CLARIN, VIERNES 27 DE AGOSTO, 2004

DURANTE UNA REUNION EN CHILE CON EL CANCILLER DE LA DICTADURA

[y]

# Kissinger dio una primera luz verde a la represión ilegal en junio del 76

Daniel Santoro
dasantoro@clarin.com

Apenas dos meses y medio después del golpe del 24 de marzo de 1976, el entonces secretario de Estado norteamericano Henry Kissinger dio una primera luz verde a la dictadura para la represión ilegal.

El canciller de EE.UU. trasmitió esa clara señal a su colega argentino, el almirante César Guzzetti, durante una reunión a puertas cerradas que mantuvieron el 10 de junio de 1976 en Santiago de Chile, durante un intervalado de una Asamblea de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), reveló un documento secreto del Departamento de Estado desclasificado ayer.

Hasta ahora se había confirmado oficialmente que Kissinger había dado ese aval a Guzzetti el 7 de octubre de 1976 en una reunión mantenida en Nueva York —que Clarín publicó en diciembre pasado—, pero el nuevo documento demuestra que venía de mucho antes. Los primeros indicios en este sentido los publicó el periodista norteamericano Martin Andersen en 1987 en la revista "The Nation".

El documento desclasificado de los archivos de EE.UU. por un pedido de Carlos Osorio de la ONG "National Security Archive" también confirma cómo la dictadura estaba involucrada en el Plan Cóndor que coordinaba la represión en la Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay y Brasil. En contraste con la posición de Kissinger, el embajador norteamericano en Buenos Aires, Robert Hill, protestaba por canales diplomáticos por la represión ilegal de la dictadura.

La siguiente es una síntesis de la entrevista entre Kissinger y Guzzetti de la que también participaron el embajador norteamericano y actual número dos de la OEA, Luigi Einaudi, y los embajadores argentinos Carlos Pereyra y Julio César Casaras:

— Guzzetti: Nuestro principal problema en la Argentina es el terrorismo. Esta es la primera prioridad del actual gobierno que tomó el poder el 24 de marzo. Hay dos aspectos para solucionar. El primero es asegurar la seguridad interna del país. El segundo es resolver los más urgentes problemas económicos... La Argentina necesita el entendimiento y el apoyo de los Estados Unidos.

— Kissinger: ... Nosotros deseamos lo mejor para el nuevo gobierno. Nosotros deseamos su éxito. Nosotros haremos lo que podamos por ayudar a ese éxito... Si hay cosas que hacer, ustedes deben hacerlas rápido. Pero deben volver rápido a los procedimientos normales.

— Guzzetti: Sí, debemos encontrar procedimientos que no alienen a la ciudadanía. Así se lo aconsejaré a nuestro presidente (Videla)... La prensa extranjera nos crea muchos problemas, interpretando eventos de manera muy peculiar...

— Kissinger: Para la prensa el peor crimen es que se reemplaze un gobierno de izquierda.

— Guzzetti: Cientos de refugiosos llegaron a la Argentina desde nuestros países vecinos: Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, así como Chile. Muchos dan apoyo clandestino al terrorismo... Nadie los quiere recibir. Hay muchos terroristas.

— Kissinger: ¿Intentaron con la OLP? Ellos necesitan muchos terroristas. Seriamente, no podemos decirles a ustedes cómo manejar esa gente... ▪

BUENOS AIRES HERALD, SATURDAY, AUGUST 28, 2004

1976 meeting memo reveals then-US secretary of state telling Argentine junta to act 'quickly'

Kissinger mute on rights abuses

WASHINGTON — In a 1976 meeting with officials of the newly installed military junta in Argentina, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger raised no protest against human rights violations that marked the start of Argentina's "dirty war," according to a newly declassified document from U.S. government archives.

"The memorandum of conversation explains why the Argentine generals believed the secretary extended a carte blanche for the 'dirty war,' said Carlos Osprjo, director of the National Security Archive's Southern Cone Project for Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina. The foreign policy research center obtained the documents that were being released Friday.

The document, obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act, is a 13-page memorandum covering an hourlong meeting between Kissinger and the Argentine foreign minister, Adm. César Augusto Guzzetti, on June 10, in Santiago, Chile. The meeting, Kissinger's first with the dictatorship's foreign minister, came less than three months after the military ousted the government of María Estela Martínez de Perón aka "Isabel."

