V 4 • F W > UNITED STA TES SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ^ l 2 -2 - EXCHANGES WITH THE SOVIET UNION n government . Storage

H E A R I N G BEFO RE TH E SU BC OM MITTE ES ON IN TERN A TIO N A L SE CURIT Y AND SC IE N TIF IC A FFA IR S AND IN TERN A TIO N A L OPE RATI ONS OF TH E COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINE TY -SI XT H CONGRESS SECOND SESSION

H.J. Res. 534 i J H MAY 20, 1980 m rn oc <■ Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs oc r □CO :i 3 1 ' □ itCO = - IT H H □ C U M E N T S < JUL 2 1 1 9 8 0 - a R R E L L L IB R A R Y ‘ KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITX

U.S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G OFFIC E 63-521 O WAS HI NG TO N : 19 80 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS CL EM EN T J. ZA BL OC KI, W isc onsin , Ch airm an L. H. FO UN TA IN , N or th Car ol in a W IL LI AM S. BR OO MFIEL D, Michiga n DA NT E B. FA SC EL L, Flo ri da ED WAR D J. DER W IN SK I, Il lino is CH ARL ES C. D IGGS, J r., M ichiga n PA UL F IN DL EY , Il linoi s BE NJA M IN S. RO SE NT HA L, New York JO HN H. BUCHANAN, J r., A laba ma LEE H. HA MILT ON , In dia na LA RRY WI NN , JR., K an sa s LESTER L. W OLF F, New Y ork BEN JA M IN A. GIL MA N, New York JO NA TH AN B. BING HA M, New Y ork TE NN YS ON G UYER, Ohio GUS YATRON, Pen ns yl va ni a RO BE RT J. LAGOMA RSINO , Cal ifor ni a CA RD ISS CO LL INS, Il lino is WILLIAM F. GOODLIN G, Pen ns yl va ni a STEPH EN J. SOL ARZ, New Y ork JO EL PRI TC HA RD , W as hi ng to n DON B ON KE R, W as hi ng to n M IL LI CE NT FE NW IC K, New Je rs ey GE RR Y E. STUD DS, M as sa ch use tts DAN QUAYL E, In dia na ANDY IREL AN D, Flo rida DONALD J . PE ASE , Ohio DAN M ICA , Flo rida MICHAE L D. BA RN ES , M arylan d W IL LIAM H. GRAY III, Pen nsy lv an ia TONY P. HA LL , Ohio HO WA RD WOL PE , Michig an DA VID R. BO WE N, Missis sip pi FLOY D J. FIT H IA N , In dia na J oh n J. B rady, J r. , Ch ief of S ta ff J o seph in e Web er , Sta ff A ss is ta nt Susan McCartan, S ta ff A ss is ta nt

Subcommittee on I nternational Security and Scien tific Affairs CL EM EN T J. ZA BL OC KI, W isc onsin , Ch airm an L. H. FO UN TA IN , N orth Car ol in a WILLIAM S. BR OO MFIEL D, Mi chiga n LEE H. HA MILT ON , In dia na LARRY WI NN , J r., K an sa s LES TE R L. WOL FF , New Y ork DAN QUAYLE, In dia na JO NA TH AN B. BING HA M, New Y ork Iv o J. Spa la tin, Su bc om m itte e Sta ff D irec tor Wil liam H. F it e, M in ori ty S ta ff C on su ltan t T on i J . Grant, Su bc om m itte e Sta ff A ssoc ia te

Subcommittee on I nternational Operations DA NT E B. FA SC EL L, Flo rida , Ch airm an

ANDY IR EL AN D, Flo rida JO HN H. BUCHANAN, J r., Al ab am a DAN MICA, Flo ri da ED WAR D J. DERW IN SK I, Illino is WILLIAM H. GRAY III , Pen nsy lv ania JO EL PR IT CHARD , W as hi ng to n DAVJD R. BO WE N, M issis sip pi R. Mic hael F in ley , Subc om m itte e Sta ff D irec tor J anean Man n, M in ori ty Sta ff C on su lta nt Virg inia Sch lu nd t, Su bc om m itte e Sta ff A ssoc ia te K aren B re nn an , Su bco m m itte e Sta ff Assoc ia te CONTENTS

WITNE SSES Hon. Thomas R. Pickering, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and Intern ational Environmen tal and Scientific Affairs, Department of P a &e State ______2 William D. Carey, executive officer, American Association for the Ad­ vancement of Science______4 Max Gottesman, Ph. D., cochairman, Committee of Concerned S cientists. 6 AP PEND IXES 1. Text of House Joint Resolution 534______23 2. Statem ent submitted for the record by Hon. Donald J. Pease______29 3. Letter from Philip Handler, president, National Academy of Sciences, with attach ed statem ent for the record______31 4. Letter to Hon. George E. Brown from Hon. J. Brian Atwood, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations with State Depart­ ment comments on the legislation______46 5. Letter from Max Gottesman and Mark Kac, cochairmen, Comm ittee of Concerned Scientists, with comments on the legislation______48 6. Article from Technology Review, December/Janua ry 1980, entitled “Science and Hum an Rights,” by Earl Callen, Bernard R. Cooper, and John Parmentola______49 (in )

UNITE D STA TES SCIEN TIFIC AND TECH NICAL EXCHANGES WIT H THE SOVIET UNION

TUESD AY, M AY 20 , 19 80

H ouse or R ep re se nt at iv es , C om mit te e on F or eig n A ff air s , S ub co mmitte es on I nt er na tion al S ec ur it y an d S cie n tif ic A ff ai rs an d I nt er nati onal O pe ra tion s , ashington^ D.G. The subcommittees met at 1 0:30 a.m. in room 2200, Ra yb urn House Office B uilding , Hon. Clem ent J. Zablocki (ch airm an) pre siding . Ch air ma n Zab lo ck i . The subcom mittees will please come to order. We meet today to conside r House Jo in t Resolutio n 534 which deals with U.S . policies affecting scientific and technical exch anges with the Soviet Un ion . 1 House Jo in t Resolution 534 was introd uced by Re pre sen tative George Brown, a mem ber of the Com mittee on Science and Technology. Represe nta tiv e Brow n ha d hop ed to join us tod ay, bu t due to a death in his fam ily , he will not be able to attend toda y’s hearing. Repre sen tative Don Pease was to rep res ent the Com mittee on Sci­ ence and Techno logy, however, since he too is unable to be here , I have been asked to enter int o the record the rem ark s of our fellow colleague, Don Pease, who reflects Con gressman Br ow n’s thinking on this subject. W ith ou t objection, the sta tem ent of Hon. Donal d J. Pease will be ins ert ed in the record. If there is no objectio n, it is so ord ere d. 2 Before we he ar from our dis tin gu ish ed witnesses, I would like to briefly sum marize the resolu tion as repo rte d from the Com mittee on Science and Technology on Apr il 22. Th e resolution does the follo wing: (1) Dec lare s a ha lt to official tra ve l rel ate d to scientific and tec h­ nological coo peratio n wi th the Soviet Un ion fo r a minim um of 6 months unless the tra ve l is of direct an d very substan tial benefit to the Un ite d States; (2) Recomm ends th at nonofficial tra veler s—that is, agencies of State and local gov ernment, private agencies and org aniza tions, pr o­ fessional societies, as well as scientists, scholars, and technolo gists— defer tra ve l relate d to scientific and technical coo peratio n to the Soviet Un ion fo r a minim um of 6 mo nth s unless otherw ise dictated by ex trao rdinary circum stan ces or indiv idual conscience; 1 See text of H.J. Res. 534, app. 1 on p. 23. 2 See statement of R epresentative Pease in app. 2 on p. 29. (1) (3) Direc ts the Presiden t to repo rt to Congress on domestic and foreign policies which should be insti tuted to fu rthe r the purposes of the reso lutio n; and (4) Urges the impleme ntation of non gov ernmental as well as Government sta nd ards and policies fo r the cond uct of intern ational cooperativ e rese arch and fo r the pro tec tion of human righ ts and fundam ental freedom s of all scientists, scho lars, and technologists. To comment on these provisions o f the resolution and o ther concerns on behalf of the admi nistr ation is Hon. Tho mas R. Pickering, A ssist­ an t Secre tary, Burea u of Oceans and In tern ationa l En vironm ental and Scientific Affairs, Dep artm ent of Sta te. We also hav e testify ing befo re us rep resent atives fro m the private sec tor: Mr. William D. Carey, executive officer, Am erican Association fo r th e Advan cem ent of Science; and Dr . Max Gottesman, coc hairman of the Com mittee of Concerned Sciences. At th is time, if there is n o objection, I would like to insert into the record the testim ony and acc om pan ying lette r from Dr. Ph ilip H an ­ dler, p res ide nt o f the A merican Aca dem y of S cientis ts, who was sched­ uled to testify before us today bu t, due to a previous com mitment, is unable to be here to day. I believe his state me nt is very i nforma tiv e a nd makes a contr ibu tion to th e su bcomm ittees’ deliberation s. Is the re any obje ction to the ins ertion of Dr. Han dl er ’s sta tem ent and lette r in the record? The Ch air hears none. It is so ordere d. 1 We ha ve ha d quite a few disap point me nts today . T he cochairman of this meeting, the chairm an o f the Subcom mittee on In tern ationa l Op ­ era tions, Repre sen tative Da nte Fasce ll, was to be here bu t due to th e extensive a nd trag ic riots in Mia mi ove r the las t few days my colleague Repre sen tative Fascell is unable to be here for this hearing. Whil e we will proceed to he ar testim ony from our witnesses this mo rni ng I sugge st in view o f th e u nders tan dable absence of Mr. F ascell th at the subcomm ittees defer any final action on Hou se Jo in t Resolu­ tio n 534. Am bassador Pic kering, Mr. Carey, and Dr. Gottesman will please come to the witness table. We will proceed with Am bas sad or Pick er­ ing. Please proceed, M r. A mbassa dor.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. PICKERING, ASSISTANT SEC­ RETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRON­ MENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. P ickering . I welcome this op po rtu nity to review with you the policy which the ad minist ratio n has pursued in recent months with rega rd to scientific exchanges with the Sov iet Union. On Ja nuar y 31, Dr. Fra nk Press and I appeare d at joint hearings in which we de­ scribed the U.S. response to the Soviet invasion of Afg ha nistan and the Kremlin ’s increased haras sm ent of An drei Sakharo v. Today , I would like to discuss with you how this policy has been implem ented and where we are headed. Following the invasion of Afgha nistan , the ad minist ratio n made it clea r to the Soviets th at this act of aggression wou ld res ult in significant cutb acks in exchange activities, pa rticularly in areas of 1 See letter and statemen t of Dr. Hadler in app. 3, p. 31. 3 greates t int ere st to Moscow. We also made it cle ar th at the exiling of academ icia n Sakh aro v wou ld hav e a deleterious effect on exchanges. In the wake of these events, we hav e indefinitely postponed five joint committee meetings, canceled high-le vel visits connected with ex­ chan ges, an d postponed a wide ran ge of individu al activities. At the prese nt time, most of the scientific and technical agreem ents with the Soviets are op erating at only a fra cti on of the level o f activ ity w hich prevailed before the inv asion of Afgha nistan and the exilin g of academ ician Sakharo v. A t the same time, it is im po rtan t to U.S . scientific end eavor th at we no t cut ourselves off fro m are as in which the Soviets are doing valuable work th at can be of profit to us. We also do not wa nt to isolate the Sov iet scientific community from th eir Am erican colleagues. Ma ny Sov iet scientists, inclu ding mem ­ bers of dissident gro ups, have insisted on the importa nce of such con tact fo r th ei r scientific effo rts and fo r th ei r morale. The se con sideration s h ave resu lted, in my view, in a balance d p olicy which conveys to Moscow a cle ar signal about the attit ud e of the Am eric an Gover nment an d people rega rding rec ent Sovie t actions in Afgha nistan and th ei r persec ution of one of th ei r own lea din g scientists. Th is policy seeks also to preserve the institu tio na l fra me­ wor k fo r gov ernme nt-to-governm ent scientific exchanges and to keep open the option fo r resto rin g activ ity to a high er level if the p olitical sit uatio n improves. Specifically we are review ing each proposed ac tiv ity dow n to the level of ind ivi du al visits, to determ ine th ei r appro priateness . Only low-level exchanges which are of dir ect substan tive inter est to the United Sta tes, or which invo lve hu man ita ria n concerns such as he alt h or env ironm ent al pro tec tion, are being allowed to proceed. Th e proc­ ess by which these decisions is reached involve s close con sultation among State , NSC, OST P, and the technical agencies th at have prog ramma tic res ponsibility fo r the exchanges un de r the 11 Un ite d State s-S oviet bil ateral agreem ents. In this conn ection, I wish to emp hasize th at th e reductions in activ ­ ity apply only to governm ent-to-go vernm ent pro gra ms. We hav e not sou ght to restr ict the activitie s of private Am erican scient ists with Sov iet counter parts. W ith rega rd to visits by scient ists fro m the U.S.S .R. who plan to attend privately sponsored scientific confer­ ences in the Un ited Sta tes, as a general rule, bona fide Sovie t scien­ tis ts will be issued visas. Dur ing the early months of 1980, ac tiv ity un de r the 11 Un ite d Sta tes-So vie t bilateral agreem ents has declined su bs tantially as com­ pared to the same period of 1979. For example, du ring the first 6 months of this year, ac tiv ity un de r the science and techno logy agree­ men ts will be only abo ut 30 perce nt of the level fo r the same period las t year. In t his context, I would like to say a word abo ut fu nd ing for these activities. In order to con tinue to ca rry o ut the b alanced policy th at I have desc ribed, a minmum level of bud getar y supp ort fo r th ese agree ­ men ts is necessary. Any bla nket prohibi tio ns in technical agency budgets ag ain st use of app ropr iated funds f or So vie t-re lated activities would make it impossible to main tai n the fram ew ork of th e exchanges. We would lose the option of resum ing a high er level of a ctivity in the lig ht of ch anged circumstances. We would also lose the ability to p rofit 4

fro m valuab le Sov iet work in certain fields. Among the areas of Soviet scientific excellence fro m which we wa nt to continu e to benefit are ele ctrom eta llurgy , nucle ar fusion, physics, seismograph y, and magneto hydro dynam ics. In conclusion, I w ould say th at there is a wide measure of consensus between the ad minist ratio n an d the Congress rega rding policy on Un ited Sta tes -Soviet scientific exchang es at the present time. This consensus is reflected in the fact th at p ortio ns of House J oin t Resolu­ tio n 534 lar gely paralle l the actions tak en by the administ ratio n and we ha ve wr itten to Con gressm an Brown to d eta il our views. We consider the m easu res tak en in the scientific field to be p ar t of a bro ad U.S. response to u nac ceptable Soviet behavior. It will be imp or­ ta nt to demonstrate to the Sov iets that such beh avior has real costs to him. Our a pproa ch should, how’ever, be flexible e nough to allow us to respond co nstructively in th e ev ent of positive develop men ts in overa ll Un ite d Sta tes-So vie t relation s. Le t me say th at I appreciate the op po rtu nity to consult with the Congress on these issues and believe th at t his kin d of dia log permits us to develop cohe rent an d sensible policies. Th an k you, M r. Chairma n. Ch air man Z ablocki. Than k you, Ambassado r Pick ering. Mr. Carey.

