Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
OVERVIEW Carol CorUlon Why does the National Academy of Sciences have a Committee on Human Rights? How does the committee define human rights and which rights are fundamental? Does a focus on human rights under- mine efforts toward international scientific cooperation, development, political stability, or nuclear disarmament? Why does the commit- tee work only in behalf of scientists and how do scientists become victims of human rights violations? How and why do some health professionals collude with torturers? These questions are typical of those asked frequently of the members and staff of the academy's Committee on Human Rights. They are important questions that this document helps to answer. "Governments should respect the fundamental human rights of their citizens. That is a simple statement. It would be difficult today to find a government that openly disagrees with it because the violation of human rights by governments is now generally recognized as an area of international purview, investigation, and condemnation. Most governments are signatories to one or several human rights in- struments that set out internationally recognized standards of human rights protection.) The most well-known of these documents is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, many of the governments signing these agreements frequently and systematically violate their standards; about half routinely imprison people for their conscientious, political, or religious convictions. Gov- ernment sanctioned torture is routine in one-third of the nations of the world. 1 Some of the better known human rights instruments include: Basic United Nations Human Rights In~trumcnt~: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Interna- tional Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966~; Regional Human Rights Inetrumcnte: African Charter on Peoples' and Human Rights (Or- ganization for African Unity, 1981), American Convention on Human Rights (Organization of American States, 1969), American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Organization of American States, 1948), The Final Act of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe tThe Helsinki Agree- ment] (The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 1975), European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe, 1950~; Human Rights Dcclara- tione of Medical Associations: Declaration of Geneva (World Medical Association, 1948, 1968, 1983), Declaration of Hawaii (World Psychiatric Association, 1977, revved 1983), Declaration of Tokyo (World Medical Association, 1975~. 1
2 In countries where there is no respect for the physical and mental integrity of the person, other rights a fair trial, legal representation by a lawyer of one's own choosing, family visitation, access to medical treatment, adequate conditions of confinement are largely ignored as well. Amnesty International has developed a 12-point program for the prevention of torture that it has recommended governments adopt. Among the points listed are recommendations that governments should demonstrate their total opposition to torture; adopt safe- guards to ensure torture does not occur in incommunicado detention; ensure that prisoners are held in publicly recognized places; estate fish safeguards during interrogation and custody; ensure unpartial investigations of complaints; disqualify confessions obtained through torture; prosecute alleged torturers; provide financial compensation to victims and their dependents; intercede with governments accused of torture; and ratify international instruments against torture. Unless governments are held accountable for their actions, there is little impetus for them to change. This is particularly true of unpopular governments and those that fear political opposition and use repression as a weapon against the expression of political and religious beliefs. Just as governments do not want to openly admit that they abuse human rights, neither do they want to be accused of it. The Committee on Human Rights found that when human rights groups document abuses in a thorough, professional manner and present the information to the government that is practicing the abuse, the government is embarrassed. It is also often angry and generally denies the allegations. In the end, however, if pressure from the human rights groups is maintained in an evenhanded manner, progress can often be made. The committee believes that pressure sustained, respectful pressure works. And when a scientific institution that carries au- thority and prestige makes appeals for its colleagues, its concerns are not as easily dismissed by governments ~ those made by human rights groups sometunes are. This book cannot possibly deal with the numerous issues that have come to the committee's attention over the years, but it touches on many and goes into considerable detail on torture, psychiatric abuse, violations of medical ethics, and civil and political rights. Of course, not all human rights issues are as clear-cut as the straight- forward belief that man should not torture his fellow man. We hope that the discussions that follow will stimulate thought, questioning,
3 and exploration among students, human rights activists, scientists, government officials, and ordinary citizens who are concerned about human rights abuses. For those groups deciding to create a human rights committee of their own, Appendix C includes a blueprint of how our committee is organized. It illustrates how a group can begin and operate on a continuing basis In a small way and increase its activities if additional resources become avmIable. TEE SYMPOSIUM The symposium was a reflection of the international solidarity of scientists. The right to search for and to speak the truth is, for scientists, essential. When this right is denied, science and those who practice science super. The theme reflected in many of the presentations is that of the scientist's responsibility to his colleagues and the consequent moral support and inner strength derived by those who are victims of abuse. The international scientific community ~ becoming increasingly involved in human rights issues. An article by physicist John Zieman considers the involvement of scientists in human rights through the use of the human rights instruments discussed earlier. Many of the difficulties of achieving transnational solidarity in the world scientific community are . . . overcome by appeal to the international code of human rights. This code is universal, it is phrased in precise legal language, and it has been accepted in principle by most civilised governments. Actions based on this code thus stand above political squabbling and the conflict of governments. A learned society which takes up the cause of foreign scientists whose human rights have been infringed can scarcely be accused of partisan political action: on the contrary, failure to act in such cases could be regarded as neglect of a moral duty.2 Zieman also points out, in The World of Science and the Rule of Law, that some rights are particularly import ant for the pursuit of science. According to Zieman, 2Zieman, John, "Solidarity within the Republic of Sciences,n Mir~crva (Spring 1978), p. 13.
