The First Amendment; Crocker Snow: International Journalism in Africa

The. WGBH Boston in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic communications at the School of Communications at Boston University now presents the First Amendment and a free people and examination of civil liberties in the media. In the 1970s. And now here is the director of the Institute for democratic communication Dr. Bernard Rubin. I'm happy to have as my guest for this program Mr. Crocker snow the national and fine editor of The Boston Globe. The crux knows lived abroad for seven of the last 12 years primarily in a shoe with a good deal of time in Europe. He's a graduate of Harvard University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts University and Crocker also teaches a course in reporting in public diplomacy at the Fletcher School. I'd like to get into this question of our position. These are the the third world and human rights you know most of the press

today affects the story as it concerns the Soviet Union which is a very important part of the story we may want to talk about that a little bit later. But it seems to me that the most impressed people one way or another or wondering what it's all about would be people in Asia and Africa trying to figure out whether this concerns them or whether the Carter Administration has something for them. They've been watching Mr. Andrew Young the United Nations ambassador go the length of the continent. What do you think of our appeal. What is the nature of our appeal. Let us say in you know Africa it's it's a huge subject in question probably the most important one related to the new administration at the moment if not THE most certainly one of the most and there are three or four points I'd like to suggest by way of an answer. One is I think I think that human rights.

Per se and they stress on human rights is a is a terribly is far more complicated thing then it has been commonly portrayed in the press. What seems like a human right to us in a looked at from our perspective here may seem like a aberrational or anarchistic almost in a foreign context and in certain foreign context it's very hard to define It's a very relative thing. And I think there is the danger in the present stress on human rights in this country. There is the danger of us oversimplifying this thing and becoming selfish and almost chauvinistic about it on the other hand I say that as sort of a student of diplomacy and someone who's lived abroad a lot and someone who is. It concerned by our inability to put ourselves in the other guy's shoes more often than we do. But having

said that I still say as an American citizen I'd like to say that I endorse the thing. I feel it's on balance good I'm pleased as a person that it's that it's happening. That's one sort of general point I'd like to make. I was not so long ago back in Asia in Japan and Korea for for a few weeks earlier this spring. And one of the interesting to me a little bit unexpected reactions I got from people over there was both in Korea and Japan that Carter's human rights campaign is just a selfish thing. It's to make you folks feel good. You know the Japanese don't have anything particularly to be defensive about. They've got a reasonable degree of in fact to a large degree of political and personal liberty in that country. But for Japanese to say that I found it very intriguing the Koreans obviously official Koreans are somewhat defensive about the repressive politics of what do you think

was behind that thought. I think what was behind it is in fact yes I think I know what was behind it. They feel that. That this particularly at that period it's slowed down a little since but at that period in time after the water to soccer off and so forth that it had thrown world diplomacy in so much of a cocked hat that we we being the Carter administration had done this to make ourselves feel good when they used the word selfish it was to make us feel good that it was self gratifying without consideration for all the manifestations of it overseas. Now without sounding too pedantic about it I think it's important to to remember that every country in the world sets its foreign policy and its policy in part anyway by their expectation of ours to a greater or lesser degree. And as in a business transaction

predictability is very important and the kind of unpredictability of this the sudden. Stress on human rights linked with military aid in Latin America and all of a sudden seven countries saying we don't care so if we don't need your military aid and the unexpected nature of this the fact that Carter really didn't signal it during the transition period of all all of his subordinates so much as acknowledge that it kind of caught them by surprise it created a life of its own. I think partly this sense of it being selfish and self gratifying was that simply that indeed it had throat thrown the world community into a bit of a cocked hat. And even though Carter's polls here domestically were surging they tended to think well. Better off to go more slowly. Well now there's a certain mystery about it and that's true I did. I did recall that Carter did give a signal of this in one of his debate

positions with President Ford he pretty much went through the whole the whole of the same rhetoric that he's now using or that the administration is using. But if we're going to change away from the Kissinger the long years of the foreign policy soft peddling and human rights to direct confrontation obviously foreign countries especially those in the third world who want to find out what is the alternative policy is that the missing link that we're at the announcement stage and when people want to find out what does it mean for us. Well they get all the gross generalities or they get some of the specifics about military hardware which are not the direct argument that they're interested in. Well I think I would agree with your statement or your question if we were talking two months ago I think things have leveled off some now. I think one Carter Administration has toned it down somewhat they've encountered the realities of dealing in a pretty complex world to I think it is not so shocking or

unpredictable to these countries now so they they have made their own accommodations and adjustments. But going back to the campaign you mentioned one of the Carter four debates seems seems to me that. The reason this evolved in the way that it did is because Carter was accused let's remember of being weak in foreign policy inexperience certainly and being weak and the expectation was that that's where the Ford Kissinger team would cream him. And he found himself out of conviction or not I don't know. He found himself in a position of saying I agree with the Ford Kissinger team in substance I'm different in style that was sort of the thrust of his argument for a while during the height of the campaign style style different substance the same. And to try to translate that he began to talk about being a little less

pragmatic and being a little more moralistic. This obviously is in line with his his Sunday school background. And so that was sort of a symbiotic thing between a political vacuum and a necessity and his own character now from the time he was elected until the inauguration. If you go back over it he really didn't stress this very much he was putting together a team and everything. It's very interesting to me that the different people in the administration whom I know who are very involved in foreign affairs and foreign policy. I have not spoken to one yet who wasn't caught by surprise by the emphasis on this including people like Andy Young who obviously is very close to Carter. He said in the Playboy interview that he has just been published he so much has said that he had he was completely surprised by the emphasis on this now. And yes he overemphasized it when he got his yeah he sure did.

