald Reagan was asked on television whether the United States was trying to destabilize the Pinochet regime, he answered that no such effort was under way "at the moment."

OCTOBER 31, 1988 7

The Washington Post

October 13, 1988

MARY McGRORY

A Powerful, Positive ‘No’

Dr. Heidi Lopez, an international public health specialist, left her home early in the morning Oct. 5. It took her a long time to get to her polling place. The transportation system had not laid on extra buses for the torrent of Chileans who went to vote in the plebiscite on their odious president, Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

She arrived at her polling place, a girls' school in downtown Santiago, at 7 a.m. She waited two hours to vote. At one point, the soldiers in attendance closed the doors. Were they calling off the vote? But it was only because of the crush. Thirty-four thousand women—Chileans vote by sex—were gathering at a school that accommodates 2,000 girls.

Was Lopez afraid as she made her way to vote? No. The moment of apprehension for her and the Chileans who voted with her occurred the night before, when the electric power went out in Santiago for 45 minutes. All thought it was a signal that the military junta that has tyrannized the country for 12 years was going to call off the plebiscite.

Soldiers were at every polling place, but there was no harassment. At every polling place, too, there were foreign journalists and international observers. "They were wonderful," says Lopez, "they gave us moral support and they constrained the government."

She has experienced the cruelties of the junta regime. Her 34-year-old son was jailed for membership in the Christian Left Party. Her apartment was searched by DINA, the secret police that does Pinochet's dirty work. So was her son's, in the presence of her terrified granddaughter.

Lopez, who is here for an international conference, is ecstatic about the results, which said no to Pinochet. He will stay on for an 18-month transition period, after which Chileans will vote for a new president. He may be a candidate—there is considerable controversy over whether he is eligible. They're a long way from home, from the democracy they enjoyed for 150 years. But they are on their way.

"We were able to recover our dignity," she says. "We showed at least we have the courage to face this dictatorship."

Chile, for all its dicey future, put on an election that is as thrilling as the stormy voting that put Corazon Aquino in office in the Philippines. And Chile is an example of the kind of benign U.S. intervention in a part of the world where we previously relied on force and stealth.

The National Endowment for

Democracy, which operates with U.S. and private funds, put the lessons of the Philippines to work. The key was an independent vote-counting operation so that no one had to rely on a manipulated government service. Pollsters Peter Hart, Frank Greer and Jack Walsh volunteered their expertise to a country that was a little rusty after the long night of one-man rule.

"They had the talent; we had the experience," says Walsh, a Bostonian who has spent his life in political campaigns.

He and his colleagues made repeated trips to Chile, took polls, set up the election machinery and—most importantly—helped the Chileans to devise a strategy, which came down to what it always does in elections, drawing in the middle.

They had to put on a campaign that the military around Pinochet would not understand. The junta, which is comprised of the heads of the three military services and the police force, expected a negative barrage emphasizing the horrors of life under Pinochet: the kidnapings, tortures, "disappears," the human-rights violations that have made Chile a synonym for official terrorism.

The junta campaign showed Pinochet in mufti, kissing babies, opening housing projects, visiting the poor; a fatherly figure who stood between the country and communist misrule and chaos.

They doggedly put it on—they had 40 times the television time allotted to the democratic opposition—despite the fact that the "Coalition for the No" went positive, registering voters, instructing them in their rights and beckoning Chile to a beautiful, democratic future.

"Happiness Is Coming" was the slogan of the "No" forces. It was sung, spoken and pictured in 15-minute television ads that they were allowed to put on every night for the last month of the campaign.

"We didn't say 'Pinochet must go,' " says Walsh. "We just showed that things would be much better when he was gone. We never showed him leaving.

"The government kept saying the Coalition for the No would fall apart. They said people wouldn't register— it's complicated and involves going to the police station. They said they wouldn't vote, but they did."

It was an election that came out right. And it's a radiant and timely reminder of what elections are all about, namely, hope and the future.

DISTRICT OFFICE

1712 WEST BEVERLY BOULEVARD
MONTEBELLO, CA 90640
(213) 722-7731

SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
AGRICULTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, IMPACT
OF DEREGULATION, AND PRIVATIZATION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH
AND FAMILIES

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ

30TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

WASHINGTON OFFICE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-5464

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

CHAIRMAN,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMENTARY
SECONDARY AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, CONSUMER
AND MONETARY AFFAIRS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY
AND NATURAL RESOURCES

October 21, 1988

El Presidente Daniel Ortega
Presidente De La Republica
Casa De Gobierno
Managua, Nicaragua

Dear President Ortega:

We are concerned about what appears to be a serious misunderstanding regarding a proposal to appropriate one million dollars to support democratic activities by independent groups in Nicaragua.

It has been alleged in the official Nicaraguan press, and in statements that you have made, that this assistance is part of a CIA "plot" to foment civil disorder in Nicaragua. This is utterly false. The proposal to provide such assistance is a bipartisan congressional initiative which reflects the broad support in the United States for strengthening democracy in Nicaragua. This support would be provided openly through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a nongovernmental organization governed by a prestigious bipartisan Board of Directors, which provides support to democratic organizations around the world. There is no connection whatsoever between NED and the CIA.

The kind of assistance proposed for democratic development in Nicaragua is entirely consistent with the Esquipulas II Peace Accord and with the cease-fire agreement signed at Sapoa. Both agreements call for democracy as a basis for lasting peace in the region. Strengthening private organizations that are committed to democracy and peace and which renounce violence furthers the goals agreed to at Esquipulas and Sapoa.

Efforts by your government to prohibit such support, or to impede organizations which received it, would be viewed in this country as inconsistent with the peace agreements and harmful to the cause of true reconciliation. We emphasize that this view is shared by Members of Congress who have been on both sides of the debate over U.S. policy in Central America. We are all in agreement on this issue of support for democracy and, specifically, support for those who are working peacefully to strengthen democratic institutions.

16/COMMENTARY NOVEMBER 1988

## Soviet Dissidents

**TO THE EDITOR OF COMMENTARY:**

In his article, "'Glasnost,' the KGB, and the Nation" [June], Jo-shua Muravchik misrepresents cir-cumstances, argues through innu-endo, and libels the Nation and ourselves. In the Nation article that Mr. Muravchik denounces, we raised the genuine concern that in receiving U.S. government funds via the National Endowment for Democracy [NED], the Center for Democracy in the USSR opens it-self to accusations by the Soviet authorities that it is a tool of the American government. The Center is thus in danger of compromising the very people it aims to support. The article was not written with disregard for the welfare of Soviet dissidents, particularly Sergei Grigoryants. It is madness to suggest that the article was written in col-lusion with Soviet authorities.

Leaving aside his biased, intem-perate tone, Mr. Muravchik makes a number of factual errors and mis-representations. For example:

1. Mr. Muravchik claims that none of the eleven research categories listed in Yuri Yarim-Agaev's March 1984 proposal for a Soviet Studies Research Center involved military information.

* One category in the proposal is clearly titled "The Military and Society." Information was to be gathered about the "militarization of civil life . . . resource allocations of the military in the economy, politics, and society."

2. Mr. Muravchik asserts that there is no link between the March 1984 proposal and the Center for Democracy in the USSR, of which Yuri Yarim-Agaev is executive director. "Instead," he writes, "the NED agreed to fund a small feasibility study conducted by Yarim-Agaev" and others.

* He neglects to mention that this feasibility study, which led to the creation of the Center, resuscitated the principles described in the March 1984 proposal. The language of the Center's feasibility proposal may have been more discreet, but the principles laid out in the 1984 document were intact—establishing sources inside the Soviet Union, finding information about tourist trips to the USSR, and identifying people in Europe who would find, brief, and debrief tourists.

3. Mr. Muravchik claims that we ignored relevant material about the

Center provided by the NED, implying that our sole source was the March 1984 document.

* We used a wide range of NED material in writing the article, including the above-mentioned feasibility study describing the Center's purpose and programs. We also studied the Center's quarterly reports, which revealed the number of Western travelers sent to the Soviet Union by the Center as part of what it called an "independent exchange program."

Mr. Muravchik concedes that people who care about the fate of human rights and Soviet dissidents were concerned about the Center for Democracy's use of U.S. government funds. "Critics have complained," Mr. Muravchik acknowledges, "that such 'high-profile' activity, conducted with public funds, may actually increase their [the dissidents'] jeopardy." It was that concern that motivated us in writing the Nation article. As we stated, "In this struggle for growing tolerance and openness [in the Soviet Union], any Western effort, whether inadvertent or intentional, to use Soviet citizens for ulterior purposes can only end badly all around—for those who have had ties to dissident and independent political activity in the Soviet Union, for Gorbachev's reform program, and for those in the West who care about human rights."

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL

KEVIN COOGAN

New York City

Readers of Joshua Muravchik's article in the June COMMENTARY might also be interested in some letters from leading dissidents who were living in the Soviet Union while the Center for Democracy in the USSR was carrying out its programs. It seems evident that these and only these people can provide the ultimate answer to the question of whether the Center helped them and their friends or hurt them, and the question of whether the Nation's article damaged or helped the journal Glasnost and its editor, Sergei Grigoryants. Most of these letters were sent to the Nation but did not find space in its pages. Copies were given to me to be made public at my discretion.

YURI YARIM-AGAEV

Center for Democracy

in the USSR

New York City

**FROM SERGEI GRIGORYANTS:**

Half a year has passed since the publication of the article in the Nation, which has brought us nothing but trouble. It would seem that the results of its publication are obvious. Nevertheless, one still hears voices arguing that the Nation magazine was sincerely trying to help our journal Glasnost. Ev-idently, we must enumerate the results of this "help."

On March 26, 1988 Iona Andronov [the New York correspondent for the Soviet newspaper Literaturnaya Gazeta], using materials which were provided to him by Katrina vanden Heuvel and Kevin Coogan, declared in his paper that Glasnost was being published with funds from the CIA, that on the orders of this organization it was provoking "conflict situations in Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, Latvia, and the Crimea," and that it was also guilty of many other improper acts. ...

The Nation article was reprinted in three Soviet publications, and Andronov's revelations were reprinted in the newspaper Soviet Siberia. Even now Miss vanden Heuvel and Mr. Coogan's materials are still being used in the USSR for badgering the independent press.

As for Glasnost, the campaign ended in the destruction and robbery of the editorial offices on May 9, 1988, from which we have still not recovered. We have also not managed to find new office space, and trying to put out issues from tiny private apartments has slowed us up doubly. If there were once 200 copies of the journal circulating in Moscow, today the situation is such that Glasnost is practically the only publication in Moscow which people are afraid to copy and distribute, so great is the threat of persecution and arrest. ...

We are reminded that the authors of the article were critical not of Glasnost, but of those who are now publishing it in the United States. But by reprinting the magazine in English (as well as in French, German, Spanish, and other languages), these people are helping us first of all to fulfill one of the fundamental aims stipulated in the first issue of Glasnost: to acquaint not only Soviets but also readers abroad with what is going on in the Soviet Union. Secondly, as far as international interest in our magazine goes, it is only publica-

LETTERS FROM READERS/17

ation abroad that can save the magazine from the arbitrariness of the authorities. Thus, I can only be grateful to the publishers of Glasnost in the United States who have taken on this activity.

One might say that the Nation's writers are not responsible for the fact that the Soviet press has incorrectly used and even distorted their material (Mr. Coogan sent a protest to Literaturnaya Gazeta, which of course was not published). But can it really be that Miss vanden Heuvel and Mr. Coogan—who write as specialists in Soviet affairs—did not know that our press has never behaved any differently and cannot possibly do so? Can it really be that they did not understand what their uncorroborated discoveries would lead to?

Thank God we have not been arrested yet. It is possible that the editorial staff will manage to right itself after the havoc we experienced in May. But if the writers from the Nation call themselves friends, then truly, with such friends, who needs enemies?

FROM IRINA RATUSHINSKAYA and
IGOR GERASHCHENKO:

The Nation authors refer to a comparison (in *Newsweek*) between the independent magazine Glasnost and a canary in a coal mine: if the bird suffocates, so too might the movement that bears its name. This is quite true, but such "canaries" do not suffocate by themselves—they must be smothered deliberately. Unfortunately, there are plenty of volunteers to do the job, and not only among straight-out KGB agents.

The appropriate Soviet agencies know very well how to smother independent journals within the Soviet Union. They begin with slanderous newspaper articles about supposed collaboration with the CIA (this point is a must!) and end with physical violence and arrests, from which the staff of Glasnost has not been safe for a single moment. . . .

Glasnost does not just collect and publish a huge amount of information on social problems in the Soviet Union, . . . it also gives

anyone in the West the right to publish this information. At the moment, the Center for Democracy is the only agency in the U.S. that has taken up this information . . . and bears the expenses connected with publishing Glasnost in English, despite its own financial difficulties. . . . What if tomorrow the Center no longer had the resources to continue, and Glasnost lost its chance to publish here? What would happen then to the "canary" for which the writers in the Nation express such concern?

Yes, it is undoubtedly dangerous for the editors of Glasnost to be published in the West at all—by the Center or by anyone else. It is also dangerous in the Soviet Union, where all human-rights activities are automatically labeled "anti-Soviet" by the authorities. . . . Nonetheless, there are people who despite constant threats and harassment take this risk and take it for the sake of human rights.

Although the Nation cites "leading human-rights activists" in the U.S. who are opposed to the Cen-

20/COMMENTARY NOVEMBER 1988

Before my departure, SMOT gave me the task of making known the situation of political prisoners in the USSR wherever I could, since it is only broad publicity and the concern of the entire free world with the problem of human rights in the USSR... which restrains the Soviet government from full-scale physical persecution.

I wish to attest to two cases, where the Center for Democracy... immediately—and I repeat, immediately—provided concrete help to real people. The first was the case of Mikhail Kazachkov, who was arrested in 1975 for his intent to emigrate and sentenced to fifteen years of strict-regimen labor camp. In 1980 he was arrested a second time while still in prison for protesting the conditions of confinement—specifically the fact that he had been illegally prevented from writing to or seeing his ailing elderly mother....

It was only after the Center sent this information to Amnesty International, and asked the Committee of Concerned Scientists to intercede on behalf of their colleague (Kazachkov is a physicist whose articles have been published in the West), that Kazachkov was allowed to see his mother for the first time in many years.

The second case was that of Mikhail Kukobaka, a metal worker, arrested in 1978 and in prison to this day for having written articles expressing opinions critical of the Soviet regime. At first he was subjected to a severe beating, and last year to increased pressure demanding his "repentance," in the form of speaking out against Andrei Sakharov. Kukobaka categorically refused.