STATEMENT OE WILLIAM D. CAREY, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR TH E ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE Mr. C arey. Than k you, M r. C hairm an. I would like to proceed with my b rie f statement but noting that I am speak ing fo r myself and not attempting to reflect the views of the 130,000 members of AA AS . Th ere is no process ava ilable fo r doing th at. Mr. Chairma n, House Jo in t Res olution 534 add resses the question of con ducting business-as-usual with the Soviet scientific com mun ity while academ ician Sakharo v is held hostage by his own gov ernment because o f his vigorous supp ort for the Helsinki Fi na l Act. The Sa k­ harov m atter is one as to which the pre sident of the A me rican Associa­ tion fo r the Advan cem ent of Science—A AA S—h as add ressed more th an one ur ge nt message to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and it is one th at has evoked very str on g reaction from the Am erican scientific community. W he ther H ouse J oin t Resolutio n 534 adds very much to the weight of the cu rre nt U.S . pressu re on the Sov iet Union is a very differen t question. I have reservatio ns. Detente throug h scientific exchanges is, at presen t, flat on its back. The official exchanges, in which I have tak en par t in the past at t he request of our Government, are u nder a gen eral freeze. Thousan ds of U .S. scientists have, as a matter of pro­ fessional outrage and indiv idual conscience, served notice th at they will withh old c oop eration with the Sov iet coun ter parts f or reasons of huma n rights . The National Academy has voted a 6-month mo ratorium. There is little or no money in the Go vernm ent’s budget to finance a resum ption of the bilateral exchanges. I t is ve ry h ard for me to see th at this resolu­ tion, if enacted , would persua de the Soviet authorities to recant. It comes late a nd it adds little. 5 It may not be popular to say so, but it strikes me that formal sus­ pension actions by our Government, Government-imposed boycotts, whether by Congress or the executive, only have the effect of playing into the hands of the Soviet hardliners. They do not extricate the dis­ sident scholars or scientists from their difficulties. They had the Soviet Government a propaganda advantage. On the other hand, the Soviets have no effective way of ignoring or answering the spontaneous anger of the general American scientific community. What I would regret very much is giving the Soviet hardliners another opening to twist the facts by pointing to a Government-imposed embargo on travel and exchanges by American scientists, which is the import of paragraph (4) of the resolution. I do not wish to do them th at favor, and I will be frank to say that I find the same fault with the executive branch's freeze on exchanges under the present bilateral agreement, even though I regard the Afghanistan provocation as profoundly irresponsible. 1 will go a step further. I believe that the thought behind freezes of this kind is th at the Soviet scientific community will turn on the politi­ cians and pressure them to remove the causes of tensions, whether these are in the realm of human rights or military adventurism. Tha t is extremely unlikely to happen, given the authoritarian structure of the Soviet system. But the freeze on exchanges imposed by our side has quite a different effect, which is to isolate those Soviet scientists who do think for themselves, if only in private, from Western contacts and exposure. I suggest th at the recent remarkable behavior of the Soviet Acad­ emy in refusing to deliver the final coup de grace to Sakharov, through expulsion, says a good deal on this score. The Academy might not dare to demand the restoration of Sakharov's rights, but it cer­ tainly dared to stay its own hand when it could have compounded the felony. And it seems to me th at this small sign of decency deserves a similar small sign of response from us, which would be very difficult to make in the wake of the resolution that is before us. The Sakharov situation is an international scandal, measured by American and indeed nearly universal standards of human rights. But Sakharov s miseries, bitter as they are, are comparatively mild relative to the summary fate met by scientists in other Eastern bloc countries, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In some of those countries, it is getting very hard to identify any remnants of once-vigorous scientific com­ munities. But the U.S. Government has not, as f ar as I know, taken similar strong steps to shut off scientific and scholarly contacts. I t is the American scientific community tha t has put on the pressure. This resolution has a 6-month turnaround, if I understand it. Then what ? Barring Soviet capitulation, which nobody thinks probable, we are back where we started. This gets us no place. Meanwhile, we can­ not have face-to-face contacts with Soviet scientists to make the case for decency in human rights. We cannot deal with them on problems of desperate importance such as arms limitation, climate change, or political stabilization in strategic areas. I believe th at we have to assess the risks of rising Soviet-American tensions realistically, and keep at least a few channels open, no matter how much it goes against the grain. To sum up, I believe tha t the pending resolution would not add much to the message that we have already sent the Soviets concerning

63-5 21 0 - 8 0 2 6

Sakharo v, and it could be a ba rrier t o such small and p ainful p rog ress as we can make un de r exceedingly adv erse and de terio ratin g conditio ns. Th an k you, M r. Chairma n. Ch air man Z ablocki. Th an k you. Dr. Gottesman.

STATEM ENT OF MAX GOTTESMAN, Ph. D., COCHAIRMAN, COM­ MITTEE OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

Mr. G ottesman. Mr. Ch air ma n, my nam e is Max Gottesman. I am coc hairman of th e Com mittee of Concerned Scientists. I wish to tha nk you for invitin g us to pre sen t ou r views on the con duc t of scientific exchanges with the Sov iet Un ion with refere nce to H ouse Jo in t Res­ olution 534. Th e Com mittee of Concerned S cie ntists is an ind ependent national org aniza tio n of over 4,000 Am erican scientists dedicated to the pro tec tion and adv ancement of scientific and huma n righ ts for colleagues th roug ho ut the world. Since 1972, we have been initi ating, developing, and coordinatin g program s to counter violations of fund am ental freedom s and human righ ts of oppressed scientists. A very im po rta nt aspect o f o ur wo rk has been supp ort f or refus enik and dissident scientists in the U.S.S .R. In this conn ection, we have org anized and sponsored a serie s of unofficial internationa l scientific conferences under the auspices of the Moscow Sunday Semi nar on Collective Phe nom ena. Th e fo ur th c onference in t his series took place in the home of D r. Viktor B railov sky , A pr il 13 -15, with the p ar tici pa ­ tion of 22 W estern scie ntists, the lar gest conti ng ent o f Western scien ­ tis ts in attendance thus fa r in these conferences. We share a de ter­ mi nation to h elp An drei Sakh arov and his b eleagu red dissidents and refuse nik colleagues. W e ap plau d the expression o f concern con tain ed in this resolution. How ever, we differ with respect to the specific tac tics proposed to achieve th is end. We are d istressed th at the U.S . G overn ment is re stric tin g the p ar tic­ ipation of Am erican scientists in bilateral exchange prog ram s and is recommending a tem po rary ha lt of tra ve l by the Am erican scientific com mun ity. The repo rt of the Com mittee on Science and Tec hnology accom­ pany ing this resolu tion states th at the U.S . Gover nment should not restr ict pa rti cipa tio n of ind ivi dual scientists in official bilateral ex­ changes. I t says. It would be ironic and invidious for the U.S. Government to close down channels of communication or interfere with the movements of its own scientists as a response to such actions on the p art of the U.S.S.R. On the contrary, even the appearance of such actions should be avoided if possible. Th is resolution is in direct o pposition to the recommendation o f the Com mittee on Science and Techn ology. U.S . Gov ernment res triction on exchanges lessen t he effect on Soviet scientists o f actions t hat Am erican s take in supp ort of h uman rights. It is the Soviet scientific com munity th at we are tryi ng t o involve in our efforts to aid oppressed Sov iet colleagues. T hat govern me nta l in- 7 terventi on in these efforts, as proposed in th is resolu tion, dim inis hes ou r im pact on the Soviet scientific community is ill us tra ted by the ex­ perience of a n eminent Am erican co mpute r sc ien tist who is very a ctiv e with t he Com mittee of Concerned Scientists. Several yea rs ago he decided not to pa rticipate in an im po rta nt conference i n th e U.S.S.R . as a protes t ov er th e tr ea tm en t of Ale xander Lerne r. He acc ord ingly declined the invitatio n in a lette r sent to th e chairma n of the Soviet organizin g committee fo r the conference, cle arly sta tin g why he would no t pa rticipa te. Some tim e later, this Sov iet scientist visited the Un ite d States and met w ith the A merica n. He the reu pon sta ted th at he understood th at the U.S . Government ha d exe rted pressure on the Am erican not to attend and did n ot take his action s “p ers onally.” Of course, in th is case the Am erican was able to explain th at this decision arose fro m his conscience and was not forced upon him. In our view, cutbacks on pa rticipation by indiv idual Am erican s cientis ts in exch anges wi th Sov iet colle agues sho uld be spo ntaneo us an d not result from Govern ment pressure. We believe th at th is resolution weakens the U.S . position in pr o­ testi ng Soviet vio lation s of scientific and h um an r igh ts. In p artic ular, it will weaken ou r pos itio n in the Mad rid follow up to the He lsinki Accords. In essence, it res tricts the internationa l scientific cooperatio n adv ocated in the He lsinki Fi na l Ac t and the final doc ument of the Ham bu rg Scientific Forum. Th e S oviets will refute ou r arg um ents con cerning th ei r violations of fu nd am ental fre edo ms and huma n r ights by all ud ing to o ur ac tivitie s im pedin g the fre e flow o f people and ideas as embodied in th is resolution . My person al experience in b eing refuse d a visa to at tend th e Fou rth In tern ationa l Conferenc e on Collectiv e Pheno mena confirms the l ike ­ lihood of th is occ urring. In response to my query as to why I and five other Am erican scient ists were denied en try to the U.S.S .R., a Soviet Em bassy official ret orted th at this was quid pro quo fo r U.S. Gover nment inte rferen ce with attendance at tw o scientific conferences in Califo rnia in Feb ruary. It is also likely t hat o ur allies w ill not su pp ort actions adv ocated in this resolution because it contrav enes t he spi rit and lette r o f H elsink i. In principle, we oppose the k ind o f b lan ket boycotts or m ora torium s proposed in this resolution because th ey w ill no t be effective in achiev­ ing the goa ls we all share. On occasion in the pa st the Com mittee of Concerned Scien tists had adv ocated boy cotts of specific meetin gs in response to specific actions by the Soviets. I t is ou r view th at these more limited ac tions are effective. Ad vocatin g such bla nket restr ictio ns is based on the premise th at top-level Sov iet policymakers care much more abo ut scientific ex­ change th an they do about maintaining wh at they rega rd as neces­ sary inter nal con trol ove r th ei r society. If the Sov iet authorities felt des perate for scientific exchange wi th the Un ite d State s, they would already have respon ded positive ly to the cutbac ks th at hav e tak en place th us far . Fo ur hund red dissiden ts wou ld not have been exiled an d imp riso ned in recent mon ths. Em igratio n would no t hav e been cut by one-third. An d Sov iet tro ops would hav e been wi thdraw n fro m Af gh an ist an . 8 Obviously, scientific exchange with the United States is not a sine qua non for Soviet policymakers. We believe tha t the people who care most about exchanges are Soviet scientists. Unfortunately, they lack the power to affect basic national policy. However, in response to pressure from the Western scientific community, Soviet scientists can and have in the past aided individual refusenik and dissident scientists. They are motivated to take such action by both a carrot and a stick. The stick was tha t failing to help the refuseniks and dissidents would result in diminution of their contacts with Western scientists; the carrot was th at helping their oppressed colleagues would enable them to maintain their contacts. If this resolution is implemented, Soviet scientists will lose this incentive. They will not be able to en­ gage in exchanges regardless of what action they take to help in­ dividual refusenik and dissident scientists. The same Soviet leaders who want to repress the refuseniks and dissidents probably also want to limit scientific exchanges with the United States because they fear ideological contamination, and wish to maintain their closed society. In curtailing exchanges, our Gov­ ernment may be playing into their hands. Visits to the Moscow Sunday Seminar and other unofficial seminars and to the homes of the refuseniks and dissidents are of great impor­ tance in helping them maintain scientific viability in the face of their isolation from official Soviet science. These meetings provide moral support to the refuseniks, and help them keep current with Western scientific research. Through these meetings we are kept abreast of recent human rights developments in the U.S.S.R. While the resolu­ tion suggests tha t under “extraordinary circumstances” American scientists can travel to the U.S.S.R., we are afra id that the resolution will also curtail the trips of American scientists who are concerned with scientific and human rights. The Americans who make contact with the dissidents and refuseniks have been largely participants in exchange programs. Furthermore, as official participants they have the opportunity to discuss the cases of persecuted scientists with their Soviet hosts. The importance of this avenue of applying pressure cannot be underestimated. Despite its good intentions, th is resolution deprives us of the effec­ tive leverage we have for aiding individual victims of Soviet oppres­ sion. I t substitutes the vain hope that cutbacks in scientific exchanges will induce systemic changes in the U.S.S.R. These scientific exchange programs provide us with a delicate chan­ nel of leverage to advance human rights in the Soviet Union. Their expansion or cessation will not, however, affect basic Soviet foreign policy such as Afghanistan. The intrusion of Afghanistan will over­ load this channel rendering it ineffective for pursuing human rights, an important foreign policy goal, without affecting Soviet policy in Afghanistan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Z ablocki. Thank you, gentlemen. I gather from the testimony, at least tha t of Mr. Carey and Mr. Gottesman, th at House Join t Resolution 534 should not be approved. Ambassador Pickering, do you believe tha t there should be some exchanges at least? 9 House Join t Resolution 534 has already been approved by another committee, the Committee on Science and Technology. No further ac­ tion on the resolution could be interpreted by the Soviets that we care less about human rights in the Soviet Union and about what happens to Russian scientists such as Dr. Sakharov. Lest there be any such misinterpretation, I would simply point to the action of this commit­ tee and the full House who, on February 5, 1980, adopted House Con­ current Resolution 272, expressing the sense of Congress calling for the release of Andrew Sakharov and protesting the continued suppres­ sion of human rights in the Soviet Union. In considering any action on House Jo int Resolution 534, we should consider the effect of denying our bona fide scientists and scholars from having an opportunity to meet with their counterparts in the Soviet Union. Accordingly, I gather the 6-month moratorium is one of the most objectionable parts of this resolution. Do you agree, gentlemen? If the mandatory 6-month moratorium on official travel would be deleted, how would you feel about the resolution ? Mr. Gottesman. I think we would still have to oppose it. I thin k tha t again the idea of scientists acting spontaneously on their own behalf is much more powerful than any hint of Government guidance or inter­ ference in these decisions. I would say no. Mr. Carey. My comment would be, if you take the 6-month provision out, I would be concerned then tha t the resolution might be open- ended in terms of prohibitions and congressional counsel to, in effect, curtail all possible exchanges. The provision of the 6 months, while it is a real problem—because once you have reached the 6-month point, nothing is any different; you are right back where you started. That is the problem with it but removing it has the effect of making the constraints open-ended and indefinite and in a sense permanent unless the President, using the discretion that is in the resolution, de­ cides that matters have improved and things can sta rt up again, and it gets mischievous, Mr. Chairman. I think Congress, having gone as far as it has in developing this resolution, probably does not want to back off completely and let Soviet propaganda say, “Well, the Congress has refused to back the President up.” I think tha t is a bad situation too, but I think the Congress could, in a resolution, make the sense of the Congress very, very clear as to how it feels about the move into Afghanistan, the danger tha t it cre­ ates in unstabilizing even further the management of peace and also express its very strong support for the Helsinki Fina l Act. Acade­ mician Sakharov has been a vigorous and courageous spokesman for that final act. In tha t way, Congress would range itself clearly with the foreign policy of the administration but without doing collateral damage of the kind tha t I think all three of us have expressed very grea t concern about. That is my view. Chairman Z ablocki. Following up on your comments, would you also suggest that we include reference to the restoration of full human rights and freedoms to other Soviet scientists and not simply just Dr. Sakharov ? Mr. Carey. I think the more you can broaden it, the better. Chairman Z ablocki. My interpretation is the 6-month moratorium would prevent the President from granting any travel for scientists 10 and s cholars. De leting the 6 months would r etur n to t he present policy of the Un ite d State s affordin g reas ona ble d iscretion by the executive branch a nd the Presi dent. Suc h a c hange would not be open-e nded, in my opinion. Mr. C arey. There is in pa ra gr ap h 4 of the resolution, as I remember it, clear ins tru ction s to th e Pr esiden t and to the Gover nment agencies to u rge the professional societies, scientific organiza tions, not to engage in ex changes, visits, and so forth, with the Soviets. Now, I th in k th at is an una cce ptable prov isio n. I th in k t hat i t would be very uncomfortable fo r t he adm inist rativ e side of the U .S. Govern­ ment to in terp ret t hat as flexibility. I th ink it would c reate a real p rob­ lem if th at rem ain s in the resolution fo r indiv idual scientists who, if the y indeed did proceed as Dr. Gottes man ind icated, to attempt some useful th ing s would be d oin g so und er somethin g of a legis lative cloud. Ch airm an Z ablocki. I f we deleted refe rence in the bill, besides the 6-month mo ratorium , to those provisions recommending th at nonoflicial tra ve l be defe rre d, wou ld t hat meet wi th yo ur app roval ? Mr. C arey. Tha t would impro ve the situation consid erably. I t would leave it to the conscience an d to th e jud gm ent of the scie ntists who have demo nstrated they have a gr ea t deal of conscience and a g reat de al of judgme nt in these ma tters. Ch air man Z ablocki. T o wh at ex ten t does kee ping the resolution in its prese nt form hav e an effect on the upcoming Com mittee on Secu­ rity and Cooperation in E urop e—C SC E—meetin g in Madrid ? Mr. P ickering . We believe th at the upcom ing CS CE meetin g in Madrid , as was fore shadow ed in some of th e testim ony this morning, may well have to respond to Sov iet cha rges th at we have vio lated th e He lsinki Fi na l Act. Th e Sov iets m ight t ry to use such c harges to dis ­ trac t world att en tio n fro m th ei r own serious failu res of impleme ntation. To the ex ten t th at we h ad a resolution which could be broadly sup ­ portive of the ad minist ratio n’s polic y in this area, we t hink it w ould help to strength en o ur position in M adrid , but I share the same concern th at th e two ot her witnesses do ab out the 6-month mo ratorium and the rather broad a nd sweeping inclusion o f the p riv ate se ctor in p artic ular. I am i mpressed b y D r. Go ttesm an’s test imony a nd believe conscience sho uld pla y a role. I th in k we hav e to contr ast th at a lit tle with the fact we have a serie s of Govern me nt-supported exchang es in wh ich the conscience of the Government has to s peak out. I th in k there is room here for meeting those two par ticu la r sets of condition s. The Soviets would obviously cha rge at Madrid , if the y wish to make a conti nu ing issue of this, th at we have vio lated ou r respon si­ bilities. We do not believe we have. We believe th at the Soviets have ign ore d fundam ental sta nd ards of co ndu ct in Af gh an ist an and we be­ lieve it is very im po rta nt to make the Soviets realize th at this is not som ething they can do free ly and with no reactio n and wi th business as usu al with the Un ite d State s. We will be prepared at the Madrid meeting to make those po ints very clearly. Ch air man Z ablocki. Mr. Quayle . Mr. Q uayle. Than k you, Mr. Ch air ma n. Am bassador Pickeri ng , wh at is the cu rre nt administ ratio n policy con cerning scientific and techno logical exchanges? 11

