The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes a request for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies) for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-use of this material.

Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additional reprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rights reserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010

©Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

FIRinG Line GUEST: PATRICIA DERIAN, Former Assistant Secretary of

State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

SUBJECT: #449 "HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOREIGN POLICY"

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern Educational Communications Association, 928 Woodrow St., P.O . Box 5966, Columbia, S.C., 29250 ard ·- transmitted through the facilities of the Public Broadcasting Service. Production of these programs is made possible through a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. FIRING Ll NE can be seen and heard each week through public television and radio stations throughout the country. Check your local newspapers for channel and time in your area.

SECA PRESENTS @)

FIRinG Line

HOST: GUEST:

EXAMINER: SUBJECT:

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. PATRICIA DERIAN, former assistant secretary of $tate for human rights and humanitarian affairs Aryeh Neier #449 "HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOREIGN POLICY"

FIRING LINE is produced and directed by WARREN STEIBEL.

This is a transcript of the FIRING LINE program which was taped in New York City on January 22, 1981 , and originally telecast by PBS on February 22, 1981.

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

© 1981 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

MR. BUCKLEY: Patricia Derian has served as our first assistant secretary of state for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. She graduated to that position from that of mere coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, a symbolic sta~ement of the special stress placed on that division of our foreign policy agency by President Carter. Actually, it was eongress, mostly under President Ford, that passed legislation requiring the State Department to assess the quality of human rights in the countries in the world to which we granted aid and, later, to countries in the world whether we granted them aid or didn't. Under Ms. Derian a staff busles itself collecting data for an annual report. Ms. Derian was identified as a hard lobby to transform negative human rights reports into negative relations. But more about this in due course.

Ms. Derian, a native of Virginia, took a degree in nursing from the University of Virginia, but soon she was involved primarily in the civil rights movement in Mississippi; in Democratic politics she was deputy director of the Carter-Mondale national campaign in Mississippi and for the Council on Human Relations. In p rivate life she is Mrs. Hedding Carter III.

Our examiner today will be Mr. Aryeh Neier, formerly of the American Civil Liberties Union, whom I shall present in due course.

I should like to begin by asking Mrs. Derian whether she was embar­rassed during the period she was in the State Department by the effusive statements made by President Carter in his meetings with the chiefs of Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia.

MS. DERIAN: Also Iran.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, and whoever, yes .

MS. DERIAN: I'm not sure embarrassed is the right word for that, but I do think that those symbolic gestures--and the President is not an ordinary guest or an ordinary host when a foreign visitor comes--the warmth, the very fact of reception, I think, transmits a view of how the country feels; and so I'd say that in some cases I felt a little uneasiness, but as a southerner, I also understand them because one thing that does live in the South is the host­guest rhetoric from an ancient, ancient time. So I would h ave preferred in some instances that it hadn't happened that way .

MR. BUCKLEY: I think it is more than merely culturally interesting . If I invite you to my house, I'm going to be polite to you . If I'm going to be president of the United States and you 're the president of Guinea and I say about you certain things which are palpably untrue about the state of human liberties in your country, it seems to me that I am superordinating protocol over against truth. There are acknowledgedly different ways of meeting people. When Khrushchev came to America for the first time, you will remember , Eisenhower did not permit himself to smile in public-­which was very difficult for someone whose smile was as congenital as Jimmy Carter's. However, the reason I stress this point is that inevitably we 're going to end up, I suppose, trying to transact the apparent incongruities between trying to find out how human rights

1

© Board of Trustees of the land Stanford Jr. University.

are faring in a particular country and deciding whether we want to cooperate with the leaders of that particular country, as we ap­parently, under Jimmy Carter and his predecessors, wanted to co­operate with the l eader of Romania. Now my question is: Do you acknowledge this (a) as a difficulty and (b) if so, is it a difficulty about which something could be done under existing constitutional arrangements?

MS . DERIAN: In terms of greeting leaders or--

MR. BUCKLEY: Greeting leaders and--

MS. DERIAN: --the whole panoply of--

MR. BUCKLEY: --congratulating them on the fact that they love human · rights the way Benjamin Franklin did?

MS. DERIAN: I'm not sure that any amendment to the Constitution is necessary, but I do think a certain sensitivity--a lear~ing from past experiences--would be useful, and I trust that that w1ll take place.

MR. BUCKLEY: What makes you trust it will?

MS. DERIAN: I presume, being a very optimistic kind of person, that one learns from the mistakes of others and from oneself and moves right along.

MR. BUCKLEY: Was it the Reagan victory that made you optimistic?

MS . DERIAN: I must say I didn 't find that pz.rticularly encouraging except in one sense, and that is: A lot of people who are concerned with human rights in an organizational way seemed to feel that this was going to make a terrific difference and that somehow the United States would abandon its interest in human rights, but if you stop and think of what actually happened in this country--the Department of Defense did not declare martial law, the President didn't decide that he would stay on, there was no coup, I wasn't sent to jail, nobody disappeared--we had an orderly transfer of power. We have a different point of view coming in, and we'll see how it'works out.

MR. BUCKLEY: I don't think many people deny that we have political stability in th.is country. The point I'm trying to make is--

MS. DERIAN: But it is rare and wonderful in the world .

MR. BUCKLEY: It is extremely rare. Your statistics and those of Freedom House make this vivid. When I made a dancing reference to constitutional amendments, what I meant to refer to is that we labor under disadvantages which , though not unique, are by no means universal. We have one guy who is both chief of state and chief of government, and it 1 s one thing for the chief of state--the Queen pf England, say--to utter sweet nothings in the ear of everyone who comes to visit; it's something a little bit different for a chief of government , whose responsibilities are other than merely ceremonial--

2

MS. DERIAN: Actually, I don't think you and I are in too much dis­agreement in this area, although I might disagree with you on the Queen of England, because what is transmitted in the photograph, in the television clip, in the account of warm greetings is really government-to-government kind of support and backing. So that if you're a citizen of another country, particularly one where human rights are abused, and you see the Queen of England or the President of the United States in some exceptionally warm kind of greeting, the message that is transmitted is the one that is meant to be transmitted, at least by the head of the visiting country, and that is, "We're standing behind you." And what it tells the citizens of the country is not always what the United States would wish to tell the citizens of the country.

MR. BUCKLEY: Or what they want to hear.