Also present at the meeting were William Rogers, then under secretary for economic affairs, and Luigi Einaudi, the current assistant secretary general of the Organization of American States, who served as note taker. Both men have previously denied that Kissinger privately gave any "green light" to political repression and torture in Latin America, as has Kissinger himself.

In the meeting, Guzzetti complains that his country's "main problem" is terrorism. "It is the first priority of the current government," he said, adding that the regime sought, first and foremost, "to ensure the internal security of the country."

Guzzetti spoke of the need to "create disincentives to potential terrorist activities" and complained that outsiders did not understand Argentina's problems, Einaudi's notes show.

Kissinger responded "as a friend," that "military governments are not the most effective in dealing with these problems." He noted problems in Chile, then led by Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

"You will have to make an international effort to have your problems understood," Kissinger said. "Otherwise you too will come under increasing attack." Later in the meeting, Kissinger said, "If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. But you should get back quickly to normal procedures."

"We are aware you are in a difficult period," Kissinger added. "It is a curious time, when political, criminal and terrorist activities tend to merge without any clear separation. We understand you must establish authority." He said he understood the government's need to establish authority, "but it is also clear that the absence of normal procedures will be used against you."

An assistant to Kissinger, Theresa Cimino, told *The New York Times* that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment and Kissinger's office did not respond to an AP request for comment.

The meeting occurred at a time of chaos and violence in Argentina. In the first few months of the dictatorship, three Americans had been arrested or tortured, while opposition figures were being hunted down, tortured and killed.

A week before the Kissinger-Guzzetti meeting, the body of Bolivia's former president, Juan José Torres, was found in Buenos Aires, and American diplomats suspected the Argentine military of the murder.

In a cable sent hours before the meeting, the former deputy secretary of state, Charles Robinson, wrote Kissinger of an "inhospitable atmosphere" for foreigners seeking political asylum in Argentina, and warned that more than 1,300 of them "could be considered to be in danger from Argentine security forces or rightist extremists, either from Argentina or from their native countries," according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The allegations that Kissinger had not protested human rights violations in Argentina as early as June 1976 were originally contained in a 1987 article for The Nation by Martin Edwin Andersen, who wrote a 1993 book on the subject, "Dossier Secreto Argentina's Desaparecidos and the Myth of the Dirty War" (Westview Press).

Previously disclosed documents, however, had shown the subject coming up only in October 1976. At that time, Kissinger preceded a public address denouncing human rights violations with private words of support to Admiral Guzzetti. "Look, our basic attitude is that we want you to succeed," Kissinger said at the time.

Kissinger told Guzzetti he wished his government well. "We wish it will succeed. We will do what we can to help it succeed," Kissinger said, according to Einaudi's account.

Kissinger said the US could not help Argentina fight terrorism, but might be able to help economically.

"What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better," Kissinger added.

The new cable places allegations that Kissinger did not protest human rights violations in Latin America several months earlier.

In an interview on Thursday, Rogers said that at the time, Argentina was "virtually ungovernable." He added, "To interpret what he said to Guzzetti as a green light for human rights violations doesn't stand the test of history."

Rogers continued, "Because he didn't say, 'Don't kill people. Don't violate the rule of law,' to say that he really had it in mind that he was tolerating human rights is inconsistent with the record."

He added that that view was "a distortion of history."

"It's a canard," said Rogers, vice chair of Kissinger's lobbying firm, Kissinger Associates. "The idea that he would tell another country to violate human rights quickly or slowly or under any circumstances is preposterous."

Einaudi said that he did not recall details of the meeting. "I'm not retired," he said. "I've been working like a dog for years, so I don't have instant recall, particularly for something that happened 28 million years ago."

In an interview, Einaudi said his recollections of the meeting are vague, but he doubts Kissinger would have said anything to condone abuses. Because of congressional pressure and public opinion, "the political reality was the US could not put up with those kinds of abuses," he said.

FILE PHOTO
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger waves to the crowd in Rosario, Argentina, in 1978 during a World Cup soccer match. A recently declassified memo shows Kissinger advising the Argentine military junta "as a friend" to court international opinion or risk opposition from abroad. The 1978 World Cup Championship in Argentina was a key part of the junta's attempts to show that all was peaceful on the home front.