But I what that says to me is that I think it created a life of itself the initial what a soccer for a member. We don't really know whether that was intended to be publicized or not but the sudden reaction of that I think caught the Carter administration by surprise and they were suddenly in a in a posture of either saying Damn right we meant it and we're going to stand by it or we overstepped a little bit well obviously a new administration is going to choose the former course which he did and the Posen of those on this side of the of the ocean anyway were such and in some other countries were such that I think it just became a snowballing effect oh you know a carcass no I. I am one of those who thinks that it's a great idea to stress human rights in every way. But when one thinks of the lack of press rights in Singapore or the absence of general rights in Indonesia or the fact that most of the African countries are

under military rule nobody has too many rights in any in any degree or form or fashion. I wondered whether once this got started whether the interest of the Third World was was the center of it especially in Africa with Andrew Young traveling through it. But whether the administration by by some accident had not fixed upon a weakness of the Soviets that was crucial not necessarily due to detente but crucial to whatever comes over the next decade between the superpowers including China and whether the Soviets are not that sensitive to possible alterations in their internal situation that they had to pick it up in the fact that it was just not Andrew Young but Soviets a very willing audience for it ready to strike back. Well I certainly if I understand you correctly I think I agree.

I think it is a highly vulnerable point of the Soviet Union and not so much because of their situation with their own dissidents Jewish and otherwise within the Soviet Union I think Eastern Europe is what is of tremendous concern to them. You know it was it was no longer than 10 to 15 years ago that there were all kinds of riots over consumer goods and other things in the Eastern Bloc countries. And. It's obviously related the fact that in Romania and Yugoslavia to a lesser degree in Czechoslovakia in the last three or four months there has been little rumblings and some in some cases major rumblings involving the Helsinki Accords and the human rights basket in that. I think one of the things that we in the West have have tended to forget which it has been sort of the conventional wisdom over the last three years to two years to bad mouth the Helsinki Accords.

All it did was make permanent the new borders of Europe which is what the Soviets wanted and it didn't do anything for the. Regional interests of the Western nations in saying that I think we've totally forgotten that it was a great shot in the arm to the those in the Eastern European countries who were chafing under the yoke of whatever form of totalitarianism they live under it turned out to be a Soviet mistake to acquiesce in language that triggered off the duce possibly possibly I think it's too early to say yet but it's certainly a live issue and one that there are considerably more sensitive to now than they were at the time they signed Helsinki. Is it on the hidden agenda nine years or less after chuckles of AUK you know what you mean by the hidden agenda. Chuckles walking was actually physical intervention right to stop any liberalization in the U.S. I'm just following up on your point. Right. But it's a bottling up procedure the guess is still

rising Oh absolutely in the bottle. Absent that we might come off. Absolutely now your original question I think. So that's a very I certainly agree with your point that the Soviets are ultra sensitive to it. I don't it's funny thing I've got a particular view of the Carter administration. I don't give them full credit for realizing this at the outset I don't think it was deliberate and contrived I think it began to they began to realize that as the reactions developed Gudel country then John Mickel talking just a little bit on instinct sound instinct. And funnily enough not over intellectualizing the pursuit of foreign affairs. I think they Carter in particular and Andy Young also sort of said what darn it this is right. This is what we stand for so why not get up on our hind feet and say it. And without sort of massaging it to death. And then all of a sudden all of these things began to happen now your question about the third world and its reaction to this I think is

is a very hard one. I I don't know I haven't been in some third world countries for a while although I I think I try to keep fairly well informed. My impression is that this is having less impact in the third world than anywhere else than in the first or second worlds if you'll excuse those terms because my impression has been for the last three and four and five years from some director traveling in these places that the single priority interest of theirs is economic development of some kind or other. In this post colonial era and that they don't really give too much of a darn about political pressures or political ideologies that have foisted upon them. So long as they see that the curves are up and upward. Therefore I I don't think they have the. The kind of psychological affluence

to worry about this sort of thing too much. Now that include the so-called confrontation states in in southern Africa looking at the policies of what is now and South Africa. No I wouldn't include them because obvious in the first place South Africa as I would develop country and so is what I'm saying no no I'm talking about the con for those in the States not buying them. Yes I think it does. It's a very hard one to call and I haven't been to Africa so I am only judging from what I read and hear from other people but it seems to me that that in in the in the continent of Africa and Southeast Asia particularly forget Southeast Asia in the subcontinent that the human rights talk has had a less. Enduring impact than almost anywhere else you can conceive of now obviously and a certain first level concern you would think