Mr. P ickering. The current policy, I believe, is as I outlined it in the statement I made. In effect, we have indefinitely postponed five joint committee meetings because of our efforts to cut back on high- level exchanges. The principal tenets of tha t policy are that only low-level exchanges which are of direct substantive interest to the United States, or which involve humanitarian concerns, such as health or environmental protection, are being allowed to proceed. This is under the official programs. Mr. Quayle. You postponed five joint committee meetings at high- level positions. Are there others besides these five or have we cut off all of them ? Mr. Pickering. There have been other visits th at have been canceled at a high level also in connection with the exchanges and some individ­ ual activities have been canceled which do not meet the tests of direct substantive interest to the United States or humanitarian concerns, such as health or environmental protection. Mr. Q uayle. Have there been any high-level joint meetings on a government-to-government basis between the Soviet Union and the United States on scientific and technological exchanges since the inva­ sion of Afghanistan ? Mr. Pickering. No. Mr. Q uayle. Notwithstanding the congressional response, what course of action and what direction do you foresee in regard to tech­ nological exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union ? Mr. P ickering. We anticipate that only under circumstances where the basic steps taken by the Soviet Union to which these policies are a reaction change that, would we then be likely to see significant change down the road in our approach to these issues. Mr. Quayle. Change in relationship to Afghanistan ? Mr. Pickering. And to their treatment of dissident Soviet scientists. Mr. Quayle. The two go together ? Mr. Pickering. The two go together. Mr. Q uayle. S o unless there are changes in those two areas, you would foresee a permanent moratorium of high-level meetings between the United States and the Soviet Union. Is that correct ? Mr. Pickering. Unless there are changes, I would not foresee change, and that, I think, would equate this to the statement tha t you made tha t this would become a more or less permanent fixture of our policy in the absence of change. I would not want to say absolutely categorically because I do not know what other things may take place which might influence the situation which we cannot foresee now. You will recognize the typical bureaucratic hesitancy to make statements about things th at are going to be absolutely permanent when we cannot see the future with real clarity beyond, let’s say, the next 6 months or so. Mr. Quayle. We understand that. Mr. Carey and Dr. Gottesman, do you disagree with the administra­ tion policy as just announced by Ambassador Pickering concerning these exchanges ? Mr. Carey. I would say, Mr. Quayle, I certainly support the admin­ istration foreign policy relative to both the human rights situation of scientists and others in the Soviet Union and also relative to the dismal business of Afghanistan. 12 I think the foreign policy is precisely correct. I have a somewhat different feeling relative to attempts to retaliate, by playing a very low card which is the scientific exchange agreements. I t is not a high card in foreign policy. It is obvious it is not a high card because the mora­ torium on scientific exchanges has not budged Soviet policy visibly and is not likely to. Whether the scientific exchange channel affords some small oppor­ tunities to untangle the difficulties we have in our macro foreign policy is a different consideration. It does have some small possibility in tha t direction. What concerns us and Dr. Gottesman himself is that there is a channel. It enables us to reach a sector of Soviet scholarship and thought which is not as tightly bound to the political behavior of Soviet politics as other sectors are. To isolate that group from Western contact and values appears at least to me to compound the whole problem of paralyses in relationships between the two systems and the two countries. I would prefer more flexibility and I will be very frank about that. I prefer more flexibility and I particularly dislike and will oppose governmental interference in what is the responsibility of scientists to decide the morals and the values of communication, contact, and representation of Western standards in the Soviet Union. I think th at is very important. I would hope that the Congress would not make it impossible for that to go on because I do think it gives the Soviets a very strong political propaganda weapon which is un­ necessary. The scientific community in the United States, if not elsewhere, is doing a very good job in signaling its concern relative to Sakharov, Shcharansky, and others and I think tha t a resolution of this kind would spoil that. Mr. Quayle. You say this is not a high card with the Soviet Union. What would you categorize as a high card? Mr. Carey. I think a high card would be Government action through export control regulations and others to deny the movement of tech­ nological know-how, instruments, equipment, to the Soviet Union. I think tha t is a very high card. It is being played. It is being played effectively and I think it counts. Whether again it is going to make any difference is hard to say. I have not seen it make any difference so far. Mr. Q uayle. I s there anything else you would place in tha t category ? Mr. C arey. I think I will let it rest there. Mr. Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Z ablocki. Mr. Winn. Mr. W inn . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Along tha t same line—and I would like to hear the response from the other two witnesses—some of our scientists have even said they did not benefit from these exchanges, yet you say we want to keep our communication lines open. Are we making them diplomats or politicians when they say they do not benefit from exchanges from a technical standpoint? Mr. P ickering. Mr. Winn, the view you express I think is one we have to consider seriously. What we have tried to do in the govern- ment-to-government exchange programs—and I differentiate those 13 from where we have in effect said, “Government will endeavor to let the private sector decide for itself what it wishes to do and exercise its own conscience in deciding whether it wants to go ahead or not”— but on the Government side we have attempted to cut back a number of exchanges where the direct scientific one-to-one benefits, if we can call it that, were less easy to perceive, where there might have been additional political benefits, where there might have been additional benefits to us in times when the situation was more normal than it is now on a broad basis. We have attempted to cut those back. We have attempted to make clear to scientists tha t the Government is not in a position to coerce anyone to go who wishes—for reasons of conscience under Govern­ ment programs—not to go. American scientists have been free always to exercise their own conscience in light of the situation even where there is direct substantial benefit to us. But we put it back on the basis of the benefit which I think you have fastened on. I would not wish to minimize the fact that in some of the programs with which we have dealt with the Soviet Union there have been benefits to us of a direct and substantial character. I think if you had a chance to look, for example, at the science page of the New York Times today, you would have seen a rather balanced and I think rather objective article, providing the pluses and minuses in this program. It was a useful article because it did not make every­ thing black and white in this question. As we know, there are many shades of gray. There are many diffi­ culties in judging this. But what you have suggested is I think, as close as I could articulate it to the guide that we have tried to employ in general in developing our policy under the present situation— where the situation is anything but normal. Mr. Carey. If I could add a comment, Mr. Winn, to your question. I think on this question of whether U.S. scientists derive benefit or no benefit from these exchanges, I think we have to go back to the beginnings, back to about 1972 when it was the first bilateral agree­ ment and as usually happens in those situations what was planned between the two sides was more optimistic than real. There were a profusion of agreements and subagreements. There were all kinds of elaborate work programs developed across the field of science and technology and science policy and all the rest. When we got down to it, to doing the work, a good deal of the optimism evaporated and over the course of the bilateral agreements which have been extended now—the first 5-year period into a second 5-year period which will finish in 1982—a great many of the particular agree­ ments have been terminated. There is, as you know, a joint United States-Soviet Commission which oversees the whole panoply of these agreements and through the work of tha t Commission and the U.S. insistence on equivalency and reciprocity and benefits, most of the weak agreements, the ones where the scientists said “This is not working, we are getting nothing out of it,” have pretty well gone down the drain. As we come close to the end of the second 5 years, it is a pretty tightly organized system of exchanges and most of them are consid­ ered productive. There are still a few weak ones there but I think that most of the basis for scientists criticizing the exchanges on value

63-5 21 0 - 8 0 - 3 14 grounds has been taken care of through elimination and attenuation and attrition. I think Ambassador Pickering made the remark in his testimony tha t as things now stand the level of effort in the exchanges is down to about 30 percent of what it is supposed to be. T hat is an exercise in averaging because I can tell you tha t the working group which I have been chairing on the American side in the field of science pol­ icy, science and technology policy, is operating at a percentage rate of about one-half of 1 percent, not 30 percent. Mr. G ottesman. I would like to add a comment about your idea that American scientists are playing ambassadorial roles. To some extent tha t is true. Many American scientists before going to the Soviet Union on exchange programs check in with our committee for infor­ mation about the current state of human rights, dissidents, and refusenik movements. They have a planned program of activities, visiting these dissidents in their homes, bringing them scientific information, journals which otherwise they cannot get—their mail is intercepted—bringing out their manuscripts and a t the same time making contacts on their behalf with their Soviet hosts. They get to meet very high level Soviet scientific officials and they bring up very specific cases—the case of such and such a dissident and what is his sentence, why can’t he emigrate, what is the particular charge and who can do something to alleviate that ? So, I think that is ambassadorial work and I think i t is extremely important. Mr. W inn . In the technical exchanges, do our scientists feel that the Russian scientists and the communities share all of the inform a­ tion tha t they can or do they hold back like they do in a lot of other exchanges ? Mr. Carey. Maybe I can comment on that, Mr. Winn. It takes a long time—it takes years to loosen up Soviet participants, to begin to persuade them to give a little more. This is why in the first 5-year agreement, it was a very slow business. I t finally got traction in about the fifth year—I am speaking from my experience—and then it began to move very well in the first year or two of the extension. The situation I think is that there are so many checks and balances within the Soviet system. We talk about our checks and balances. They have them far more than we do and what is legitimate for them to give in the wav of information is something their bureaucracy and security system has to decide. So, it is a slow and plodding business that takes an immense amount of patience on our side and we have—for example, it was my experi­ ence that when you would set a deadline with your counterpart group for a report or whatever it was, about the only way to get it done was for me to go over there and drop on the table the American work product and say, “Where is yours?” That would stir the system and we would begin to get some better results in terms of timing. Mr. Winn . Did you ever take yours away until they produced theirs ? Mr. C arey. That was practiced too. It simply did not work. The other way did. I think this causes me to say that as we stand down now for what may be a long period of time—something that Phil Handler had in his statement this morning, something that I agree 15 with—he said “The arrangements are going to get rusty. They are going to age. They are going to decay and to try to get them going again after a long period of standdown is going to be very tough.” And I agree with tha t for what it is worth. I think t hat when the engine cools, and the tires go flat it is going to be one extremely diffi­ cult job if the U.S. Government wants to reactivate detente through scientific exchanges. I think the blush is off this one and I am very pessimistic tha t even under better conditions this whole thing will ever get back on its feet the way it was. Mr. Winn . It has been popular for a long time to assert that the U.S.S.R. needs the U.S. scientific and technological expertise so badly tha t it would be willing to curtail its adventurism abroad to protect those exchange scholar relationships. It is my understanding from the small bit of testimony which I have heard tha t you do not believe that it enters into their philosophy or their opinions. Am I right or am I wrong ? Mr. Gottesman. I am afraid tha t is correct. The curtailment of scientific exchanges is not for them a sufficient reason to make basic policy changes in their foreign policy. It will not work for that. Where it is extremely effective on scientific exchanges and curtailments and pressures is among the Soviet scientific community. For them these exchanges can be a scientific matter of life or death. A visit to an American laboratory is a tremendous reward for them. Mr. Winn. Their scientists enjoy great respect and credibility within their own nation, don’t they ? Mr. Gottesman. They do. Mr. Winn. Maybe more than ours. Mr. Gottesman. I think that is probably correct. But their influence is limited. They cannot influence policy over Afghanistan but what they can do is influence particular case of dissidents or refuseniks, a scientist who is being persecuted and who is oppressed. To throw tha t out is terrible. Mr. Pickering. I would add I think I agree with much of what has been said here. To put the whole policy on the back of the scien­ tific exchanges in this particular area is clearly not on. Scientific exchanges in the executive branch’s view play a role and tha t it was a choice in reviewing all of the questions, including the Olympic boy­ cott, including the grain embargo in response to Afghanistan, includ­ ing the cutdown.in high technology which Bill Carey mentioned as having a higher card notion of impact in this process that the execu­ tive branch also has to decide. Was it business as usual or was it an attempt to signal in the science area as well tha t it was not business as usual? I think we opted after consideration for the fact tha t we must take a stand in the science area as well as in terms of our across-the-board efforts to deal with this. There may be differences across this table in the degree of fine tun­ ing. I think tha t is what we are talking about here, but I hope very much that it is not perceived th at all the policy rests on the science exchanges nor on the other hand that the science exchanges are irrele­ vant to the totality. It forms a portion of the policy which I think still has an important influence for some of the reasons given here. The science community 16 in the Sov iet Un ion looks at t he exchanges as a way to broade n and expand its h orizon s; the Gover nment looks at t he science com munity as a kind of conduit to high -techn olo gy activities in a n um ber of areas. The se have an effect. I t may no t be an abs olutely prevailin g effect bu t it does neverth e­ less hav e an effect. We recognize it and we have tak en steps to make th at sign al clear to th e Soviet Uni on in this area. Mr. W in n . Since you are ap pe aring as I un de rst an d it again st the resolution , I ga ther th at the administ ratio n did not originate this piece of legislation ? Mr. P ickering . Yes. I wou ld like p erha ps as a diplom at to be m ore precise abo ut wh at I am app earin g as. I am ap pe aring as an executive branch witn ess and we forw ard ed some com ments on the resolution and m ade clea r th at the re were some are as of concern. We wrote to C hairm an Brow n and I will be g lad to mak e that le tte r availabl e wi th his permissio n to this committee as well i f we have no t done so alread y. I have focused on some of the are as th at gave us problems and I would say------Mr. W in n . I would ask una nim ous consent th at the lette r be in ­ cluded in th e record. Ch air man Z ablocki. W ith ou t objection, it is so ordere d. 1 Mr. P ickering . T o the e xte nt t hat the resolu tion an d/o r policy be­ come coterminous, it is obvious we would have no problems with the resolution . To the exten t the y are not, I wou ld like to br ing to your attention those areas as we have in t he letter and m ake clea r you un de r­ stan d the executive branch view on this. Mr. W in n . Than k you, Mr. C hai rman. Ch air man Z ablocki. Mr. Pr itc ha rd . Mr. P ritchard. Than k you Mr. C hairm an. Th e Presiden t has sta ted t his is t he most serious c risis we h ave had since World W ar I I. T hat was his position. So, ou r executive bra nch has take n that position. As the y star t to implement policies affe ctin g different pa rts of our society—all the groups are in my dist ric t—a nd as I meet and tal k with the m, wheth er the y are gro ups in my com munity who deal with the Rus sians, wheth er it is the fa rm ers , whethe r it is the athletes, or whethe r we sell some high tech nology —in almost every case of the high tec h­ nology they can buy th e same th in g from Fr an ce or Ge rmany or Ja pa n. Eac h grou p says the y are not again st the gen era l policy bu t let me tell you the reasons why in our pa rticul ar case it is not goin g to make much difference and it would be be tte r if we went ahead. I hav e ha d th is from the athlete s. I hav e ha d it fro m each grou p and each one can make the case. Th e Presiden t has said this is the greates t cris is and if it is not, I th in k it is close to it. When you draw the line in an y activ ity you have to m ake it pret ty strong. You ca nnot draw it sort of. Y ou hav e to make it pre tty str on g and you can almost overdo it to make the case, par­ tic ularly because of p ast policies. Dr . Gottesman, you said th at you did no t really belie ve th at the scientific prog ram ha d much affect on policy and pro bably the most im po rtan t th in g it did was to have some affect on how the Rus sians