I was given this information by telephone by friends in Moscow who did not conceal their names. The only question was which organization in the United States could bring these facts to the world public as quickly as possible. The Center, despite the huge amount of work involved in checking the facts, managed to do so. Even today, political prisoners expect this from the Center, and rely on it....

FROM IRINA GRIVNINA:

I hold in my hands a copy of the article published in the *Nation*, and am astonished first of all at the insolence of its authors. Who gave them the right to judge my friends? Who gave them the right to speak on behalf of people who live in far-

off Russia and who every day risk losing their freedom and, sometimes, even their lives?...

I am not a politician and, strictly speaking, I am not a "dissident." My current specialty is journalism. It was precisely for journalism—for articles on psychiatric repression in the Soviet Union—that my friends and I were arrested. This, it is true, occurred before the appearance of what is now known as *glasnost*. But who can guarantee that the brave publishers of today's uncensored journals are completely safe? The case of Paruir Airikyan [the Armenian human-rights activist arrested on March 26, 1988] has made many intelligent people think twice. Who can guarantee that he and others—such as Sergei Grigoryants, Lev Timofeev, Mustafa Dzhemilev—will not need Yuri Yarim-Agaev's help? The very same help thanks to which I am alive.

Properly speaking, of course, we were helped not only by Yuri Yarim-Agaev and Vladimir Bukovsky, but also by hundreds of people throughout the world. And I am eternally grateful to all of them. But right now we are talking in particular about the people who work at the Center for Democracy. They were the first to learn about everything that was happening to my family. They were the ones who supplied accurate and effective information to the press. And they were the ones who asked Kurt Vonnegut, Joan Baez, and Madame Mitterrand to write to the leaders of the Soviet Union.

It is thanks to the selfless work of these people that my children are alive and that they have not been separated from their parents. And it is thanks to them that we now live in Amsterdam instead of in some stinking barrack in one of the camps of the world's first workers' state....

Among the hundreds of thousands of emigrants from the Soviet Union, people like Yuri Yarim-Agaev are an exceptionally rare phenomenon.... When I and, later on, my husband were fired from our jobs, we might simply have died of hunger were it not for the packages he sent us. In order to find out what was happening to me when I was in exile, he called every month from America to a remote village in Kazakhstan. Were it not for these phone calls ... my younger daughter, the one on whose behalf Madame Mitterrand interceded, would simply not be

alive. The KGB did everything possible in order to destroy this child even before she was born....

It is a pity that duels are impossible today. They say, however, that in our times the power of the printed word has grown incredibly. One must hope that my letter will get to decent people who will find the means of explaining some simple, evident truths to the editors of the *Nation*, and to those who have so indecently joined in solidarity with them.

Possibly, they will finally understand that it is shameful to speak in the name of people who have not authorized anyone to speak in their name. They will understand that it is shameful to write denunciations which the corrupt Soviet press makes use of immediately and with great delight. It is used to trample down those very people about whose fate the journalists from the *Nation*... claim to be so deeply concerned.

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK writes:

In their second paragraph, Krina vanden Heuvel and Kevin Coogan accuse me of speaking in an "intemperate tone," but their standards of temperance leave me confused, since in their first paragraph they accuse me of "misrepresentation," "innuendo," "libel," and "madness."

They claim to have been motivated by "genuine concern that ... the Center for Democracy in the USSR opens itself to accusations by the Soviet authorities that it is a tool of the American government." But it was they themselves who furnished the Soviet government with the very accusation that they claim to fear! They initiated a Freedom of Information request that turned up an old, aborted proposal that was written by one of the same exiled dissidents who subsequently founded the Center for Democracy. They then fashioned their article out of the false accusation that this old proposal aimed at "intelligence-gathering" and the additionally false accusation that the Center for Democracy was the fruit of that defunct proposal.

Having written their article, they proceeded to share advance copies of the text, and apparently other products of their Freedom of Information inquiry, with the correspondent for *Literaturnaya Gazeta*, who was widely (and apparently accurately) accused of being a KGB

LETTERS FROM READERS / 21

operative. So pleased were Soviet authorities with Miss vanden Heuvel and Mr. Coogan's confected accusation that it was reprinted twice and paraphrased once, in three major Soviet publications—including *Sovietskaya Rossiya*, the famous mouthpiece of unreconstructed Stalinist opposition to Gorbachev's reforms. Once they realized that use of their galleys by *Literaturnaya Gazeta* might compromise them, they changed the ending of their piece to stress their solicitude for Soviet dissidents. I suppose they will find me intemperate again when I say that I find their protestations simply disingenuous. So, I gather, does Sergei Grigoryants and several of the Soviet dissidents whose letters are printed above.

Moreover, I must say the same about the three "items" offered in their letter. In their *Nation* article Miss vanden Heuvel and Mr. Coogan used the phrases "intelligence-gathering" and "to gather political and military information on the USSR" in reference to the defunct March 1984 proposal. In my article, I pointed out that the only conceivable justification for their terminology was the heading "The Military and Society" that appeared as one out of eleven research topics enumerated in the proposal, but that its full text and context made it clear that what was intended would in the West be considered sociological, not "military," information. (All eleven headings came after an introduction that spoke of "social, economic, and political aspects of Soviet life.") To justify the spin they put on this phrase, they would have to dispute my construction of it. Instead, they falsely insinuate that I neglected to mention it.

Second, they assert that the aborted March 1984 proposal and a later proposal for a feasibility study that eventuated in the founding of the Center for Democracy had the same "principles." The word "principles" is odd in this context, and it appears in neither proposal. I believe they employ it to obfuscate the fact that the programs envisioned in the two proposals were clearly very different. The first would have created a "Soviet Studies Research Center," the second served as a blueprint for a human-rights group, one of whose activities was to sponsor "exchanges" with "independent people" (essentially dissidents) in the Soviet Union who were barred from exchange programs sponsored by the Soviet government.

Third, Miss vanden Heuvel and Mr. Coogan claim they studied the quarterly reports of the Center for Democracy. The gist of my accusation, however, was not that they hadn't *examined* the reports of the Center's activities, but that they hadn't *cited* them. The fact that they were familiar with these reports only confirms their culpability. These reports all indicate that the Center's work had exclusively to do with human rights, not at all with "intelligence-gathering." If they had any cause to doubt the veracity of these reports, they should have cited them and then explained why they disbelieved them. Instead, they omitted any mention of the reports, giving their readers not a hint of the existence of this substantial body of evidence weighing against any charge that the Center was engaged in improper activity. Strange behavior indeed for authors who claim that their own motivation was to protect the Soviet dissidents linked to the Center.

## Music in Our Time

TO THE EDITOR OF COMMENTARY:

In the concluding passages of his article on Nicolas Slonimsky, "A Failed Musical Genius" [June], Samuel Lipman says:

> Almost everywhere we look in contemporary composition—and this has been a sad fact at least since World War II—both style and content are perceived as matters of choice, as if artistic creation were no more than a matter of selecting a meal in a cafeteria, and the temple of harmony had given way to the Tower of Babel. . . . Viewed against the musical panorama of the century in which he has lived, Nicolas Slonimsky's self-confessed failure is both tragic and all too emblematic.

Yet the *truth* is that composing music is still—in the right hands—a beautiful creative process yielding results of great expressive power. Just thirty years ago Igor Stravinsky was doing extraordinary things; the music he created during the 50's and into the early 60's is absolutely breathtaking. (I wonder how many listeners realize what a miracle

Agon is?) And around the same time, . . . we have Roger Sessions's *Third Symphony*, which takes its place within a body of orchestral music that is one of the really remarkable artistic achievements of our time.

It is true that both Sessions and Stravinsky have died, but in regard to living composers, the situation is anything but bleak. In Britain, for example, both Michael Tippett and his younger contemporary Peter Maxwell Davies are making tremendous pieces, and have been doing so for years. The real problem lies not with the musicians (remember, the great ones are comparatively few at any given time) but in the listener's capacity to become imaginatively engaged with the music itself. . . .

The "sad fact" is that Mr. Lipman, as well as other listeners, have apparently not been able to do this.

BOB CASILLO

New Haven, Connecticut

SAMUEL LIPMAN writes:

Bob Casillo's letter is a curious example of blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. Nearly fifty years have now elapsed without significant new contributions to contemporary music. Such beautiful music as has been written in this period—including the works of Shostakovich and Prokofiev in Russia, Poulenc in France, some serious followers of Arnold Schoenberg and Alban Berg, and assorted Americans—can now clearly be seen to reflect nothing later than the rich musical culture of the interwar period. As far as the post-World War II avant-garde is concerned, the so-called masterpieces of Stockhausen, Cage, Boulez, and Berio (to name only four of the most prestigious), have utterly failed to gain the love, not just of "listeners," as Mr. Casillo would have it, but of the overwhelming majority of deeply serious and highly talented musicians.

Mr. Casillo mentions, by way of demonstrating the power of recent music, the late works of Stravinsky and the music of Michael Tippett, Peter Maxwell Davies, and Roger Sessions. Whatever the permanent value of these compositions—I personally find late Stravinsky dry, Davies rebarbative, and Tippett and Sessions fascinating and worthwhile, though sadly unlikely ever to win a sizable following—Mr. Casillo's limited and problematic examples only underscore the wider musical failure in our time, not of listeners, but of composers.

Observations

"Glasnost," the KGB, and the "Nation"

Joshua Muravchik

SERGEI GRIGORYANTS, who has spent ten of his forty-six years in Soviet prisons and labor camps, was among some 150 political prisoners released in 1987 by order of the Politburo, in the first dramatic demonstration of Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of openness or Glasnost. Today, however, the threat of persecution again darkens Grigoryants's life, a threat brought on by his insistence on taking the promise of Glasnost seriously and abetted by a slanderous article featured in the American weekly, the Nation.

Soon after his release, Grigoryants announced that he was launching a magazine which would operate without government control or censorship, but which—unlike previous clandestine dissident publications, known as *samizdat*—would appear openly and seek legal recognition. The obvious purpose was to test or stretch the bounds of the new "openness." To underline the point, Grigoryants named his new journal, *Glasnost*.

Glasnost quickly became a symbol and barometer of the new atmosphere. It is not so much a journal of opinion as of news, the kind of news rarely found in the official press: about protests and appeals, dissidents and refuseniks. One can also find in it occasional wry reports about the Soviet establishment.

The authorities have responded to Glasnost with some ambiguity, at one point even implying a willingness to consider granting it official recognition, at other times threatening and harassing Grigor-

yants and confiscating copies of the magazine.

Recently, things have taken a turn for the worse. Grigoryants reports that the magazine has "been forced to abandon [its] offices" because pressures were brought against the person who had provided it space. Some contributors have also had their phones disconnected. Others have been accosted on the street. Paruir Airikyan, an Armenian nationalist whose open letter to Gorbachev was published in Glasnost, has been arrested. And a strident assault against Grigoryants has been launched in the Soviet press.

It is both an irony and a disgrace that this campaign has made heavy use of an article by Kevin Coogan and Katrina Vanden Heuvel in the March 19, 1988 issue of the Nation. Titled "U.S. Funds for Soviet Dissidents," it focused on "a small New York-based foundation run by Russian émigrés" called the Center for Democracy, which publishes the English-language edition of Grigoryants's Glasnost with a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The article charged that the Center has also received U.S. government funds through the NED for "a program that more closely resembled intelligence-gathering than human-rights work." Calling the Center "a potential albatross," the authors warned that "it would be tragic if Glasnost was silenced as a result" of this association.

For all their ostensible solicitude, the authors seem to have given little thought to the consequences of their own words. Their article was heralded by a press release from the Nation marked "for simultaneous release in New York and Moscow." The intention, says Miss

Vanden Heuvel, was to distribute copies not to the Soviet press but to American correspondents in the USSR, where she was traveling at the time of publication—and even this intention was never fulfilled. Nonetheless, within days of the article's appearance it was picked up in the Soviet weekly, Literaturnaya Gazeta. In a piece called "Pawns in Someone Else's Game," that journal used the Nation story to portray Grigoryants as a tool of U.S. intelligence who "had been given the job of provoking the flareup" in Armenia by "his patrons" at the CIA. The New York correspondent of Literaturnaya Gazeta, Iona Andronov, also reported that:

> A local journalist, Kevin Coogan, gave me a more detailed and authentic account of the secrets of the New York publishers of the pseudo-Glasnost. He had earlier excited my curiosity by giving the lowdown on the new anti-Soviet magazine and securing semi-secret information about it. Coogan's collaborator in this was Katrina Vanden Heuvel, who works on the liberal weekly Nation. Their joint article for the Nation is already in the galley-proof stage. But Coogan agreed to share his information with Literaturnaya Gazeta.

Coogan has acknowledged furnishing Andronov with advance copies of the galleys and discussing the story with him (though he later sent Literaturnaya Gazeta a letter-to-the-editor protesting that Andronov's article "misrepresents" their conversation). In any event, once having given Andronov the galleys, and realizing that he was likely to write about this story, the two Nation authors emended their own galleys to stress their concern for Grigoryants's well-being.

It is hardly surprising that the Soviet press seized on the Nation story. The accusation of links to Western intelligence is precisely what Soviet authorities are wont to level against their most troublesome dissidents. Anatoly Sharan- sky, for example, was sentenced in

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Uncertain Crusade: Jimmy Carter and the Dilemmas of Human Rights Policy.

47

48/COMMENTARY JUNE 1988

1978 for spying for the CIA—a spurious charge that according to the Nation's star columnist, Alexander Cockburn, had more truth to it than the “self-censor[ed]” American press would admit. And the Soviet journalist Iona Andronov is precisely the man to write such a story. A flamboyant figure, Andronov was the leading Soviet propagator of the theme that the CIA rather than the KGB had been behind the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. (It was in this connection, apparently, that Andronov first met Coogan, who was working on the same angle.) According to Herbert Romerstein, a former staff member of the House Intelligence Committee, Andronov has “a long history of KGB activity.”

The accusations in Andronov's story went far beyond those in the Nation, but Soviet authorities also saw fit to republish the Nation piece itself—not once, but twice. The translation appeared both in the weekly *Za Rubezhom* ("Foreign Life") and in the party daily *Sovietskaya Rossiya*. In short, as a spokesman for the Center for Democracy noted wryly, the Nation article reached an audience of thousands here, millions there.