4 A typical scientific career would begin with formal education and training in research. This would be followed by employment in scientific work, where it would be necessary to have access to scientific information, and to communicate the results of research to other scientists. This leads naturally to the expression of opinions about the work of other scientists. To take part in critical discussions of new scientific ideas, scientists need to move around, and to meet together in various groupings. If their work has been well done, they may win a personal reputation and be eventually honoured publicly for their intellectual achievements.3 The rights discussed by Zieman as particularly important to scientists are: education and training; work and choice of work; · ~ communication; · · ~ - oplnlon and expression; movement; assembly and association; honor, reputation, and intellectual achievement. The committee has received dozens of letters of thanks and appreciation from scientists whose rights have been abused, and from their families, for its efforts. Often the knowledge that we were continuing our appeals has been of great comfort to the prisoners and their families and has helped sustam courage and hope. For example, a mathematician in Turkey wrote to the committee following his release from prison. He said: I thank you and the Academy for the interest you showed in my case. This is an excellent example of solidarity between scientists. I thank you again and again for your interest. Your solidarity gave me the necessary strength to face the injustices. A physician in Chile, following his release from prison, wrote: "I want to thank the Committee on Human Rights of the National Academy of Sciences for the forceful and quick action it took with regard to my latest detention.... Generous attitudes, effectiveness and solidarity such as yours, engenders my respect and affection, and 3Zieman, John, Paul Sieghart, and John Humphrey, 17`c World of Scicnec and the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 38.
more important, reinforces my decision to continue fighting for the defense of fundamental human rights in my country." An imprisoned algebraist in South Africa wrote: "Because of the concern and action of your Academy many people have responded to our problems and hence our conviction grows that our dream of a non-racial democratic South Africa shall be realized." The wife of a Soviet electrical engineer wrote before her hus- band's release from prison: "I was so touched to get your warm letter and to know about your concern and care. ~ am very thankful to you for your efforts and ~ think them rather useful." The three major papers presented here are written by former prisoners from Chile, South Africa, and the Soviet Union. (Appendix A includes short biographies of the authors.) The nationalities of the authors reflect the fact that repression is not confined to an individual culture, a specific geographic area, or a political ideology. Scientists in all fields are vulnerable to repression. Perhaps the most poignant illustration of the unity and the di- versity described here occurred at the end of the symposium. The three main speakers representing markedly different cultures and political backgrounds raised their arms spontaneously and joined hands to the thunderous applause of the audience. Many in atten- dance had made written and oral appeals in behalf of the former prisoners who spoke. Although human rights work is often frustrat- ing and discouraging, the audience could not have left the symposium with any doubt that their efforts are worthwhile, that their appeals make a difference. Many of the members of the NAS, NAE, and TOM are not only correspondents of the committee, they also work with human rights committees within other organizations of which they are members, or take on individual cases as Their own," or make a point of discussing a particular case with people of influence. The individuals who provide introductions and comments in this volume are all members of the NAS, NAE, or TOM. (Their affiliations also appear in Appendix A.) For many of the scientists who fee! they have a moral responsi- bility to help and have become involved, the work of the Committee on Human Rights has been very different from the exacting, scientific work they do in their labs and classrooms. For example, unlike most scientific work, with human rights work it is not always possible to tell whether ones efforts have been helpful in a case or, when a case is finally successfully resolved, whether a particular intervention made
6 the difference. In addition, when the committee was first created, information on cases was often difficult to obtain and usually sec- ondhand. This has changed over the years, however. Now that the committee is better known and its work has brought it into contact with government officials, religious figures, human rights groups, and scientists around the world, case information is often received directly and immediately from reliable sources in the country of abuse. The following sections address in depth a variety of issues that have been grouped into three categories in this book: (1) torture, psychiatric abuse, and the ethics of medicine; (2) human rights, hu- man needs, and scientific freedom; and (3) human rights and human survival. Each will be discussed briefly in this overview chapter. TORTURE, PSYCHIATRIC ABUSE, AND THE ETHICS OF MEDICINE Torture and psychiatric abuse are important issues that con- front, increasingly, U.S. physicians, lawyers, government officials, and others. An estimated 8,000 torture victims, almost all of whom are refugees, are reported to live in the New York metropolitan area alone. Some of the individuab whose cases have been undertaken by the committee, and thousands of others who remain unknown, have been tortured while in detention; others have been imprisoned for speaking out against the practice of torture or because they documented the physical evidence of torture. If and when these indi- viduals are released, they often require long-term medical treatment. The World Medical Association defines torture in the 1975 Dec- laration of Tokyo as The deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason. In the Soviet Union, although the practice of psychiatric abuse has sharply diminished in recent months, hundreds of political d~si- dents and others have been confined to special psychiatric hospitals and administered mind-altering psychiatric drugs as a form of pun- ishment. Another focus of concern that cannot be ignored by a scientific institution like the NAS, or the IOM, ~ that health professionals- physicians, psychotherapists, nurses-have sometimes abused medi- cal ethics. They have colluded with the torturers and have misused psychiatry for political purposes.