1 See app. 4 on p. 46. 17 would deal wi th th ei r scientists. That would maybe be the most im­ po rtan t thing. I guess if we a re g oin g to set o ut a policy, I feel we alm ost have to include everybody in, not just because of the affect on your prog ram bu t because of the affect on the othe r people in the society or in our groups th at we hav e ha d to pul l bac k on. Does that make any sense to yo u ? Mr. Gottesman. I certainly can see yo ur view point but I thi nk that the cases h ave to be an alyzed ind ividua lly on th e benefits and the costs fo r any pa rticul ar group. We are not, fo r example, going to bre ak dip lom atic relatio ns with the Sovie t Un ion , which wou ld be the ulti­ mate step. I t is obviously of much more benefit to us to con tinue dip lom atic relations. I t hi nk the scientific exchanges are closer to t hat th an t hey are to spo rti ng exchanges or c ultural exchanges. They really hav e tr e­ mendous benefits on a va rie ty of levels, inclu din g the huma n righ ts aspect. So, I th ink, yes, you have to ta lk about individu al cases. Mr. P ritchard. Let me ask you one o ther question. I th ink fro m a m atter o f h an dling forei gn policy, w hile I ha ve some str on g differences wi th th e ad minist ratio n a nd the P resid en t, I do be­ lieve th at we h ave to give the Pr esiden t an d th e adm inist ratio n as much flexibility as possible. I th in k it is very ha rd fo r Congress to fine tune ou r forei gn p olicy fro m a m atter o f d eta il and also from a m atter of tim ing . We just do not respond th at fas t. I wou ld like to leave as much flex ibility as possible to the Pr esiden t and Secre tar y of State in mat­ ter s such as this. We sh ould set o ut a policy sa yin g thi s is the d irection we wo uld like to go but n ot write so much deta il into those actio ns t hat the y can do more a dju sting . Do you th in k it is very wfise for us to get all of th is dow n in concrete as to exac tly how we stan d in each one of these area s d ealin g wi th th e scientific community ? Mr. Gottesman. N o; I do not. W ha t is ha pp en ing now is th at indiv idual scientists and grou ps of scientists are making th ei r ex­ pressio ns of supp ort public fo r Sakh arov and fo r dis sid ents and refuseniks. Th is is a spontaneo us, and fo r th at reason extrem ely in­ fluent ial and powerful, response and it is now. Th e Am erican scientific c ommunity has no t done t hi s in the pas t. I think to chisel ou t rules is to de tra ct from this movement. So I am opposed to th at. Mr. P ritchard. I h ave no o ther qu estions, M r. Chairma n. Ch air man Zarlocki. Mr. Bingham . Mr. B ing ham. Th an k you, M r. Chairma n. I am s orry I was at anothe r h ea rin g and delayed ge tti ng here. I do have one o r two questions. F ir st let me ask any of you wh o would know, wh at would be the view of d iss ide nt scientists in the Sovie t U nio n on the questions before us tod ay, wh eth er legislation would ad d to the efficacy of the cu rre nt organizatio n or boycotts. Do you have any in form ation on th at ? Mr. Gottesman. I th in k th at the dissid ent scientists an d ref usenik scientists are not of one un ifo rm opinion and th ere are disagr eem ents in th at com munity like in any other com munity bu t I th in k the ma- 18 jority opinion would be not to curtail scientific exchanges, that these are very beneficial. This is the opinion I have heard the most and they would oppose a resolution of this sort. Mr. Bingham. Any other views on tha t question ? Mr. P ickering. T would agree tha t there are differences of view in the community and there were statements made by dissidents who are now in this country to the other House committee that considered this resolution, and I think in the main they were quite enthusiastic about taking these sorts of steps, but from the point of view of the executive branch, I would think we ought to be very cautious about cutting off all ties or takin g a step which would freeze, in effect, everything with­ out a careful test for 6 months. Mr. B ingham. I understand your position. I have not read your statement. I would like you to develop further, if you will, a state­ ment you make at. the top of page 4 about areas of Soviet scientific excellence from which we want to continue to benefit. I have heard tha t the Soviets are ahead of us in hydrodynamics. I do not know if they are ahead in nuclear fusion. B ut how real are these leads? How important are these areas to us tha t you feel we should be continuing to explore ? Mr. P ickering. A number of cases in the past will illustrate that it is harder to be prescient about the future in areas where they may turn out to be better than we are and we want to know things. The one we cite often often is Tokomak fusion, where they took a devel­ opment which we abandoned two decades ago and advanced it in the 1960’s and they, through an exchange program, provide information to us which has allowed us now to move ahead. There are, in addition to those kinds of areas of excellence, other areas where the Soviets and we have made considerable progress to­ gether and where there is a mutual benefit, particularly in some of the humanitarian areas which we have allowed to go ahead. In can­ cer virology and breast cancer studies and anticancer drugs, the health agreement has been able to continue activities which do not fit exactly the criterion you outlined but which are nevertheless bene­ ficial because of the fact that the mutual work has produced benefits which are shared equally on both sides and contributed to equally by both sides. My experts also tell me the Soviets have done some good work in corrosion control and in certain tvpes of metallurgy. You also mentioned magnetohydrodynamics where we have participated in the past in studies with the Soviets in magnetohydrodynamics. We were to provide an important piece of the machinery required to con­ tinue those studies. We did not do so because of the high visibility of the delivery of tha t piece in which we would have used an Air Force C-5 aircraft to deliver it to the Soviet Union. It was decided that this would not be in consonance with the sort of policy guide­ lines which we had developed which pay special attention to high visibility participation of this Government with the Soviets in these sorts of things. Mr. B ingham. I s the fact we do benefit from some of these ex­ changes by any means determinative in other areas? For example, with regard to control of exports, we are denying ourselves exports 19 that are of benefit to our economy because we want to take that step for policy reasons. I do not mean to suggest tha t tha t is determinative. I must say I am impressed with the suggestion th at I gather was made by several of you t hat the actions of the scientists themselves has more impact on the Soviets and makes more of an impression than Government actions, and tha t Government actions here might actually reduce the impact by giving the Soviets the opportunity to say, “Well this is just another case of the Government refusing to allow American citizens to participate in official activities.” Tha t point of view does seem to me to have a good deal of weight here. I do not know just how one assesses the importance of it. Mr. Pritchard. Would the gentleman yield? Those five high-level meetings that you said were canceled—would they have been canceled by voluntary action of the scientists ? Mr. P ickering. It is a little hard to say but I would think not since they involved the continuing central focal work for planning the exchanges for the future. They are a regular series of high-level meet­ ings under one of the 11 agreements that take place. Bill chairs one of those. He could speak to tha t, perhaps. I think in the absence of the events that we are talking about—the exile of academician Sakharov and the other cases with dissidents, and the question of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan—we had the exchange program moving before tha t in a way in which there was participa­ tion of responsible American scientists who were interested in the work. Some in the past had refused. I believe that by 1978—late 1978, 1979—that was beginning to change again. However, these other events tha t now introduced a new factor and I do not think you can divorce them. Could I address Mr. Bingham’s earlier question? I thin k we all seem to have reached a consensus—at least I perceive a consensus— tha t the individual actions and responsibilities here are very impor­ tant and very important in getting a message across to the Soviets. We have aiso to consider on the other side what is the responsibility of the Government ? Freeing up activities within the Government pro­ grams and allowing individual conscience to be the guides within the construction of the Government policy which says we would like to go ahead with roughly some small percentage of what continues is important. But, if we said, let’s go ahead with everything 100 percent full force, everything continues, tha t would have conveyed also a signal on the part of the Government which I think, as I explained earlier, wTas inconsistent with the signal we were conveying in other areas such as the Olympics and such as grain, such as certain high technology exports, such as access to high technology in this country, as examples. The Government felt strongly we had to convey the same signal across the board in Government-sponsored activities. Mr. Carey. I would like to make a brief comment on the matter of the five agreements and how the participating U.S. scientists might have reacted. When you are a member of a working team under a government-to-government bilateral agreement, and I have been in tha t position—I have been chairing one of them now since about 20 1973—you accept t hat this is part o f a politica l relation ship an d th at the U .S. Gover nment calls th e signals an d calls the plays. You are an instrum ent of the agreem ent a nd o f forei gn policy. It is fine when it is on the up be at a nd it is tou gh w hen it is on the downbeat. But the Gover nment has the responsibility—an d I do not th ink any of us who have been involved in this business of exchanges would question fo r 1 minu te the au thor ity o f the Governm ent—to say how the gam e will be played. So, I would su spect t hat the c hairm an of the v ario us wo rking groups from these five inc ide nts w ould hav e proceede d with the meetin gs bu t it is an othe r m atter as to who would come. We are ind ividuals. We are not in Gover nment employ. W e are not officers of the Governme nt. We a re responding to a request from th e Government to help out. I could no t with any confidence, if I ha d been involve d in one of these five inci den ts, have gu ara nteed th at anyone except the chair ma n wou ld hav e show n up for the meeting because the mem bers of my group are entirely free to say how they will wor k in a situatio n and how the y will n ot, whethe r th ey will go to the Sov iet Union or wh eth er they will not, wh eth er the y will sit at t he table wi th a Soviet delega­ tio n o r w hethe r they will n ot. An d th at is the wond er of the whole thi ng an d it is like black versus white. It is a total contr ast to wha t happens with the Soviet delega­ tio n who are ma rch ed int o a meetin g in Moscow or who are flown to a meeting here in the States. Th ey do no t hav e those options. I think we hav e to preserv e them . Tha t is w ha t p art of th e argum ent is all about. Mr. B ing ham . I ju st have one m ore questio n. Mr. Carey, I wish you would develop a little bit the sta tem ent you made at the top of page 3 of yo ur statem ent t h a t: Dr. Sakharov’s miseries, bitter as they are, are comparatively mild relative to the summary fate met by scientists in other Eastern block countries, Argen­ tina, Brazil, and Chile. In some of these countries it is getting very hard to identify any remnants of once vigorous scientific communities. Th en you make the po int that the A me rican scientific c ommunity has acte d in response to this and the U.S . Gover nment has not done an y­ thing . But I am ra th er st artle d by yo ur sta tem ent. W ould you develop th at? Mr. C arey. Le t me tr y to cl arify i t briefly , Mr. Bin gham. For several years now the Am erican Associatio n for Advan cem ent of Science ha s had a com mittee on scientific freedom an d r esponsibility an d th at committee, wo rking with Am nesty In tern ationa l an d Com­ mittee of C oncerned Scien tists and oth ers, h as been bu ild ing inform a­ tio n on the hu ma n righ ts situations of scientists a nd sc hola rs t hr ou gh ­ out the world. W ha t we have fou nd—and all this is documented an d we will be glad to show you the doc umentatio n—is th at in some cou ntries very much closer to home th an the Sovie t U nio n, cou ntries with which we hav e fu ll and reason ably cordia l politica l relationships , the au thor i­ ta rian gov ernments are fre quently mili tary juntas which ru n those cou ntries—some of them I men tion ed here—have no civil righ ts at all an d th at , as in the case of Argen tin a, is a visible exam ple. 21 Thousands of scientists, scholars, have been summarily seized by police authorities. No charges have ever been made. The whereabouts of those people has never been disclosed from within those countries. We have pretty reliable evidence that many of them have been executed summarily. We have tried for years to get an accounting. I t is refused. We have sent mission after mission into Argentina, as one example, pleading for change of policy, pleading for information. We have talked to the families of these scientists. It is a disgraceful situation and the order of magnitude—I think the point I am making here is that when we have the Congress rising with a resolution arraying the whole power and authority of the United States against the Soviet Union on behalf of one marvelous person who symbolizes human rights, we had better not shut our eyes to conditions in other countries where we do not take comparable action; where we still issue invitations for exchanges and fo r visits. And it seems to me that the only point I am trying to make here—and I do not want to overdo it—is tha t this problem of human rights is a universal problem, not just a Soviet problem, and that is why the Helsinki Act was a universal act. I think we have to be concerned about tha t and not focus all our attention on the predicament of academician Sakharov, serious and most regrettable as it is. He at least is being fed. He at least can have some visitors. He at least has some channels for communication. As far as we know he is alive and reasonably well. But there are thou­ sands of others whose names are not household names, whose troubles do not engage the Congress in particular resolutions, and I just think tha t there is considerable inconsistency in the posture of the U.S. Government relative to human rights and that is the only point. I am attempting to put a small perspective on a very black situa­ tion. Mr. Bingham. What Eastern European countries would you single out as being----- Mr. Carey. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and some others. I do not know tha t I want to ask you to put it in the record but I call your attention to a most informative article in the Technology Review for Decem­ ber-Janua ry 1980, titled “Science and Human Rights,” by Earl Callan, Bernard Cooper, and John Parmentola, which is an excellent survey of the whole situation, country by country. I would be glad to leave my copy with you, Mr. Bingham. I do not wish to impose it on the chairman for the record but for your in­ formation I would be happy to leave it. Mr. B ingham. I would be happy to have it. We would be glad to have it for the record. Chairman Z ablocki. Without objection, the article will be made part of the record. 1 Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Chairman, I think this whole discussion under­ lines once again the “unwisdom” of trying to make foreign policy on Capitol Hill. I often wish in addition to the “Yes” and “No” buttons we had a “Maybe” or a “Perhaps” button tha t we could vote on legis­ lation. Obviously you made a very good case. All of us who have had dealings with the Soviets know they do have high respect for the scientific community of their country and there is a 1 See artic le in app. 6 on p. 49.

63-5 21 0 - 8 0 - 4 22 difference between governm ent action and the actio ns of respected i nd i­ vid ual scien tists and groups o f scien tists. We obviously do not wa nt to go so com pletely back int o the cold wa r th at we break dip lom atic relations with the Soviet Un ion; th at obviously is n ot in our in terest. Yet we have no t found a hand le y et to make this pa in fu l enough to the m, to say stron gly enough “N o” to Afg ha nistan or to the intern al oppression. I do no t know wh at th at handle is but it is a very difficult thing , t o find a way to m ake it r eal ly painful, to say “ No” sufficiently. Mr. Carey, it is tru e th at the Sovie t U nio n is the only one who has inv ade d Afgha nistan and it is also true th at we are the only oth er sup erp ow er an d we a re the only one big enou gh to take on the Soviet Union , so there is a kin d of spe cial res ponsibility where the Soviets are concerned. Mr. Ch airma n, I d o n ot know, I t hi nk that my own fee lings would be like th at of my colleague to my left—an d I am glad somebody is to my le ft on the Republican side. I th in k you h ave made a very str on g case. I hope we can figure ou t together som eth ing th at is str on g enough to do a nd p ainf ul enough f or th e S oviets th at th ey will und ersta nd the unaccepta oil ity of Afgha nistan as well as the ir in ternal repressio n. Th an k you, Mr. C hai rman. Ch air man Z ablocki. I f the re a re no fu rthe r questions, the subcom­ mittees s tan d adjou rned su bject to the call of th e Chair. [W her eup on, a t 12 :10 p.m., th e j oi nt subcommittees were adjo urn ed sub ject to the call o f the Chair.] 23

A P PE N D IX 1

i

96 th CO NG RE SS 2d S es sion H. J. RES. 5 3 4

Defining policies of the United States with respect to scientific and technical exchanges with the Soviet Union.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA TIV ES

Apr il 22, 1980 Mr. B rown of California (for himself, Mr. H ol le nb ec k , Mr. F uq ua , Mr. R o e , Mr. W inn , Mr. M cCorma ck , Mr. G ol dw at er , Mr. F is h , Mr. S cheu er , Mr. O tt in ger , Mr. H ar kin , Mr. D or na n , Mr. L loyd , Mr. W alk er , Mr. Kra me r , Mr. B lancha rd , Mr. D avis of Michigan, Mr. F lip po , Mr. Glic km an , Mr. R it t er , Mr. W atk in s , Mr. W h it e , Mr. P ea se , Mr. Wo lpe , Mr. A nthony , Mr. E rtel , and Mr. H an ce ) introduced the follow­ ing joint resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Science and Technology

JOINT RESOLUTION Defining policies of the United States with respect to scientific and technical exchanges with the Soviet Union.

Whereas the free exchange of ideas is a fundamental principle of the Constitution of the United States, and has been sub­ scribed to by all signatories to the Final Act of the Confer­ ence on Security and Cooperation in Europe (hereinafter referred to as the “Final Act” ); Whereas scientific, scholarly, and technical exchanges between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet 24

Socialist Republics (hereinafter referred to as the “Soviet Union”) embody this principle; Whereas the signatories to the Final Act recognized therein that cooperative efforts in science and technology are urgently required to solve worldwide economic, environmental, and social problems; Whereas the signatories to the Final Act guaranteed there in to respect “human rights and fundamental freedoms including the freedom of though t” and “conscience” and guaranteed “to promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and other rights and freedoms which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full develop­ ment” and which are required for open and effective scien­ tific and technical cooperation; Whereas Andrei Sakharov, physicist, member of the Soviet National Academy of Sciences, and Nobel Peace Prize Lau­ reate, has worked for peaceful international scientific coop­ eration, has championed freedom of scientific investigation and communication, has condemned the use of force by all nations as a threat to human existence, and has actively sought to assure faithful adherence to the principles of the Final Act by the authorities of the Soviet Union; Whereas in consequence of his public actions and statements, including his condemnation of the recent invasion of Af­ ghanistan, the authorities of the Soviet Union have involun­ tarily relocated, harassed, and attempted to silence Andrei Sakharov and his wife, Elena Bonner, and have stripped him of many public and professional honors; Whereas by these acts, and by many similar acts derogating the “human rights and fundamental freedoms” of other scien­ tists, scholars, and technologists, the authorities of the 25

Soviet Union have violated the spirit and letter of the Final Act; Whereas scientists and scientific societies of the United States and other nations have condemned the aforesaid acts of authorities of the Soviet Union; and Whereas these acts against Andrei Sakharov and others have severely damaged the fragile relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, and, if continued, raise great doubts about any future relations: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That the Government and people of the United States—

4 (1) join the American and international scientific

5 communities in condemning the internal exile and dis-

6 honoring of Andrei Sakharov by the Government of the

7 Soviet Union; 8 (2) urge the immediate restoration of full human 9 rights and fundamental freedoms to Andrei Sakharov 10 and his wife;

11 (3) declare that it is the policy of the United 12 States Government to halt official travel related to sci- 13 entific and technical cooperation with the Soviet

14 Union, by scientists, technologists, and scholars of the

15 Soviet Union and of agencies of the Federal Govern-

16 ment (including but not limited to the National Science

17 Foundation, the National Bureau of Standards, the Na- 26

1 tional Aeronautics and Space Administration, the De­ 2 partment of Energy, and the Environmental Protection 3 Agency), for a minimum of six months unless such 4 travel is of direct and very substantial benefit to the 5 United States; 6 (4) recommend that all agencies of State and local 7 governments, private agencies and organizations, and 8 professional societies as well as scientists, scholars, 9 and technologists be requested to defer all travel to the 10 Soviet Union which is related to scientific and techni­ 11 cal cooperation for a minimum of six months unless 12 otherwise dictated by extraordinary circumstances or 13 individual conscience; 14 (5) call upon the governments, professional soci­ 15 eties, and individual scientists, scholars, and technolo­ 16 gists of nations which are signatories to the Final Act 17 to join the United States of America in resolutions or 18 other appropriate actions similar to this one; 19 (6) direct the President to assure that all agencies 20 of the United States Government (including but not 21 limited to the National Science Foundation, the Na­ 22 tional Bureau of Standards, the National Aeronautics 23 and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, 24 and the Environmental Protection Agency) take appro­ 25 priate prompt and coordinated actions, including re- 27

1 sumption or complete cessation of travel designated in 2 paragraphs (3) and (4), should any or all circumstances 3 which led to the adoption of this joint resolution sub­ 4 stantially change at any time after enactment; 5 (7) direct the President to report to the Congress 6 within six months after the date of the enactment of 7 this joint resolution, and thereafter as necessary, con­ 8 cerning— 9 (A) all steps taken pursuant to paragraph (6), 10 and 11 (B) other domestic and foreign policies, in­ 12 cluding policies relating to paragraph (8), which 13 should be instituted to further all the purposes of 14 this joint resolution; and 15 (8) urge agencies of the United States Govern­ 16 ment as well as the governments, professional soci­ 17 eties, and individual scientists, scholars, and technolo­ 18 gists of all nations to develop and implement standards 19 and /or policies for the conduct of international cooper­ 20 ative research and research communication and for the 21 protection of the “human rights and fundamental free­ 22 doms” of all scientists, scholars, and technologists.