MS. DERIAN: Or what they want to hear. That' 's exactly right.

MR. BUCKLEY: If such commentators as Solzhenitsyn are to be believed, it was highly demoralizing to tens upon millions of Russians who were suffering under the special torment the Soviet Union has devised for dissenters to have people like Khrushchev welcomed in the White House and generally celebrated and his suc­cessors and so on and so forth. It tended to legitimize the regime. But let's go on and let me ask you this: We have t ·raveled a certain distance, whether it is a distance that will be thought of as progressive or not, since John Quincy Adams in his famous address in 1820 said, "The American people are friends of liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." As assistant secretary for human rights, you attempted not merely to evaluate how human rights were doing in a particular country, but to persuade our foreign policy makers to adapt a policy toward that country which took that into account, right?

MS. DERIAN: It's a little more than that. I was-- My duty was to see that the law was upheld; and indeed there was law written into the statute books during the period of President Ford; and then in the year 1977 there was a great deal of new legisla­tion, some of it country specific and some of it more general.

MR. BUCKLEY: "Country specific," by the way, means aimed at a country by name, like Cambodia, South Africa, and a few others.

MS. DERIANl Right, right. Chile.

MR. BUCKLEY: And you were going on to say that your role?

MS. DERIAN: And so, what my duty was was to examine questions on the basis of law and policy and the necessary background for that: Is there an accurate and up-to-date reading of the human rights situtation? And essentially it boils down into two parts. What happened in the United States was the perception in the Congress that American people who work hard for their money--pay a lot in taxes--don •·t want to see it go to prop up some tin-pot dictator and to use our money to control their own people, particularly

©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University. 3

are faring in a particular country and deciding whether we want to cooperate with the leaders of that particular country, as we ap­parently, under Jimmy Carter and his predecessors, wanted to co­operate with the leader of Romania. Now my question is: Do you acknowledge this (a) as a difficulty and (b) if so, is it a difficulty about which something could be done under existing constitutional arrangements?

MS. DERIAN: In terms of greeting leaders or--

MR. BUCKLEY: Greeting leaders and--

MS. DERIAN: --the whole panoply of--

MR. BUCKLEY: --congratulating them on the fact that they love human · rights the way Benjamin Franklin did?

MS. DERIAN: I'm not sure that any amendment to the Constitution is necessary, but I do think a certain sensitivity--a lear~ing from past experiences--would be useful, and I trust that that w1ll take place.

MR. BUCKLEY: What makes you trust it will?

MS. DERIAN: I presume, being a very optimistic kind of person, that one learns from the mistakes of others and from oneself and moves right along.

MR. BUCKLEY: Was it the Reagan victory that made you optimistic?

MS. DERIAN: I must say I didn't find that pz.rticularly encouraging except in one sense, and that is: A lot of people who are concerned with human rights in an organizational way seemed to feel that this was going to make a terrific difference and that somehow the United States would abandon its interest in human rights, but if you stop and think of what actually happened in this country--the Department of Defense did not declare martial law, the President didn't decide that he would stay on, there was no coup, I wasn't sent to jail, nobody disappeared--we had an orderly transfer of power. We have a different point of view coming in, and we'll see how it.works out.

MR. BUCKLEY: I don't think many people deny that we have political stability in th.is country. The point I'm trying to make is--

MS. DERIAN: But it is rare and wonderful in the world.

MR. BUCKLEY: It is extremely rare. Your statistics and those of Freedom House make this vivid. When I made a dancing reference to constitutional amendments, what I meant to refer to is that we labor under disadvantages which, though not unique, are by no means universal. We have one guy who is both chief of state and chief of government, anci it 1 s one thing for the chief of state--the Queen pf England, say--to utter sweet nothings in the ear of everyone who comes to visit; it's something a little bit different for a chief of government, whose responsibilities are other than merely ceremonial--

2

MS. DERIAN: Actually, I don't think you and I are in too much dis­agreement in this area, although I might disagree with you on the Queen of England, because what is transmitted in the photograph, in the television clip, in the account of warm greetings is really government-to-government kind of support and backing. So that if you're a citizen of another country, particularly one where human rights are abused, and you see the Queen of England or the President of the United States in some exceptionally warm kind of greeting, the message that is transmitted is the one that is meant to be transmitted, at least by the head of the visiting country, and that is, "We're standing behind you." And what it tells the citizens of the country is not always what the United States would wish to tell the citizens of the country.

MR. BUCKLEY: Or what they want to hear.

MS. DERIAN: Or what they want to hear. That' ·s exactly right.

MR. BUCKLEY: If such commentators as Solzhenitsyn are to be believed, it was highly demoralizing to tens upon millions of Russians who were su~fering under the special torment the Soviet Union has devised for dissenters to have people like Khrushchev welcomed in the White House and generally celebrated and his suc­cessors and so on and so forth. It tended to legitimize the regime. But let's go on and let me ask you this: We have t ·raveled a certain distance, whether it is a distance that will be thought of as progressive or not, since John Quincy Adams in his famous address in 1820 said, "The American people are friends of liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." As assistant secretary for human rights, you attempted not merely to evaluate how human rights were doing in a particular country, but to persuade our foreign policy makers to adapt a policy toward that country which took that into account, right?

MS. DERIAN: It's a little more than that. I was-- My duty was to see that the law was upheld; and indeed there was law written into the statute books during the period of President Ford; and then in the year 1977 there was a great deal of new legisla­tion, some of it country specific and some of it more general.

MR. BUCKLEY: "Country specific," by the way, means aimed at a country by name, like Cambodia, South Africa, and a few others.

MS. DERIANl Right, right. Chile.

MR. BUCKLEY: And you were going on to say that your role?

MS. DERIAN: And so, what my duty was was to examine questions on the basis of law and policy and the necessary background for that: Is there an accurate and up-to-date reading of the human rights situtation? And essentially it boils down into two parts. What happened in the United States was the perception in the Congress that American people who work hard for their money--pay a lot in taxes--don •·t want to see it go to prop up some tin-pot dictator and to use our money to control their own people, particularly

©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University. 3

through police weapons and equipment and that kind of thing.

MR. BUCKLEY: Incidentally, since you are a precisionist in nature of your profession, could you tell me--and therefore be the first person to do so--what a tin-pot dictator is?