Previously declassified documents suggest that Argentine leaders took heart from the exchange. Then dictator Jorge Videla told US Ambassador Robert Hill in that September that "Kissinger understood their problem and had said he hoped they could get terrorism under control as quickly as possible."

"Videla said he had impression senior officer of (US government) understood situation his govt faces, but junior bureaucrats do not," Hill wrote in a cable. Hill, who had repeatedly complained to Argentine officials about abuses, said he responded by stressing Kissinger's concern about human rights in Argentina.

Osorio said the Kissinger-Guzzetti exchange makes clear why Videla believed abuses would be tolerated.

"If you are standing in the position of the generals, that's (how) you would interpret it right away," he said. What was most striking was that Kissinger made no direct appeal to stop the abuses, Osorio said.

Rogers said Kissinger had stressed at the OAS meeting that the US would not tolerate abuses. Kissinger would not have contradicted those public statements during a private meeting, Rogers said. "That's fatal to diplomatic discourse."

He said Guzzetti's English was shaky, which could have led to misunderstandings. Einaudi's notes say Guzzetti spoke Spanish to Kissinger, but it's not clear if Guzzetti used an interpreter to understand English responses.

The documents revive the debate about Kissinger's relationship with military dictators in Latin America when he was secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations. It was an era when military officers frequently toppied elected governments and brutalized dissidents, but were accepted by US leaders as anti-communist allies.

Argentina's military rulers seized power in March 1976, beginning six years of rule in which they kidnapped, tortured and killed dissidents. The government says 8,900 people disappeared over that period; human rights groups put the figure around 30,000.

(Herald staff with New York Times-AP)

On the Net, visit the National Security Archives: www.gwu.edu/(tilde)nsarchiv

Henry Kissinger

2-12-04

Sent by Marcella
Berger of S+S [LC]

# Un Prix Nobel et la justice internationale

Guy Wagner

Dr. Heinrich (1) Alfred, dit Henry Kissinger, né le 27 mai 1923 près de Nuremberg dans une famille juive qui émigra en 1938 à New York où il obtint la citoyenneté américaine en 1943, diplômé de Harvard, conseiller des présidents D. Eisenhower, J. F. Kennedy et L. B. Johnson, secrétaire d'Etat de R. M. Nixon et de G. Ford, président du National Security Council, était le maître de la politique étrangère US jusqu'à J. Carter (1977).

C'est lui qui a conclu avec Le Duc Tho les accords sur le désengagement américain du Vietnam, accords qui ont valu deux deux le Prix Nobel de la Paix 1973; c'est lui qui a promu la détente avec l'URSS; c'est lui qui a œuvré pour l'ouverture des USA vers la Chine de Mao.

C'est lui aussi qui était derrière tous les coups tordus de la politique de son pays: Derrière la façade brillante du „nouveau Metternich“, du „magicien de la diplomatie“ se cachait un personnage impitoyable qui „adorait œuvrer dans l'ombre“. Or, ces zones d'ombres se sont éclairées depuis qu'à partir de 1998, sous la pression de l'opinion publique, un grand nombre de documents officiels américains ont été déclassifiés par Clinton.

Ces papiers ont permis à un journaliste britannique, Christopher Hitchens (2), d'établir l'inventaire des actes de nature criminelle de ce monsieur. Relevons les plus notoires: guerre secrète au Cambodge; assassinat du général chilien René Schneider; soutien direct au coup d'Etat chilien du 11 septembre 1973; appui aux dictatures au Chili et en Argentine; implication dans la création du plan „Condor“, ce terrifiant réseau de chasse aux opposants dans six dictatures: Chili, Bolivie, Brésil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentine; bombardements massifs des populations civiles en Indochine; soutien secret à la tentative d'assassinat de Mgr Makarios à Chypre; complicité dans l'invasion et le génocide au Timor Oriental.

Mettant à nu les vraies motivations de Kissinger – cynisme, argent, pouvoir –, Hitchens démontre aussi comment ce félon, alors qu'il travaillait officiellement pour Lyndon B. Johnson, a sciemment retardé la fin de la Guerre du Vietnam, afin de servir les visées du camp républicain en 1968! Lorsque le conflit s'arrêta, il y avait plus d'un demi-million de victimes supplémentaires.