23 Sec. 2. As used in this joint resolution— 28

1 (1) the term “human rights and fundamental free­

2 doms” means those rights and freedoms which are in­

3 cluded in principle V II of the Final Act; and

4 (2) the term “official travel” means travel con­

5 ducted under the aegis of bilateral scientific and techni­

6 cal agreements between the Governments of the

7 United States and the Soviet Union only, and does not

8 include travel or communication where an individual is

9 traveling solely under his own initiative in the further­

10 ance of personal research even when such travel or re­

11 search is supported by public moneys of either nation. AP PE ND IX 2

Stateme nt S ubmitted for th e R ecord by H on. D onald J. P ease Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to make these rem arks today on House Joint Resolution 534. Our Subcommittee Chairman George Brown, who originally introduced this resolution along with our Ranking Minority Member Harold Hollenbeck, deeply regrets being unable to be present but he has asked me to speak on his behalf in my comments here. First , I wish to urge prompt and favorable action on the resolution. We can­ not continue science exchanges as usual when Soviet scientists such as Andrei Sakharov and many other less well known, are arreste d, exiled, imprisoned, or subject to psychological tortu re and hard labor while in ill-hea lth ! While hu­ man rights violations in the Soviet Union have been serio us for many years, Sakharov’s a rrest has sparked an international wave of protest as well as boy­ cotts by individuals and professional societies. Hereafter, I suspect, the ir rel a­ tions with Soviet cou nterparts will never completely ret urn to the status quo until the general condition of Soviet scientists improves. H.J. Res. 534 provides for a comparable national response to the arrest of Andrei Sakharov and othe rs by calling for a minimum six-months ha lt to travel under the official bilateral government-to-government science and technology agreements with the Soviet Union. The resolution goes fa r beyond current Adm inistration and private actio ns by giving these policies the highest autho r­ ity possible, namely the sta tus of law. Henceforth, specifically with respect to the Soviet Union but more generally in paragraph 8 with regard to all international science and technology exchange, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms would be recognized as an axiom and not merely one variable among many in the form ulation of our science and technology policy. As the resolution states, the mandato ry six month minimum ha lt to trav el related to science and technology exchange applies only to official travel under the bilateral exchan ges ; it does not apply to other exchanges such as the inter- academy exchanges in which individuals are traveling on their own or the Academy’s behalf. For non-official travel section 1(4) only: “Recommends that—professional societies as well as scientists—be re­ quested to defer all travel to th e Soviet Union—for a minimum of six months unless otherwise dictated by extraord ina ry circumstances or individual conscience.” The clear intent of the Science and Technology Committee is expressed in its re po rt: “Extraord ina ry circumstances might be to conclude an experiment or to visit dissentin g colleagues as by atte nding the Moscow ‘Sunday Seminars’. Indeed, as discussed elsewhere, individual atte mpts to protect endangered colleagues by communication, by visits, or by protests to authorities should be strongly encouraged by professional societies and appropriately by Fed­ eral agencies. The Committee wishes to emphasize that, while all scientists, scholars, and technologists as well as professional societies should consider very carefully any contemplated exchange with the Soviet Union at this time, paragraph 4, is only a recommendation and an individual’s personal or professional conscience m ust be th e final arbiter. Federal agencies funding scientific and technical exchange with the Soviet Union shall inform their gran tees of the policies contained in House Joint Resolution 534 but must not imply th at Federal support, except in the case of official travel, is in any way contingent thereon. As heretofore with non-official exchanges scientific merit must remain the criterion on which a funding decision is based.” Mr. Chairman, the Committee is very concerned about the possibility of an overreaction by Federal burea ucrats to the arrest of Sakharov and the invasion of Afghanistan. Indeed, there is evidence th at such has already occurred in a recent directive to DOE laboratory directors on communication with Soviet (29) 30 cou nterparts and in the interference with the Bubble Memory conference in California. The Committee has expressed itse lf in the strongest possible term s in its report that it hopes such occurrences will not recur. For this reason also the Committee recommends separatio n of th e response to the invasion of Afghanistan from this response to the treatment of Sakharov and other Soviet scientists. The construction of parag raph 4 as a recommendation only is intended to furth er the Committee’s intent in this regard. Nevertheless, in recommending H.J. Res. 534, the Committee believes that individual scientists and professional societies ought to factor the protection of academic freedoms and human rights in to the ir professional ethics generally. Specifically in this instanc e they should very seriously consider deferring trav el to the Soviet Union pending improvement in the condition of th eir colleagues. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Congressman Brown and myself, thank you for the opportunity to partic ipa te in this hearing. We urge favorable consideration of the resolution before you. Mr. Chairman, with the Committee’s permission, I would ask th at a letter to Chairman Brown from Herm an Feshbach, President of the American Physical Society, be included as pa rt of the record. While commenting upon an earlier version of this resolution (H .J. Res. 513). Professor Feshbach expresses his “ap­ preciation (on behalf of the Physical Society) for the care and thoughtfulness with which this resolution was prepared.” As you know, Mr. Chairman, H.J. Res. 534 was derived from H.J. Res. 514 to furth er clarify the distin ction in policies with rega rd to official and unofficial travel.

The A merican P hysical S ociety, New York, N.Y., April 25, 1980. Hon. G eorge E. B rown, TJ.S. House of Representatives, Ray burn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear R epresentative B rown : I have recently received the final version of the Joint Resolution on scientific and technical exchange with the Soviet Union (H.J. Res. 513), as presented to the House on March 17,1980. On behalf of the American Physical Society, I wish to express my appreciation for the care and thoughtfulness with which this Resolution was prepared. In particular, we are pleased to see that a carefully worded definition of “official travel” was added to the earlier version. This makes it clear th at the importance of maintaining contacts at the personal level with Soviet scientists is fully ap­ preciated by your Committee. We sincerely hope that this will also be tru e of Congress as a whole. As you know, the APS feels that the scientific scholarly societies are in the long run, in the best position to set the chara cte r of international scientific rel a­ tions, and that a minimum of government intervention is necessary. We recognize that in saying this we must also assume responsibility for formulating standa rds th at protect the human rights of our colleagues in less fortu nate countries. For that reason we shall pay special heed to Article 8 of your Resolution. At this time a committee of our Society has been charged with the responsibility of fo rmulating such guidelines. The sophisticated approach to the problems of in ternational scientific relations taken by you and your Committee has not always been followed by the Adminis­ tration. Your Resolution has restricted its concern to human rights and the Hel­ sinki Accords, a nd has been written in a spirit th at is in keeping with our legal traditions. In c ontrast to this, the Administration has, on several occasions, tried to implement its foreign policy by imposing restrictions of questionable property (and perhaps even legality) on scientific communication. As you know, I here allude to interference by the Departm ents of State and Commerce in two inter­ national conferences held in California this winter, and to a directive from the Departm ent of Energy to DOE-supported labo ratories. Detailed criticisms of these actions have been sent to the Secretaries of State and Commerce, and I enclose copies of this correspondence for your information. I also enclose an article and editorial concerning this ma tter from the April issue of Physics Today. I greatly enjoyed meeting with you once again in Cambridge on February 25, and would like to assure you th at I am very appreciative of your willingness to engage in an exchange of opinions and ideas. Cordially yours, Herman F eshbach, President. Enclosures. 31

AP PE ND IX 3

L et te r F ro m P u i L i r H and ler, P r esid en t, N atio n a l A ca dem y of S c ie n c e s, W it h A tt ached S ta t e m e n t fo r t h e R ecord

Na t io n a l A c a d e m y o f S c ie n c e s

OFFIC E OF THE PR ES IDEN T 2101 CONSTITUTION AVFNUE WAS HING TO N. D C 20*1 © May 15, 198 0

Th e H onora ble C le m en t J . Z ab lo ck i C hairm an , Subco m m itte e on I n t e r n a t i o n a l Security and Scientific Affairs Com m itte e on F o re ig n A f f a ir s Hou se o f R e p re s e n ta tiv e s W ash in gto n, D. C. 20515

D ea r Cha irm an Z a b lo c k i:

I was m os t g r a t e f u l to b e asked to t e s t i f y on H .J . R es. 534 an d r e g r e t t h a t I m us t be o u t o f th e c o u n tr y when th e h e a rin g i s ta k in g p la c e . A c c o rd in g ly , I t r u s t t h a t yo u an d y o u r c o lle a g u e s will accept the attached Statement for the record.

Th e su s p e n s io n o f o u r b i l a t e r a l se m in a rs w it h th e S o v ie t Academ y wa s d is c u s s e d a t le n g th a t th e a n n u al m eeti n g o f th e NAS th r e e wee ks ag o ; H .J . R es. 534 i t s e l f wa s n o t d is c u s s e d a t t h a t meeting but the attached Statement does, I believe, reflect the v ie w p o in t o f a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r tio n o f o u r mem be rs.

In e s s e n c e , a s p r e s e n te d i n my S ta te m e n t, i t i s my ju dgm en t t h a t th e R e s o lu ti o n sh o u ld n o t be ad o p te d in i t s p r e s e n t fo rm . My re a so n s a r e a s fo llo w s :

(1 ) I t i s unw is e to t i e th e w hole o f U .S .- S o v ie t s c i e n t i f i c ex change p o lic y to th e f a t e o f on e man o r , in d e e d , o f on e gr ou p ( d i s s i d e n ts ) i n th e USSR, r e g a r d le s s of t h e i r sy m b o li c s t a t u r e an d im me nse p e r s o n a l v a lu e .

(2) It is unwise to restrict the ability of the scientific co mmun ity to fo ll o w th e p r o g re s s o f S o v ie t s c ie n c e , even f o r s i x m onth s.

(3 ) Th e p r i v a t e s c i e n t i f i c co mmun ity w i l l re g a rd hea vy Congressional pressure against such travel as intimidating and a s e r io u s r e s t r i c t i o n o f t h e i r fr ee dom o f c h o ic e ; in a much l e s s e r wa y, i t may b e ta k e n a s an ex am pl e o f th e v e ry ty p e o f behavior against which we are protesting. 32

(4) It is important that the Sakharov case be seen in perspective; on balance, serious as that case certainly is, this Resolution seems to give it excessive weig ht— especially in light of the invasion of.Afghanistan and other Soviet moves.

This line of reasoning strik ingly parallels recent comments to the effect that our national interest was not well served by six mo nths in which concern for the return of our hostages in Iran wa s the centerpiece of Am eri can foreign policy, outweighing almost all other considerations. As one whose profound a ttach­ ment to his nati ve land d erives in no small measure from our traditional regard for the sanctity of the individual, whose protest and actions conce rning Soviet repression of individual scientists is a matter of pu blic record, I found this letter— like the attached Statement— painful to write.

Philip Handler President

Attachment 33

Sta te men t by P h il ip H an dl er , P res id en t, N ati onal Aca demy of Scie nces of t h e U nite d S ta te s of A mer ica

Chairman Zablocki, Chairman Fascell, members of the Committee

on Foreign Affairs and of the Commission on Security and Cooperation

in Europe:

I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on

H.J. Res. 534. I regret that I cannot be with you in person,

but a prior commitment to be at the long-scheduled Conference of

the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis requires

that I be in Austria when this hearing Is taking place. Let me

note that, in preparation, I have carefully examined the report

of the Committee on Science and Technology to ascertain and

appreciate that Committee's views on the matter at hand.

My own general views concerning the human rights of scientists

were made known to you last January when I testified before a

joint hearing of the Commission and of the Committee on Science

and Technology concerning our preparations for the "Scientific

Forum" shortly to convene in Hamburg. Soon after our return from

the Forum, I reported to you concerning the nature and outcome of

that Forum. As I recall, a predecessor Joint Resolution (487)

had been introduced just before the January hearings, and neither

I nor my colleagues had seen it until the day of our appearance

at the hearing. We were not then prepared to comment on its

provisions or the possible consequences of its adoption. 34

In the time since, the Res olution has undergone numerous changes, thereby becoming, in some respects, a cause for concern.

The National Ac ademy of Sciences Point of View

Befo re examining elements of the R esolution which seemed to warrant further consideration, let me clarify the position of the

Academy by noting certain h istorical factors that combine in the evol ution of our approach to U.S.-U.S.S.R. scientific relations:

In 1958, the De partment of State concluded a broad cultural relat ions agree ment wit h the U.S.S.R., providing inter alia for agree ment betw een NAS USA and ASU SSR for the exchange of individual scientists. As a result, the NAS and ASU SSR concluded their first exchange agreement in 1959. Since then, our exchange program with

the Soviet Acad emy has pr oceeded uninterruptedly, independent of political and ideological shifts in the two countries.

In 1973, the A cade my recognized the accomplishments of

Aca demician Sakharov by electing him to be a Foreign Associate.

This is a h igh distinction, the equivalent of a "foreign member",

and carries w ith it all the privileges of membership except voting

in Acad emy elections.

Later that same year, aware of the incr easing harassment of

Aca dem ician Sakharov by Soviet authorities, I cabled the then

Preside nt of the Soviet Academy, Aca dem ician Msti sla v Keldysh, warni ng that further official humil iat ion of Academician Sakharov 35

would surely result in negative effects on our exchange program.

For the time being, the harassment stopped.

This year at Hamburg, I and almost all of our colleagues from

Western countries, publicly expressed grave concern and revulsion at the official actions by which Academician Sakharov was stripped of his honors and removed from Moscow to Gorkiy. In the weeks since,

I have learned, from a number of sources in which I place considerable trust, that the vigor and intensity of our protest at Hamburg made a profound impression on Soviet scientists and officials, there and at home.

As you also know, in late February, while we were in Hamburg,

the Council of our Academy (with my full knowledge and formal

concurrence) took the unusual step of suspending for six months our bilateral symposia with the Soviet Academy of Sciences. That action was explicitly taken in direct response to the repression of

Academician Sakharov; it is to be reviewed at our Council meeting

next August.

You are all aware, I am sure, that the exchange programs that

the Academy manages, both individual exchanges and bilateral

seminars, are financed by public funds— the individual exchanges

and some of the bilaterals are supported by the National Science

Foundation; some of the bilateral symposia are supported by the

National Institutes of Health and other agencies of government. 36

As I have pub licly m ade known, I fully share views of the treatment of A cademician Sakharov such as those expressed by

Congressman Brown. Distinguished physicist, defender of human rights, defender of fell ow citizens in difficulty for their defense of hu man rights, advocate of rational pathways toward permanent p eace and avoidance of nuclear war, advocate of coexistence, spokesman for democracy, he has fully earned our support, man y times over. It would come hard, indeed, for our nation, which ho lds sacred the rights of individual human beings, to do other than all we possibly can for h im in his hour of travail. Our Acad emy Committee on Human Rights has taken strong posit ions in his behalf and that of other Soviet scientists for whom we all share deep concern: Yuriy Orlov, Anatoliy Shcharanskiy and Serg ei Kovalev, to name bu t three. Yet, withal, sadly and reluctantly, I must admit that I am not persuaded that our nation shou ld est ablish policy wit h respect to scientific and technical relat ions w ith the U.S.S.R. based prim arily on the fate of any one person or small group of persons.

As I said in January, in my view the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan and Soviet adv enturism arou nd the globe are far more thre atening to wor ld security than is their internal repression of dissent. Soviet pressure tests our n ational determination and strength of w ill ever ywhere it can, b rin gin g us to a crossroad in 37

Soviet-A merican relations. The great challenge is to contain the

Soviet drive to heg emony w hil e avoiding any signal or action whi ch would nece ssarily initiate the out break of World War III. We mus t not

fail to mak e our responses stro ng and unmistakable, nor ma y we

neglect to consider the c onsequences of each aspect of our responses.

Patently, this is a perilous course and many members of the Academy

have cautioned me that they fear that our country and the Soviet Union

may be approaching a po int of no retu rn through excessive action and

reaction to each other. Resp onsibility for our foreign policy at this

time is a heavy burden indeed.

To be true to our principles, we have no choice but to convey'

to the Soviet government the full depth of our dismay and distress

concerning the treatment of Andre i Sakharov and those other courageous

Soviet citizens who have be en deprived of their fundamental freedoms

simp ly for acting in accord wi th those rights which, at home, we take

for granted. We must not fail to support those who speak out for

freedom wherever they m ay be.

At the same time, however, we must util ize every opportunity to

carry the me ssage of liberty to the heart of the Soviet system.

By contrast wit h Soviet scientists, ours are free to choose whether

to travel or to stay home, to attend international conferences

or no t to do so, to serve as hosts to vis itors from other countries

or not to so serve. Mos t importantly, our gove rnment has relied on

our scien tists to make these decisions for them selves as responsible 38 in d iv id u a ls in a fre e s o c ie ty . I t i s v i t a l th a t th e se p rin c ip le s be m ain ta in ed ; th e ir fo rc e in Am erica n s o c ie ty under our C o n sti tu ti o n must n o t be dim in is hed as th e se co ndar y co ns eq ue nc e of th e b eh av io r o f some fo re ig n o ffic ia ld o m .

A Review o f th e B e n e fit s o f Ex ch an ge s w it h S o v ie t Scie nce

In Se pt em be r, 1977 , th e Academy pu b li sh ed th e r e s u lts of a c a re fu l Review of U .S .- U .S .S .R . In te ra ca dem y Ex chan ges and R e la tio n s .