7 As will be described by some of those presenting comments later in this report, most of the comrn~ttee's work is conducted privately, in the hope that the offending government will recognize and acknowI- edge its com~rutment to human rights and will respond when abuses are questioned. In some instances, governments have answered our inquiries; in others, the prisoners have been released or their con- ditions of confinement have been unproved. Occasionally, when the government has not been properly responsive or a substantial num- ber of scientific colleagues are imprisoned in a particular country, the committee undertakes a mission of inquiry. Missions were made to Uruguay and Argentina in 1978, to Chile in 1985, and to Somalia in 1987. Mission delegates received reports of widespread torture in each of these countries. In Uruguay, the delegates visited a mathematician, Professor Jose Luis Massera, in a military prison in 1979, four years after his arrest. Dr. Massera was first secretary of the Uruguayan Communist Party before political parties in the country were Recessed. During interrogation he was reportedly forced to stand on one foot until he collapsed and broke a hip. He was not given necessary medical care. Professor Massera was released from prison in 1984. All members of the Uruguayan military who were accused of human rights violations between 1973 and 1985 were granted an amnesty. In Argentina at least 9,000 people were made to "disappear" in what the military government called The dirty war." It is believed that most of these individuals were tortured. A number of such cases have been documented recently by forensic scientists and an- thropologists in Argentina who, with the assistance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have exhumed bodies from mass graves and identified evidence of torture. Among those cases of the "disappeared," undertaken by the committee in the late 1970s and never resolved, are those of four physicists: Dr. Federico Alvarez Roj as, Dr. Gabriela Carabelli, Dr. Antonio Misetich, and Dr. Eduardo Pasquini. During the self-procIaimed "dirty war," health professionals are believed to have colluded with the Argentine military, on a systematic basis, in the torture of prisoners. One well-known example is the case brought by Argentine newspaper editor Jacobo Timerman against an Argentine physician, Dr. Jorge Antonio Berges, who was a police doctor during Timerman's detention. Timerman claimed that Berges
8 supervised torture with an electric prod and treated detainees in several secret detention centers.4 According to Amnesty International, it has not been easy to identify and bring to account those doctors who violated human rights and medical ethics because many of the victims are dead and those who survives] were often hooded while in detention, or if they did see them, were unable to determine the identity of the doctors who treated them.5 Two former Argentine presidents and five of the nine former military commanders who served during the 1976 to 1983 military rule have been convicted of charges, including murder, torture, illegal detentions, and disappearances, and are serving sentences of up to life imprisonment. However, hundreds of other middle and lower ranking military officers accused of similar crimes were granted immunity under the "law on due obediences because they claimed they were "obeying orders" when they were involved in repression. In Chile, in response to information provided to the committee by medical colleagues there regarding detention, internal exile, tor- ture, and disappearance, a delegation was sent to Santiago in 1985 to gather information and make appeals to government officials. While in Chile the delegation met with members of the Colegio Medico de Chile, of which symposium speaker Dr. Juan I,uis Gonzalez is pres- ident. According to Dr. Gonzalez, while the Medical Association of Chile receives many oral reports of torture, most of the victims are afraid to put their reports in writing. He says that while the medical association knows that torture has been a too! used by the govern- ment in Chile during the past 13 years, the Medical Association of Chile is restricted by the government in its effort to find witnesses and to verify the facts. While in Chile, the delegates of the Committee on Human Rights also met with Dr. Ramiro Olivares, a physician at the Vicaria de la Solidaridad, which operates under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Dr. Olivares reported that few torture survivors require hospitalization by the time they come to the Vicaria to file a com- plaint. Many victims are kept in prison after they are tortured, which 4Stover, Eric and Elena O. Nightingale, The Breaking of Bodice and Minds, 1985, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, p. 240. 5 See Amnesty International's `'Argentina: Doctor convicted of torture released under 'due obedience' law, December 17, 1987, A.I., Index AMR 13/10/87.