But was it accurate? Has the Center for Democracy been engaged in some kind of intelligence activity? The Nation reported that in March 1984, the exiled Soviet human-rights activist Yuri Yarim-Agaev "wrote a proposal for a new 'Soviet studies research center,' which later became the Center for Democracy. At the heart of the proposal, a copy of which InterNation obtained through FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests, was a bold idea: to use the Soviet human-rights network to gather political and military information on the USSR."

The Nation, however, misrepresented the March 1984 proposal in two crucial ways. First, the proposal did not involve "military information." A sentence from the proposal quoted in the Nation referred to the sorts of information shared among human-rights defenders within the USSR and then declared: "this network has not

been concentrating on gathering military, technological, and strategic information, nor can it do so." To this the Nation added: "Yarim-Agaev proposed to rectify this." But Yarim-Agaev proposed nothing of the sort. Here are the relevant passages:

> ... this network has not been concentrating on gathering military, technological, and strategic information, nor can it do so.

However, the spectrum of [its] information has considerably broadened to include many social, economic, and political aspects of Soviet life....

To understand and predict the policy of the Soviet leadership it is indispensable to have access to reliable and detailed information on developments within the country, changes and adjustments in internal and external policies, and the attitudes of the many different nationalities, social strata, groupings, etc. in the USSR.

The proposal then went on to enumerate the eleven areas of research that Yarim-Agaev had in mind. None of the eleven involved military information, although one category was headed "the military and society." Needless to say, the Nation gave heavy emphasis to this category, and simply ignored the majority of the other research subjects. But even here, as was made crystal clear in Yarim-Agaev's proposal, the information to be gathered was of a sociological nature, and had nothing to do with deployments of forces.

To Soviet authorities, of course, almost any true information is sensitive. Thus, numerous refuseniks have been denied emigration because they have had access to economic or sociological data that the Kremlin regards as "state secrets." And, perversely, the Kremlin has a point. In a century of total war and of long-term ideological/power conflicts, all kinds of social facts may bear on the power of the state. In the West, nonetheless, we draw a line between information about, for example, the GNP, or the quality of our schools, on the one hand, and about the location of our submarines, on the other hand. Yarim-Agaev's proposal aimed only at the kind of information that is available about the United States

in every issue of the New York Times. When the Nation used the terms "intelligence-gathering" and "military information" to describe the Agaev proposal, it was thus in effect employing totalitarian definitions.

THE Nation misused the proposal in a second and still more egregious way when it claimed that the contemplated research center "later became the Center for Democracy." This is simply false. Indeed, the proposal died within weeks of its birth, having been rejected by the staff of the National Endowment for Democracy, which did not even send it on for consideration by its board. The staff felt that research of this kind was already being done by competent academic institutions, and that the proposed activity, though perfectly legitimate, would be too vulnerable to attack by Soviet authorities.

Instead, the NED agreed to fund a small feasibility study conducted by Yarim-Agaev, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others. As a result of that study, the Center for Democracy was created in 1985 and began receiving support from the NED in 1986. In the two years since then, the Center has worked purely as a human-rights organization, channeling moral and material support to Soviet dissidents, serving as an authoritative source of information here about their plight, and publishing Glasnost. Although the findings of the feasibility study, the proposal for the Center for Democracy, and each of the Center's quarterly reports were supplied to the Nation in response to its FOIA request, not a word from any of them was cited in the article.

In response to the Nation's attack, several recently arrived dissidents have spoken out in defense of the Center. The noted poet Irina Ratushinskaya and her husband, Igor Gerashchenko, wrote:

> [W]e can attest to the fact that the Center never turned to us for any intelligence information but helped us when we were in the Soviet Union—from sending vitamins for the women's labor camp to providing material support and information for many dissidents... We know now that

OBSERVATIONS / 49

one can always turn to the Center for information on prisoners of conscience... who is in which camp, who has been released, who has been arrested again, who is in internal exile, who in a psychiatric prison.

As this inventory of activities suggests, the Center takes an aggressive approach to its work. For example, for a year it ran an "independent exchange program" which actively directed Western travelers in the USSR to Soviet dissidents desiring more contact with outsiders. While the Center's supporters believe that such programs help to protect dissidents against persecution, some critics have complained that such "high-profile" activity, conducted with public funds, may actually increase their jeopardy.

THIS controversy provided additional grist for the Nation's mill. The authors of the March 19 article quoted five authorities—the exiled Soviet dissidents Ludmilla Alexeyeva and Pavel Litvinov, the American Sovietologists Richard Pipes and Herbert Ellison, and an official of Helsinki Watch, Catherine Fitzpatrick—apparently criticizing the activities of the Center for Democracy. All have subsequently acknowledged that they were quoted accurately, but four of the five say their words were used by the Nation in a misleading way, and the fifth is deeply unhappy with the article.

When Katrina Vanden Heuvel was asked whether she believes that the Center for Democracy is engaged in intelligence-gathering, she replied coyly: "I refer you to the quotes in the article from a wide range of people." But only two of those quoted—Catherine Fitzpatrick and Herbert Ellison—mention intelligence. Although the article made it appear that they were talking about the Center, both say that this was not so. As Miss Fitzpatrick has explained:

> It seems to me there is no evidence—I don't think the Nation has come up with any evidence certainly (I think it's a misleading article in that sense)—that this group is involved in intelligence work. So far as I know about their current work, it's all about political prisoners and arrests and people in trouble. So I'm certainly not accusing them of engaging in intelligence work.

And Ellison says, "What bothers me very much about this article is that it equates the original proposal with the structure and function of the Center for Democracy. That is careless and inaccurate." Moreover, according to Ellison, "the notion that there was an effort to acquire information of military-intelligence significance [is] a very misleading interpretation of the language of the original proposal."

AS FOR the others: Pavel Litvinov, who was quoted as saying several very harsh things about the Center, has since explained that he was not talking about the Center at all but about the March 1984 research proposal. The same is true for Pipes, who likewise says that his critical comments referred only to the March 1984 proposal. That proposal, he believes, "was indeed ill-advised, but the Nation's article does far greater harm to the cause of human rights in the Soviet Union by taking a rejected draft as a fact and blowing it up out of all proportion, thus providing the KGB with an excuse to harass Glasnost and Soviet dissidents with foreign contacts." In fact, the articles in the Nation and in the Soviet press themselves illustrate the very misuse to which Pipes had feared the March 1984 proposal would be susceptible.

And Ludmilla Alexeyeva, an avowed critic of the Center, has said that "if the authors [of the Nation article] are concerned about people there, then they shouldn't write this article," adding: "I think

that the real aim of this article is some internal fight"—i.e., among American ideological factions—"that I don't understand and don't want to understand, and I feel that people here shouldn't use Soviet dissidents for these fights."

She is right. Kevin Coogan and Katrina Vanden Heuvel's intended target was not Grigoryants, but Yarim-Agaev and his fellow leader of the Center for Democracy, Vladimir Bukovsky, and the NED's president Carl Gershman. All these are vilified in the Nation article for their "militant anti-Sovietism and anti-Communism" (to cite the words one anonymous source used of Gershman).

MISS VANDEN HEUVEL now argues that "the unfortunate official harassment of Grigoryants and the journal has been under way for some time . . . and I think it's wrongheaded or naive about the Soviet system to think that this article was required or played a part in anything that's going on there." But Herbert Ellison disagrees. "An article of the kind that the Nation has published," he says, "is a very useful club with which to beat Grigoryants."

Most tellingly of all, Grigoryants himself reports that Ellison's view is correct. "Our situation and my situation have considerably worsened," he asserts, and "in part this situation is a result of these articles" (i.e., the attacks on him in the Soviet press). Grigoryants plans to sue Literaturnaya Gazeta and its correspondent, Andronov, for slander in the Soviet courts. As for his self-proclaimed protectors, Kevin Coogan and Katrina Vanden Heuvel, their article, he says, "in point of fact has served the very clear slander of Iona Andronov."

Thus has the Nation progressed from its long and dishonorable history as an apologist for Soviet tyranny to the still bolder and more dishonorable role of accomplice.

Irving Brown's honor

President Reagan awarded Medals of Freedom Monday to many well-known people — the late Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige, former Chief Justice Warren Burger, Pearl Bailey, Milton Friedman, the late J. Willard Marriott, David Packard and Jean MacArthur — but the most appropriate award of all went to the man that fewest Americans know, free trade unionist Irving Brown. Mr. Brown, now ill and living in Paris, devoted a 40-year career to the cause of free labor around the globe. One of a dwindling class of labor-union intellectuals (the tradition survives with such people as Tom Kahn, his successor as head of the Department of International Affairs for the AFL-CIO, Eugenia Kemple, Albert Shanker and columnist Arnold Beichman, who in this paper first presented the case for Irving Brown's receiving the Medal of Freedom), he spent most of his time fighting not against boss-men, but against communists in the labor movement.

People tend to forget that the American and European labor movements in the '30s, '40s and '50s were rife with communists —

not pipe-smoking professors, but agents who knew how to mix it up in the tough and bloody world of labor politics. Mr. Brown supported democratic unionists throughout the continent — and later, throughout Africa — and helped them purge agents of influence in their midst by using such humble implements of democracy as typewriters, paper, and mimeograph machines.

In an age plagued by political hypocrisy and inconstancy, Irving Brown and his heirs have pressed for freedom everywhere — South Africa and the Soviet Union, Chile and Nicaragua — sometimes at great personal risk. Their courageous works and deeds turned America's trade union movement into one of our most effective and remorseless weapons for political freedom.

It's appropriate that Ronald Reagan, the only union president ever to lead this nation, honored Irving Brown. Mr. Brown stands out among this year's distinguished group of recipients for having devoted his entire life and livelihood to the cause of promoting free thought, free association and free societies.

The Washington Times

10/19/88

WHAT I'VE LEARNED

Interview by Ken Adelman

# Yearning to Breathe Free

*Is Political Freedom the Destiny of the World?*
*The Head of the Democracy Endowment Thinks So*

Many Americans going to the polls this month take for granted the idea of free elections. For most people, there is no real opportunity to vote.

Spearheading an effort to help spread free elections and other expressions of liberty is the National Endowment for Democracy, a non-governmental group that receives about $17 million annually from Congress.

Carl Gershman has been president of the endowment since 1984. Previously, he served as senior counselor at the US Mission to the United Nations— representing the US on human-rights issues— and he was resident scholar at Freedom House. He graduated magna cum laude from Yale in 1965 and received a master's in education from Harvard in 1968.

Recently he sat in his modest office in downtown DC and talked about what he's learned.

**Q:** This month, Americans vote. How unique is that around the world?

**A:** Elections are held in most countries, but many of the elections are not legitimate. There are, according to Freedom House and other groups, around 60 democracies out of about 160 or 170 countries.

**Q:** Most Americans take it for granted that the world operates like the US.

**A:** Well, they are increasingly right. Two hundred years ago we were the only democracy. Even then we had a limited democracy, because everybody could not vote and we had slavery.

Now we're much more democratic, and more countries, not only in Western Europe but in the Third World and even in the communist world, are either becoming increasingly democratic or are experiencing growing internal pressures to move in that direction. The historical trend is toward democracy.

**Q:** So you're sure that democracy is on the rise around the world?

**A:** There's no question about it. When

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote 150 years ago, he claimed that the democratic revolution had actually started hundreds of years earlier. Everything subsequent—the Crusades, which decimated the nobles; the printing press, which spread knowledge to all classes; the discovery of America, which gave opportunity to millions; whatever—reduced the disparity between rulers and ruled. All this was part of a historical process.

Tocqueville came here to study our system because he believed democracy

would inevitably spread to France and the rest of Western Europe, and he wanted it to be informed by our remarkably successful and stable experiment. That's been done, and now the process has spread beyond Europe. Just a decade or so ago, most people were pessimistic about the prospects for democracy. This was when democracy in India was suppressed, when military governments in Latin America replaced civilian governments, when the Soviet Union was expanding its power.

Carl Gershman, head of the National Endowment for Democracy, says Third World countries are learning that without freedom there can't be development.

PHOTOGRAPH BY TOM WOLFF

November 1988/The Washingtonian 93

What we overlooked then was the be-
ginning of a new democratic wave—the
end of the Franco dictatorship in Spain,
of authoritarian rule in Portugal, of mili-
tary rule in Greece—which then spread
to Latin America. Now freedom is ex-
tending to Asia, into the communist
world, and somewhat in Africa.

Consider Burma. We had nothing to do
with it for decades after the country closed
itself off from the rest of the world. Sud-
denly a democratic movement emerged
there, which apparently looks to our own
democracy for inspiration.

Q: Do you think that's because people inherently long for freedom?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: So Jefferson was right in saying—

A: Jefferson was right: The desire for freedom is universal. And Madison was right: You need structures of government, restraints, to preserve freedom. Power cannot be overly concentrated; it must be decentralized and diffused. A government needs structures to prevent the over-concentration of power.

The Third World is just beginning to
learn this. Once, independence from the
colonial power was the sole goal. But if
that independence is followed by a dicta-
tor like Idi Amin or Jean-Bedel Bokassa
or Pol Pot, obviously the people are not
any better off.

So in many corners of the world, peo-
ple are coming to see that political de-
mocracy is a value in itself, that it's the
best way to achieve economic growth,
national integration, and stability.

A Third World activist once told me
that a government without a strong op-
position is like a car without brakes.

*A Third World activist once told me that a government without strong opposition is like a car without brakes.*

Power unconstrained leads to corruption, to the exclusion of groups from the system, to violence and repression.

Q: What do foreigners think about our system? It struck me this summer, looking at the party conventions with people hooting and hollering and wearing funny masks, that a foreigner would think this is a peculiar way to choose a leader.

A: It is. There's a lot that's distracting about our process. But observers from abroad see it as an amazingly open and dynamic process. Our primary process, which we take for granted and even feel

cynical about sometimes, does allow
people at the grass-roots level to deter-
mine the party candidates. This is a re-
markable flourishing of democracy that
we did not have, at least to the same
extent, only a generation ago.

Q: Do you think this kind of system
coughs up mediocre leaders?

A: There is a tendency in a system as pluralistic as ours to find common denominators among different groups. Therefore, not everybody is going to have somebody who speaks entirely for his or her own interest. That's consensus. That's the only way a system like ours can survive.

We tend to forget that political power
is not the only means for people to gain
power or prominence in our society.
People can achieve them through busi-
ness success, through the media, in the
intellectual world, and so forth. That
reduces the premium on a person's gain-
ing political power. It's not an all-or-
nothing power game restricted to poli-
tics. That too is conducive to stability.

Imagine the alternative, where all
power is concentrated in the govern-
ment. If you don't get political power,
you're left out.