Deux films ont suivi la publication de Hitchens: „L'honneur perdu d'Henry Kissinger“ de Wilfried Huismann et Hé-

L'assassin et l'instigateur

ribert Blondiau, et „Le cas Kissinger“, d’Alex Gibney et Eugène Jarecki, et aujourd’hui, Kissinger, est dans la ligne de mire de la justice pénale internationale, car passible de poursuites pour crimes contre l’humanité et crimes de guerre. Pour Martín Almada, Prix Nobel alternatif 2002 et découvreur des archives du Plan Condor, „Henry Kissinger a tué plus que Ben Laden“, et pour Vasilis Zoumpos, militant de l’ONG Globalise Resistance, il est „le criminel de guerre vivant le plus notoire (...), responsable de la mort de millions de gens à travers le monde“.

## Diplomate criminel

„Aussi, des juges du monde entier souhaitent-ils l’interroger: le fameux juge espagnol Baltasar Garzón, les Français Roger Le Loire et Sophie Château qui enquêtent sur la disparition de cinq compatriotes au Chili, le juge argentin Claudio Bonadio qui veut l’entendre sur son implication dans le coup dans son pays, le chilien Juan Guzman Tapia qui a soumis aux autorités américaines une commission rogatoire contenant 17 questions qu’il aimerait lui poser dans le cadre de l’affaire Charles Horman, journaliste, cinéaste et écrivain américain tué par les sbires de Pinochet („Missing“ de Costa-Gavras). De son côté, Joyce, la veuve de Horman, veut forcer Kissinger à témoigner. Quant à la famille du général Schneider, elle exige trois millions de dollars de dommages et intérêts, tandis qu’une coalition de victimes et de millants des droits humains a déposé plainte pour l’implication de Mr. K. dans l’opération Condor.

Les documents déclassifiés révèlent la solidarité totale de Kissinger et du gouvernement US avec le dictateur chilien et sa bande de tortionnaires et d'assassins. Our D-Day“ on Chile's coun-

was close to perfect“ peut-on lire. Sous l’égide de leur secrétaire d’Etat, les USA sont restés en contact constant avec Pinochet et lui ont accordé un soutien sans faille durant les années de terreur, y compris dans les assassinats du général légaliste Carlos Prats et de son épouse Sofia Cuthbert en 1974, et du général Orlando Letelier et de son aide de camp Ronni Moffitt en 1976.

La pression contre Kissinger ne cesse de croître. Les National Security Archives l'ont contraint à restituer au Département d'Etat les 10.000 pages de verbatim de ses conversations téléphoniques entre 1973 et 1977, une campagne internationale de pétition a été lancée pour l'écarter des institutions dont il est membre: UNESCO, Comité International Olympique, International Rescue Committee, American Academy de Berlin, College William and Mary, Aspen Institute, et on exige officiellement que le Prix Nobel de la Paix lui soit retiré.

Un mois seulement après y avoir été nommé par Bush, „Dear Henry“ a dû démissionner de la tête de la commission d'enquête sur les événements du 11 septembre 2001, la polémique soulevée par les accusations portées contre lui ayant été trop forte.

Que dans son dernier livre (3), Kissinger récuse le Tribunal pénal international (TPI), qui s'en étonnerait? Il a tout à en redouter.

► (1) „Heinrich! Mir graut's vor dir.“
(Goethe: Faust I)

(2) In: *The Trial of Henry Kissinger* – Les Crimes de M. Kissinger, éd. Saint-Simon, 2001

(3) In: *Does America Need a Foreign Policy?*
– Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Century, Simon and Schuster, 2001 – La Nouvelle Puissance Américaine, Fayard, 2003

Pour sourire un peu, allez voir: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/staffina.html

rteitelbaum@asil.org

Phone: 202-939-6017

You are subscribed to the International Law Section E-Mail Announcement Service. To be
removed from the announcement service, please hit REPLY and type in "Unsubscribe from
International Law Section announcement service."

For more information about the Sections E-Mail Announcement Service, please visit
http://www.dccbar.org/for_lawyers/sections/email.cfm.

This communication may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Anyone who receives this message in error should notify the sender immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete it from his or her computer.