9 often makes it difficult to document the physical sequelae of torture, particularly when electric shock is used, because the visible physical evidence can be slight or nonexistent.6 At the time of the committee's mission to Chile, over 200 cases of alleged torture by members of the Chilean security forces had been presented to the Chilean courts. There had been no convictions, although a few of the cases had been investigated. Dr. Gonzalez himself was detained for a month and a half in 1986. Dr. Olivares was arrested and imprisoned for more than a year between 1986 and 1987. The committee and its correspondents made many appeals in behalf of these physicians to officials of the Chilean government. Both men are now free and continue their efforts to end torture in Chile. A number of the individuals in whose behalf the mission to Soma- lia was undertaken are alleged to have been tortured. Unfortunately, the committee was not permitted to visit any of these prisoners to ascertain their physical condition. The committee's report, Scien- tists and Human Rights in Somalia, Report of a Delegation, contains a chapter on torture, which includes information received from three physicians affiliated with the Canadian Centre for Investigation and Prevention of Torture. These physicians examined and treated sev- eral dozen Somali refugees in Canada who have said they were tor- tured in Somalia. The physicians found the scars and complaints made by the Somalis they examined to be consistent with the history of detention and torture that the Somalis described. Following the mission to Somalia, the committee received state- ments signed by two of the prisoners whose cases it has undertaken: Abdi Ismai! Yunis, a mathematician, and Suleiman Nub Ali, an engineer. These testimonies were received from what are believed to be reliable sources, although committee members were unable to directly verify the statements. These testimonies describe, in great detail, the torture to which Yunis and All have reportedly been subjected by the security forces in Somalia. The committee has been involved in the issue of abuses of psychi- atry for political proposes only to the extent that it made numerous appeals in behalf of Dr. Anatoly Koryagin, a Soviet psychiatrist, who spent six years in a Soviet labor camp after documenting abuses of 6For further information on torture in Chile, please see CHR's report entitled Scientists and Human Rights in Chile, Report of a Delegation.
10 psychiatry for political purposes. Dr. Koryagin was the chief psy- chiatric consultant to the Working Commission to Investigate the Use of Psychiatry for Political Purposes, a human rights group in the Soviet Union. During a (year period just before his arrest, Dr. Koryagin and another psychiatrist examined several dozen dissidents who were released from psychiatric hospitals or threatened with de- tainment. None of the individuals examined was found to be in need of psychiatric treatment or confinement. Through its work over the years, the committee has become increasingly aware of the particular vulnerability of health profes- sionals working in areas of conflict. In the course of carrying out their obligations as health professionals, these inclividuals are often caught up in the conflict, detained, and sometimes killed. The com- mittee has also recognized a need not only to defend those who speak out against psychiatric abuse, but also for steps to be taken to end such abuses. It became apparent that health professionals, by the very nature of their work, are more often exposed to abuses of human rights, occasionally collude with the abusers, and are more vulnera- ble to becoming victims of abuses themselves. Thus, the committee decided to encourage the academy's Institute of Medicine in its ef- forts to create a committee that would address such issues. In 1987 the TOM decided to create its Committee on Health and Human Rights (CHHR). (A description of the TOM committee's mandate is included in Appendix B.) The Committee on Health and Human Rights works with and provides support to medical groups that speak out, in their own countries and elsewhere, against practices such as collusion of physi- cians in torture, abuses of psychiatry for political purposes, and medical breach of confidentiality. In his comments, Dr. Albert Solnit discusses a number of medical principles applicable to a wide variety of cultural, political, and ideological settings. As he points out, such principles are particularly important when it becomes state policy to view disagreement with the government as evidence of mental illness. HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN NEEDS, AND SCIENTIFIC FREEDOM As Gilbert White points out in his introduction to this section, it is perhaps easier to define torture, to identify malpractice, and to suggest means to cope with them than to handle some of the other aspects of human rights violations.