Q: I've heard it said over the years that some people aren't ready for democracy. They lack any history of democracy,

THE
NATURE
COMPANY

BIRD & FISH
UMBRELLAS

Artist Kimberly Beck's arbor of songbirds brightens the rainiest day. And, from our collections of 19th century English scientific prints, fish swim about in full color to our own design. Silkscreened exclusively for The Nature Company on wood-handled, antique-white nylon umbrellas. $28.50 ea.

ORDER TOLL-FREE 800-227-1114

1323-25 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. (202) 333-400 • Union Station • Tysons Corner

94 *The Washingtonian* / November 1988

any culture for a lasting democracy, it is
said. Is this true?

**A:** Such arguments are sometimes advanced by people sympathetic to a particular dictatorship. Nonetheless, it is certainly true that in a country without any experience with democracy, the process has to be gradual.

**Q:** Yet look at South Korea. It hasn't seemed gradual. It's been sudden.

**A:** No, it hasn't. The pressure for change has been building with the emergence of the middle class—caused by remarkable economic growth. The middle class began to make political demands and those demands had to be answered. The government in Seoul had no choice but to respond and it did respond.

In other countries, like Nigeria, the government and political groups understand that democracy would be most successful coming in stages.

**Q:** So you believe that while everybody may not be ready for a democracy, everybody's ready to start the process toward one?

**A:** Oh, there's no doubt about that.

**Q:** Even in Albania and North Korea?

**A:** Yes. Years ago many thought that people in certain totalitarian countries were not interested in freedom. As long as their government made sure there was food on the table, the people would be satisfied. That was not the case.

Consequently, we have seen the emergence of democratic movements in places that many had given up on. Such as the totalitarian countries of Eastern Europe—Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland—where the people had made democratic efforts but were repressed by Soviet tanks or, in the case of Poland, by their own army acting at the behest of the Soviet Union.

What's most remarkable is how repression hasn't worked. The crisis in Eastern Europe has grown deeper. The elites have lost confidence in their ideology and even in their system. Movements calling for democracy are developing rapidly.

**Q:** Why is all this taking place now? For 70 years there was no transition from Marxist to democratic regime.

**A:** Because today we're at the end of a historical era. Two hundred years ago, with the Enlightenment, people were searching for a secular religion and found communism. Huge numbers of people believed in it and thereby sought to create a new man, to impose a new order in the world. Violence was needed to usher in this new world order. But communism no longer inspires belief.

With this comes the decline of utopian ideology—a system that promises a new world. Democracy is an anti-utopian idea, because it contends that people

15TH STREET

G STREET

The Shortest Distance From
Garfinckels To Old Ebbitt Is

The
Square
Route

METROPOLITAN
SQUARE

fine
shopping & dining

F STREET

14TH STREET

Have a Great Time in
Town Tonight...
and leave the
"rest" to us.

New Year's Eve Special...$89.00*

Relax and get into the spirit of the Capital's Holiday parties. After the merriment, take a taxi to The

Capital Hilton, then take an elevator ride to a great night's rest. At this special Holiday Stay Rate of $95.00 per night** nothing could be more comforting. And you can rest assured that in the morning you will be pampered by the caring staff of The Capital Hilton. Call 393-1000 today to make your plans for the upcoming holiday season...and make it a safe and happy one.

*Per room. Includes: Split of Champagne and $10.00 credit toward food and beverage on 12/31/88 & 1/1/89.

**Single or Double Occupancy, Based on Availability. Not valid for groups or in combination with other discounts.

THE
CAPITAL HILTON

For Reservations Call 393-1000
16th and K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

November 1988/The Washingtonian 95

have to work out their own problems
with compromise and the negotiation of
differences. It appeared for a time that
Islamic fundamentalism might take over
from communism as the new utopian-
ism, but I doubt it now that Khomeini
has sued for peace in his war with Iraq.

**Q:** Does that mean that Russia and China and other communist countries are going to become little Americas?

**A:** Each country has its own culture and will develop in its own way. But political pluralism in the communist world is most likely in Eastern Europe—Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and possibly Yugoslavia.

**Q:** Will they be like Belgium and France and Italy?

**A:** No. More like Finland.

**Q:** Well, Finland is a free country.

**A:** Yes, it has a democratic system, but it does not challenge Soviet security interests. Finlandization for Western Europe means submission to the Soviet Union, but Finlandization for Eastern Europe means freedom from Soviet totalitarian control. That's what is most likely in the near term.

**Q:** Are you talking five years?

**A:** It's happening now. At this very moment, Solidarity is negotiating with the Polish government over its own legislation or legalization as an independent institution. They're also beginning to talk in Poland about a second legislative chamber whose members would be elected democratically.

In Hungary, people speak openly about the National Assembly becoming a forum for political competition, with the Communist party playing the role of a constitutional monarch. The party still exercises power through force but no longer has authority. That is happening in most of Eastern Europe.

**Q:** So do you think they'll be free in five years?

**A:** Increasingly, areas of freedom will be captured by the people. Again, this is clearest in Poland. Solidarity made gains and was then repressed. But this was temporary. The resurgence of Solidarity became part of a movement toward an independent civic culture. Poland today has independent newsletters and journals—1,000 different publications, independent cultural institutions, independent publishing houses that produce millions of books underground, independent video productions.

**Q:** All this can't really be underground. I mean the authorities—

**A:** When you have society increasingly asserting itself against the state, the repression cannot really work. Still, the authorities try. But when they confiscate automobiles used to distribute these publications, the opposition forms an insur-

The
Square
Route

Discover Metropolitan Square, resplendent with familiar establishments and exciting new shops inside and out:

METROPOLITAN
SQUARE

fine
shopping & dining

F STREET

15TH STREET

G STREET

14TH STREET

November 1988/The Washingtonian 97

ance company to share the cost of such
confiscations. They form legal groups to
help those who are arrested. Such activi-
ty was unheard of in a communist system
only a short time ago.

Certainly, there hasn't been any over-
throw of a communist system. But those
systems are qualitatively different from,
say, twenty years ago. And they will be
qualitatively different twenty years from
now. The process of democratization is
continuing. It cannot be stopped.

Why is it happening? Because these
countries are falling further behind the
West economically. They know they'll
fall even further behind unless they open
up. And because people want to be free.
It's as simple as that.

Q: Do countries go from dictatorships to freedom in the same way? Or does each one do it in an individual way?

A: The latter. Yet there are common
elements, like structures that allow peo-
ple to participate. You've got to have
restraints on the exercise of power. An
independent judiciary is essential; so are
checks and balances. People around the
world are now trying to build these
structures for a stable democracy. They
realize that democracy is the only legiti-
mate form of government. Even undem-
ocratic countries pay lip service to de-
mocracy because they know that popular
participation is necessary for political
legitimacy and economic progress.

Technology is revolutionizing the
world. Democratic values are spreading
with the communications revolution.
And political systems must be able to
adjust to the rapid pace of technological
change. Rigid, centralized systems can't
keep pace, can't cope with the informa-
tion revolution of VCRs and computers.
They can't deliver economic growth,
can't produce wealth.

Q: Why should we care about democ-
racy overseas?

A: Because we are able to establish friendlier relations with democratic countries. They tend to be more peaceful countries. They tend to develop more. If we seek a world more prosperous and more peaceful, we should care plenty.

And we do. There's a far better under-
standing today that we should be more
active in assisting democratic move-
ments around the world. We cannot cre-
ate them; all we can do is to help them.

Q: Isn't this interfering in the internal affairs of other states?

A: No. It's supporting indigenous
movements pushing their own initia-
tives. It's interference if we try to im-
pose something. But to give modest as-
sistance to authentic democratic
movements abroad is not interference.

We're trying to create a situation
where people can determine their own

15TH STREET

G STREET

14TH STREET

T·h·e
Square
Route

Pirjo Jaffe ■ Ten Toes in the City ■ Lori Ponder, Ltd.
Georges de Paris ■ Gelato Classico Italian Ice Cream
Galt & Bros. ■ La Prima

More Stores Opening Soon

METROPOLITAN
SQUARE

fine
shopping & dining

F STREET

BEAU MORDE

Natural Fiber Fabrics by World Famous Designers.

INTERNATIONAL SQUARE

1814 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.

466-7070

November 1988/The Washingtonian 99

Maryland's Best Kept Secret
Is Less Than 3 Hours Away!

Deep Creek Lake, where you find the beautiful townhome community of The Villages of Wisp. Nestled along the slopes of the Wisp Ski Resort and overlooking Maryland's largest inland lake, The Villages of Wisp offers the ultimate year-round retreat.

Residents will delight with easy access to the slopes and the lake and enjoy a variety of activities including: downhill and nordic skiing, snowmobiling, boating, fishing, swimming, horseback riding and more.

Experience the serenity and natural beauty of this exclusive retreat from the deck of your luxury town-
home. Visit The Villages of Wisp.

For more information write: The Villages of Wisp

P.O. Box 390 • McHenry, Maryland 21541

(301) 387-4966 Sales By Garrettland Realty

A DeChiaro-Rachuba Group Project

Holidays?

When the gift is for someone you love, only the best will do. For
quality, this store. And
for convenience, the
American Express® Card.

**Waxie Maxie's.** 30 locations in DC and Baltimore. From rock to jazz, from classical to country, we present a full range of albums, cassettes, compact discs, accessories, and home video titles. Come browse through our large selection of the latest music with hundreds of titles on sale every week.

A Special Offer

Charge a purchase of $50 or more with the American Express Card, and choose any two single-disc CDs for only $10.99 each (good for next purchase made between November 1, 1988, and December 31, 1988.)

Don't leave home without it.®

Cards

©1988 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.

Membership Has Its Privileges™

world where other countries are as free
as ours?

**A:** Already there are countries as free as ours—the industrial democracies, where people’s basic rights are protected. And the trend everywhere is toward greater democracy.

This will not be uninterrupted; there will be setbacks. We may find ourselves in ten or twenty years being more pessimistic. There was deep pessimism in the 1930s with the rise of fascism and communism. There was pessimism in the 1960s and 1970s with the rise of the New Left and the strengthening of the Soviet role in the world. Though it may take a long time, a world of free nations and free peoples can and will come about. The march of history is with us.

**Q:** What can the US government do to promote democracy?

**A:** The government can use the weight of its opinion or influence to help protect people in difficult situations. Through the use of carrots and sticks, it can help spread the conditions necessary for a democratic process to begin. Our government can also help block some groups from interrupting the democratic process.

**Q:** People say that, historically, the United States has been on the side of right-wing dictators—Marcos in the Philippines, Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain.

**A:** It was true. But both policy and the debate over policy have evolved. More than a quarter of a century ago, President Kennedy summed up the dilemmas facing the US when he described the choices for US policy in the Dominican Republic, in descending order of preference: a decent democratic government, a continuation of the Trujillo regime, or a Castro-type regime. We ought to aim at the first, he said, but we really can't renounce the second until we are sure that we can avoid the third.

The sad problem is that in the 1960s and 1970s, the first option was not seen to be viable in many countries. Therefore, policy tended toward the second option so as to avoid the third. But with the democratic revolution of recent years, we now have a consensus to press for the first—the democratic-option.

**Q:** Overall, your message is one of hope and optimism.

**A:** The world is moving toward freedom. If you step back and look at it, I think it's clear that democracy is a historical inevitability. That's the way the technological and communications revolutions are pushing. That's the way people are pushing.

It's a process consistent with our deepest values. It's a process in which we should have confidence. And it's a process we should encourage.

So, yes, I am optimistic.

102 *The Washingtonian* / November 1988

A: It's global—Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Soviet bloc—except for the established industrial democracies, where our help is not needed. We've tried to be consistent in our approach—which is to say that we don't veer to the left or to the right, but stick to a democratic course. The programs have to be tailored to the particular circumstances in different countries. In Chile we have tried to support free elections and a peaceful transition to democracy; in Poland, the strengthening of civil society; in Argentina and the Philippines, the consolidation of democratic gains; in South Africa, a democratic alternative to apartheid. The important thing is that we support authentic initiatives that emerge from within the societies.

Q: The endowment came out of President Reagan's 1982 speech in the Westminster Palace in England about the coming democratic revolution, didn't it?

A: The President called for the United States to strengthen democracy around the world. That speech launched our effort. But the idea had been around before. It had support in the Congress—Representative Dante Fascell had long tried to establish such an institution.

Q: How has the endowment established itself?

A: With difficulty. At first it wasn't

clear that this institution was going to take hold. This initiative requires support from conservatives and liberals. It needs a consensus, which was hard to get.

That's been achieved, largely because people saw the endowment doing worthwhile things abroad. We've established

> We've tried to be consistent in our approach—which is to say that we don't veer to the left or to the right.

a global program, as I've said, without distinction between left and right, authoritarian and totalitarian.

Q: What's your focus? Take Poland, for instance. What does it mean to support civil society?

A: We help Solidarity and many cultural groups, all of them independent from the communist government.

Q: With printing presses?

A: It means printing presses. It means the kind of assistance these institutions need in order to function.

Q: Pencils, paper, paper clips?

A: Even helping to pay for organiz-

ers, fines, or legal assistance when democratic activists are taken by the authorities.

Q: What do you do elsewhere?

A: In Peru we've helped Hernando de Soto's Institute for Liberty & Democracy, whose work with microentrepreneurs has produced a new free-market approach to development. In Central America we've helped Libro Libre, a movement of intellectuals that has produced a new democratic literature for the region. We've helped La Prensa in Nicaragua, the Institute for a Democratic Alternative in South Africa, the Conciencia women's movement in Argentina, and an independent Chinese-language journal whose editor has now established important intellectual clubs in Beijing and Shanghai.

Q: What's your biggest problem?

A: Now that the endowment exists as a viable institution, groups from every continent who work for democratic goals approach us for assistance. We don't have enough money to give them the help they need.

We are talking small amounts here, hundreds or thousands of dollars, not millions. We help in small ways. And we spend carefully. We have to.

Q: Do you think that in our lives, or our children's lives, there will be a

AFTER ALL
IT'S
After Eight®

DARK CHOCOLATE COVERED WAFER THIN MINTS

After the party after all the guests have gone, let's savor the moment with the guests, which reward—After Eight.

Each was a creamy After Eight Mints encased in dark chocolate, individually

AFTER EIGHT
VOGUE ENTERTAINING
GUIDE OFFER

ONLY $10.00

...with 2 proofs of purchase from 7.0 oz. or larger After Eight

After Eight Vogue Entertaining is the highly respected guide that combines sophisticated entertaining with practical suggestions and easy recipes. Enclosed is $10.00 (Make

check/money order payable to After Eight Entertaining, do not enclose cash) plus UPC Symbol from 2 boxes of 7.0 oz. or larger After Eight. Send to: After Eight, P.O. Box 1222, Weston, CT 06883. Void where prohibited taxed or restricted. Offer good while supply lasts.