MS. DERIAN : A tin-pot dictator is a leftover piece of rhetoric that tells you that you're not dealing with a person of any great substance in the area of justice, freedom of concept of government, what you've got is a dictator--

MR. BUCKLEY :

.MS . DERIAN: word .

MR. BUCKLEY:

Which is the operative word? Tin-pot or dictator?

Oh, I think that dictator is always the operative

What would be a non-tin-pot dictator? Tito?

MS. DERIAN: Oh , I think a non-tin-- I've forgotten what the word is now. Tin-pot?

MR. BUCKLEY: Tin-pot, . yes.

MS. DERIAN: --tin-pot dictator would be probably someone who sat at the top of the Soviet Union--a dictator of a different sort.

MR. BUCKLEY: You mean because he has a big country.

MS. DERIAN: And a very complex system·.

MR . BUCKLEY:

MS. DERIAN: want--

MR. BUCKLEY:

MS. DERIAN:

So tin-pot is for a very small country?

Tin-pot is--we can spend a lot of time on this if you

Would Pol Pot be?

(laughinq) --but it hardly seems relevant to me.

MR. BUCKLEY: No, I'm interested because it tends to be used in a way that sugge9ts a certain syndrome on the part of the person w~o uses ~t. For instance, one always hears about Somoza as a t~n-pot dlctator , but one didn't hear about Pol Pot as a tin-pot dlctator. Taxonomically--

MS . DERIAN: Pol Pot was such a devastatingly stunning k ind of dictator--

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes.

MS . DERIAN : --in the absolute effort to erase. He was more a nihilist--there was a system there. There was a point of view there.

MR. BUCKLEY: He wanted to undiscover the wheel .

t1S. DERIAN: That was essentially it. I think that Somoza just

wanted to carry on the family tradition, live the country life.

MR. BUCKLEY: And that would be tin-pot?

MS. DERIAN: And I think that would tend to be.

MR. BUCKLEY: Would the Shah be tin-pot?

MS. DERIAN: But I'm not sure if this is going to make its way into the dictionary.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I'm in search of a taxonomy and then I 1 m in search of a policy but would you agree with Senator Fulbright when he said that "America has no proper quarrel"--by America he meant corporate America, not you and me as private citizens--"America has no proper quarrel with any country in the world, no matter how obnoxious its internal doctrines so long as it does not seek to export them"?

MS. DERIAN: Oh, I don't know. I think that it 's a simplistic formulation and that the reality is far more complex, because we're doing all kinds of business with people. We have relations at every level in the international organizations like the UN; we have bilateral relations, and I'm not sure you can draw a little line in the dust and say, "As long as you aren't trying to export your odd version of how life should be lived and govern­ment should be conducted, we don't care what you do inside your place." I think we've passed on to another time--

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, yes--

MS. DERIAN: --as a consequence of the Nazi concentration camps as a starting place .

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, of course, they did try to export their doctrines. God knows, classically in our century the Soviet Union and Hitler were the original imperialists.

MS. DERIAN: We were quiet about it for a long time.

MR. BUCKLEY: But consider, for instance, our relations towards Papa Doc--Duvalier. He ran a terrorist regime for the whole of his lifetime, and his son seems to have continued after his father's fashion; and then at the other half of the island, a little bit east, was Trujillo, and he did the same thing, only relying less on voodoo and more on sort of a modern sort of semi­fascistic techniques. We did land the marines in 1965 in the Dominican Repub lic, but only--important point-- because it looked as though the person who was competing for power might in fact be nominated by the communists. Now this may have been misbegotten or not, but that was the reason that motivated Lyndon Johnson when he did so. We never considered overthrowing the government before, nor did we interfere--nor do we interfere--with Duvalier's government. This would be, as I understand it, an extension of the Fulbright doctrine, and even really reaching back to the John Quincy Adams distinction. Is it one that interests you?

4 ©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University. 5

MS. DERIAN: It interests me as a talking point and as a space for a philosophical kind of discussion. In terms of U.S. approval and support of governments which violate human rights, my profes­sional interest lies more clearly, because it is not in the American interest and it is certainly not in the interest of what we teach ourselves and our children about the kind of people we are. I don't think that you can just be negative--that you also have to work for the affirmative.

MR. BUCKLEY: How do you define support? Giving away money or selling goods? There is a distinction obviously.

MS. DERIAN: Well, and with selling goods--

MR. BUCKLEY: In the case of Tito, we gave per capita more money to Yugoslavia since the second world war than to any other country in the world • . After that, interestingly enough, it was Chile, pre­Allende. In that case, that was definitely supporting. We sup­ported Tito not because he was a member of the ACLU but because we thouqht he was an interesting and potentially useful challenge to the hegemony of the Soviet Union; in the case of Chile because we wanted to make it sort of the exemplary democracy in Latin America . Now, question: Do you consider selling arms to Argentina, for which they pay, "support" of Argentina?

MS. DERIAN: I consider it against the law because there is a specific law--

MR. BUCKLEY: Country specific?

MS. DERIAN: --which says, because of the human rights violations in that country, there will be no sales of--

MR. BUCKLEY: You've evaded the question.

MS. DERIAN: No, I haven't, though. That is a specific area I had to work in, and one of the troubles about understanding this job that I think a lot of people have had is the specific nature of it. Now, in terms of my own view, I think that to help keep a government in power--Argentina is not, after all, actually threatened by invasion, which is the purpose of our security assistance, our military training, our transfer of arms--the purpose of that is to help countries preserve their geographical integrity, not preserve them from politica l action inside their own countries, but from invasion--

MR. BUCKLEY: If you 're making a pronouncement--

MS. DERIAN: --as we do in South Korea.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes . If you 're making a pronouncement on an existing ~, quarrel between Chile and Argentina, I happen to think you're right. I think that Chile has a better juridical argument, but in point of fact they are definitely threatened much more than most countries I can think of by invasion, because the possibility of war between Argentina and Chile is very real and has been for two or three years.

MS. DERIAN: Has been. I think it's not quite so--

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay, let's get out of that--since Congress took from you the discretionary authority--and deal with the Philippines. Now, the Philippines is not a country directed, so how would you distinguish between supporting the Philippines and selling the Philippines arms?

MS. DERIAN: South Korea would probably be a better example--

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay.