William Rogers
Arnold & Porter LLP
555 Twelfth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1202

William_Rogers@aporter.com

Telephone: 202-942-5915

Fax: 202-942-5999

For more information about Arnold & Porter LLP, click here:
http://www.arnoldporter.com

3

Secretary Kissinger Attends OAS General Assembly at Santiago

The sixth regular General Assembly of the Organization of American States met at Santiago, Chile, June 4-18. Secretary Kissinger headed the U.S. delegation June 7-9. Following are statements made before the Assembly by Secretary Kissinger on June 8 and 9 and his statement circulated by the U.S. delegation on June 11, together with the text of a joint report presented to the Assembly by the United States and Panama on June 9.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY KISSINGER, JUNE 8,
ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Press release 293 dated June 8

One of the most compelling issues of our time, and one which calls for the concerted action of all responsible peoples and nations, is the necessity to protect and extend the fundamental rights of humanity.

The precious common heritage of our Western Hemisphere is the conviction that human beings are the subjects, not the objects, of public policy, that citizens must not become mere instruments of the state.

This is the conviction that brought millions to the Americas. It inspired our peoples to fight for their independence. It is the commitment that has made political freedom and individual dignity the constant and cherished ideal of the Americas and the envy of nations elsewhere. It is the ultimate proof that our countries are linked by more than geography and the impersonal forces of history.

Respect for the rights of man is written into the founding documents of every nation of our hemisphere. It has long been part of the common speech and daily lives of our

citizens. And today, more than ever, the successful advance of our societies requires the full and free dedication of the talent, energy, and creative thought of men and women who are free from fear of repression.

The modern age has brought undreamed-of benefits to mankind-in medicine, in technological advance, and in human communication. But it has spawned plagues as well, in the form of new tools of oppression, as well as of civil strife. In an era characterized by terrorism, by bitter ideological contention, by weakened bonds of social cohesion, and by the yearning for order even at the expense of liberty, the result all too often has been the violation of fundamental standards of humane conduct.

The obscene and atrocious acts systematically employed to devalue, debase, and destroy human life during World War II vividly and ineradicably impressed the responsible peoples of the world with the enormity of the challenge to human rights. It was precisely to end such abuses and to provide moral authority in international affairs that a new system was forged after that war-globally in the United Nations and regionally in a strengthened inter-American system.

The shortcomings of our efforts in an age which continues to be scarred by forces of intimidation, terror, and brutality-fostered sometimes from outside national territories and sometimes from inside-have made it dramatically clear that basic human rights must be preserved, cherished, and defended if peace and prosperity are to be more than hollow technical achievements. For technological progress without social justice mocks humanity; national unity

July 5, 1976

without freedom is sterile; nationalism
without a consciousness of human commu-
nity—which means a shared concern for
human rights—refines instruments of op-
pression.

We in the Americas must increase our
international support for the principles of
justice, freedom, and human dignity; for
the organized concern of the community of
nations remains one of the most potent
weapons in the struggle against the degrada-
tion of human values.

The Human Rights Challenge in the Americas

The ultimate vitality and virtue of our societies spring from the instinctive sense of human dignity and respect for the rights of others that have long distinguished the immensely varied peoples and lands of this hemisphere. The genius of our inter-American heritage is based on the fundamental democratic principles of human and national dignity, justice, popular participation, and free cooperation among different peoples and social systems.

The observance of these essential princi-
ples of civility cannot be taken for granted
even in the most tranquil of times. In periods
of stress and uncertainty, when pressures on
established authority grow and nations feel
their very existence is tenuous, the practice
of human rights becomes far more difficult.

The central problem of government has
always been to strike a just and effective
balance between freedom and authority.
When freedom degenerates into anarchy, the
human personality becomes subject to arbi-
trary, brutal, and capricious forces. When
the demand for order overrides all other
considerations, man becomes a means and
not an end, a tool of impersonal machinery.
Clearly, some forms of human suffering are
intolerable no matter what pressures nations
may face or feel. Beyond that, all societies
have an obligation to enable their people to
fulfill their potentialities and live a life of
dignity and self-respect.

As we address this challenge in practice,
we must recognize that our efforts must

engage the serious commitment of our
societies. As a source of dynamism, strength,
and inspiration, verbal posturings and self-
righteous rhetoric are not enough. Human
rights are the very essence of a meaningful
life, and human dignity is the ultimate pur-
pose of government. No government can ig-
nore terrorism and survive, but it is equally
true that a government that tramples on the
rights of its citizens denies the purpose of
its existence.