Name

Address

City State Zip

MANUFACTURERS'S COUPON

NO EXPIRATION DATE

SAVE 50¢

ON ANY 7.0 OZ. OR LARGER BOX OF
ROWNTREE AFTER EIGHT WAFER THIN MINTS

Retailer: Rowntree DeMet's, Inc. will redeem this coupon for the face value plus 8 cents for handling if you receive it on the sale of ROWNTREE After Eight Mints and if, upon request, you submit an invoice showing purchases to cover the coupon presented for redemption. Coupons may not be assigned or transferred. ANY OTHER USE CONSTITUTES FRAUD. Customer must pay any

sales tax. Void where prohibited, taxed or restricted by law. Good only in USA. Cash value 1/20 cent. Coupon will not be honored if presented through any party other than those retail distributors of our merchandise or specifically authorized by us to present coupons for redemption. Limit one coupon per purchase. Mail to: Rowntree DeMet's, Inc., P.O. Box 4421, Clinton, IA 52734.

98961 101353

NOV - 3 1988.

October 28, 1988

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board Members' Offices

FROM: Diane Bettge

RE: The Endowment's May 1 & 2, 1989
Conference

The Endowment is planning its second world
democratic conference on "The Democratic Revolution,"
scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, May 1 & 2, 1989
in Washington.

The conference schedule, as it stands now,
follows. While we obviously hope that Board members
will be able to participate in as much of the conference
as possible there are two special events -- the Monday
evening State Department reception and the Tuesday
Award luncheon -- in which their presence is of
particular importance.

Sunday, April 30

6-8 p.m. Orientation dinner for participants at the Madison Hotel.

Monday, May 1

8:30 a.m. Conference opening remarks, Rayburn House Office Building.

ALL DAY Conference panel sessions, Rayburn House Office Building; there will be a panel session held over **luncheon**, also in the Rayburn building

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Otrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

6-8 p.m. Reception to be hosted by the Secretary of State in honor of the conference at the State Department

Tuesday, May 2

9-11:45 a.m. Final panel session, Rayburn Building

12:00 p.m. Concluding award luncheon, Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill

I will be calling you shortly to confirm the schedule and members' availability for the events. We will also, of course, send invitations with complete information out closer to the date of the conference.

The participation of Board members in last year's conference was a key to its success, and I hope that many members will again be able to participate in our upcoming event. Your assistance on this is greatly appreciated.

October 12, 1988

MEMORANDUM

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE, ENCLOSURES

The Endowment received an FY 89 appropriation of $15.8 million as a result of the House/Senate conference. As you'll recall, the House figure had been $16.875 million (our FY 88 level), the Senate figure $15.8 million, and unfortunately the lower figure was approved by the conferees.

The House/Senate conference on the foreign operations bill awarded an additional $2 million to Solidarity through the Endowment, split evenly between general assistance to the union and its special medical fund. The conferees also awarded $2 million in assistance to independent democratic groups in Nicaragua through NED.

Marc Plattner and I recently attended a conference on democracy at Stanford at which several of our grantees presented important papers. I would particularly like to call your attention to the presentations of Maria Rosa S. de Martini, who heads the Conciencia women's civic action movement in Argentina, and Dette Pascual of the Women's Movement for the Preservation of Democracy in the Philippines. They had a profound effect on the assembled scholars, because they described in such detail their extraordinarily encouraging and effective work for democracy over the past four years. I know that you will find their papers of great interest, too.

Also enclosed is a very informative paper on the World Federation of Trade Unions prepared by FTUI. In addition, two recent press clips on the Endowment's work in Nicaragua are enclosed, as well as several clips mentioning our activities in Chile, where the No Campaign just won a stunning victory. Also enclosed is an editorial by Marc Plattner from today's *Wall Street Journal*.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Otrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

[Y]

HK:

Carl Gershman seeks your suggestions on
possible recipients of the attached
proposal he's prepared to garner support
from foundations/donors for NED's spring
'89 conference & ongoing seminar series.
He hopes you would then follow up
personally w/ any contact you've suggested
to endorse NED's effort.

Sign attached "thinking-it-over" ltr
[**And reraise w/ me later: YES NO]

Redraft response, including my suggestions
of the following:

Prefer:

Jody

The Democratic Revolution:

A proposal to convene a May 1989 world conference
of democratic activists and continue the
Congressional Seminar on Democracy

Sponsored by
The National Endowment for Democracy

I. Introduction

Since launching its operations in 1984, the National
Endowment for Democracy has established a worldwide program of
support for democratic movements and organizations. The
Endowment has supported a broad range of institutions that are
the bedrock of democratic society: business associations and
free trade unions, civic organizations of women and youth,
political parties, nonpartisan policy institutes, book
publishing houses, journals, newspapers, and organizations of
democratic intellectuals. The Endowment has supported such
groups in Central and South America, in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union, in Asia and Africa.

In May 1987, the Endowment convened a world conference of
active proponents of democracy. Held in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the conference was addressed by many grantees
of the Endowment who have already made a significant
contribution to the democratic cause. They included:

Xavier Zavala Cuadra, the president of Libro Libre, an
association of democratic intellectuals of Central America,
which is publishing a comprehensive democratic literature for a
region inundated by Marxist ideas;

Maria Rosa de Martini, the president of Conciencia, an
Argentine women's civic organization which has been the model
for the establishment of similar organizations throughout Latin
America and in the Philippines as well;

Sergio Molina, the chairman of the Movement for Free
Elections, which is working toward a democratic transition in
Chile;

Hernando de Soto, the director of the Institute for
Liberty and Democracy in Peru, which has enlisted the previously
untapped energies of the informal sector to promote development
and reform of Peru's overcentralized economy; and

Armando Valladares, the president of the International
Coalition for Human Rights in Cuba, which spearheads a campaign
throughout Europe and Latin America in defense of human rights
in Cuba.

Many others spoke at this historic gathering including
former political prisoners Yuri Orlov and Anatoly
Koryagin from the Soviet Union; Leszek Kolakowski, the
distinguished Polish philosopher and representative in the West
of the Polish intellectual opposition; Liang Heng, the
editor of *The Chinese Intellectual*; Gloria Rubin,
co-director of Radio Nanduti, the principal source of
independent news in Paraguay until it was closed by the
government; Leopold Berlanger, whose Haitian International
Institute for Research and Development has given organization
and direction to the struggling democratic center of Haiti;
Mariano Quesada, the former head of the National Movement
for Free Elections in the Philippines; Alvin Guthrie, a
leader of the independent workers movement in Nicaragua;
Sabahuddin Kushkaki, the director of the Cultural Council of
the Afghan Resistance; and Alex Boraine, the co-founder of
the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa.

These and many other individuals who attended represent
organizations that, with Endowment support, are already making a
major contribution to furthering the democratic cause. The
participation of prominent U.S. Senators, Congressmen and
Administration representatives demonstrated the extent to which
the Endowment, in a very short time, has built a solid
foundation in the U.S. for its activities abroad. The diversity
of these participants also points to the increasing emergence of
a bipartisan consensus in the United States that assisting the
promotion of democracy abroad is a matter of both national
security and national conscience.

## II. *The Democratic Revolution: A Conference*

The Endowment proposes to convene a second world democratic
conference in the spring of 1989. The theme of the conference
will be "The Democratic Revolution," a term denoting the quiet
but sweeping democratic changes that are taking place in the
world, and the continuing pressures for such changes. The
conference will be addressed by democratic activists supported
by the Endowment who are at the cutting edge of this historic
development. It will have three purposes:

- to bring together leaders of diverse democratic movements from different countries around the world, thereby fostering interaction, cohesion and a sense of common identity among those who are part of what is, in fact, a worldwide movement;

- to inform the American public, and particularly those who play leading roles in shaping American foreign policy, of the importance and nature of the democratic revolution and of the interest which our country has in fostering it; and

- to place the issue of the democratic revolution on the agenda of the new Administration, so as to encourage those defining U.S. priorities to embrace an historic opportunity to assist democratic movements and thereby advance American ideals and interests.

The conference will be divided into two parts. On the first day, leaders of democratic movements from around the world will describe The Democratic Revolution from the vantage point of their country and region. Four sessions will be held, focusing on the major regions where the Endowment is active:

1) Latin America -- A discussion of the historic democratic trend throughout the hemisphere, led by such outstanding thinkers as the Peruvian economist and writer Hernando de Soto; the leader of the Chilean movement for democracy Edgardo Boeninger; and leaders of social and political movements that have shaped the new democratic reality in the region.

2) The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe -- A discussion of the Communist crisis and the possibilities for democratic changes in the Soviet Bloc, led by such distinguished figures as Milovan Djilas of Yugoslavia; Vladimir Bukovsky, the Soviet emigre writer and political activist; the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski; and the leading Hungarian intellectual Janos Kis.

3) Asia -- A focus on countries where important changes are underway, including the Philippines, where the Aquino government is trying to consolidate a new democracy while subduing a Communist guerilla movement; China, where economic reforms have opened new possibilities for political and intellectual pluralism; Turkey, where efforts are being made to resist Islamic fundamentalism and foster democratic evolution, and India, the world's largest democracy.

4) **Africa** -- A discussion of democratic possibilities in Africa, led by former Nigerian head of state Olusegun Obasanjo along with democratic activists from Senegal, the Sudan, and South Africa who have courageously resisted the view that democracy is an expendable luxury in a continent overwhelmed by impoverishment, underdevelopment and often civil strife.

Following this world survey, the second and concluding day of the conference will concentrate on defining the democratic philosophy that can unite movements from the different countries and regions already discussed. This is "The Idea of Democracy." At issue is whether the non-utopian ideal of democracy can supersede the increasingly exhausted and discredited utopian ideologies that have had such an enormous impact and done such great harm during this century. **Jean Francois Revel**, who had written so pessimistically about the prospects for democracy, but whose own thinking may be changed by the advance of democracy, will be asked to address this subject, along with the prominent Mexican intellectual and writer **Octavio Paz** and the American political scientist **Larry Diamond**. The object of this session will be to examine the prospects for establishing a foundation of democratic belief -- a set of democratic ideas and ideals -- both to sustain the world democratic movement in the decades ahead and help it prevail over its non-democratic rivals.

As with the first conference on "The Challenge of Democracy," we expect that the conference on "The Democratic Revolution" will be accompanied by a reception hosted by the Secretary of State and by an Award Luncheon, to be addressed by a leading member of the Administration, which will pay tribute to an individual or movement which has made a unique and decisive contribution to the democratic cause.

### III. The Congressional Seminar on Democracy

The Endowment's 1987 conference helped to generate interest in an ongoing examination of the issues surrounding democratic development. And, in response, the Endowment initiated a bipartisan seminar series to explore different aspects of democracy. The "Congressional Seminar on Democracy," cosponsored by a Republican and a Democratic congressman, is a unique forum in that it is devoted exclusively to this topic. The evening dinner series attended by fifty to seventy people -- members of Congress, other policymakers, academics, executive branch representatives, press and others -- is addressed by democratic leaders from abroad and/or U.S. experts. In the past year, the Seminar has examined issues including:

- Third World debt and its impact on democratic development and stability with **Paul Volcker**, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board;

- the "Arias Plan" and prospects for democratization in Central America with Guido **Fernandez**, Costa Rican Ambassador to the U.S., and Eduardo Ullibari, editor-in-chief of the leading Costa Rican daily newspaper "La Nacion;" and

- whether there are realistic prospects for democratic change in the Soviet bloc countries, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Carter.

A complete list of the 1987-88 series is included in Attachment D.

The Endowment plans to continue the series in 1988-89, leading up to the May 1989 conference. Like the conference itself, this forum serves to inform those who play leading roles in shaping American foreign policy of the importance and the nature of the democratic revival throughout the world. And, given the consistently high level of both speakers and participants and an off-the-record format which lends itself to spirited and thoughtful discussion, the series also educates its participants on the complexities surrounding aspects of democratic development as it strengthens their commitment to the effort.

#### IV. Summary

In keeping with Endowment policy of using its public funds for activities that support democracy abroad, the conference and the 1988-89 Congressional Seminar on Democracy series must be paid for out of private funds. The following is the budget necessary to pay for the conference and related events, to allow for broad participation, to publish a book of the proceedings, to make a video of the conference which can be shared with democratic groups and used in democratic educational programs around the world, and to continue the Congressional Seminar on Democracy series in the coming year.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:

**The Challenge of Democracy:**
an introduction to the work of the Endowment, published prior to the May 1987 conference

Attachment B:

Program of the May 1987 conference

Attachment C:

**Proceedings of the Conference on "The Challenge of Democracy"**

Attachment D:

1987-88 Congressional Seminar on Democracy series

Attachment E:

NED Board of Directors

Attachment F:

1987 NED Annual Report

Attachment G:

IRS Tax Exempt Certification

AUG - 4 1988

August 2, 1988

MEMORANDUM

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN &

The informal proposal review meeting prior to our September Board meeting is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 30th at the Endowment. I look forward to seeing those of you able to attend.

Charlie Smith recently addressed the International Labour Organisation meeting in Geneva on the subject of human rights; I know you will find his enclosed remarks of interest. Also enclosed are *New York Times* articles on the Endowment's programs in Poland and Hernando de Soto's work in Peru.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
Chairman

LeGree Daniels
Secretary

Jay Van Andel
Treasurer

Polly Baca
Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Otrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

REPORTS OF THE GOVERNING BODY AND OF THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL (cont.)

*Interpretation from German; The PRESIDENT - We shall now resume the discussion of the reports of the Governing Body and of the Director-General.*

Mr. SMITH (*Employers' delegate, United States*) - I would like at the outset to thank the Director-General for his wisdom and foresight in choosing human rights as the focal point for our debate this year. Of course none of us should be surprised at this selection because, as the Director-General points out in the Preface to the Report: the concept of human rights "underlies all the activities of the Organisation." And yet, as he points out in that same Preface; "it cannot be denied that fundamental human rights, like human freedom and dignity, far from being more widely respected, are being flouted, often in dramatic circumstances."

