The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, established in 1943, is a publicly supported, nonpartisan, research and educational organization. Its purpose is to assist policy makers, scholars, businessmen, the press, and the public by providing objective analysis of national and international issues. Views expressed in the institute's publications are those of the authors and do not neces­ sarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. Council of Academic Advisers Paul W. McCracken, Chairman, Edmund Ezra Day University Professor of Busi­ ness Administration, University of Michigan Robert H. Bork, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Public Law, Yale Law School Kenneth W. Dam, Harold J. and Marion F. Green Professor of Law and Provost, University of Chicago Donald C. Hellmann, Professor of Political Science and International Studies, University of Washington D. Gale Johnson, Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor of Economics and Chairman, Department of Economics, University of Chicago Robert A. Nisbet, Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute Herbert Stein, A. Willis Robertson Professor of Economics, University of Virginia James Q. Wilson, Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government, Harvard University Executive Committee Richard B. Madden, Chairman of the Board Richard J. Farrell William J. Baroody, Jr., President Charles T. Fisher III Willard C. Butcher Richard D. Wood Tait Trussell, Edward Styles, Director of Vice President, Administration Publications Donald Webster, Vice President, Operations Program Directors Periodicals Russell Chapin, Legislative Analyses AEI Economist, Herbert Stein, Editor Thomas F. Johnson, Economic Policy Studies AEI Foreign Policy and Defense Sidney L. Jones, Seminar Programs Review, Robert J. Pranger, Marvin H. Kosters, Editor; James W. Abellera, Government Regulation Studies Managing Editor Jack A. Meyer, Health Policy Studies Public Opinion, Seymour Martin W. 5. Moore, Legal Policy Studies Lipset and Ben J. Wattenberg, Co-Editors; Karlyn H. Keene, Rudolph G. Penner, Tax Policy Studies Managing Editor Howard R. Penniman/ Austin Ranney, Regulation, Editor; Political and Social Processes An ton in Scalia, Anne Brunsdale, Robert J. Pranger, International Programs Managing Editor A Conversationwith MichaelNovak RichardandSchlfter Overleaf; Michael Novak Facing page, Richard Schifter A Conversationwith MichaelNovak and RichardSchlfter HumanRights and the UnitedNations Held on April 3, 1981 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. ISBN 0-8447-3466-7 Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 81-69757 AEI Studies 340 ©1981 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Re­ search, Washington, D.C., and London. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner what­ soever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees of AEI. "American Enterprise Institute" and @ are registered service marks of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Printed in the United States of America Introductory Remarks Austin Ranney Our topic today is "Recent Developments in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights." Our two speakers are Michael No­ vak, who is the U.S. Representative to the Commission on Human Rights, and Richard Schifter, the alternate representative. When they are not battling for the cause of human rights, Michael Novak is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute studying the theology and political theory of democratic capitalism, and Richard Schifter is a partner in the law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Kampelman. He has become one of the country's leading spe­ cialists on the rights and status of Indian tribes and has represented them often in litigation. Before that, he was for many years the Democratic party of Montgomery County, Maryland; when he could not stand that any longer, he became active in the affairs of the whole state. He has served for many years on the Maryland State Board of Education, including four years as the president of that board. More recently he has been serving as chairman of the Mary­ land Values Education Commission. 1 A Conversation with Michael Novak and Richard Schifter Michael Novak Little did I know eight weeks ago when I left this table that I would be gone from it until now. First, a few words about the UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC). The commission itself was started in 1946. Its first task, when Eleanor Roosevelt served as U.S. repre­ sentative, was to develop the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For the first twenty years of its history, until 1967, the UNHRC basically confined itself to preparing various covenants and draft treaties. There was such a small body of international law on the subject of human rights that the first task was quite general and conceptual. In 1967, for the first time and with some trepidation and mis­ givings, the commission began to approach human rights problems in specific nations. It was unclear to what extent the international body could or should become involved in the internal matters of states. The question of apartheid in South Africa was the very first case. That case has been discussed in every session since. In the next year, the case of Israel and the so-called occupied territories was placed on the agenda, and that question has been discussed every year since. In 1974, the Soviet Union placed on the agenda the case of Chile, and that issue has been discussed every year since. Most of the discussions at the commission are open to the public and to the press. But in 1969-1970, on the initiative of the United States and some of its allies, confidential proceedings, called 1503 proceedings, were instituted. These confidential procedures have two important characteristics. They allow private groups, private individuals, or nongovernmental organizations to register complaints about human rights violations anywhere in the world. When a pat- 3 tern of abuses becomes apparent, the violators are placed on the agenda of the Human Rights Commission, and the nation in question has an opportunity to reply to the allegations under conditions of confidentiality. This procedure developed only slowly. In 1980, sit­ uations in eleven nations were considered under the confidential proceedings, which more than doubled the number in any preceding year. This year sixteen nations were considered. Frequently, these cases are discussed and monitored for a year or two, and if the situation warrants, the matter is simply dismissed. Otherwise the procedure continues and on occasion is moved into the public dis­ cussion. The public discussion is important. Although the commission operates in some ways like a judicial body and in some ways like a legislative body, it actually can impose no sanctions other than public condemnations. Its condemnation of a nation's practices can have a very powerful effect on world public opinion. How effective it is can be seen from the fact that there is rather stiff competition for seats on the commission. Two years ago the number of states represented on the commission was raised to forty-three from thirty-two, as some years earlier it had been raised from twenty-one to thirty-two. There are now forty-three member nations. Each is elected to a three-year term by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The agenda is in large part ritual; that is, the same cases come up over and over again. A relatively small part of the agenda is open to new matters, the agenda being set in every case the year before and augmented by mandate of the United Nations General Assem­ bly, which requests the Human Rights Commission to undertake certain investigations. The commission meets annually for a six-week period in February and March. The Reagan administration came into office on January 20, and the commission meetings in Geneva began on February 2. There was little time to appoint representatives or to prepare any new approach, even if one wanted to. Mr. Schifter and I learned of our appointments only in the last few days before leaving. In my case, the final clear­ ance to depart came on a Saturday morning, and I was expected to take an airplane to Geneva that night at 6:30. Mr. Schifter's clearance came on a Monday, and he was in Geneva on Tuesday for the beginning of the session. Thus we went with the briefing books and preparations completed by the Carter administration. According to our instructions, there were to be some new directions to pursue, some new agenda items to be raised, and some new methods to be proposed, yet these would be essentially a continuation of American policies of the past. 4 Two premises emerged. First, UN Ambassador Jeane J. Kirk­ patrick and Assistant Secretary Elliot Abrams, the officers to whom we are directly responsible, pointed out that every American admin­ istration is necessarily concerned with human rights. All our families have come to this country because of human rights; the issue is essential to our national identity and national purposes. Second, a great nation changes its real interests only slowly and thus changes directions only slowly. Therefore, while all foreign policy issues were under review by the new administration, we could expect a certain predictability and consistency with the record 'establishedby previous American administrations. On the very first night in Geneva, I was invited to a reception at an ambassador's home for delegates from all the Western nations. After dinner, following an ancient Jewish-Christian custom of burn­ ing a live offering at a communal gathering, I was placed in the corner for two hours, as the solitary Reaganaut in captivity in all of Europe, and quizzed about the foreign policy-not only the human rights policy-of the new administration.