I wo uld lik e to sh are w it h you some s e le c te d e x c e rp ts dra wn fro m th e co n clu sio n s and reco mmen da tio ns of th a t st udy:

"We b e li e v e th a t th e in te ra cadem y ex ch an ge prog ram has bee n h ig h ly v a lu a b le , and we urg e i t s con ti n u an ce. F u rth e r, we lo ok w it h appro val on th e bro ad en ed sc op e of ex ch an ge s th a t ha ve be gu n un de r th e U .S .- U .S .S .R . in te rg o v ern m en ta l agre em ents , n o ti n g , ho wev er, th a t sin c e th ey exte nd w e ll beyo nd th e b o rd ers of pure sc ie n c e in to do main s of te chnolo gy and i t s p r a c tic a l a p p lic a tio n s , th ese ex ch an ge s d i f f e r in kin d fro m th e in te ra ca dem y ex ch an ges .

"The b e n e fits of th e in te ra cadem y ex ch an ge prog ram as se en by th e p a r tic ip a n ts and th e pan el ha ve be en of s e v e ra l k in d s. The most im port ant h as be en i t s c o n tr ib u tio n to th e b u il d in g and m ai nte nan ce of th e w or ld s c i e n t i f ic comm unity. . .

"N ex t, and equal in im port ance, a re th e in te ra cadem y ex ch an ge pro gra m 's r o le s as a chan nel fo r keep in g a b re a st o f S o v ie t sc ie n c e and as a chan nel fo r fre q u e n t c o n ta c t and co mmun ication be tw ee n r e p re s e n ta tiv e s of two a n ta g o n is tic s o c ie tie s , th ere b y h e lp in g to im prov e r e la tio n s be tw ee n th em ." (p . 179 )

"F or th e mo st p a r t, th e s c i e n t i s t s d ir e c tly in volv ed in th e ex ch an ge s b e li e v e d th e s c i e n t i f ic b e n e fit to be b ro a d ly co mpa rabl e on both s id e s o f th e ex ch an ge , w it h some advan ta ge fo r th e S o v ie ts ." (p . 181) "Th e co nse nsu s vi ew o f th e em in en t s c i e n t i s t s c o n su lt e d i s th a t S ovie t sc ie n c e has g e n e ra ll y bee n im pr ov in g in a num ber of f i e l d s , so th a t th e fu tu re ca n be expecte d to b rin g a s h i f t c lo s e r to e q u a lity ." (p . 182)

" . . . lim ita tio n s on s c i e n t i f i c free do m in th e U .S .S .R . a re a se rio u s pr ob lem th a t a d v e rse ly a f f e c ts th e b a s ic a tt i tu d e o f American s c i e n t i s t s to war d th e ex ch an ge pr og ra m . None­ th e le s s , th e p an el b e li e v e s th a t m ai nte nan ce of th e ex ch an ge w ill do more to in c re a s e th e free do m of s c i e n t i s t s in th e S o v ie t Un ion th an c u ttin g i t a f f o r re ducin g i t s u b s ta n tia lly wo uld do . . . . th e very im port ance of th e in te ra ca dem y prog ram to th e S ovie t go ve rnmen t p u ts th e NAS in an u n u su all y good p o s itio n to p re s s fo r th e m ai nte nan ce of accepte d sta n d a rd s of s c i e n t i f i c in v e s tig a tio n ." (p p. 18 2-3)

"The most im port ant reco mmen da tio n of th e pan el i s th a t th e in te ra cadem y ex ch an ge pr og ram be m ain ta in ed an d, i f p o s s ib le , ex pa nd ed . Any expan si on sh ould be c o n ti n g e n t on ag re em en t w it h th e S o v ie t Un ion th a t a l l th e a d d it io n a l e f f o r t , and some p a r t of th e p re se n t le v e l, go in to p a tte rn s o f ex ch an ge th a t d i f f e r fro m th o se of th e p re se n t pr og ram . The new em ph as is sh ould be on j o i n t and c o ll a b o ra tiv e re se a rc h pro gra m s, j o in t wor ks ho ps and sy m po sia, and sh o rt v i s i t s to c e n te rs o f p a r a l le l re se a rc h .

"T he se new e f f o r t s sh ould be fo cu se d on s e le c te d f ie ld s o f sc ie n c e in th e two c o u n tr ie s . Th roug h m utu al ag re em en t be tw ee n th e two aca dem ie s, a few s u b fie ld s of sc ie n c e co uld be s e le c te d fo r c o n c e n tr a te d a c t i v it y d uri ng a th re e - to fiv e -y e a r c y c le . W ithin th e a re a s o f c o n c e n tr a ti o n a bro ad sp ec tr um o f a c t i v i t i e s co uld be u n d ert ak en , in clu d in g in d iv id u a l v i s i t s , j o in t sy m posia, w or ks ho ps , and o th e rs , as a p p ro p ria te ." (p p. 18 4- 5)

Our Dilemma

By in v itin g your a tte n tio n to th e p ass ages ab ov e, I am a ls o

in v itin g you to sh a re w it h me th e dilem ma in which we fin d o u rse lv e s

We d e te s t th e re p re s s iv e n a tu re o f th e S o v ie t re gim e and d e p lo re wha t i t doe s to p ers ons o f i n te g r i ty , some o f them co m pe te nt sc ie n ­

t i s t s , who fin d th em se lv es unable to acc ep t w it h o u t c h a ll e n g e th e 40

full measure of Communist pa rty line, propaganda, and repression; we, too, find that totality anat hema in terms of our own heritage.

Most of us believe also that, in this deeply troubled world, it is essenti al that we main tai n contact wit h those who live in the country that represents the mo st potent threat to global survival in hum an history. Not only must we strive continuingly to understand the thinking of the Soviet leadership, we mus t diligently assess the capacity, current programs, and future directions of Soviet science.

It is for just such reasons that our Council did not impose any suspension on indi vidual exchanges when, in February, it took action to suspend our bilateral seminars. It was also for these reasons that, w hen I was in Mos cow in September, 1979, I p roposed to the Pr esident of the Soviet Academy, Academician Aleksandrov, that w e mo ve toward increase in joint seminars and collaborative research programs through the medium of joint workshops and symposia sponsored by the two Academies.

On balance, it appears to me that the United States policy for more than two decades to encourage scie ntific exchange, independent of the ebbs and flows of the political tides, has been sound and wou ld continue to be sound for the foreseeable future. Just as single-issue politics can cause great mis chief in our domestic affairs, so ca n it also w ith respect to our international relations. 41

H .J . Res . 534

The la nguag e o f H .J . Res . 534 i s c o n sid e ra b ly more in ti m id a ti n g to p riv a te o rg a n iz a ti o n s and in d iv id u a l s c i e n t i s t s th an was th e e a r l ie r v e rsio n and c e r ta in ly much more so th an i s th e R e so lu ti o n of th e Academy C ounci l o f 24 Feb ru ar y 1980 . A do pt io n o f H .J . Res . 534 wo uld mean th a t p r iv a te o rg a n iz a ti o n s su ch as th e Am erica n C ounci l of Lea rn ed S o c ie tie s , th e S o c ia l Scie nce R es ea rc h C ouncil , and th e

In te r n a tio n a l R es ea rc h and Ex ch an ge s Boa rd , as w e ll as th e N ati o n al

Academy of S cie n ces, which may w is h to co n ti n u e in d iv id u a l ex ch an ges , wo uld be fa ced w it h w heth er si m ply to defy th e reco mmen da tio n co n ta in ed in Se c. 1 (4 ), o r w het her to j u s t i f y a pro gra m 's co n ti n u a­ tio n as " d ic ta te d by e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m sta n c e s." The l a t t e r wo uld seem to re q u ir e an e x p li c it p ro ced u re , w it h c le a r - c u t ex am ina­ tio n and fin d in g s , and a re co rd of su ch d e c is io n s . Fo r ea ch

in d iv id u a l tr a v e lin g w it h in su ch a pr og ra m , th e re would ha ve to be a re co rd of th e ar gu m en ts by which th a t s c i e n t i s t 's " in d iv id u a l

consc ie nce" came to i t s own d e c is io n . The c ite d reco mmen da tio n of

Se c. 1(4 ) o f H .J . Res . 534 is f a r s tr o n g e r th an th e p erm is siv en ess

of th e se co nd el em en t of Se c. 2 (2 ), which s ta te s th a t " o f f i c i a l

tr a v e l" which i s p re sc rib e d fo r s ix mon ths:

" . . . do es n o t in c lu d e tr a v e l or co mmun ication wh ere

an in d iv id u a l i s tra v e lin g s o le ly under h is own i n i t i a t i v e

in th e fu rth e ra n c e of p e rso n a l re se a rc h ev en when su ch

tr a v e l o r re se a rc h i s su pport ed by p u b li c mon ies o f e ith e r

n a ti o n 42

Indeed, given the urgings of Sec. 1(4), it seems unlikely that any

publi c m oney would be spent by an Amer ica n scientist or scholar for

travel to the U.S.S.R. Moreover, bure aucratic interpretations

being wha t they are, this circumstance constitutes a rather worrisome

situation.

The Report of the Committee on Science and Technology states

on page 6 that the NAS "itself voted to suspend all bilateral symposia

and other meet ings for at least six months. . ." While H.J. Res. 534 and the NA S Council Resolution are similar as regards six month suspensions— although they wil l affect different six mo nth perio ds— they are utterly different w ith respect to their impact on the travel of individuals pursuing their own scien tific or scholarly interests. The N AS Council honor ed the traditional basis of

NAS-ASUSS R exchange of individual scientists; participation remains a matte r of personal judgment, without prejudice. Similarly, our

Council left to Individual choice the decision to participate in any m eeting of an international mul til ateral scientific organization convened in the USSR. The sense of the NAS Resolution in these regards is: "We will respect your cons idered decision." The sense of H.J. Res. 534 seems to be: "How could you possibly justify your decision in the light of the stated criteria?" 43

If this p essimistic analysis of the implications of H.J. Res. 534 is reasonably accurate, it seems likely that its passage wou ld send scienti fic and scholarly contacts b etw een the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. into eclipse through 1980. While we might keep the framework for scie ntific exchange in place, it would surely grow rusty; res ources— funds, staffs, phys ical requirements— woul d be lost through attrition.

Reb uilding them would bec ome a substantial effort and pro bably take several years. By the same token, the benefits of U.S.-U.S.S.R. scie ntific exchange wo uld go unre alized if exchange travel wer e virtually to cease.

The perfect ing amendments to H.J. Res. 534 w ere introduced to clarify:

" . . . the dis tin ction b etw een a mandat ory policy on

coop erative exchange which applies only to ’offi cial’ travel

and only to Federal or Soviet gover nment agencies and a

recommendation that indi vidual scientists, professional

socie ties and others defer travel related scientific

and technical exchanges."

Yet they do not act ually seem to have the intended effect. Whereas

the unpe rfected text left the travel of a private Ameri can outside

the "official" cate gories and, therefore, on his own regarding deci sion wh ether to travel or to host, the p erfected ver sio n urges

that the individ ual not travel and that supp orting organizations not provide support "unless othe rwise dict ated by extraordinary

circumstances or individual conscience. 44

If H.J. Res. 534 is adopted by the H ouse and Senate, and the degr ee of intimidation of Americ an scientists and scholars is as great as suggested above, we wil l then be faced wit h several questions:

What has happened to the virtues we pr oclaimed of maintaining channels of communication, of exposing the scientists of each side to the other, of following scientific developments in the U.S.S.R., of assuring that Americans are free to decide for themselves as their own consciences dictate? Wha t can we anticipate as the probab le state of play six months hence when the p olicy must be evaluated? Is any course o pen to us but to contin ue the suspension if at the time of reevaluation, And rei Sakharov is still in Gorkiy or if his circumstances have deteriorated yet further? May there be a relaxation even in the a bsen ce of a significant improvement in the personal situation of And rei Sakharov or of h uman rights more generally in the U.S.S .R.? Or will the Un ited States have locked itself into a po sition whi ch it will find undesirable but from whi ch it cannot extricate itself? Does H.J. Res. 534 paint the nat ion into a corner?

There are also some rath er technical questions concerning

H.J. Res. 534:

1. How are "bilateral scientific and technical

agreements" cited in Sec. 2(2) to be defined?

2. Would H.J. Res. 534 b e interpreted by the NSF

as a r ecommendation to abolish financial support to the

NAS for the N AS- ASU SSR exchange program in accordance

with Sec. 1(4)? 3. Sec. 1(3) refers to "scientists, technologists,

and scholars of the Soviet Union and of agencies of the

Federal government" as those whose "official travel"

would be halted except as noted. This phraseology would

seem to imply that all Soviet citizens in those categories,

regardless of the program which they have proposed for

visiting the United States, are to be excluded. That

closes down one side, half the mutual exchange programs

even before consideration of "extraordinary circumstances

or individual conscience" of prospective American exchangees.

Patently, if one side is closed down, so must be the other.

Conclusion

In the light of past history, of the difficulties engendered by the tone of H.J. Res. 534, and, most importantly, considering

the projected consequences of adoption of this Joint Resolution,

I have concluded that, while some parts of the Resolution may, indeed

constitute suitable responses to the Soviet repression of

Academician Sakharov, other parts, specifically cited above,

may work to the detriment of long-term American national and

scientific interests. Accordingly, I would regard adoption of this

Resolution, in its present form, as intrinsically undesirable both

from the short-term and the long-term points of view. AP PE ND IX 4

L etter to H on. G eorge E. B rown F rom H on . J. Brain A twood, A ssistant S ecretary of S tate for C ongressional R ela tions , W it h C ommen ts on the L egislation Department of S tate, Washington, D.C., April 11,1980. Hon. George E. Brown, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Brown : In response to a request from your staff, I wish to provide you with the Departm ent of Sta te’s comments on H. J. Res. 513, defining policies of the United States with respect to scientific and technical exchanges with the Soviet Union. As A ssistant Secretary Thomas R. Pickering said during hearings on the CSCE Scientific Forum on Janu ary 31, the thrust of this Dr aft Resolution paralle ls th e Administration’s policy on this subject. Our policy has been to curta il sub stan tially official exchanges in the science and technology field. A number of high-level meetings have been indefinitely post­ poned, as will others which are scheduled to come up in the future. At the same time, a larg e number of lower-level individual exchange activities have been indefinitely postponed. We are, however, proceeding w ith certain routine exchange activities which are of direct substantive benefit to the U.S., including those in areas which rela te to human welfare, such as health and environm ental protec­ tion. It is also our intention to maintain the framework of exchanges, so th at if the po litical climate should improve significantly, useful exchange activity could be expanded. With respect to the Draft Resolution, we have noticed cer tain points on which the Committee might wish to consider some emendations. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been a prin cipa l reason for the Adm inistration’s actions in cutting back on scientific exchanges with the USSR, we consider that a strong condemnation of Soviet actions in Afghanistan, as well as of their treatm ent of Sakharov, would be imp ortant in conveying to the Soviets a clea r message about the consequences of what they have done. In this connection, the present draft urges the “immediate restora tion of Andrei Sakharov and his wife to their former situ atio n.” Since the Sakharovs’ situ ation prior to the ir recent internal exile was a fa r from satisfactory one, we would suggest substituting a phrase urging restora tion of their full human rights. We understand th at the intent of the Dr aft Resolution is to limit official travel “under the aegis of bilateral scientific and technical agreements between the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union only” and is not meant to apply to travel by individuals “in the furtherance of personal research.” With this distintcion in mind, we suggest deleting the reference to “scholars" in the text, thus better defining its application to scientists and technologists trav elling in an official government capacity. The Resolution as now dra fted is somewhat asym metrical in the criteria it applies to permitting official travel. In the case of travel by Soviets to the United States, the criterio n is “direct and very sub stantial b e n e fito n the other hand, the Resolution would defer official trave l by Americans to the Soviet Union rela ted to scientific and technical cooperation “unless otherwise dictated by extraordinary circumstances or individual conscience.” We believe that the criteria for trav el whether to or from the USSR should be the same and should be flexible enough to allow us to tak e advantage of activities of direct and very sub stantial benefit to the United States, including long-term as well as to und erta ke activities of a huma nitarian nature. Finally, Section 8 of the Resolution urges U.S. Government agencies to “develop and implement standard s for the conduct of internatio nal cooperative (4 6) 47 research and research communication and for the protection of the ‘human rights and fundam enta l freedoms’ of all scientists, scholars, and technologists.” We believe that atte mpting to work out such broad standard s of conduct for the protection of human rights could result in overly rigid criteria inapplicable to individual situations in various countries. A more positive approach, in our view, would be to urge U.S. Government agencies as well as p rivate organizations to conduct the ir activities in such a way as to promote the protection of human rights and fundam ental freedoms. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that from the standpoint of the Adm inistration’s program, there is no objection to the submission of these views. Sincerely, J. B ria n A twood, Assista nt Secretary for Congressional Relations. AP PE ND IX 5

L etter F rom M ax G ottesman and M ark K ac, C ochairm an , C om­ mittee of C oncerned S cie ntist s W it h C ommen ts on th e L egislation