MS. DERIAU: --for that in that North Korea is there--an imaginary invisible kind of line--although quite visible now by man-made events. It is a communi st nation; it is thought to be and is probably, in spite of what they've been saying lately, quite aggressive, looking for a weakness, looking for an opportunity to move into South Korea, which is no rose garden of democracy.

MR. BUCKLEY: And we have a division there?

MS. DERIAN: We have troops t .here. I P.on' t know how many, but we have a goodly number, and we have an ongoing military relationship with them for two reasons which are written into the law: One, we think that the national security of the United States is tied up with the stability of that region; two, we think that the people of South Korea ought not to have to suffer invasion from the people of North Korea. So we are protecting their geographical integrity, and we're also trying to hold that region together because we think that if the North Koreans invade South.Korea, then many countries in that region will jump in on one side or the other and what you have is an end to what has been a relatively peaceful international period in that region. So the fact is you can do two things: You can work on behalf of your human rights objectives; you cannot sell them police weapons and equipment, because that is for the control of their own people. Now, you understand, police weapons and equipment can be bought from many other countries which manufacture--West Germany will sell them to almost anybody, Israel wi ll sell them to almost anybody, France also--so it's not that you're denying them those things, but what you're saying is, "The government of the United States has this elaborate system of military sales, transfers, munitions list items--things that are written into legislation. When we give them to you, it indicates that we are in favor of what you do with the stuff." That's essentially it. Who wants their money used to make sure that people are taken off to prison in trucks made in the United States or handcuffed with U.S. handcuffs?

MR. BUCKLEY: I don't see that that necessarily follows.

MS. DERIAN: But it is the law.

MR. BUCKLEY: What is the law?

MS. DERIAN: Just what I said.

MR. BUCKLEY: The law, to begin with, is a terrible burden as a

7 6 ©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

result of its inexactitude. There are a half dozen laws that amend the Assistance Act of 1961. What most of them say is, "You can't send foreign aid to a particular country unless the president of the United States rules that the conferring of that foreign aid militates primarily to the advancement of the people rather than to the government. " Well, there isn't a president in the world who wi ll ever be elected who isn't dialectically resourceful enough to say it's going to help the people more than it is the regime.

MS. DERIAN: That's not exactly right. That law say s on aid, which is what I think you 're referring to--the aid portion of foreign assistance--that it goes to meet the basic human needs of the poorest of the poor , and that was a big shift that took place in the kind of aid programs we had in the United States, because in the beginning they'd been roughly modeled on the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Western Europe and provided infrastructure--roads, power plants, helped banks get put together. Then, when the law was changed, · it went to help the poorest of the poor--for drinking water, for food, for medicine, for children, that kind of thing. So that's taken place in military assistance. What the law on international financial institutions says is that we won 't have these relationships in countries where the integrity of the person i s violated and then it goes on to spell what they a re: torture, detention withou t charges or trials, summary execution , breaking into people's houses--those kinds of things that a government wi ll do to keep itself in power. If you look at countries where those things are done, you see that once the government would like to stop doing that, they have so Balkanizect it--made so little responsible, so few checks and balance s--that it is virtually impossible; and I think that Argentina is in that fix right now.

MR. BUCKLEY: Without arguing the specific case of Argentina, which, as you say, is preempted by the vocabulary of the Congress of the United States, the two principal- - what I call de-energizing--clauses in most of this l egislation are as fo llows : The first is one which says you can't give foreign aid to any country which "engages in a consistent pattern of gross vio l ations of internationally recognized human rights unless the president certifies in writing that extraordinary circumstances exist. " So, he simp l y says that extraordinary circums tances exist when he ' s talking about South Africa-- Well, he can't for South Africa because that's a country specific, but South Korea or the Philippines . And the other stock phrase is "unless such assistance will direct ly benefit the needy people in such country."

MS . DERIAN: Basic human needs--food, that kind of thing.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. Now , the human rights policy of the l ast four years is, in my judgment, l argely discredited . It is discredited as the result of the genera l opinion of thinking peop l e in various countries that it is an unsuccessful blend of the idealistic and the opportunistic. Those critics point to the behavior not only of the president of the United States when he embraces the president of Romania as though he we re Thomas Jefferson--

MS . DERIAN: And the Shah.

8

MR. BUCKLEY: Well--

MS . DERIAN: What's the difference there?

MR. BUCKLEY: I would say the difference between life in Romania and life in Iran was very significant. I mean, if you 're interested 1

in differentials. It would be like saying life under Hitler was the same as life under Franco . . There were certain liberti es that neither had in common, but there were certain rights that were indulged in Spain and not in West Germany. In any case, as the upcoming ambassador to the United Nations, Mrs. Jeane Kirk­patrick, points out, we have a terribly unhappy policy of making situations worse than they were before . It wou ld be very hard to find an Iranian in his right mind who believes .that life is now more pleasant than it was under the Shah.

MS. DERIAN: It wou l d be hard to find a thinking person anywhere in the wor l d who believed that because the Shah announced publicly that he was not going to allow torture . by his people any more that the Shah fell. You know, we've got 30 years of history in our own relationship there.

MR. BUCKLEY: There's never been any freedom in Persia.

MS. DERIAN: Right .

MR . BUCKLEY: Government has always been by torture and repression and so on and so forth. In point of fact, the Shah in 1977-78, heeding a numbe r of injunctions issuing not only from this country but from international bodies eased up and, before he knew it, we had the Ayatollah . Now we couldn't predict- -or could we? --that the Ayatollah would succeed the Shah. All we know is that we made the situation worse. ''le ' ve almost certainly made it worse in Nicaragua. God knows we made it worse in Cuba, and God knows we made it worse in Southeast Asia. So that those people who say, " Cons ider the possible consequences of a dogmatic and schematic approach to human rights," have an awful lot of history and sociology on their side. I know you don 't like tha t argument .

MS . DERIAN: ·No, I don 't like the argument and I don ' t understand why thinking people will say that Mr. Marcos doesn 't like our human rights policy or the Argentine junta or the People 's Republic of China or Chun.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I can tell you why.

MS . DERIAN : Of course you know why , because they 're vio lating human rights--

MR . BUCKLEY: No , no.

MS. DERIAN: --and it's like going up to a rapist and raising a hue and cry . The rapist is not going to be happy.