In recent years and even days, our news-
papers have carried stories of kidnapings,
ambushes, bombings, and assassinations.
Terrorism and the denial of civility have
become so widespread, political subversions
so intertwined with official and unofficial
abuse and so confused with oppression and
base criminality, that the protection of indi-
vidual rights and the preservation of human
dignity have become sources of deep concern
and—worse—sometimes of demoralization
and indifference.

No country, no people—for that matter no
political system—can claim a perfect record
in the field of human rights. But precisely
because our societies in the Americas have
been dedicated to freedom since they
emerged from the colonial era, our short-
comings are more apparent and more signifi-
cant. And let us face facts. Respect for the
dignity of man is declining in too many coun-
tries of the hemisphere. There are several
states where fundamental standards of hu-
mane behavior are not observed. All of us
have a responsibility in this regard, for the
Americas cannot be true to themselves un-
less they rededicate themselves to belief in
the worth of the individual and to the de-
fense of those individual rights which that
concept entails. Our nations must sustain
both a common commitment to the human
rights of individuals and practical support
for the institutions and procedures necessary
to insure those rights.

The rights of man have been authorita-
tively identified both in the U.N.'s Univer-
sal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
OAS's American Declaration of the Rights
and Duties of Man. There will, of course,

2

Department of State Bulletin

always be differences of view as to the
precise extent of the obligations of govern-
ment. But there are standards below which
no government can fall without offending
fundamental values, such as genocide, of-
ficially tolerated torture, mass imprisonment
or murder, or the comprehensive denial of
basic rights to racial, religious, political, or
ethnic groups. Any government engaging in
such practices must face adverse interna-
tional judgment.

The international community has created
important institutions to deal with the chal-
lenge of human rights. We here are all par-
ticipants in some of them: the United Na-
tions, the International Court of Justice, the
OAS, and the two Human Rights Commis-
sions of the United Nations and the OAS. In
Europe, an even more developed interna-
tional institutional structure provides other
useful precedents for our effort.

Procedures alone cannot solve the problem; but they can keep it at the forefront of our consciousness, and they can provide certain minimum protection for the human personality. International law and experience have enabled the development of specific procedures to distinguish reasonable from arbitrary government action on, for example, the question of detention. These involve access to courts, counsel, and families; prompt release or charge; and if the latter, fair and public trial. Where such procedures are followed, the risk and incidence of unintentional government error, of officially sanctioned torture, of prolonged arbitrary deprivation of liberty, are drastically reduced. Other important procedures are habeas corpus or amparo, judicial appeal, and impartial review of administrative actions. And there are the procedures available at the international level: appeal to, and investigations and recommendations by, established independent bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an integral part of the OAS and a symbol of our dedication to the dignity of man.

The Inter-American Commission has built
an impressive record of sustained, independ-
ent, and highly professional work since its

establishment in 1960. Its importance as
a primary procedural alternative in dealing
with the recurrent human rights problems of
this hemisphere is considerable.

The United States believes this Commission is one of the most important bodies of the Organization of American States. At the same time, it has a role which touches upon the most sensitive aspects of the national policies of each of the member governments. We must insure that the Commission functions so that it cannot be manipulated for international politics in the name of human rights. We must also see to it that the Commission becomes an increasingly vital instrument of hemispheric cooperation in defense of human rights. The Commission deserves the support of the Assembly in strengthening further its independence, evenhandedness, and constructive potential.

Reports of the Human Rights Commission

We have all read the two reports submit-
ted to this General Assembly by the Com-
mission. They are sobering documents, for
they provide serious evidence of violations of
elemental international standards of human
rights.

In its annual report on human rights in
the hemisphere, the Commission cites the
rise of violence and speaks of the need to
maintain order and protect citizens against
armed attack. But it also upholds the defense
of individual rights as a primordial function
of the law and describes case after case of
serious governmental actions in derogation
of such rights.

A second report is devoted exclusively to
the situation in Chile. We note the Commis-
sion's statement that the Government of
Chile has cooperated with the Commission,
and the Commission's conclusion that the in-
fringement of certain fundamental rights in
Chile has undergone a quantitative reduction
since the last report. We must also point out
that Chile has filed a comprehensive and
responsive answer that sets forth a number
of hopeful prospects which we hope will soon
be fully implemented.