Committee of C oncerned S cientists, I nc., New York, N.Y., May 28,1980. Hon. Clement J. Z ablocki, Chairman, Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs, Washington, D.C. Dear C ongressman Z ablocki : Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our views on H.J. Resolution 534 at the May 20th hearings. We under­ stand that in light of the testimony presented you are considering some changes in the resolution and would like to submit o ur evaluation of these changes. We welcome and fully support your including an expression of concern about other persecuted scientists, the elimination of the six month moratorium, and the deletion of the recommendation that private travel be deferred. However, we remain seriously concerned about the operative provisions of the language under consideration. As we understand it, the proposed substitute language dire cts the Administra­ tion to rule on exchange travel on the basis of the situ atio n in Afghanistan as well as the human rights situatio n in the U.S.S.R. Its app arent intent is to elevate human rights considerations to the level which the Afghanistan issue now occupies in Adm inistration decision making on exchange travel. In principle, we believe the Government should not engage in restricting such travel. As we indicated in our testimony, we feel strongly th at Government intervention in the conduct of scientific exchanges significantly diminishes the effectiveness of efforts to uphold the human rights of colleagues undertaken by American scien­ tists on the ir own initiative. American scientists ar e currently demonstrating a strong determination to impact on Soviet policy in this area. To the extent that the Soviets perceive U.S. Government investigation of protest activities by U.S. scientists, they are discounted. In addition, the intrusio n of the Afghanistan issue into this resolution will, in our view, be counterproductive. While we recognize the significance of the Afghanistan invasion, it is our considered opinion that the disruption of scientific exchanges will in no way affect Soviet behavior in this regard. The limit on technology tran sfer, on the other hand, is an app ropriate Govern­ ment response. Scientific exchange provides an effective but delicate channel for pursuing an imp ortant U.S. foreign policy go al : the protection and advance­ ment of human rights. Linking Afghanistan to human rights issues will overload this channel of leverage, rendering it ineffective in p ursuing both these im portant goals. For reasons indicated above we oppose the Administration’s curre nt policy of restricting exchanges. Rathe r tha n give legislative support to this ineffective and counterproductive policy, we hope th at the Congress will question it. Once again, we wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to present our position on this resolution and the changes you are considering. We look forward to continuing to work with you towards our common goals. Sincerely, Max G ottesman, GocTioirrwoa. Mark K ac, Cocftoirmow. (48) 49

AP PE ND IX 6

A rtic le F rom T ec hnology R ev ie w , D ec em ber/J a n u a ry 19 80 , E n ­ tit led “ S c ie n c e and H u m a n R ig h t s ,” 1 by E ar l C a l l e n , B er na rd R . C oo pe r, and J o h n P arm en to la

Yuri Orlov, sentenced to seven years ot hard labor Science and five years of “ internal exile” for publicizing Soviet violations of the Helsinki Accords, is a parti­ and cle physicist. Anatoly Shcharansky, sentenced to thirteen years of hard labor for hum an rights ac­ Hum an Rights tions, is a mathematician and com pute r scientist. Andrei Sakharov, leader of the Soviet hum an rights movement, is a nuclear physicist. The father of the by Soviet hydrogen bom b, Sakharov was awarded the Lenin Prize and the Stalin Prize, was three times Earl Callen, “Hero of Socialist Labor,” and is a full member of Bernard R. Cooper, the Soviet Academy of Sciences. These awards were and John Parmentola all co nferred for his scientific research before his a d­ vocacy of hum an rights. Oth er activ ists have been phy sicists Valery Chalidze, Pavel Litvinov, Naum Meiman , Sergei Historically, Polikanov, Valentin Turchin, Andrei Tverdoklebov, scientists have been reluctant to and Iosif Zisels; biologists Sergei Kovalev and involve themselves in hum an rights issues. Zhores Medvedev; and the mathematician Leonid Plyusch. Even writer Aleksandre Solzhenitzyn has But the role of had techical training. In The First Circle Solzhenit­ scientist-as-freedom-fighter zyn recounts his prison experiences as an electronics becomes more palatable technician in an acoustics and telephone commun i­ when people realize “science” cannot cations “sharasha” (special scientific laboratory ) of the Mav rino Special Prison outside Moscow. exist independent of Science and hum an rights — in fact science and “scientists.” activism o f any sor t — seem unlikely partners. How can we explain the preponderance of scientists among Soviet hum an rights activists — num bers too great to be explained by coincidence? Is it due to the example of the great Sakharov? Or is it something peculiarly Russian? Scientists are supposed to be thin g-oriented, introverted, lost in gedanken exper­ iments in their ivy-covered monasteries. Human rights is supposed to be the dom ain o f the oth er cul­ ture , the hum anists. This article attempts to show that the role of the scientist as freedom fighter is not as alien as it seems. We shall describe the evolution of a commitmen t in the American science community — widely shared and growing, albeit of a lesser intensity than tha t of the beleaguered Soviet reformist com rades. In par­ ticular, we shall describe the evolution of social con ­ sciousness in the American physics commun ity and in its professional organization, the American Physi­ cal Society. To the scientist, the search for und erstand ing is a flight of the spirit. To fly free one must be free. Long before President C arter made hum an rights fashion­ able, and long before oth er professional societies had begun to discuss the propriety of social action, natural scientists and their societies were forming hum an rights committees a nd were petitioning, pro-

1 Reprinted with permission of Technology Review. ( ' 50

“ Individual oppressed scientists, especially in the Soviet Union, have led the evolution of social consciousness in the scientific community.”

testing, and boycotting. Shcharansky at his trial, a role the Soviet authorities Today more tha n ever, scientists are involved in forbade. That Sun day at the semi nar in the world affairs. Two of us (Cooper and Parm entola) Brailovsky apa rtm ent, we heard Alber describe, for traveled to Moscow last February. T wo months ear­ the first time openly in the Soviet Union, the maneu­ lier we tried to attend an internatio nal conference vers, the fabricated evidence, the arb itrary proce­ organized by “ refusnik” scientists — Soviet scien­ dures, and the transp arent illegality — even by So­ tists, mostly Jews, who wa nt to emigrate and have viet judicial standa rds — of the Shcharansky trial. been denied tha t right, fired from their jobs, and persecuted for the attempt. For more than six years The Old Ord er: Science, Not Scientists the refusniks have held weekly Sunday afternoo n seminars in Moscow to maintain their scientific Individual oppressed scientists, especially in the capabilities. (The seminar is known in Moscow as Soviet Union, have led the evolution of social con­ the “nonexistent seminar.” ) A similar, smaller semi­ sciousness in the scientific com munity. For years nar is held in Leningrad on Monday evenings. The Andrei S akharov spurred us on. In 19 75 , charges by refusniks have also organized three international Yuri Orlov that internationa l scientists, and espe­ conferences, held, like the weekly seminars, in vari­ cially the American National Academy of Sciences, ous Moscow apartments. We had originally applied could do much more, helped force tha t once-reticent for tourist visas to deliver papers at the third o f these body into a more aggressive stance. For scientists international conferences. As they had before, Soviet have not always been involved in hum an rights. auth orities tried to prevent the conference from tak ­ Forty years ago during the Nazi regime, when many ing place. Agents o f the K.G.B. (Soviet secret police) persecuted scientists were well-known and often raided the apartme nt of Victor Brailovsky and personal friends and colleagues as well, the Ameri­ confiscated scientific papers and a slide projector. can scientific comm unity took no stand. Those were Soviet participants were warne d not to attend or problems of scientists, not science. The scientific they would suffer prosecution. Ou r visas were can ­ ethic of the time was th at, whatev er his or h er politi­ celed by the Soviet embassy jus t as they were de­ cal and social beliefs, the proper scientist remained livered to the New York tou rist office. silent. We possessed neutral skills and knowledge Of eight Americans who received tourist visas to independent of values, we served science and society attend, five had them rescinded. The oth er three best by pro viding objective exper tise with ou t went to the Soviet Union under the guise of group ideological trap ping s. It was a misrepresenta tion to tours, and struck off on their own when they got to use platform s gained by professional eminence to Moscow. (This third international conference was espouse causes into which ou r special but limited actually the second. No Western delegate received a skills gave us no insight. visa from the Soviet government to the first confe r­ This was th e prevailing view, but o f course not all ence in 19 74 , and its Russian organizers were im­ scientists subscribed to it. A nota ble exception was prisoned.) Albert Einstein, who took a political stand long be­ But the regular Sunday refusnik seminar con­ fore he himself became a victim o f Nazi persecution. tinued to meet each week, so when we obta ined Einstein never hesitated to take positions on pac­ tourist visas in February, we went to Moscow and to ifism, Zionism, racism, and human welfare. In 1 91 4, the seminar. By chance we arrived on the fourth at the outbreak of W orld War I, the Germ an gov­ Sunday of the month, reserved as “ humanities Sun­ ernm ent issued the “Declaration to the Cultura l day.” Ou r talks on elem entary particles and on the World,” which declared tha t “German culture and magnetic properties of solids followed a lecture by German militarism are identical.” Patriotic hysteria Solomon Alber, the mathematician and self-taught was such th at not signing the declaration was lawyer asked by the Shcharanskys to defend Anatoly viewed as tan tam ount to treason. Of Germany’s in- 51

tellectual leaders, only Einstein and David Hilbert, grew with the civil rights movement, and was the great mathematician, refused to sign. Then, in strength ened during oppo sit ion to the war in 1946, only 10 years afte r coming to the United Vietnam. How ever, the continu ing groping for the States, Einstein wrote of American racism: “The app rop riate degree of social com mitment is compli­ more I feel an American, the more this situation cated by the fact tha t these events of the past 35 pains me. 1 can escape the feeling o f complicity in it years have had different effects on different genera­ only by speaking out.” But Einstein was not a joiner. tions. Thou gh revered for his scientific genius, he was n ot a The cataclysm of Hiro shim a thrust scientists now member of the scientific or political establishments. in their mid-fifties into awareness o f the responsibil­ In the 1930s a nd 1940s, the leadership of the scien­ ity for the fruits of their labors. The Federation of tific societies was conservative, and it — n ot Einstein American Scientists and the Bulletin o f the Atom ic — set the tone. Scientists, legacies from tha t era, are primarily con ­ Wh at was deemed pro per for the individual sci­ cerned with nuclear proliferation and arms control. entist was even more app rop riate for professional The prim ary social influence on scientists currently associations. For exam ple, the con stitutio n of the in their mid-forties was the civil rights movement American Physical Society states that, “ The object of which, tho ugh it had little direct bearing on science, the society shall be the advance men t and diffusion o f had a great deal to do with scientists. the knowledge o f physics.” From the founding of the The American Physical Society has 30,000 mem­ A.P.S. in 1899 until the past decade, “physics, not bers, alm ost all of whom have Ph.D.’s. A decade ago physicists” was the shibbole th of the society, as if the re were appro xima tely 50 black Am erican physics was something tha t existed in and of itself, physicists with Ph.D.’s, 5 Chicanos, and 1 American rather tha n as a human activity. This view was a Indian. The numbers are better now, but still un­ barrier to every hum an rights initiative. The A.P.S. satisfactory. Less than 3 per cent of American Ph.D. published technical journals such as The Physical physicists are women. Of alm ost 1,000 Ph.D.’s in Review, orga nized scientific meetings for the dis­ physics granted in 1978, 9 went to blacks and 1 semination of research results, elected largely hon­ we nt to an American Indian. orific officers, and did little more. At an A.P.S. meeting in M arch, 1954, at Durham , The first significant step, one of philosophical im­ N.C ., there was a mass resolution protesting the portance not recognized at the time and one tha t segregated dorm itories of Duke University in which came from the society leadership, was the initiation atten dees were housed. The Solid State Division re­ of a placement service. The placement service, a sec­ solved not to meet again witho ut guarantees of in­ ond ary activity of large technical meetings, helps tegrated facilities. To our knowledge, the society match employers and job applicants with one an­ never again met at a segregated hotel or campus. othe r. The orga nizational role of A.P.S. is passive But it was the war in Vietnam tha t finally routed and the c ost is small, but this function was tha t first “objectivity.” For a decade, youn g scientists ob ­ recognition t ha t physics is advanced and diffused by served their elders in supposedly objective, value- physicists. free work — developing laser-guided bombs, elec­ Perceptions of science as a hum an activity have tronic fences, infrared missile-guidance systems, percolated slowly and far from completely into the magnetic mines, and computerized warfare . At­ consciousnesses of working scientists. Because of the tempts to discuss con text — “why ” as well as rapid progress of science, “generation s” can be “ how ” — were rejected as inappropriate for a soci­ defined in terms of 10 or 15 years. These generations ety chartered to advance and diffuse the knowledge also represent differences in the developm ent of so­ of physics (not to consider its social milieu). For the cial attitudes. The evolution to a heightened social first time, the A.P.S. censored its bulletin. conscience among scientists began with Hiro shim a, Today, in marked con trast, members regularly 52

discuss social issues at A.P.S. meetings. For example, ences, A. P. Alexandrov, has over the years sent only there have been discussions of the war in Vietnam, one terse response to many remonstrances. This the antiballistic missile, supersonic transp ort, arms does not imply tha t Alexandrov is less sympathetic control and disarmament, energy, pollution, nuclear than Keldysh was, or tha t our letters are less useful. reactor safety, nuclear proliferation, appropria te Even when the Russians respond to American pres­ tec hnolo gy, classification of scientific sec rets, sure, they take great pains to conceal it. It is a “w histleblowers,” privacy, employment guidelines, thoroughly unscientific but serious game we scien­ the job crisis, and the status of women and tists are playing. minorities. The A.P.S., not witho ut controversy, has The 19 73 Inte rnational Conference on Mag­ resolved to hold its national meetings only in states netism held in Moscow {see box page 27) taught that have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. American scientists much more than magnetism. Witnessing fellow scientists barred from an open, Back in the U.S.S.R. unclassified, international meeting — by Soviet sol­ diers with rifles — raised the consciousness o f many The first venture o f American scientific societies into Americans, and American scientists have aided internatio nal huma n righ ts issues occur red in Soviet refusniks continually ever since. November, 19 72 . The Soviet Union was then impos­ Refusniks are not only fired from their jobs; they ing an emigration tax on its citizens, the stated pur­ are often bar red from research institutes, colleges, pose of which was to recover the cost o f e ducation and libraries and are generally shun ned by the Soviet provided free by the Soviet Union. This ex po st facto scientific comm unity. To help relieve their isolation, tax amounted to approximately $2 1, 00 0, or about the A.P.S. has mailed them gift subscription s of sci­ ten years’ gross salary, for a Ph.D. Very few Rus­ entific journals. But the journa ls and ordin ary letters sians have that much money, and if one did save it reach the addresses only intermittently. The Con ­ up, its possession, coupled with a request to emi­ gressional commission charged with monitoring the grate, would probably lead to a charge of black Helsinki Accords has been informed of the irregu­ marketeering. Hence the education tax effectively larity of journal delivery, but that commission has blocked the emigration of scientists and oth er edu ­ little authority. Journ als now being mailed to Victor cated persons. Brailovsky are being received, but those sent to an­ Letters from A.P.S. members urging action, and a other refusnik, Yuri Golfand, are n ot being delivered petition circulated am ong industrial physicists, although registered mail receipts are coming back. prom pted the society to write to M. Keldysh (then chairman of the Soviet Academy of Sciences) urging State of Siege a discon tinu ation of the em igration tax. As far as we know, the A.P.S. was the first scientific society in the So far we have discussed only the Soviet Union, United States to take the plunge. With the ice bro ­ where there is a continuing num ber of cases and ken, a num ber of othe r societies followed. Did this problems. Several oth er coun tries also have severe action have any effect? In such affairs, one never hum an rights problems, bu t the num ber o f cases in­ knows. But we do know that Henry Kissinger spoke volving scientists is smaller. The plight of Roger to Leonid Brezhnev about the tax, and it was Posados in the Philippines is one example. Posados, dropped. a theoretical physicist, returned to the Philippines in Over the years presidents of American scientific 19 70 a fter receiving his Ph.D. from the University of societies have written increasingly strong letters on Pittsburgh. He is one of only ten physics Ph.D .’s in behalf of the Russian refusniks and dissidents. his country. As assistant professor and chairman of Academician Keldysh sometimes responded. His the physics dep artm ent at the University of the successor as president o f the Soviet Academy of Sci­ Philippines, Posados organized a group calling for 53