It is ironic that 40 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations without a single dissenting vote, no method of systematic analysis as to the extent to which member States honour their obligations to respect human rights has been established by the United Nations or any of its specialised agencies. From time to time, proposals have been made to establish a survey of the degree to which each member State respects the individual human rights called for by the Declaration, but each time such a proposal is put forward, it has been defeated. One cannot help but suspect that there are many governments that are not anxious to allow their record of human rights observance to be exposed to the public scrutiny that such a world survey would ensure. Perhaps the failure of the United Nations to undertake such a periodic study suggests an opportunity for the International Labour Organisation.

After all, the concept of human rights underlies all the activities of this Organisation, as the Director-General notes. In the ILO we have the experience and capability to undertake such a task. Our long-

established supervisory machinery culminating in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards is unique, and provides a model for parallel machinery to review the manner in which human rights are being honoured in the member States of the International Labour Organisation. The unique tripartite structure of our Organisation might prove useful in overcoming the reluctance of some governments to expose their human rights record to world scrutiny.

Nothing but good can come to our Organisation from a detailed examination of those circumstances where fundamental rights are being flouted - an examination that not only calls attention to violations in specific member States but attempts to seek the reasons why the governments of such States are willing to allow the flouting of fundamental human rights. It is time that we move from pious statements of support and take action aimed at truly protecting the rights of individuals. If we, in this International Labour Organisation, are not prepared to create a mechanism to defend human rights, then who will? Let us applaud those who respect human rights, and be prepared to expose and condemn those who do not!

Why is it that so many governments are afraid to have their human rights record examined and publicly exposed? Could it be article 13, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a simple statement that reads "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country", - could it be that this article would pose a real problem to nations that build immense walls of concrete, steel and barbed wire to prevent their citizens from exercising this right to leave?

Could it be that there are a number of States that are in clear violation of article 17 which states "everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property"? Could it be that States that proudly assert that the State shall own all the means of production, and deny the right to own private property, realise that such policies are a clear violation of a universally accepted declaration of human rights which in many instances these very same States have endorsed.

Could it be that the practices of the Gulag Archipelago, so vividly described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, do not conform to article 9 of the Declaration which states: "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile"?

Or are some States unwilling to honour article 23, paragraph 4, which states: "Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests"? I would like to emphasise the words "right to form trade unions". Surely the dismantling of the trade union, Solidarity, whose primary organiser, Lech Walesa, addressed this Conference only a few short years ago, as the representative of the workers of his country; and the recent suppression by the authorities of attempts to reorganise Solidarity demonstrates that some member States would be uncomfortable about having their human rights record publicised because of article 23, paragraph 4.

Or is it that some States fear they might be in violation of article 5 which calls out: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"? Certainly Armando Valladares in his recently published book

107

[c]

Beyond all hope documents that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment has not been abandoned in his homeland.

Clearly, there are many possible reasons why a large number of governments desperately struggle to prevent any analysis taking place that would throw light on the manner in which they honour (or dishonour) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Could it be that there are a number of States which know full well that they cannot fulfil article 7, which reads: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law"? Surely, those States that routinely send to psychiatric hospitals those who are in major political disagreement with the government would be unwilling to face examination on the manner in which they fulfil article 7, and yesterday's plenary sitting demonstrated that the non-member State that enforces the abhorrent practice of apartheid cannot stand scrutiny for the manner in which it honours the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Fortunately, such governments are in a minority. They still can be brought to account before the most important tribunal in the world: the court of public opinion. But to do so requires a determination to overcome the obstacles that have prevented a thorough analysis of each State's human rights record. Perhaps the ILO with its structure which accords delegates representing both workers and employers an equal voice with that of governments can be the instrument to accomplish what the United Nations has been unable or unwilling to do.

In his address to this Conference a week ago. His Excellency Felipe Gonzalez, Prime Minister of Spain, while discussing the problems of the United Nations and its specialised agencies referred to "a crisis of credibility". Certainly the manner in which a number of member States flout many important human rights recognised and agreed to in the Universal Declaration is an important contributor to the crisis of credibility called to our attention by the Prime Minister. Would it not be a significant contribution towards overcoming the credibility crisis and thereby protecting the concepts of international co-operation through the United Nations system, if our Organisation were to establish supervisory machinery to measure and record the degree of compliance of each member State with the principles clearly endorsed by all in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The subject of human rights is important beyond ensuring that individuals are protected from arbitrary actions by governments or other individuals. Economic growth and development so important to our Organisation depend to a large measure on the observance of a respect for human rights. It is no coincidence that the States that provide their citizens with the most favourable standard of living are those States with the longest record of respect for human rights. Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter, *Sollicinudo rei socialis* states: "It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged 'equality' of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not

so much a true equality as a 'levelling down'. In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only 'ordering' and 'decision-making' 'ity' - if not also the 'owner' - of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence. This provokes a sense of frustration or desoperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favouring a form of 'psychological' emigration."

That "bureaucratic apparatus" referred to by His Holiness not only includes the staggering bureaucracy required by central planning, but also includes the bureaucracy that many developing countries have put in place in a misguided attempt to protect the "out-dated mercantilistic system" that is the pattern in so many of these States; - a system that is described in great detail by the Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto in his book, *The other path*.

Pope John Paul went on to point out that in today's world there are many forms of poverty. He defines some of these forms as follows: "the denial or the limitation of human rights - as for example the right to religious freedom, the right to share in the building of society, the freedom to organise and form unions, or to take the initiatives in economic matters - do these not impoverish the human person as much as, if not more than, the deprivation of material goods?"

There are many governments which attempt to confuse us by emphasising their record of meeting human needs even though this is often accomplished at the expense of human rights. It is the view of the United States Employer delegation that strict observance of all of the human rights is the best way to ensure that the equally important (but distinctly different) effort to fulfil human needs will be met. Those who are willing to try to achieve the fulfilment of human needs at the expense of human rights run the risk of eventually losing both. In fact it is crystal clear that those States that are the worst offenders in the human rights field prove to be the same States that have the most difficulty in fulfilling the human needs of their citizens.

Let me close my remarks by expressing my personal pleasure that you have been chosen to preside over this debate on the subject: *Human rights - A common responsibility*. I hope this thorough exposure to world opinion on this vital subject will cause you to do two things: first to use your leadership role both in your own country and in this International Labour Conference to cause this Organisation to take more effective action to defend human rights; and second, to return to your capital at the end of our Conference with a strong recommendation to your Government that it tear down that monument of steel, concrete and barbed wire that is a constant reminder of the denial of human rights, the Berlin Wall. I can think of no other action that would give such a strong and dramatic signal to the rest of the world that your Government is prepared to back up its verbal commitments to human rights with appropriate action.

The New York Times, June 15, 1988 Page 1, continuation on page 14.

Group Is Channeling
U.S. Funds to Parties
Opposing Pinochet

By SHIRLEY CHRISTIAN

Special to The New York Times

SANTIAGO, Chile, June 14 — A Gov-
ernment-financed group in the United
States has made $600,000 available to
organizations working to defeat Gen.
Augusto Pinochet in a coming plebi-
scite.

After the aid was announced in Washington late last month, leaders of the main opposition coalition said that they did not like accepting money from abroad but that they would otherwise have no chance against the Pinochet campaign, which they contended was financed from Government coffers.

The American grants come from the National Endowment for Democracy, an independent agency that distributes funds Congress designates for promoting democratic activities abroad. It has a bipartisan board of directors.

Administration Support

The United States has officially
maintained a low profile in the plebi-
scite campaign, despite years of look-
ing for ways to put pressure on General
Pinochet to give up power.

[The Reagan Administration is on record as supporting the special grant for democratic initiatives in Chile. Last month, in testimony before Congress, Richard Schifter, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, said, "The Administration enthusiastically backed a "Congressional earmark of $1 million to the National Endowment for Democracy for projects relating to democracy-building in Chile."]

In the plebiscite, intended as the first step in a phased return to democracy, Chileans are to vote for or against a presidential candidate nominated by the military leadership. That will probably be General Pinochet, although the nomination is not to be made until 30 to 60 days before the voting, which is expected to occur near the end of this year.

If the candidate loses the plebiscite,
General Pinochet is supposed to call
competitive elections within a year.

About a year after the plebiscite, a congress is to be elected, and at the end of an eight-year presidential term, in 1997, the next president would be selected in open, competitive elections.

Old Charges Renewed

If he wins the plebiscite and serves
out the new eight-year term, General
Pinochet would have held power for 24
years since the overthrow of President
Salvador Allende Gossens and his So-
cialist-Communist coalition.

The financial aid to opposition
groups by the National Endowment for
Democracy revived the frequent
charges by General Pinochet and his
supporters that the opposition is de-
pendent on financial assistance from
foreign governments, political parties
and foundations.

The pro-Pinochet newspaper El Mer-
curio, which was identified in a Con-
gressional report as having accepted
money from the Central Intelligence
Agency to continue publishing during
the Allende era, accused opposition-
leaders of a "lack of modesty" and as-
serted that "all ethical limitations that
ought to rule political conduct" had
been ignored. It added that there was
justification for foreign support in the
area of "academic discussion,"
presumably a reference to research or-
ganizations.

Genaro Arriagada, a Christian Democrat who is executive secretary of the National Command for the No, an umbrella group for the bulk of the opposition, said "rejecting those dollars would mean that we would be creating the conditions for a triumph by Pinochet."

Choosing 'the Lesser Evil'

While acknowledging there were
"certain hard moral dilemmas" con-
nected to the aid, Mr. Arriagada said
that faced with the choice between tak-
ing the money and seeing "the en-
thronement of Pinochet for 25 years in
power, I'll take the lesser evil."

The Reagan Administration has lim-
ited its position so far to frequently
stating its support for a clean electoral
process and calling for fair campaign
opportunities for the opposition, partic-
ularly in terms of access to informa-
tion outlets and freedom to engage in
public debate.

Leaders of the National Command for the No, acknowledging the sensitivity of the question of foreign intervention, said the present policy was probably as far as the United States could go without stirring up a backlash that would help General Pinochet.

"Outright support by the United States for a yes or no vote would be counterproductive," said Patricio Aylwin, president of the Christian Democratic Party, the largest opposition force.

Those in Chile who favor a tougher
United States policy tend to be on the
far left. They have long argued that the
United States should have taken strong
economic measures earlier to drive
General Pinochet from power, but
much of the opposition feels he could
have resisted an economic embargo.

The grants to opposition groups that wer announced in late May are part of the $1 million grant that Congress au thorized the National Endowment for Democracy to distribute to Chilean or ganizations this year to promote democracy. The endowment has been making smaller grants for political development in Chile since 1985.

Nearly $400,000 of the $1 million was awarded to nonpartisan groups or projects, including one that will provide free identification photographs for voter registration cards, another that is preparing a citizenship manual, and still another that will monitor the election and the counting of the votes and try to provide independent returns as quickly as the Government announces its returns.

The largest single grant, $366,400, can be used for publicity and advertising by the National Command for the No, which besides the Christian Democrats includes several parties to the left of them and some to the right.

Other grants to organizations identified with the opposition to General Pinochet include $150,000 for two trade union groups, the National Workers Command and the Democratic Workers Command; $50,000 to the year-old newspaper La Epoca, whose owners are Christian Democrats, and $50,000 for a political and economic research institute to undertake a political poll.

An official for the National Demo-
cratic Institute for International Af-
fairs, an affiliate of the endowment
that will administer about half of the
Chilean grant, including the $366,400
for opposition activities, said his organ-
ization was not taking a position in the
plebiscite but was putting its confi-
dence in people whose end goal is open
and competitive elections.

Stormy History
Of Endowment

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, June 14 — The National Endowment for Democracy is a quasi-governmental organization created at the Reagan Administration's initiative in 1983 to promote democratic institutions around the world.

Since then it has distributed
tens of millions of dollars to
groups in many countries for ac-
tivities ranging from restoring a
village school system in Afghani-
stan to bolstering the South Ko-
rean opposition; from providing
poll-watchers in Haiti to provid-
ing supplies to the Nicaraguan op-
position newspaper La Prensa.

Despite the balance of groups involved in the project from its inception, including the Democratic and Republican National Committees, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, its brief history has often been stormy. In several years, it has faced efforts in Congress to cut off its financing.

In 1985, the endowment's chairman, Carl Gershman, asserted that a list of books chosen by American publishers for display at the Moscow Book Fair, financed in part by $50,000 in endowment funds, was ideologically unbalanced.

Later that year, the disclosure
that an extreme-right group in
France, the National Inter-Uni-
versity Union, had received a
$575,000 two-year grant from the
endowment led to the suspension
of the remainder of the grant.

A Peaceable Approach to Nicaragua

By Christopher Madison

A new congressional policy may be
evolving toward the continuing con-
flict in Nicaragua—making democ-
acy, not war.

In light of the Feb. 3 House vote to suspend military aid to the contra rebels, and given the recent breakdown in peace talks between the contras and the Sandinista government, the focus in Congress appears to be shifting to the activities of Nicaragua's internal political opposition.

Composed of independent political parties, labor unions, media and business groups, the internal opposition has consistently opposed the Sandinista government but declined to join with the contras.

Virtually ignored by Congress and the Administration until recently, these opposition groups have begun receiving substantial sums from the United States via the government-financed National Endowment for Democracy. So far this year, the endowment has approved more than $600,000 in grants for Nicaraguan opposition groups. And an appropriations measure recently passed by the House with strong bipartisan support includes authorization for $1 million in additional aid.

Carl Gershman, president of the endowment, said the bipartisan sponsorship of the Nicaragua program was "a sign of the endowment's coming of age. It's the one place where a coalition can be brought together, even on such a divisive issue as Nicaragua."

Rep. Peter H. Kostmayer, D-Pa., a
liberal Democrat who co-sponsored
the $1 million appropriation and a
longtime opponent of U.S. aid to the
contras, said: "I think this is the first
building block in a bipartisan consen-
sus. This is an issue that has been terri-
bly divisive; what we've done here po-
litically is find some common
ground."

Despite this bipartisan backing, the endowment program is turning out to be controversial in Nicaragua. The government has charged that it's all part of an undercover plot to destroy the Sandinista revolution. *Barricada*, the pro-Sandinista daily newspaper published in Managua, recently described the endowment as "a CIA agency recognized worldwide as a fi-

nancier of destabilizing groups, princi-
pally in Latin America." Commenting on the *Barricada* stories, a State De-
partment cable from Managua said the
attack on the endowment "lays the
groundwork for possible harassment
or interrogation of [opposition] leaders
for violating Nicaragua's security
laws."

Alvin Guthrie, a labor leader whose

federation receives endowment support, told a gathering of Capitol Hill staff aides recently, "Since the peace talks began, . . . we have experienced a lot of force against the internal groups." Another prominent union official, Jose Antonio Jarquin, said the collapse of the peace talks "implies a greater danger for the internal civic opposition."