~- The "other aspects" to which Dr. White refers are civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. These rights have come to be called, respectively, negative and positive rights and are the subject of considerable debate. Negative rights involve restraint by a government from doing something against an individual citizen. Positive rights require a government to take action to fulfill a need, such as providing medical care, food, education, or employment. Of course, to restore some of these rights involves both negative and positive obligations. Negative and positive rights have been the object of discussion in classrooms, at international meetings, between developed and developing countries, between the East and West, between U.S. Re- publican and Democratic parties, and, as the comments later in this report reflect, within the National Academy of Sciences. After spending considerable time examining the various rights and evaluating what concrete and realistic contributions it can make toward helping individuals achieve them, the committee decided it should focus on civil and political rights, the negative rights. Lipman Bers, the second chair of the Committee on Human Rights, defines the right to food, to a job, to medical care, and to education as "positive" rights. He defines ~negative" rights as the right not to be arbitrarily arrested, not to be tortured, not to be exiled, and not to be killed for one's opinions. Human rights groups that focus on political and civil rights- and most of them Shave sometimes been accused of a bias toward Western values. While the committee's focus is on the negative rights, many of the scientists in whose behalf action is taken have become victims of government abuse because they exercised their right to speak out against government practices. Often these are practices that deny or impede access to basic human needs such as food, education, and health care. In other words, the committee promotes social and economic rights of individuals by defending those who speak out against abusive social and economic government practices. In his comments, Robert Kates, the committee's first chair, discusses which basic human needs could be considered human rights. He concludes that water, food, shelter, and health and perhaps education should qualify. He also suggests that the academy begin to act in the area of social and economic rights by asserting the right of all humankind to be free from hunger. Such an effort would involve
"one of the most ancient and sustained applications of science and technology." According to Dr. Kates: It is no easier now to know how to begin confronting hunger than it was ten years ago to confront torture and imprisonment. Perhaps we might begin with the extremes. In a modest way, we might speak out when people, particularly civilian populations, are intentionally deprived of food, usually in the midst of conflict, held hostage to their hunger to press for an advantage or to punish for their allegiance. In response to Dr. Kates's speculation about whether people have a right to education, Professor Walter Rosenblith asks the following question: "If we as an academy look towards the role that science and technology is playing in changing the human environment, in changing the globe, in changing our society, can we omit the right to education both as a human need and as a human right?" Ismai} Mohamed, whose paper appears in this section, discusses the denial of both the negative and positive rights to the majority of the population in his country, South Africa, and his hope for the creation of "a nonracial, unfragmented, and democratic society in South Africa. Professor Mohamed comments on education: "For generations, our black youth have cried out for the right to an education which will enable them to take their place in the ranks of the free youth of the world, so that they may determine their own destiny and that of our country. About health care, he says: "While the vast mass of our youth lack the most elementary knowledge of health and hygiene, they are the victims of disease, of malnutrition and poverty. Lipman Bers, in ending his comments, points out that, while the Committee on Human Rights recognizes the importance of positive rights, there is a good reason why the international human rights movement, of which our committee is a small part, has concentrated on negative rights: It makes sense to tell a government: 'Stop torturing people.' An order by the prime minister or the president, or whoever is in charge, could make it happen. It makes sense to tell a foreign ambassador that, 'the American scientific community is outraged that you keep Dr. X in jail. Let him out and let him do his work.' It requires no planning, no political philosophy, and it can unite people with very different opinions. It is quite a different matter to tell a foreign government, let's say a government of a developing country, 'You really should
give this or that positive right to your people.' If we make such a demand in good faith, it must be accompanied by some plan for unplementing this right, and by some indication of the cost and of who will pay it and how it will be paid. HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN SURVIVAL The topic of this chapter is the relationship between the defense of human rights of Soviet scientific colleagues and efforts toward preservation of peace. The question of whether we can have one without the other is a recent and sometimes troubling issue for many American scientists. Andrei Sakharov, who is a foreign associate of the academy, said in a 1977 essay entitled "Alarm and Hope" that the issue of human rights is not simply a moral issue but also "a paramount, practical ingredient of international trust and security." During the past 40 years, human rights and human survival have become a focus of attention within the U.S. scientific community and within the