MR . BUCKLEY: That's not quite right. Let's take , for example-­Suppose you we r e a 30-year- old schoolteacher who h ad labored for eight years to bring discipline to your class and had found during the first six years that it was impossible to do so . They would

9 ©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

scream at each other and throw whatever at each other and use profanity and so on and so forth; and in the last two years they gave you authority to expel chronically unruly students, which authority you hadn't had before , and I came along and started giving you a lecture about how discriminating you were against the poor students in your class who didn't have the privileges and so on and so forth. You probably would be impatient. This I wou ld compare to what a lot of them think.

MS. DERIAN: who must make

MR. BUCKLEY:

MS . DERIAN:

MR. BUCKLEY:

MS. DERIAN:

If you see the leader of a country as a schoolteacher his children obey, I think then that- -

I think it's often true. So did John Stuart Mill.

Well, I think a lot of leaders feel that way.

So did John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill defined--

Democrats don't tend to feel that way--small "d."

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I think John Stuart Mill , God knows, was -democrat. He believed in universal franchise, but, he said, "The on·e despot who i .s tolerable is someone who uses the power he has in order to augment freedom."--i.e., if he moves in the direction of liberalization, he is different from a recidivist who moves backward as the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah is moving towards the 14th century; the Shah was moving in our general direction, so those are two very important differences, aren't they?

MS. DERIAN: I--to just do an aside on the Shah and the Ayatol lah-­! think it 's a pity that they had for 35 years in their country the Shah, who certainly said publicly all the wonderful things that he would like to see happen in his country, had vast amounts of money at his disposal, spent vast amounts of money; and at the end of his tenure, you wound up with a people who had no more will or background or instruction or resources than to follow a madman like Khomeini .

MR. BUCKLEY: What does this teach us?

MS. DERIAN: I mean, that's something pretty sad. Well, one thing it ought to teach us is that a lot of that time he was receiving foreign aid, and we were very close confidants-- We were selling him everything he wanted. He has weapons that nobody can use; he has systems that are so complex that they can't even be serviced. Yet people think--

MR. BUCKLEY: He was buying. He was buying from America .

MS. DERIAN: Oh, sure he was. He was buying and buying and buying as- -

MR. BUCKLEY: Surely, but a moment ago you said we were qivinq him. It is true--

MS. DERIAN: Oh, we did give him aid for a long time.

10

MR. BUCKLEY: It is true that he was a friend of America, that he voted consistently with us, that he sold oil to Israel when nobody· else would, that he gave us such favors as we solicited, and that he moved in the direction of, for instance, modernizing the rights of women, who when he came on the scene had no rights at all and now have reverted to where they have no rights at all. Whether his rhythms are congenial to us requires us to recall, I think, in some humility, that 20 years ago a black man couldn't get food in a white restaurant in the South and that in England 130 years ago a Jew or Catholic couldn't vote. So the notion that our idea of progress in human rights ought automatically to be other people's is, I think, an act of hubris.

MS. DERIAN: Oh well, I don't think we have that idea at all. There is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and one of the delightful sidelights of traveling around the world these four years is that every country I go to I am introduced to two people, the Walter Cronkite of the country and the man who helped write the Human Rights declaration--all of them are quite old now.

MR. BUCKLEY: Some of them are in jail, too .

MS. DERIAN: Ye~, yes, and some of them foreign ministers, as a matter of fact; but the thing of it is that, you know, if you had had this neighbor--this person as a neighbor that you ' ve just described--voted with you in the Chamber of Commerce, made ample contributions to the United Givers' Fund, kept a good balance in the bank, always looked nice, had a nice yard, a nice house, children clean, wife maybe civically active--but that he also tortured his children when he got them behind the doors of his house or knocked his wife around or mistreated people in another way, would that be all right? He's fulfilling all the outward things you want . He's voting with you--

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, it's not--

MS. DERIAN: --he's a good citizen in all those ways, but he is utterly corrupt.

MR. BUCKLEY: Look, it's not all right by--

MS. DERIAN: ·what's our interest in that?

MR. BUCKLEY: Look, it's not all right by my standards. It's not all right by my standards either- -

MS. DERIAN: Or the Universal Declaration standards.

MR. BUCKLEY: --that more people get murdered in America every year than were killed ·during-- Well, there were more people murdered by cars than were killed in the Vietnam War; more people were murdered than died in the Civil War. These things aren 't all right by me--

MS. DERIAN: No? Then you don't throw in the towel on them. Here you are. You're talking about it.

11 ©Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

MR. BUCKLEY: No. You don 't throw in the towel; on the other hand, you don't start electrocuting people for double-parking.

MS . DERIAN: No, but you don't sell booze to people; you do take people ' s licenses away if they are likely to do that sort of thing-­if they've done it. What happens is, this is the government of the United States, a free democratic , justice-loving country. We have relations with nearly every country in the world--official relations, which are necessary and which suit me fine. But there's nothing anywhere written that says just because somebody's govern­ment is going to vote with us in the UN that we should support them in the suppression of other puman beings and the violation of basic human rights. It's not just Americans who don't want to be tortured.

MR. BUCKLEY: I don't know why you say that we are supporting them in the act of torture. I happen to be ardently mobilized on the same subject.. I've written a book on it, and I found myself a delegate to the United Nations instructed never to give a speech-­even though I was on the Human Rights Committee--at the expense of China or the Soviet Union or any communist state with the exception of Cuba. Those were instructions from my government . Those instructions continued through Mr . Carter's government. The late Allard Lowenstein told me that when he was in Geneva, serving as our representative on the Human Rights Committee, the word came in from Secretary Vance , your superior , that under no circumstances was he to mention the word, "Bukovsky," because the Soviet Union was so antsy over Bukovsky having been briefly visiting with Mr. Carter.

MS. DERIAN: I have to tell you that I saw all the instructions that he got.

MR. BUCKLEY: This was given orally.

MS. DERIAN: They were cleared in my office.

MR . BUCKLEY: It was given orally .

MS. DERIAN: I find it very hard to believe, because if you could see what Al Lowenstein did in the UN-- He broke that Human Rights Commission open for the first time.

MR. BUCKLEY: He was the very first person to do it.

MS. DERIAN: Absolutely .