The shift in congressional focus to the Nicaraguan internal opposition has several roots. Because of strong opposition by congressional Democrats, support for the contras is no longer a live option for Administration policy makers. But with elections approaching and the peace talks getting nowhere, Members of Congress may feel the need to back some initiative in Nicaragua rather than be viewed as abandoning the struggle.

In fact, there is still some wariness
among congressional liberals about
supporting the endowment program,
for fear it will be viewed as just another
way to funnel money to the contras.
To allay these fears, Kostmayer said,
the appropriations bill includes stipu-

lations that the endowment money can
be provided only to "internal groups
that have renounced violence and sup-
port a negotiated settlement to the
conflict in Nicaragua." He called the
Nicaraguan program "the most sensi-
tive" the endowment has undertaken.

Without question, the Nicaraguan program presents the endowment with a significant challenge—and an opportunity. Founded in 1984 at the urging of President Reagan and a bipartisan group in Congress, the institution has survived numerous startup controversies, annual congressional skirmishing over its budget and bad publicity involving several controversial grants. All the while, it's been gradually defining the scope of its activities and seeking broad support on Capitol Hill.

The institution's stated mission, to promote democracy through the establishment of political parties and organizations, strong independent labor unions and a vigorous private sector, is popular among those who favor an active American role in the world. Skeptics from the outset doubted that it was a legitimate use of U.S. government money.

Former President Nixon, in his re-
cent book, 1999: *Victory Without War*
(Simon and Shuster), wrote of the en-
dowment: "It is not popular with
many post-Vietnam politicians who
are ashamed to promote our ideals. As
a result, [the endowment] must battle
Congress for the pitiful $15 million it
receives every year. If we are serious
about bringing prosperity, stability
and democracy to the Third World,
we should increase that amount every
year between now and 1999."

Gershman has had more modest ob-
jectives so far—convincing critics that
the endowment's mission makes sense
and that it is not the ideological step-
child of armed intervention. A suc-
cessful program in Nicaragua—one
that contributes to political pluralism
without becoming associated with the
armed opposition—could bring en-
hanced credibility.

Kostmayer already sounds like a be-
liever. "I think it's a very, very fertile
time in Nicaragua, and I think this
[internal] political process needs to
germinate and needs to be nurtured. If
the democratic opposition groups can
get going, we can begin to develop this
modest opening."
☐

Shepard Sherebell/Picture Group

Endowment's Carl Gershman
*Bipartisan support is the key.*

1624 NATIONAL JOURNAL 6/18/88

JUN 13 1988

June 8, 1988

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Board of Directors

FROM: Carl Gershman

RE: Enclosures

A number of recent items are enclosed for your interest. An article by Joshua Muravchik in *Commentary* provides an accurate account of a recent controversy involving *The Nation* magazine, the independent Russian journal *Glasnost*, and the Center for Democracy in the USSR (which received Endowment support to translate and distribute English-language editions of *Glasnost*, as well as for other programs). The original *Nation* article plus a fact-sheet prepared by the Endowment are also enclosed.

In addition, you will find a speech to the Democratic Platform Committee by Congressman Stephen Solarz (D-NY) which endorses the Endowment's work. Congressman Norman Shumway (R-CA) also included a recent endorsement of the Endowment in the *Congressional Record*.

Two Endowment-supported efforts have been the topics of recent articles: a *Christian Science Monitor* piece on CIPE grantee Hernando de Soto and a *Washington Post* article on the film "Nobody Listened," in which 30 former Cuban political prisoners describe their years of incarceration.

Status reports for the Endowment and Institutes are also included.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III
*Chairman*

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

I. A JOINT SEMINAR IN CAIRO: MODERNIZATION AND DEMOCRATIC DEVELOPMENT IN TURKEY AND EGYPT

JUN 03 1988

A Turkish-Egyptian seminar was organized in Cairo between May 1 and 5 through a joint initiative of our journal and the Foreign Policy Institute. In addition to analyzing Turkish-Egyptian relations, the seminar examined the modernization experiences of the two countries and their efforts to develop through democracy. Its participants included many prominent individuals and institutions from Turkey and Egypt. The five-day seminar was followed by great deal of interest from start to finish and it demonstrated how such joint seminars can fill an important gap concerning the clarification of issues and the formation of spiritual bonds between the intellectuals of the two countries.

It is not possible to provide even a brief summary of the seminar's proceedings in this issue of our journal. Therefore, we shall confine ourselves to reporting only the names of the participants, the nature of the institutions which organized the seminar, and the titles of the papers which were presented. It is difficult to offer even a brief summary of an intellectual enterprise that lasted for five days and included nearly 20 papers and lectures. Nevertheless, we want to provide our readers with a very general evaluation of the seminar and offer a few observations about its work.

How did the idea of a seminar first come up ? When the Egyptian Foreign Minister Abdulmecid came to Turkey towards the end of last year, the former Egyptian ambassador in Ankara, Vefa Hegazi, invited Nilufer and Aydin Yalcin to Egypt. After accepting this invitation with pleasure, our colleagues expressed the wish that this trip should serve as a means for examining the mutual experiences of Egypt--a very important Middle Eastern Arab state--and Turkey. To this end, they proposed the organization of a seminar which should be funded jointly so that it would not impose any financial burden on Egypt. This proposition was supported by the Egyptian and Turkish foreign ministries. Academic circles at home and abroad reacted with interest to the idea and they promised their support to such a meeting.

- 2 -

Encouraged by these developments, our journals' editors, together with the Foreign Policy Institute, worked intensively on planning the conference and they took the initiative to ensure that papers from the Turkish participants would be of high quality. A group of seven, the majority of whom are among the contributors to this journal and members of the Foreign Policy Institute, prepared their papers on Turkey and left for Cairo.

The names of the Turkish participants and their papers were as follows: Professor Aydin Yalcin, "The Economic and Social Sources of Turkish Democracy", Professor Osman Okyar, "The Place of the Union and Progress Era in the History of Turkish Democracy", Professor Ergun Ozbudun, "The Working of Turkish Democracy Since 1948", Dr. Ilber Ortayli, "The Process of Social and Economic Modernization in Turkey", Professor Omer Kurkcuoglu, "The History of Turkish-Egyptian Relations", Director of the Foreign Policy Institute Seyfi Tashan, "Turkey's Threat Perception and Foreign Policy", and Professor Ali Karaosmanoglu, "Turkey's Foreign Policy and Democratic Development". The seven participants presented their papers in this order, answered the questions from the audience, and expressed their views on the issues covered in the seminar.

The names of the Egyptian participants and the titles of their papers are as follows: Dr. Muhtar Elcemal, Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, "Areas of Turkish-Egyptian Cooperation", Dr. Cehad Avda, Al-Ahram Foundation, Political and Strategic Research Center, "The Development Process of Egypt's Democratic Experience", Professor Nebil Hilmi, Zagazig University, Economic and Legal Research Center, "Egypt's Economic Development", Professor Muhammed Abdulvahap, Ayn Sems University, Middle East Research Center, "Egypt's Foreign Policy on Middle Eastern Problems", Professor Abdulaziz Navar, Any Sems University, Middle East Research Center, "The Gulf War and the Possibilities for Peaceful Resolution", Ambassador Amr Musa, General Director of International Organizations, "The Organization of Islamic States and Problems of Cooperation Among the Moslem Countries".

- 3 -

As can be seen, this seminar was carried out through the joint
efforts of our journal, The Foreign Policy Institute, and on the
Egyptian side, The Foreign Policy Research Institute--which is
affiliated with the Foreign Ministry--along with Al Ahram Foundation for
Strategic Studies Center, Ayn Sems university, and Zagazig University.
As the first seminar of its kind, the meeting proved to be a valuable
experience for both sides. As can be seen, there are some differences
with respect to the topics which were emphasized by each side. However,
the continuity of similar intellectual efforts and initiatives--
something which is desired by both parties--are likely to narrow down
these differences and place them in a more rational and fruitful
context.

In addition to this seminar, the Turkish participants visited the
Al Ahram Foundation for Strategic Studies Center where they exchanged
views and ideas for an hour and a half. This short visit also led to
some significant discussions which enabled us to learn about the
prevailing trends and ideas concerning certain subjects such as the role
of Egypt in the Arab and the Islamic world; its place in the
nonalignment movement; its relations with Israel and the United States;
the ideology of the fundamentalist Islamic Brotherhood and its prospects
in the future; the role of the state, intellectuals, religious groups,
and relations with the West and the Islamic world in economic
development, social change, and democracy; the attitudes of the youth;
the policy consequences of private and public sector economics; and the
factors which underlie the ongoing changes in Egypt's Marxist and
socialist movements. Interesting perspectives and information were
obtained on these various issues from members and researchers of the
institute.

A lot of inquiries were made about Turkey's potential role in the
Middle East and its position on issues concerning the Palestinian
problem and Jerusalem during the seminar and the discussions. At the
same time, it was argued by some that Turkey should not remain a passive
observer of the Gulf War, and especially in the case of an Iraqi defeat,
it should explore the means of engaging in cooperative action with

[L.C.]

May 25, 1988

The Honorable Henry Kissinger
Center for Strategic and
International Studies
1800 K Street, N.W.
Suite 1021
Washington, D.C. 20006

MAY 27 1988

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

Please join us at our next **Congressional Seminar on Democracy** which will focus on "The Other Path: The Informal Revolution in Latin America."

We are honored to have **Hernando de Soto** as our speaker. Mr. de Soto heads the Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD) in Lima, Peru. With support from the National Endowment for Democracy and its business affiliate, the Center for International Private Enterprise, Mr. de Soto has advocated deregulation and governmental accountability on behalf of small businesses and microenterprises which comprise Peru's vast "informal sector." In Peru, as in other Latin American countries, small businesses are forced to operate outside of the legal or formal economy by an impenetrable maze of regulations and decrees. ILD has initiated a number of efforts to reform the system in Peru, and its work is seen to have significance throughout Latin America and elsewhere in the developing world as well.

This work is described in **The Other Path** ("El Otro Sendero") by Mr. de Soto, the bestselling book in the history of Peru.

We will meet for **luncheon on Thursday, June 9th** at 12:00 p.m. in room B338 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Please rsvp to Ms. Kim McBee (202/293-9072) by June 6th.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

[L]

SIFCO
INDUSTRIES, INC.

CHARLES H. SMITH, JR.
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

May 23, 1988

MAY 25 1988

Mr. Edward Donley
Chairman, Executive Committee
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
P.O. Box 538
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18195

Dear Ed:

In keeping with my promise to you, I have deferred mailing this
letter to you until today to insure that my decision was not a
hasty one arrived at in the heat of debate. The facts, examined
from all directions, seem crystal clear to me:

1) I was asked in 1975 by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, as I completed my term of office as Chairman of the Chamber's Board, to accept the responsibilities of serving as the U.S. Employer Delegate to the ILO, a responsibility that I have carried out ever since. Incidentally, my two immediate predecessors for this assignment had also served as Chairmen of the National Chamber's Board, Richard Wagner and Edwin Neilan. When the U.S. Chamber passed the responsibility for nominating ILO Employer Delegations to the U.S. Council for International Business in 1979, the U.S. Council asked me to continue representing American business as the U.S. Employer Delegate. Prior to serving as the U.S. Employer Delegate, I had served on countless delegations to ILO Conferences as an advisor to earlier Employer Delegates.

2) Because of the above, I believe I have had more experience with the ILO than any other active American business executive; and I probably have, therefore, a better grasp of what is vital and essential, and what is unessential as it relates to the ILO than most others, on or off the Board of CIPE.

3) When the National Endowment for Democracy was in the conceptual stage, I was contacted, because of my ILO and Chamber experience, by several of the individuals that were attempting to put together a concept that would be able to command Congressional support, while attempting to put into legislative form a bill that would breathe life into a National Endowment for Democracy. I was involved, therefore,

970 EAST 64TH STREET, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44103 216/881-8600 CABLE "SIFCO CLEVELAND"
TELEX 212534 FAX 216/881-1828

MAY 6 1988

[L.C.]

May 5, 1988

MEMORANDUM

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: BOARD MEETING MATERIALS AND EXCERPTS FROM RICHARD NIXON'S LATEST BOOK

Enclosed are the board books for our upcoming meeting. Contained in the books is a proposed bylaw amendment offered by the members of the Board Composition Committee.

As you know, we will meet on Friday, May 13th in the Columbia A room of the Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Avenue, Northwest. Continental breakfast will be available at 8:30 a.m., the meeting will start promptly at 9:00 a.m., and we expect to conclude following luncheon. Edgardo Boeninger will speak on the current situation in Chile during the open session of the meeting.

I have also enclosed a chapter from President Nixon's new book 1999: Victory Without War which includes a very generous endorsement of the Endowment (page 299) and of Hernando de Soto (page 291) who directs the CIPE-supported Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Peru.

I look forward to seeing you on the 13th.

Enclosures as stated

1101 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 203, Washington, D.C 20005

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

Robert Daniels

Vice Chairman

Jay Van Andel

Bill Baru

Zbigniew Buzewski

Frank I. Lientskopf, Jr.

Diane B. Ewell

Orlan O. Hatch

Joe Kirkland

Harry V. Kissinger

John Richardson

Orin Robinson

Albert Shuster

Sally Shelnor Collins

Charles H. Stouffer, Jr.

Julie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

President

E. American Latvian Association

F. Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine, Twentieth Century Human Rights Research Foundation

6. *Sudan Times* (Joint Center for Political Studies)

7. Cultural Council of the Afghan Resistance (American Friends of Afghanistan)

8. Women's Civic Education Programs:

A. KABATID (The Friends of NAMFREL in America)

B. Conciencia [Colombia]
(Resources for Action, Inc.)

C. Encuentro (Delphi International)

9. Fundacion Universitaria del Rio de la Plata (American Council of Young Political Leaders)

10. Centro Peruano de Estudios Internacionales (Council of the Americas)

11. Haitian International Institute for Research and Development (America's Development Foundation)

12. Libro Libre (Freedom House)

13. Nicaragua Programs:

A. *La Prensa* (Delphi International)

B. CPDH (Freedom House)

Lc

April 21, 1988

APR 26 1988

MEMORANDUM

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: INFORMAL PROPOSAL REVIEW MATERIALS, UPCOMING BOARD MEETING

Enclosed are the materials for the informal proposal review meeting, which will be held on Thursday, April 28th at 9:00 a.m. at the Endowment's office. I look forward to seeing those of you able to attend.