July 5, 1976

3

Nevertheless the Commission has asserted that violations continue to occur; and this is a matter of bilateral as well as international attention. In the United States, concern is widespread in the executive branch, in the press, and in the Congress, which has taken the extraordinary step of enacting specific statutory limits on U.S. military and economic aid to Chile.

The condition of human rights as assessed by the OAS Human Rights Commission has impaired our relationship with Chile and will continue to do so. We wish this relationship to be close, and all friends of Chile hope that obstacles raised by conditions alleged in the report will soon be removed.

At the same time, the Commission should not focus on some problem areas to the neglect of others. The cause of human dignity is not served by those who hypocritically manipulate concerns with human rights to further their political preferences nor by those who single out for human rights condemnation only those countries with whose political views they disagree.

We are persuaded that the OAS Commission, however, has avoided such temptations.

The Commission has worked and reported widely. Its survey of human rights in Cuba is ample evidence of that. Though the report was completed too late for formal consideration at this General Assembly, an initial review confirms our worst fears of Cuban behavior. We should commend the Commission for its efforts—in spite of the total lack of cooperation of the Cuban authorities—to unearth the truth that many Cuban political prisoners have been victims of inhuman treatment. We urge the Commission to continue its efforts to determine the truth about the state of human rights in Cuba.

In our view, the record of the Commission this year in all these respects demonstrates that it deserves the support of the Assembly in strengthening further its independence, evenhandedness, and constructive potential.

We can use the occasion of this General Assembly to emphasize that the protection

of human rights is an obligation not simply of particular countries whose practices have come to public attention. Rather, it is an obligation assumed by all the nations of the Americas as part of their participation in the hemispheric system.

To this end, the United States proposes that the Assembly broaden the Commission's mandate so that instead of waiting for complaints it can report regularly on the status of human rights throughout the hemisphere.

Through adopting this proposal, the nations of the Americas would make plain our common commitment to human rights, increase the reliable information available to us, and offer more effective recommendations to governments about how best to improve human rights. In support of such a broadened effort, we propose that the budget and staff of the Commission be enlarged. By strengthening the contribution of this body, we can deepen our dedication to the special qualities of rich promise that make our hemisphere a standard-bearer for freedom-loving people in every quarter of the globe.

At the same time, we should also consider ways to strengthen the inter-American system in terms of protection against terrorism, kidnapping, and other forms of violent threats to the human personality, especially those inspired from the outside.

## Necessity for Concern and Concrete Action

It is a tragedy that the forces of change in our century—a time of unparalleled human achievement—have also visited upon many individuals around the world a new dimension of intimidation and suffering.

The standard of individual liberty of conscience and expression is the proudest heritage of our civilization. It summons all nations. But this hemisphere, which for centuries has been the hope of all mankind, has a special requirement for dedicated commitment.

Let us then turn to the great task before us. All we do in the world—in our search

4

Department of State Bulletin

for peace, for greater political cooperation, for a fair and flourishing economic system—is meaningful only if linked to the defense of the fundamental freedoms which permit the fullest expression of mankind's creativity. No nations of the globe have a greater responsibility. No nations can make a greater contribution to the future. Let us look deeply within ourselves to find the essence of our human condition. And let us carry forward the great enterprise of liberty for which this hemisphere has been—and will again be—the honored symbol everywhere.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY KISSINGER, JUNE 9, ON COOPERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT

Press release 296 dated June 9

For two centuries, the peoples of this hemisphere have been forging a record of cooperation and accomplishment of which we can be proud. It is a record which gives good cause for the confidence we bring to the tasks we face today. But of greater importance is the truly special relationship we have achieved. The ties of friendship, mutual regard, and high respect that we have forged here set this hemisphere apart. The bond between the American republics is unmatched in the world today in both depth and potential.

First, we have maintained the awareness that our destinies are linked—a recognition of the reality that we are bound by more than geography and common historical experience. We are as diverse as any association of nations, yet this special relationship is known to us all, almost instinctively.

Second, ours is a hemisphere of peace. In no other region of the world has international conflict been so rare, or peaceful and effective cooperation so natural to the fabric of our relationships.