MR . BUCKLEY: But it was after he had done that he was reined in as we began to discover--or that was the perception of Secretary Vance and President Carter--that we had gone too far, as witness, for instance, that never again did Mr. Carter give an audience to another Soviet dissident, though God knows there's been no shortage of them. What I'm saying is this: that we have to distinguish--

MS. DERIAN: Oh, I don't know. We have had Mr. Rostropovich there. We've had a number of people.

MR. BUCKLEY: Rostropovich was exiled .

12

MS. DERIAN: He wasn't just exiled; he was not allowed to go back. His citizenship was taken away.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, he .was exiled. That's what I mean by exiled: He's not allowed to go back.

MS. DERIAN: He was deprived of his right to be a citizen of his own country.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, but he was exiled. As you know, Arnalrik sought an interview with the President; it was denied, and there were a number of others who didn't. Here is what I think we have to focus on: On the one hand, we don't want to suggest, because it is convenient for us , that torture isn't going on when it is going on; on the other hand, we also recognize that the sovereign obligation of the people who govern this country is to prevent us from going in to wage a war while still maintaining our independence. In order to do that, we make--

MS. DERIAN: And our principles.

MR. BUCKLEY: --we make unholy alliances. We have had de facto alliances with Tito since 1948.

MS. DERIAN: Let's look at some we've had.

MR. BUCKLEY: And we're soliciting one with Ceausescu and have for ten years, as the result of which we see all kinds of pleasant things for these people. Now, I think therefore that we should divorce--

MS. DERIAN: Of course, if you're a Romanian I expect you don' .t have such a keen feeling about it because there's not much dif­ference in Romania today as--

MR. BUCKLEY: The Soviet Union.

MS. DERIAN: --life in the Soviet Union during Stalin's time.

MR. BUCKLEY: No, but there's a slightly greater chance that they wi ll be liberated because they are not 100 percent an appendage of the Soviet Union as a result of Ceausescu's rather cranky in independence in the exercise of foreign policy . I guess what I'm saying really is that I think we should split the functions--that your organization should be detached from this set of problems.

MS. DERIAN: I like your idea. I read your column. I meant to write you a letter about it. Mr. Buckley suggested that there ought to be an independent human rights organization. Martin Ennals, the former head of Amnesty International, is working to try to put one together; Warren Christopher suggested it in 1977.

MR. BUCKLEY: And pull it out of the policy-making body.

MS. DERIAN: It would be fine that the country reports the day-to­day following of the situation. I think that would be a great idea, but in terms of what American foreign policy ought to be,

13 ©Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

I still don't believe that it's fn our long-range interest. Before · World War II there were masses and masses of people around the world who had no contact outside of their own community. They lived lives of sometimes deprivation, sometimes very primitive lives, and they didn't have any expectation for their own lives or the lives of their children beyond what was there. It's my sort of off­the-cuff thesis that when the World Health Organization came and wiped out yaws and a number of diseases, that was the first time people living in terrible conditions ever knew that change was pos­sible--saw it happen. Then came radio everywhere, electronic media jet travel, a million aid projects, a very international pair of ' superpowers sending their people everywhere--along with everyone else--looking for new markets, building things up. I don't think you can find a people anywhere in the world who are perfectly satisfied or even reasonably satisfied to continue to live in conditions as they were 50 years ago, and what I'm saying in all of that.elabo:ate buildup is that those people are going to have a say ln thelr government. They are going to want to have a say and they are g?ing to struggle until they get it. What's going to hap­~en then, lf we h~ve been ~he ones supporting, backing up, helping ln every way posslble, havlng warm relations with the dictator who had the foot on their neck? I just don't think it's in our interest and--

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, the trouble--

MS. DERIAN: --I don't think it's right~ What I don't understand is why do you think it's right?

MR. BUCKLEY: about right.

MS. DERIAN:

The trouble with that analysis-- I'm not talking about I'm talking about what we should do.

Right for the country.

MR. BUCKLEY: I'm talking about what we should do, and in some cases this is value-free. I don't think it was right for us to join up with Stalin, but I think that a value-free decision excuses that unholy alliance. The trouble with your analysis is that it's quite true that you get people saying, "I'm going to turn and ge t a government that's going to give me color TV and refrigerators and automobiles and--"

MS. DERIAN: No. How about a road from farm to market? How about drinking water? How about a chance to cast a vote? How about a chance to throw out a corrupt--

MR. BUCKLEY: But the question is: Cast a vote for what? We--

MS. DERIAN: Same thing we cast votes for.

MR. BUCKLEY: The trouble is, as we know from huge experience, ~eople.tend to.cast votes once and then they have one-party states ln Afrlca and ln most of Latin America. Right now in Latin America there are five self-governing countries. Up until three or four years ago there were two, and their wars of national liberation began 140 years ago. Those of Africa began 20 years ago and there are only three out of 29 African states in which--

14

•l. , ,

MS. DERIAN: But where do you go from that? Since it took so long--

MR. BUCKLEY: Where I go from that is to recognize--

MS. DERIAN: --it just doesn't matter becau se it's going to take a long time for the rest?

MR. BUCKLEY: No. --is to recognize that a great many people who do vote are attempting to substitute political for economic means of self-aggrandizement, and in the course of encouraging them, to suppose that there i s a chimerical advantage in pulling a particular lever, and al l of a sudden those benefits shower down upon you. You 're simply subsidizing surrealism, and this causes strategic discontent. Look at what ' s happened in Cuba where there is no vote and there is no prosperity and there is no freedom after 20 years of Castro.

MS. DERIAN: Yes, but nobody pretends it's a democracy, and t hey didn't really have a shot at getting one .

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, it's a democracy of the proletariat . There's all kinds of fancy terminology for what it is down there. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat intending to dissipate the state.

MS. DERIAN: You know , one of the things--just as another aside-­in thinking about CEntral America and our past practices in Latin America and essentially, if we could get somebody who was strong enough to stand up over the top of others and say, "I'm an anti­communist and you've got my vote in the UN," no matter what kind of leader that person was, no matter what kind of government that person ran, we signed on with him and helped him out .

MR. BUCKLEY: That's not true.

MS . DERIAN: I think that it's true over and over again .

MR. BUCKLEY: We boycotted Trujillo, for instance. We boycotted the peop l e . in Peru who overthrew the preceding government in 1962.

MS. DERIAN: Briefly.

MR. BUCKLEY: We didn't send an ambassador there for nine months.