“O f the 22 physics faculty members at the University of Santiago at the time of the coup, 2 remain; of the 3 4 chemists, 11 remain; of the original 45 professors in the natural sciences, 7 remain.” increased funds for science and for educational re­ Of the 22 physics faculty members at the University form. In 1971, he was branded “subversive” and of Santiago at the time o f the coup, 2 remain; of the went into hiding. In Jan uary, 1976, Posados, his 34 chemists, 11 remain; of the original 45 professors wife (also a physicist), and their four-year-old son in the natura l sciences, 7 remain. were apprehended and Posados was beaten. In Argentina the situation is even worse. The mili­ Mrs. Posados was released after five months. The tary governm ent under President General Jorg e struggle to get Roger Posados released was much Rafael Videla looks aside while parapolice and longer. Letters to President Ferdinand Marcos and vigilante groups, often in uniform and carrying pressure by U.S. officials helped to finally get official identification, openly kidnap and murder Posados released from prison in September, 1978. citizens. Under the “ state of siege,” in effect since the He has now been allowed to return to his job. junta siezed pow er in M arch, 1976, the crackdown Eastern Europe is a problem area. Because of a on leftists has broadened into an attack on all inde­ supposed attem pt to visit Vienna while attend ing a pendent intellectual activity. “ Intellectual subver­ conference in Warsaw , young Rom anian scientist sion” has been defined as a form of terrorism . Freud Constantin P omponiu was denied governm ental val­ and Ma rx have been branded “ ideological crimi­ idation of his doctora l degree. Influential members nals” and psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental of Congress intervened, using the Jackson-Vanek health w orkers have been all but wiped o ut. The en­ “most-fa vore d natio n” amend ment as leverage. tire 140-person staff of the Assistance Centers for Pomponiu was allow ed to leave Rom ania in Oc­ Children with Learning Problems was fired. In a tober, 1978. He has since taken a position at press conference a nnouncing the arrest of 17 profes­ Carnegie-Mellon University. sors and the “fugitive status” of another 30 faculty In Czechoslovakia repression has intensified over members of the Nation al University of the South, the past two years. Physicist Vladimir Lastuvka, in General Acdel Vilas, deputy commander of the Fifth prison since Jan uary, 1977, is .charged with “ intent Army Corps, proclaimed that “ until we can cleanse to sign” Charter 77, a grass-roots petition affirming the teaching area, and professors are all of Christian the Helsinki Accords. Police found copies of Charter tho ught and ideology, we will not achieve the 77 and othe r “ anti-State m aterial” in his apar tme nt, triu mph we seek in our struggle against the revolu­ and the prosecutor has announced tha t the scientist tion ary left.” was “on the point of signing” the document. Letters Abd uction, solitary confinem ent, torture, and of inquiry to the governm ent of Czechoslovakia murder continue to be common in Argentina. A have not been answered. He is currently serving a half-million persons have fled the country since the three-year prison sentence. coup. About 40 per cent of the Argentine Physical The hum an rights problems under the many dic­ Society — some 120 physicists, including the former tato rships in South America are well-docum ented. president of the society and almost the entire govern­ Argentina, Brazil, and Chile are of particu lar con­ ing council — have either been fired from their jobs cern to scientists because of the large scientific com­ or have fled the country. Military officers run the munities in those countries. But perhaps we should universities. Many people have simply disappeared; use the past tense — in Chile and Argentina scientific others have been tortured. Many have been mur­ communities hardly exist anymore. Politically active dered in prison. There are secret prison camps at Chilean scientists who sup ported former President military bases. Few who enter these prisons are seen Allende fled th at country w ith the coup. Those w ho again. remained have suffered. At the University of Chile, We note mournfully: the University of Concepcion, Austral University, □ Gabriella Carabelli, a physicist at the Nationa l and the private Technical University of Santa Mar ia, University of Cordoba, was kidnap ped with her about 30 per cent of the faculty have been “ purged .” three-year-old son. She was found dead, her body 54

doused with gasoline and burned. □ Manuel Tarchins ky, a nuclear physicist and pro ­ Reality and fessor at the National University of the Sur, Bahia the Nonexistent Blanca, was murdered in jail. □ Ernesto Silve, professor of chemistry at the Na­ Seminar tional University of Rio Cuarto, Cordob a, was ar­ A confrontation with reality demonstrations or protest rested and tortured. Officials explained that Dr. at the 1973 International speeches would be allowed. Silve comm itted suicide in his prison cell. Conference on Magnetism Those wishing to attend the □ Eduardo Pasquini, a physicist at the Nation al in Moscow was probably seminar would meet and University of Rosario, disappeared with his wife, a the single most important then go together to Vor­ spur to human rights ac­ onel’s apartment. psychologist, on June 10, 1976. Neither has been tivism by the scientific Th e se min ar was at­ seen since. societies. Three members of tended by 41 conference □ Federico Alvarez-Rojas, a physicist at the Argen­ the Moscow seminar — participants from the West, tine Atomic Energy Commission in Buenos Aires, Mark Azbel, Moshe Git- by a number of Soviet sci­ and his wife Hilda Leikis de Pojas, a co mpu ter pro ­ term an , and Alex an der en ti sts (r efu sn ik s an d Voronel, all active in mag­ others), observers from the gramm er, were kidnapped on October 1, 1976, and netism research — were official conference organi­ detained by the army. The couple had no known barred from attending the zation, and several K.G.B. political activities and no charges have been filed. magnetism conference by agents (including one very They have not been heard from since their abduc­ po lic e at the do or s of friendly blonde woman, just tion. They leave three young children. Moscow State University. like in the spy thrillers). This was in violation of the This was the first partici­ □ Maxim o Pedro Victoria, a physicist at the rules of the sponsoring or­ pation by Western scientists Atomic Energy Commission in Buenos Aires, was ga niza tio n, the In tern a­ in the Moscow seminar. gagged and blindfolded and taken from his lab ora ­ tional Union of Pure and Since then, the seminar has tory at gun point a week afte r the coup. On a navy Applied Physics. had ma ny vi sito rs and boat at the pier, he was beaten with guns and sticks, To give the excluded sci­ speakers from the West. entists a chance to discuss The seminar has continued and thro wn in an isolation cell. On one occasion their work, an impromptu to be held weekly, often Victoria and 50 othe r political prisoners were beaten session was to be held in un de r diffi cu lt ci rc um ­ for one entire day. They were then made to sign Vo ronel’s ap artm en t on stances, first in the apart­ statements t ha t their woun ds were self-inflicted. Ul­ Sunday afternoon, August ment of Alexander Voronel, timately, seven m onths after their arrest an d still un­ 26. All conference partici­ then of Mark Azbel, and pants were to be invited. now of Victor Brailovsky, charged, Victoria and seven other A.E.C. scientists But how? A few individuals as successive organizers were released. (Maximo Victoria theorizes that he distr ibuted hand wr itten have le ft th e S o v ie t was imprisoned and torture d because he and his col­ announcements in the halls Union. □ leagues had argued for the purchase of a type o f nu ­ of Moscow State University, clear reactor useful for research, rather th an the type posted notices on bulletin boards, and interjected the more convenient for the production of strategic nu­ ann oun cem ent into their clear materials the navy wanted to purchase.) technical talks. The posted □ Elena Sevilla, a physics student, was recently re­ notices were torn down, leased from an Argentine prison where she had been and in one instance, the held “ for investigation.” She is now a graduate stu­ public address system was cut off in the middle of an dent at Cornell. The efforts of people at Cornell announcement. Conference were instrumental in obta ining her release. participants were told that O Daniel Bendersky, a 27-year-old science student, the refusnik seminar was to was taken from his home in September, 1978, by be strictly scientific; no four men in plain clothes who claimed to be federal 55

“Eduardo Pasquini, a physicist at the National University of Rosario in Argentina, disappeared with his wife, a psychologist, on June 10, 1976. Neither has been seen since.” police and who carried official credentials. Ben­ December, 1976, eight months after the Videla dersky and his mother were told he was needed for coup, with daily evidence of disappearances, beat­ questioning and would be retu rned tha t same after­ ings, and torture, the American Chamber of C om­ noon. He has not been seen since his arrest, nor has merce in Argentina issued a statem ent tha t said, in he been charged with any crime. The Argentine gov­ part: “ Faced with social, political, and economic ernment denies knowledge of his whereabouts. Ben­ collapse, the military stepped into gove rnment to dersky has been adm itted in absentia as a gra dua te reestablish law and order. This was done without student a t M.I.T. bloodshed and without personal ambitions on the □ Alfredo-Antonio Giorgi, a 33-year-old chemist part of the men, military and civilian, who stepped and physicist who headed the plastics research la bo­ into this extremely difficult situatio n. . . . The pres­ ratory of the Na tio nal Ins titute of Industrial ent governm ent in Argentina is the most promising Technology, was working in his lab on November tha t the country has seen since the overthrow of 27, 1978, when he was called to the adm inistrative Peron in 1955. This government’s goal is to establish office of the institute. He was confronted by five a serious republican democracy. Meanwhile, the ter­ armed men, claiming to be police and bearing pa­ rorist strategy continues to be one of thw arting the pers, who charged Giorgi with a drug viola tion. governm ent’s efforts by every means possible, in­ Giorgi was ta ken away and has not been seen again. cluding negative propaganda abroa d.” His whe reabou ts are unknow n. The ministry of the We suppose tha t makes us terro rists when we ask interior, federal police, and joi nt military com mand wh at has happ ened to Antonio Misetich and the all deny having arrested Giorgi, and there are no 4,500 oth er “disappeared persons,” including at charges against him. least 22 children. □ Antonio Misetich, a physicist formerly o f M.I.T., was arrested by police on the night of April 19, Are Scientists Special ? 1976, and imprisoned witho ut charges. Initially his detention was acknowledged by the Argentine Em­ We have presented a brief history of how scientists bassy and by the Argentine A.E.C. Later, the gov­ have recognized, individually and th rough their pro­ ernm ent of Argentina claimed that the original ac­ fessional societies, the tie between the protection of knowledgement was an error, and that Misetich is human rights and the progress of science. But at­ no t and never has been in custody. Misetich has not titudes d on’t change ove rnight, and social awareness been seen since his arrest. Num erou s letters have among scientists is continually evolving. One ques­ been sent to President Jorge Videla about Misetich tion we have had to grapple with is “Why are we and others, but no answers have been received. Del­ making a special fuss abou t scientists?” Is it because egations of physicists have twice visited the Argen­ of an arrogant assumption that scientists are more tine Embassy in Washington. The American ambas­ imp ortant th an others? Philip Handler, president of sador to Argentina and the U.S. State Dep artm ent the Nation al Academy of Sciences, has remarked have tried to help, with no results. that “tortured shoe makers hu rt quite as much as The Argentine Assembly for Human Rights has tortured scientists. Protesting only for scientists docu mented more than 4,500 such disappearances doesn’t quite fit with my own beliefs about all of since the coup. The United States Embassy in Buenos this. Scientists happen to be a little m ore visible. The Aires, under President Car ter, has been as forceful as world knows about them. The shoe makers are its limited leverage allows. (This was not the case taken off behind the barn and sho t.” under the previous adm inistration.) The Catholic We hope that the honest answer to this disturbing Bishops of Argentina have been helpful, but the question is that we act in aid o f scientists because we United States business community in Latin America, are scientists. They are our people. We know them which could be an effective force, has not been. In and we know the mechanisms by which we can help them, the institutions and the pressure points. We can marshal ou r own worldwide community on The Red Guide their behalf. We hope the shoe makers are doing something for the shoe makers, and we sup port or­ (Not by Michelin) ganizations of bro ader scope, such as Amnesty In­ The importance of Western scientists. These actions ternational. Meanwh ile we do wh at we can. scie n ti sts vis it in g th e should include making per­ Even within and beyond groups there are delicate Moscow seminar has been sonal contacts with the sci­ distinctions. For example, compare our relations recognized in “Guidelines entists and participating in with the Russian refusniks and with the dissidents. for Visitors to the Soviet their seminars. The dissidents w ant to change the Soviet Union. The Union,” published in the “The expression of one’s November, 1976, issue of concern for the suppressed refusniks simply wa nt to leave it. It is with respect to Physics Today. Some ex­ scientists, in conversations the dissident reformers tha t the definition of the cerpts: “The decision to with Soviet scientists and human rights com mitm ent of the scientific com mu­ boycott visits as a protest of officials, should include nity becomes Talmudic. The American professional the treatm ent of dissident businesslike discussion of societies have decided they can not reform Soviet so­ Soviet scientists is a per­ the possible consequences sonal one; however, this is a for scientific and technical ciety. Thus, there was considerable soul searching useful action only if it is exchange and an emphasis when Yuri Orlov was arrested for publicizing made known to appropriate on the situations of indi­ violations of the Helsinki Accords. The argume nt persons in the Soviet Union. vidual scientists. for aiding Orlov, finally, was that the Helsinki Ac­ “ If one does visit the “ If one attends interna­ cords recognize science as a source of hum an benefit. Soviet Union, one should go tional conferences in the with the thought of taking Soviet Union, one should Thus, the question of aiding Orlov was posed in constructive actions to help insist on the rights of sup­ terms of us assisting in the protection of scientists m ai nta in the sc ien tific pressed scientists to attend whose activities are supported by the Helsinki Ac­ ca pa bi lit y and physical on an equal basis.” □ cords. In fact, at least in physics circles, this argu­ well-being of the suppressed ment did not prevail until Orlov was actually tried and sentenced. After Orlov ’s conviction and sentenc­ in hum an rights. It is easy to become discouraged ing, the A.P.S. sent a cable to the Soviet Academy o f that not enough is being done, but the professional Sciences stating tha t it regarded “ both the nature o f societies o f political scientists, sociologists, and med­ the trial and the severity of the sentence as serious ical d octors are still de bating about w heth er human affronts to hum an dignity and impediments to sci­ rights is an appropriate professional concern. entific progress and c oop eration .” We are now send­ The scientific societies tha t have become active in ing physics journals to Orlov in prison which he is hum an rights have done so only because there is a not getting (although retu rn receipts come back). consensus — and some activists — among their We may have done nothing to keep Orlov out of mem bership. When the Soviets sentenced Yuri prison, but at least we are trying to help him w ork as Orlov and Anatoly Shcharansky last spring, 2,400 a physicist w hile he is there. American scientists reacted, including 13 Nobel To the reader, these Kafkaesque distinctions may laureates, 113 members of the Nation al Academy of sound pretentious an d trivial w hen human life hangs Sciences, 18 past or present directors of major sci­ in the balance. Things could be worse. The Ameri­ entific laboratories, and 20 past or present presi­ can Association for the Advancement o f Science has dents o f national scientific organizations. The 2,400 a Clearinghouse on Science and Human Rights. scientists signed pledges to “ withhold all personal Thirty-three scientific societies belong to the clear­ coo peratio n with the Soviet Union,” to oppose the inghouse, but of these, only a handful — the expansio n of exchange programs, to boycott inter­ chemists, mathematicians, physicists, psychiatrists, nationa l conferences in the U.S.S.R., and to work and psychologists — have become actively involved against technology tran sfer and the grantin g of 57

“ It was the war in Vietnam tha t finally routed ‘objectivity.’ ”

mo st-favored-nation trade status to the Soviet the right to claim that it is acting purely in the de­ Union. The action was even more remarkable be­ fense of science.” cause it was spontaneous. The organizer, Scientists To many o f us in the United States, the separation for Orlov and Shcharansky (S.O.S.), is an informal between “ science” and “ scientist” seems less clear- (and so far, unfunded) group of mostly West C oast cut than it does to Sir Andrew Huxley. We see the scientists, friends of O rlov, who decided to protest grow ing hum an rights involvement of the American his imprisonment and try to help him. Perhaps be­ scientific comm unity as an integral part o f its bro ad­ cause the boycott is so clearly a grass-roo ts effort, ening definition of w hat constitutes “science.” The the Soviet response has been huge and high-level. continuing evolution of the com mitment of Ameri­ Valentin Zorin, one of the top Russian political can scientists to human rights does involve a con­ com mentators, inveighed against the boycott in a flict. On one hand, there is a yearning for p urity and broa dc ast beamed at the United States from detachment, but on the oth er hand, there is a grow ­ Moscow. A page-long article was published in ing recognition tha t science is as complex and “dir­ Pravda and signed by two vice presidents and the ty” as any oth er human endeavor. chief scientific secretary of the Soviet Academy of We quote from the address of the outgoing 19 77 Sciences. And we have learned that members of the A.P.S. president, George Pake: “ Part of our heritage Soviet Academ y have discussed the consequences of in the United States is a deep concern (pr human the boycott for Soviet science. The Russians know rights. This concern is a legitimate province for the tha t they benefit from the influx of ideas from American Physical Society when physicists or scien­ American science, and they are worried. But are they tists anywhere have their basic hum an rights ab­ worried enough to release Yuri Orlov from prison? ridged, because the fundamental purpose of A.P.S. Activism is spreading among Western scientists. as a scholarly society is thus inhibited. . . . Th at pu r­ The Dutch have always been very active in human pose is stated in the A.P.S. constitution to be the ad­ rights and lately the French scientific community has vancement and diffusion of the know ledge of grown more militant. In Germany, at a nuclear physics. If the governme nts of nations interfere on physics symposium in May, and in spite of the pro­ political grounds with the ability of physicists to en­ testations of the Soviet delegation, 50 scientists gage in research or with their freedom to publish or signed a statement asking for Orlov ’s release from travel in diffusing knowlege o f physics, th ere is inter­ prison. ference in achieving our purpos e.” While unofficial groups in Britain, notably those We are pleased tha t a com mun ity dedicated to the associated with physicist and hum an rights author advancem ent and diffusion of the knowledge of sci­ John Zim an, have an outstan ding record on human ence finds within the penumb ra of its mission the rights, some of the United Kingdom scientific e stab ­ advancement and diffusion of human rights. We are lishment has dug in its heels. In his 19 77 presidential proud to be a part of th at community. address to the British Association for the Advance­ ment of Science, Sir Andrew Huxley argued tha t Earl Callen is professor of physics at American University and former “The persecutions of the present day are not d i­ chairman o f its Physics Department. He is a member o f the Committee on International Freedom of Scientists of the American Physical Society, rected against scientific doctrines o r against scientific a member of the executive board of the Committee o f Concerned Scien­ enquiry as such; they are directed against individual tists, a member o f the national board o f directors of the American Civ il citizens who have had the courage to speak up Liberties Union, and a member o f the executive board o f Helsinki Watch. Bernard R. Cooper is professor of physics at West Virginia Uni­ against oppressive features of the regimes under versity in Morgantown, W.V. He is a member o f the executive board o f which they live .. . The appropriate reaction there­ the Committee of Concerned Scientists and former chairman o f the Committee on International Freedom of Scientists of the American Phys­ fore comes from us no t as scientists, but as citizens ical Society. John Parmentola is a postdoctoral fellow in physics at . . . If a scientific body publicly takes a step whose M.I.T. and a member o f the American Physical Society’s Committee on justification is political and not scientific, it will lose International Freedom of Scientists. o