The Board meeting will be held on Friday, May 13th in the Columbia A room of the Hyatt Regency Hotel, 400 New Jersey Avenue, Northwest. Continental breakfast will be available at 8:30 a.m., the meeting will start promptly at 9:00 a.m., and we expect to conclude following luncheon.

We are fortunate that our meeting date coincides with the visit of Edgardo Boeninger to Washington, and that he will be able to address the Board. Mr. Boeninger, an Endowment grantee, is both a leader of the Chilean movement for democracy and an outstanding analyst of the situation there. He authored an unusually lucid article in *Foreign Affairs*, which I have enclosed for your interest. It demonstrates that he will be able to provide us with a unique assessment of the situation in Chile at this crucial time.

Also enclosed is a recent "For the Record" column in the *Washington Post* which was excerpted from our 1987 annual report.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William E. Brock III

Chairman

Charles T. Manatt

Vice Chairman

LeGree Daniels

Secretary

Jay Van Andel

Treasurer

Polly Baca

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dante B. Fascell

Orrin G. Hatch

Lane Kirkland

Henry A. Kissinger

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shanker

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman
President

NED PROPOSALS FOR MAY 13, 1988 BOARD MEETING
(AS OF APRIL 25, 1988)

1. CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

2. FREE TRADE UNION INSTITUTE

3. NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

4. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

5. EASTERN EUROPE & SOVIET UNION PROGRAMS

A. AGORA (FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE)

B. EAST EUROPEAN CULTURAL FOUNDATION (FREEDOM HOUSE)

C. KESTON COLLEGE

D. CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY

E. AMERICAN LATVIAN ASSOCIATION

F. AMERICANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN UKRAINE
TWENTIETH CENTURY HUMAN RIGHTS RESEARCH FOUNDATION

6. SUDAN TIMES (JOINT CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES)

7. CULTURAL COUNCIL OF THE AFGHAN RESISTANCE (AMERICAN FRIENDS OF AFGHANISTAN)

8. WOMEN'S CIVIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS

A. KABATID (THE FRIENDS OF NAMFREL IN AMERICA)

B. CONCIENCIA [COLOMBIA] (RESOURCES FOR ACTION, INC.)

C. ENCUENTRO (DELPHI INTERNATIONAL)

9. FUNDACION UNIVERSITARIA DEL RIO DE LA PLATA [FURP] (AMERICAN COUNCIL OF YOUNG POLITICAL LEADERS [ACYPL])

10. CENTRO PERUANO DE ESTUDIOS INTERNACIONALES [CEPEI] (COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAS)

11. HAITIAN INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (AMERICA'S DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION)

12. LIBRO LIBRE (FREEDOM HOUSE)

[L]

April 6, 1988

APR 08 1988

MEMORANDUM

TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COMPOSITION COMMITTEE

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE, MAY 3, 1988

In coordination with your offices, we have scheduled a meeting of the Board Composition Committee for Tuesday, May 3 at 9:00 a.m. We will meet at the Endowment.

Since our last meeting, I have received several vitas as well as a letter from Vice President Mondale concerning individuals proposed for consideration by the Committee. Copies are enclosed. In addition, I have enclosed the list of names prepared for the last meeting, with an addendum of names received since then.

I look forward to our meeting on May 3rd.

cc: Other Members of the Board of Directors

1101 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 205, Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 293-9022

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

William F. Brice, III

Charles E. Manatt

Charles E. Manatt, Jr.

LeGere D. Davis

LaVan A. Adel

John Richardson

Olin Robison

Albert Shaker, Jr.

Sally Shelton-Colby

Charles H. Smith, Jr.

Eddie N. Williams

Carl Gershman

John L. Griswold

MEMORANDUM

APR 08 1988

FROM: CARL GERSHMAN

RE: INFORMAL PROPOSAL REVIEW MEETING,
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
ENDORSEMENT

The informal proposal review meeting has been
scheduled for Thursday, April 28 at 9:00 a.m. at the
Endowment's Office. I hope that many of you will be
able to participate in this in-depth review of the
proposals that will be presented at the May 13th Board
meeting.

As you know, I testified before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
State chaired by Congressman Neal Smith (D-IA) on
March 28th. A copy of my testimony is enclosed.

The Chamber of Commerce is including a strong
endorsement of the Endowment in its testimony to the
Democratic and Republican Party platform committees,
and a copy of the statement is also enclosed.

(202) 293-9072

BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

Charles T. Manatt
*Vice Chairman*

LeGree Daniels
*Secretary*

Jay Van Andel
*Treasurer*

Carl Gershman
President

STATEMENT OF CARL GERSHMAN
PRESIDENT
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
TO THE
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, STATE AND JUDICIARY

Monday, March 28, 1988

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the subcommittee, for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the National Endowment for Democracy. I welcome the chance to respond to your questions, since I am confident that the more that is known about the Endowment's work, the more support there will be for its unique and profoundly important mission.

From where we stand today, we can look back upon four years of work -- four years of building an institution that has the explicit, unambiguous purpose of advancing democracy throughout the world. No one, Mr. Chairman, has followed this process more closely than your subcommittee, and I hope you will agree that the progress made by the Endowment has been steady and encouraging.

-1-

This progress -- and what I believe will be the
bright and important future of the Endowment -- is the
result of three fundamental factors. The first is what
we have done here to build the Endowment. The second
is what others have done abroad to advance democracy.
And the third is the very nature of the world situation
in which we find ourselves.

First, with regard to the Endowment itself: Over
the past four years, we have established a durable
foundation that is at once conceptually, program-
matically and procedurally sound. Conceptually, our
work has been based upon the view, set forth in 1984 in
our Statement of Principles and Objectives, that "the
existence of autonomous economic, political, social and
cultural institutions" -- in a word, civil society --
"is the foundation of the democratic process and the
best guarantor of individual rights and freedoms."

Programmatically, we have acted upon this idea by
contributing to the development, and in some cases the
very survival, of a wide array of free institutions
devoted to the values of democracy: trade unions,
business associations and political parties (work
carried out through our core grantees in these fields,

-2-

the Free Trade Union Institute, the Center for Inter-
national Private Enterprise, and the National
Democratic and the National Republican Institutes for
International Affairs), as well as civic organizations
of women and youth, public policy institutes,
cooperatives, and a variety of free communications
media including newspapers, journals, books and films.

Procedurally, in addition to establishing high
standards for the careful selection, monitoring and
evaluation of grants, we have adhered to three basic
operating principles: our grants are open to public
scrutiny, our programs are responsive to the needs and
initiatives of our partners abroad, and our approach is
consistent, not veering to the left or to the right but
holding faithfully to a democratic course. In
practice, this means that we are ready to assist
authentic democratic initiatives in a wide variety of
circumstances: in authoritarian systems where the goal
is transition to democracy; in developing democracies
where the goal is the reinforcement of democratic
structures and values; in closed societies where the
goal is opening the system to independent activity; and
in conflict-ridden countries where the goal is
sustaining the possibility of democracy when the
violence subsides.

-3-

This approach, Mr. Chairman, has been presided over
by a Board of Directors that reflects the broad
diversity and vigorous pluralism of American society.
It has found support in a growing bipartisan majority
in Congress and acceptance here and abroad among groups
actively working to promote democratic ends. The fact
that this bold, innovative and authentically democratic
approach has also been unifying and consensual demon-
strates how broad and deep is the commitment to
democracy in our own country and indeed throughout the
world.

If we have been successful, Mr. Chairman, it is
largely because there exist people abroad who are
passionately and courageously devoted to democracy.
For them, democracy is not something to be taken for
granted. It is a precious ideal whose value is
enhanced by the very precariousness of its existence in
some countries, or by its denial by force in many
others. These people, with whom the Endowment has
established bonds of solidarity and cooperation,
include:

-4-

[10]

-- in the Philippines, trade unionists, business leaders, women civic activists and high school students who are struggling to consolidate their new democracy under the most difficult conditions;

-- in Haiti, democrats who refuse to relinquish the political space they have gained since the overthrow of Duvalier, and who continue to work for the establishment of democracy despite the violence of the past year;

-- in Nicaragua, where the labor, business and political groups comprising the civic opposition, along with the editors of *La Prensa*, the Mothers of Political Prisoners, youth activists and many others have refused to succumb to fear and repression and may now be in a position to advance their democratic aspirations;

-5-

-- in Chile, where the unfolding political process that will result in a plebescite later this year could bring about the transition to democracy that groups across the democratic political spectrum have been striving to achieve;

-- in South Africa, where black and white democrats, undaunted by the new wave of repression, are working together to replace apartheid with a democratic system;

-- in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries of Eastern Europe where there has been an extraordinary growth in independent democratic action, a process that is now spreading even to the Soviet Union itself.

These are but a few of the countries in which we have been active, all of which are listed in the annual report that we have submitted to the subcommittee. Among the many projects described, there are some that already have had an especially broad and significant impact. I would like to call the subcommittee's attention to:

-6-

-- The Institute for Liberty and Democracy in Peru, where pioneering work with the vast informal sector of microentrepreneurs has produced a new free-market approach to development in the Third World that is beginning to transform development theory and policy around the world;

-- Conciencia in Argentina, a women's civic action movement that is spreading to fifteen other Latin American countries and has been established in the Philippines as well;

-- Libro Libre in Costa Rica, a movement of democratic intellectuals, which has produced a new democratic literature for Central America and which represents the first coherent attempt to promote democratic ideas in the region;

-7-

-- The International Coalition for Human
Rights in Cuba, headed by Armando Valladares
who just recently led the successful fight for
the establishment of a United Nations
commission to investigate Cuban human rights
violations.

-- The Chinese Intellectual, a journal of independent opinion circulating in China whose editor has now established a major intellectual center in Beijing which is working to further the process of reform and opening.

The people who lead these efforts were among those
who spoke at a conference we organized last year to
describe our work. Their remarks, as well as those of
other equally remarkable democratic leaders who spoke
there, are included in this book, *The Challenge of
Democracy*, which I would also like to present to the
subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, the third and final factor that
accounts for the progress and acceptance of the
Endowment is the very nature of the world situation in

-8-

which we find ourselves. This situation is clearer to
us now, after the experience of Nicaragua, than it was
before. What we have all learned and, I think, can
agree upon is that an anti-Communist dictator (such as
Somoza) is not a bulwark against Communism, nor is the
removal of such a dictator a guarantee of democracy.
If we don't build up the democratic forces --
systematically, over time, with adequate resources --
then there will not be a strong democratic alternative
when the authoritarian system collapses, as inevitably
it must. In a word, we will have only ourselves to
blame if we find ourselves with no option other than
retreat or the use of force, and we will pay the price
-- as we have -- in money, in division that strains the
political fabric of our society, and possibly in lives
as well.

There is even a more basic reason for the relevance
of the Endowment today. We live in a state of
strategic parity with our main rival, the Soviet
Union. There may be violent conflicts at the margins
of the world political system, but the overall balance
is likely to be preserved. This means that the use of

-9-

force will continue to decrease as an instrument of
policy, and competition will increasingly shift to the
realm of politics. We must have the capability to
engage effectively in this competition.

Ironically, while democracy is the most broadly
accepted and legitimate political idea in the world
today, we have never done very well at explaining and
defending it. In fact, we have all but abandoned the
field of political competition to our ideological
rivals, who have usurped the banner of democracy for
their own anti-democratic ends.

We're now beginning to wake up to this unpleasant
reality, but we still have a long way to go. True,
there has been a democratic revival during this decade,
and conditions are still favorable for democratic
advance. But this is no cause for complacency. It was
only a little more than a decade ago that democracy was
thought to be in decline, and it will not take many
setbacks for pessimism to return once again.

In the meantime, we should accept the fact that
political competition will not disappear, that
democracy has dedicated opponents who have hardly given

-10-

up the fight, and that we must therefore have the where-
withal to defend and promote our values in a world of
diverse cultures and competing political philosophies.

I believe that the Endowment is potentially the
most effective instrument we have for advancing our
values in the world. It is cost-effective, activist,
engaged. It not only provides concrete assistance to
democrats on the frontlines of political struggle, but
sends a message of solidarity and democratic
commitment. We are gaining good will even as we assist
our friends and thereby advance our own interests as
well.

Mr. Chairman, we have been immensely grateful for
the support and understanding which you and the sub-
committee have shown for the Endowment. We hope that
as we continue to progress, you will continue to weigh
our needs against the enormity of the challenge we face
and the promise this new institution offers for serving
the finest ideals and highest interests of our country.

-11-

The United States has a vital interest in encouraging democratic
development and private enterprise throughout the world. In our
history, the democracies have been America's most steadfast allies.
The recent transitions in Latin America and The Philippines deserve
our country's support and assistance as do those striving to build
democratic societies elsewhere.

The most effective means of accomplishing these goals is to
utilize the expertise of private sector organizations to provide
assistance to their counterparts abroad. These include business
associations, trade unions, political parties, media, cooperatives,
youth groups, and civic organizations. Together, these private sector
institutions provide the building blocks for democratic development
and economic growth.

The National Endowment for Democracy, a private, nonprofit
grantmaking organization, was established in 1983 to strengthen
democratic values and institutions worldwide. The Endowment draws
together the Center for International Private Enterprise, a U.S.
Chamber affiliate, the Free Trade Union Institute, the National
Republican and Democratic Institutes, and a host of other American
private organizations to carry out programs abroad. The Endowment
receives an annual appropriation from Congress but remains part of the
private sector.

Assisting democrats in many critical situations, the Endowment
upholds a single standard. It supports democratic development in
South Africa and Poland; Chile and Cuba; Paraguay and Nicaragua; and
many other countries. As such, it not only fulfills its mandate to
support democracy worldwide, but helps build bipartisan cooperation in
the U.S. on the basic thrust of America's world role.

The vital importance of the Endowment's work has not gone
unnoticed by the U.S. Congress where its support has grown
dramatically on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps because of the
budgetary constraints, the American people understand that the path of
timely democratic commitment is not only the more successful but the
most cost effective approach. The Endowment embodies this
understanding: timely political assistance now may avoid the need for
costly military action in the future.

Recent developments in the bilateral relationship with the Soviet
Union are encouraging, yet they also point to a period of enhanced
political competition. The twin ideals of private enterprise and
democracy are increasingly attractive at a time when the ideology of
communism is fast becoming bankrupt. Through the National Endowment
for Democracy, the United States and democratic peoples everywhere at
last have the vehicle needed to enter into a period of peaceful
political competition leading to a freer and more prosperous world.