MS. DERIAN: Yes, well, that's a lot.

MR. BUCKLEY: So we've experimented with boy cotts and freezes and that type thing.

MS. DERI AN : But you know what happens is, throwing in with the right like that means that we give on the cheap Castro and that group of people who come from the communist world carrying our banners--justice, deve lopment, freedom, democracy--they carry our--

MR. BUCKLEY: We don't give it to them. They choose to take it.

MS. DERIAN: Sure, they get it on the cheap .

MR. BUCKLEY: They take it.

15

©Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

MS. DERIAN: We don't do anything. We find a strong man.

MR . BUCKLEY : They know how-- Look, they know how we do things in our country. I think that your argument would have been very good for so long as there was entrenched, consolidated, institu­tionalized discrimination against black people in this country. I think this was a profanation of our ideals which hurt our credi­bility abroad, but you don ' t have to point to the fact that we have diplomatic relations with Argentina or with Chi l e to disen­chant these people. The fact of the matter is that if there is any impulse in Latin America that means more than any other, it ' s that they should be independent- -

MS . DERIAN: Absolutely.

MR. BUCKLEY: --and that they should not be creatures of the United States, and we have enough bona fides here pointing to our own life to show them the direction in which they ought to travel if they want freedom and prosperity.

MS. DERIAN: Oh , I have no objection at all to being a wonderful guidepost for people in other places . All I'm saying is that this governr.·ent and the taxpayers' money doesn't go to support those governments. It ' s as neat as that .

MR. BUCKLEY: We ' ll turn to the examiner. Mr. Aryeh Neier was for many years probably the dominant figure in the American Civil Liberties Union; he now teaches at the School of Law at New York University. Welcome, Mr. Neier .

MR. NEIER: Thank you very much. I ' d like to ask both of you about our relations with Central America. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has an article in the January issue of Commentary in which she argues that the United States should have propped up the Somoza regime, and I wonder if you would comment on what she says.

MS. DERIAN: Who's first?

MR . BUCKLEY: I haven't read it.

MS. DERIAN: I haven ' t read it either.

MR. NEIER: Well, just comment then on whether the United States- -

MR. BUCKLEY: On the proposition?

MR. NEIER: - - should have propped up Somoza.

MR. BUCKLEY: After you . You're my guest.

MS. DERIAN: Oh , I tried to play host. (laughter)

MR . BUCKLEY: This is the thesis for which Mrs . Kirkpatrick has become most famous, i . e., that .we have this genius for going from a bad situation to a worse one; and what she's saying now is that the situation in Nicaragua is not only worse than it was under Somoza, but heading towards a ye t worse situation. Somoza, as we

16

all know, had promised elections on '82. Whether he would have granted that guarantee is problematic, but in any case he had done so . This gang is now unwilling to make any such guarantee.

MR. NEIER: They've said'BS.

MR. BUCKLEY : They've said ' 85, yes , and nothing that they have said before have they lived up to .

MR. NEIER : No . They've allowed an opposition press . There ' s a very lively opposition press .

MR . BUCKLEY: So did :3omoza . Somoza's opposition press was much more vigorous than this one.

MR. NEIER: Except that the editor of the lively opposition press was killed under Somoza.

MR. BUCKLEY: To say that he was killed under Somoza is like saying Bobby Kennedy was killed under Lyndon Johnson .

MR. NEIER : No, I'm implying a direct relationship- -

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, you shouldn't .

MR . NEIER: --between Somoza and the murder.

MR. BUCKLEY: You should know more about civil liberties than to imply any such thing , because the case has never been made that he was even plausibly responsible for that assassination.

MR. NEIER: Unfortunately, we do not have- -or did not have- - in Nicaragua the capacity to prosecute Mr. Somoza in the manner in which he might have been prosecuted in the United States. Therefore, I am reduced to implying.

MR . BUCKLEY: Okay . I'll simply state as my flat proposition: There are fewer liberties in Nicaragua today then there were under Somoza; and hand the hand grenade to my guest.

MR. NEIER: Would that imply, however, that you would have propped up Somoza?

MR. BUCKLEY: I would find it distasteful, but maybe that's a very good reason why I'm not really well-equipped for public office. Sometimes one should do distasteful things, and perhaps exact from the person with whom one deals certain concessions and see what kind of headway toward human rights can be made by that pattern . Unhappily , what Somoza predicted is exactly what is hap­pening, i.e., the Marxification of Nicaragua and its satellizati on as to foreign policy . I remind you that the leaders of Nicaragua congratulated the Soviet Union on their invasion of those imperialists in Afghanistan. (To Ms. Derian) Go ahead.

MS. DERIAN: I think we ought to keep one thing in mind . The United States did not send the marines t o remove Somoza . The United States did not pluck him out of office and put him in Paraguay.

17 © Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

What happened was, there was a revolution of the people who lived in Nicaragua, and it wasn't just left-wing revolution. By the time that fighting actually broke out, you had the middle class, the business, the stable ongoing regular kind of people all engaged in it. What happened was, we didn't send in the marines. We sent in the marines to put his daddy in office, and we kept both of them in office for a long, long time--two generations . So what happened was that when the big money connected with Somoza saw the way it was going , first thing that happened was that they took their capital and went to Miami, where most of them sit today. They had an honest-to-goodness war; their roads are torn up, their hospitals are no good; and, you know, all that money .. we gave for the rebuilding after the Managua earthquake--nothing was rebuilt. So they have a long legacy of not much to work with. Then you get- -I had one of the members of the junta, of the revolutionary government, in my office who is younger th.an my children. You have a kid who has some kind of responsibility of vast magnitude in his country. You've got a mixed bag of people. You can go there today and one of the highest officials of that government wil l take you through the jails and prisons and say, "These conditions are awful. I know that a man was tortured here last night. We don't know who did it." I see in Nicaragua no absolute yet . I think it is chaotic; I think that the government is fragmented, that they have very few resources, that they've got those national guardsmen in jail like an albatross around their necks. They appointed some judges; they were so politically oriented that they were not credible. They've got problems , but I don't think it's shaken down yet. I think there's a chance, certainly, that they can adopt the Cuban mode. I also think--

MR. BUCKLEY: You think they can reject the Cuban mode?