Third, we work together with a unique spirit of mutual respect. I personally am immensely grateful for the warm and serious relationships I have enjoyed with my col-

leagues and other Western Hemisphere leaders. I am convinced that this sense of personal *amistad* can play a decisive role in the affairs of mankind, and nowhere more so than in our hemisphere.

Fourth, we share the conviction that there is much to do and that working together for concrete progress is the surest way to get it done. Even our criticism presumes the feasibility of cooperation.

Fifth, we respect each other's independence. We accept the principle that each nation is—and must be—in charge of its own future; each chooses its mode of development; each determines its own policies. But we know that our capacity to achieve our national goals increases as we work together.

Sixth, despite the differences among our political systems, our peoples share a common aspiration for the fulfillment of individual human dignity. This is the heritage of our hemisphere and the ideal toward which all our governments have an obligation to strive.

Finally, and of immediate importance, we are achieving a new and productive balance, based on real interests, in our relations within the Americas, within other groupings, and with the rest of the world. All of us have ties outside the hemisphere. But our interests elsewhere do not impede our hemispheric efforts. Our traditions of independence and diversity have served us well.

This is both a strength and a challenge to us now, as this Assembly takes up the issue of development.

The United States is dedicated to cooperate in development throughout the world. But as we seek to make progress in all our global development efforts, we recognize close and special ties to the nations of the Americas. We regard the concerns of this hemisphere as our first priority.

It is for this reason that we support the suggestions which have been made for a Special Assembly of the OAS to be devoted to hemispheric cooperation for development.

July 5, 1976

Such an Assembly should deal with concrete problems capable of practical solutions. To this end, the United States proposes that a preparatory meeting of experts be held in advance of the Special Assembly.

But we do not intend to delay our efforts while we await the processes of international institutions and conferences. The U.S. Administration will begin now:

- First, to give special attention to the economic concerns of Latin America in every area in which our executive branch possesses the power of discretionary decision.

- Second, to undertake detailed consultations with Latin American nations to coordinate our positions on all economic issues of concern to the hemisphere prior to the consideration of those issues in major international forums.

- Third, to consider special arrangements in the hemisphere in economic areas of particular concern to Latin America, such as the transfer and development of technology.

- In addition, we will put forth every effort to bring about the amendment of the U.S. Trade Act to eliminate the automatic exclusion of Ecuador and Venezuela from the generalized system of preferences.

The United States is prepared to proceed in these four areas whatever may occur in other development forums. But this Assembly offers an excellent opportunity to advance our joint progress. The United States believes that there are three major issues that this Assembly should address: commodities, trade, and technology. These involve:

- More stable and beneficial conditions for the production and marketing of primary commodities upon which the economic aspirations of so many countries in Latin America rely;

- Expansion of the trade opportunities and capabilities that are an essential part of the development strategies of all countries in the hemisphere; and

- Improved arrangements for the development, acquisition, and utilization of higher

technology to speed the modernization of the hemisphere.

Let me address each of these issues in turn.

## Commodities

Most of our members depend heavily on the production and export of primary commodities for essential earnings. Yet production and export of these resources are vulnerable to the cycles of scarcity and glut, underinvestment and overcapacity, that disrupt economic conditions in both the developing and the industrial world.

At the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) last month, we joined in the common commitment to search for concrete, practical solutions in the interests of both producers and consumers.

Despite reservations about some aspects of the final resolution at Nairobi, the United States believes that the final commodities resolution of the conference represented a major advance in the dialogue between North and South; we will participate in the major preparatory conferences on individual commodities and in the preparatory conference on financing.

One key element, however, is missing from the final catalogue of Nairobi's proposals: machinery to spur the flow of new investment for resource production in the developing countries. The United States made a proposal aimed at that problem—an International Resources Bank. A resolution to study the IRB was rejected by a vote that can best be described as accidental. Ninety nations abstained or were absent. Those nations of Latin America that reject such self-defeating tactics can make a special contribution to insure that the progress of all is not defeated by the sterile and outmoded confrontational tactics of a few.

As a contribution to the commitment we undertook at Nairobi to deal comprehensively with commodities problems, the United States proposes that the nations of the hemisphere undertake a three-part program to

6

Department of State Bulletin