human rights community during the past 10 years. This is another area of debate that has been the focus of many groups and, as reflected in this section, about which there are a variety of views within the academy itself. While we have seen a gradual acceptance of the importance of respecting and defending human rights, we have also been faced with an increasing awareness of and concern over the ever present threat to human survival a general nuclear war between the two superpowers. Because of the horrendous global consequences should a nuclear war occur, the need to preserve peace has become a major issue in our lives and the focus of many scientific meetings and exchanges. The importance of defending both human rights and national se- curity is recognized by almost everyone. However, their juxtaposition and interaction, particularly with regard to U.S. relations with the Soviet Union, is often inevitable, and to some minds incompatible. To others, these issues are inextricably linked. Congressman Steny Hoyer, chair of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Eu- rope, has said that "if we really want to make arms control work, we must build trust between the signatory nations a trust which, in the Soviet case, is a function of progress in human rights." In a November 13, 1986, editorial entitled "The Right Priority for Human Rights," The New York Times took the position that Human rights and arms control are fundamental concerns of the
American people. Holding one hostage to the other does a disservice to both." To quote from Sakharov's "Alarm and Hope" essay again: The most serious defect of a 'closed' society ~ the total lack of democratic control over the upper echelons of the party and governments In their conduct of domestic affairs, and foreign policy. The latter is especially dangerous, for here we are talking about the finger poised on the nuclear button. The 'closed' nature of our society is intrinsically related to the question of civil and political rights. The National Academy of Sciences has been concerned with both issues for many years. Its long-standing human rights concerns have already been described. Its concern with prevention of nuclear war stimulated an exchange of scientists that began in 1960 between the United States and the Soviet Union. Paul Doty, one of the speakers at the symposium, was the first chair of this program, which is known today as the National Research Council's Committee on the USSR and Eastern Europe. In 1980 the academy created a Committee on International Se- curity and Arms Control, of which Dr. Doty has also been a member. In discussing his involvement, he explains that the members of the committee have tried "to bring about a bridge between the scientists in the Soviet Union and those here [in the U.S.] and to explore in all the ways we could between the two sides of finding a safer world ahead, depending less and less for our security upon the enormous stockpiles of weapons that we have assembled." Through the years, the Committee on Human Rights has taken the position that there should not be a conflict between the academy's concerns about arms control and its concerns about human rights. We must do both but they should not be linked in any formal manner. (Individual members of arms control delegations have made numerous informal appeals and inquiries in behalf of scientific col- leagues who have been victims of human rights abuses.) This view was particularly apparent when the committee recommended sanc- tions by the academy against the Soviet Academy of Sciences when academician Sakharov, a foreign associate of the academy, was sent into exile in Gorky in 1980. The committee went to great pains, how- ever, to specify that joint meetings on arms control and disarmament should be exempted from the sanctions. The academy council subsequently issued a public statement in Sakharov's behalf. It reminded the Soviet Academy of Sciences
10 that "arms control and disarmament is a central problem for both our countries" and went on to say that the council would press for meetings at which scientists from the United States and the USSR could discuss thoroughly the technical aspects of this problem. Many individuals argue that respect for human rights is the best form of arms control that a country that respects its citizens and has their trust will respect its international commitments and can be trusted to abide by them. Francis Low, who introduces this chapter, argues along these lines. He says that "surely a stable, peaceful world requires an absence of paranoia, it requires trust, a sharing of values which must include a universal respect for human rights...." Dr. Low goes on to argue that the struggle for human rights and the search for peace are inextricably bound together. Conversely, Lipman Bers argues that "the struggle for nuclear disarmament and peace and the struggle for human rights are rather independent of each other." It is Dr. Victor Weiskopf's position that "we should uncover and protest infringements of human rights in the USSR and elsewhere. At the same tune, we should negotiate arms reductions and controls and avoid measures that increase fear on the other side.... But we should not insist upon human rights unprovements as a condition for more peaceful relations." In his paper, Dr. Yuri OrIov suggests that steps be taken to encourage openness in Soviet society because, "if Soviet society were to become as open as the West, East-West tension would be substan- tially reduced and mutual security thereby increased." Many issues are discussed in the following pages of this report. They are issues that, unfortunately, wiD not soon be resolved. Read- ing about them, however, should yield insights. Thinking about them, discussing them, and acting upon them will help to raise awareness and concern. Progress wait gradually be made, and one of the major objectives of our symposium will have been met.