MS. DERIAN: No, that they can adopt chance that they oould go that way . chance, slimmer, but still a chance, system where they aren 't a puppet.

it. I think there's a real I think that there's also a that they might work out some

MR. BUCKLEY: And you'd be in favor of aiding them?

MS. DERIAN: I think that you don't just write a check, which may be where you and I disagree.

MR. BUCKLEY: But under certain circumstances, you would help them?

MS. DERIAN: Yes , I think that we should under certain circumstances.

MR. BUCKLEY: But isn't that what we've been arguing about? Where you said you shouldn't help people who are engaging in--

MS. DERIAN: Absolutely.

MR. BUCKLEY: --all these deprivations of liberties?

MS. DERIAN: That's absolute.

MR. BUCKLEY: But you would make an exception in their case?

MS. DERIAN: Well, I think th.at it's not the exact--

18

MR. BUCKLEY: It's formative.

MS. DERIAN: No, no. There's--

MR. BUCKLEY: Wet clay.

~S. DERIAN: There's a place in there where we don't have to give 1t away. Now, there's a permanent commission on human rights that o~erated al~ ~hrough the Somoza years--accurate reporters of human r1ghts cond1t1ons. They were essentially ordinary citizens who believed i~ basic human rights and the constitution of their country, and they r1sked their lives and their jobs, and their freedom and their kids' futures, to say, "This is the way life is lived here. Here are the things ~hat happened; this is the place it happened; here are the people 1t happened to." They continued after the revolution; they've been having kind of a hard time. One of the things I think the United States has helped to do is to make sure th7y are still given some standing. .I think that's a worthy ~h1ng to do, and a lot of the supporters, interestingly enough, 1n the U.S. who used to help them out have given them the cold shoulder lately, thinking that once you have a revolution--

MR. BUCKLEY: It solves--

MS. DERIAN: --there aren't any more problems.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes.

MS. DERIAN: But if you look at human rights in political terms-­ri~ht, left, totalitarian, authoritarian--you're never actually go1ng to get to the objective of what you're doing; and that is, you look at those principles and it doesn't matter who's doing the~ or where or what their politics are, what you're trying to do 1s to make some kind of contribution to the world and not having your government help it go--

MR. BUCKLEY: Or dictate, yes.

MS. DERIAN: That's right. Absolutely.

MR. NEIER: Mrs. Derian, a problem that I find very difficult in dealing with a repressive government--use the Soviet Union as an example--is whether it is desirable or when it is desirable to cut off cultural relations, scientific exchanges, matters of that sort. I wonder if, after your four years in the post in charge of American foreign policy insofar as human rights are concerned, you have a view as to how it is possible to deal with a government of that sort on such questions. When does one tend to foster human rights by engaging in exchanges, and when does one ratify a policy of repressing human rights?

MS. DERIAN: I'm afraid that I'm going to give the kind of answer I don:t like giving to questions, but it is the reality, and tha~ 1s, ~ year or so a~o a ~roup of scientists were going to the Sov1et Un1on for a cont1nuat1on of a series of annual or every­two-years meetings, and they were having quite a struggle within their group to decide what they should do because there were a number of-- You know, the period of the last few years of crackdown

©Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. 19

on dissidents has been ghastly, even before Afghanistan and all of that. So a number of those people called and said, "What do you think we should do?" and I said, "Those that think they would like to withhold their presence, their expertise, should write l etters, call their contacts in the other places and say , "We're n o t coming because we really cannot condone these." Others who believe that you've got to keep the door--that somehow it does some good to talk to a fellow scientist and say, "We're really horrified and appalled,"--need to do that. As far as using US government funds, I think that you have to weigh it very carefully , and the fact is, we need to know a lot. We need to know more about them. I think that what we know is so overwhelming, but what we don't know are what really pulls levers, what pushes buttons. I don't subscribe to the division that there are the politicians who have regular politicians' problems and there are the cops who are hardliners, which is one sort of US point of view--that somehow they 're all like the board of directors of the Ford Motor Company who run it, and if you just understood their problems. I'm n o t too keen on that, so what I say is that you have to make up your own mind, but when you're using US dollars, then you've got to let it be calibrated in the regular foreign policy way--that is, sometimes you do, sometimes y ou don't.

MR. NEIER: But doesn't that cut against a lesson which I think anyone advocating human rights learns very quickly? And that is, that you have to be consistent in applying a human rights policy--that if you're willing to make exceptions because of other considerations that you may have, that ultimately you damage your credibility in advocating human rights?

MS. uERIAN: I think that there needs to be more consistency. I don't think that the matter of exchanges and v isits-- Frankly, I believe in the free movement of people and the opportunity for people to travel and do what they would like to do and say what they want. I'm very consistent about that--which is also one of the human rights--but the legislation--

MR. NEIER: The free movement of people isn't exactly what's involved when government-sponsored exchanges go forward.

MS. DERIAN: But the thing of it is that I think American citizens are able to choose whether they wish to participate . I think that the US government will have times when they 're going to shut that off and times when they're not. I mean, I just think that it is not a matter of automatic cutoff. Actually, if that were the case, we wouldn't have had any cultural exchanges for the last 25 y ears, because if you're going to do cultural exchanges and that kind of thing on the basis of human rights, we wouldn't have any kind of visits.

MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Aryeh Neier. Thank you very much, Mrs. Pat Derian, assistant secretary of state for the Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Thank you very much, gentlemen from the Hudson Catholic High School.

NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS

FIRING LINE

The Dow Chemical Company John M. Olin Foundation, Inc . Mobil Oil Corporation Conoco, Inc. Smith Kline Corporation Kurt E . Volk Foundation, Inc. Kellogg Company G. D. Searle & Co . National Dist i ll ers and Chemi cal Co rporation M. H. King Found a tion Lo c tit e Corpora ti on Amax Foundation, Inc . Chi cago Brid ge & Iro n Foundati on Continental Electronics Mf g . Co . Dillon, Read & Co., Inc. Dresser Foundation, Inc. Fieldcrest Foundation Harsco Corporation 'Fund Philip Holzer & Associates, Inc . Seaboard Coast Line Indu s tries Inc. The Sherwin- Williams Company ' Tiger Internationa l Ammco Tools, Inc Ober juerge Rubber Company Chas . M. Bailey Co., Inc. The Hon. & Mrs. Peter H. Domini c k Han l ey Company, Inc. Russell Corporation

20 ©Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.