that the. That the Angolans or the Ariens or whoever are delighted with the idea of Carter and Andy Young saying that we believe in self-determination one man one vote. Political freedoms and all the implicit denunciations of apartheid in that but on their national development many of those countries I think you're implying are in a in a stage prior to the developed press the developed radio the curiosity about the rest of the world and more on a personal security level and the fact is that that very Talk can come back to haunt them they can relate it to South Africa to whom they're very antagonistic of course. But one shouldn't delude themselves into thinking that there are some of these other countries that there is any great degree of political war or press freedom or any other kind of freedom. And I think these people or the leaders in these countries certainly know that. So it's a it's a two edged sword.

You know the administration has left the first stage of this. They've indicated that Ambassador Young for example is one small part of this is going to pay attention to other parts of the world which seems sensible I do since he is the United Nations ambassador not to a single continent. His his message on Racial Equality would certainly have as much effect in Asia as it does in Africa he might even be more effective in Asia than in Africa. Being an outsider to the politics from their point of view. What would your doctors know be as to the next indicated stage for the administration obviously they can turn their back on it the Soviets have picked it up. I think the Saudis are picked up in part because their own relationships with third world countries Egypt the Arab countries and so on have deteriorated over the last four or five years. This is might be a further sign of deterioration if they didn't claim that they were unjustly accused on the human rights issue.

The next step. I think it's hard to predict it seems to me that the Carter administration is sort of going to ad hoc it. I think they're doing that to a degree now but I don't mean that as negatively as it sounds my personal hope is that they continue to listen to their instincts were other than their intellect a little bit on these things because I think their instincts have been pretty sound. They go into Belgrade too. Well we're fine well you know we'll find out right now it seems pretty apparent that we're going to not just you know the Belgrade conference is going on as we talk and it seems clear that we're not going to soft pedal this. Where I don't think we're going to raise it. But when the issue of the next conference and the agenda is comes up for discussion I think we're going to stand up for precisely what we have been saying I don't think we're going to necessarily be the initiator but I don't think we're going to back away from what the kind of message that we projected going to pick up on and what we've been saying.

Obviously it's of first importance as it has always been throughout history that security of the person be maintained. We like to think that habeas corpus was one of the most important things that came out of our constitutional heritage. If we concentrated on that would that be a good idea for the next few years. I'm not saying this regarding freedom of the press which obviously we're terribly interested in or freedom of assembly or petition. But in the Russian cases we're really interested in in more basic things even if possible like freedom of travel the right to to worship as you choose the right not to be picked up by the secret police. The right not to be called a an agent of the CIA just because you are of a different faith or something. Should we concentrate on that corporate and soft pedal things that the third world doesn't understand that Europe understands only too well and that Asia

probably. Knows full well about well those a huge huge questions but my I guess my answer if I was in a position of responsibility in an administration like this one I guess what I would feel is that our proper posture should be to speak up for and stand up for the values that we hold dear and one of them certainly is human rights and the kind of personal securities that you're talking about and not condone through our own material ways regimes that don't or systems that don't abide by in one or another fashion by these things or not further them and foster them. But at the same time not impose. I I happen to feel very strongly that we do not and should not have an

activist role in in projecting these things. I think a lot of the things that we hold very dear in this country are environmentally determined by the kind of affluence that we have and have had the kind of history we've had. And I think we have learned. Only too well during For instance the mid 1960s late 1960s that sort of imposing democracy in Southeast Asia for instance was basically invalid non-viable silly idea. So you would say then that we ought to draw the line at torture. We want to draw the line at severe oppressions whenever they could for example in Chile I think it was in a way an ethics I had of course I'd say we have to draw the line there I'm. I hate to be so. How do we do it relative about it well I think every case you have to judge on its own merits while at the same time essentially

what I'm not at all embarrassed about is standing up for and speaking for what we hold dear which is what Carter is doing and what the Nixon and Ford administrations of some degree the Johnson administration didn't do they just you know they overlook this. I think that's important because I think we are a symbol in a lot of the rest of the world what happens though to the people who pick up the message. This is somewhat akin to the situation of the Hungarian revolutionary period we send out a message it was picked up and the people got in trouble and they were left in the lurch now are the dissidents are the people who are well to any of them are going to be left in the church. Probably yes you think so yes I think in the in the final analysis they will but there is a bit of a difference. You know John Foster Dulles was was talking about the rollback theory and the implication of that whole thing was look if you people have the guts to stand up on your hind feet and show will bail you out. That was always the implication we're talking about post. Yeah and we're talking about a very different thing projecting more of a passive voice saying this is what we hold dear and we hold countries that abide

by these standards as more friendly and more allied to us than anyone else. Do you think that you know you're not suggesting. I don't think I think it's wrong to suggest and we're going to actively foster this and by implication that those of you who stand up and show it will find a way to help you out. Do you think insouciance are capable of a good deal more give. Is this a preliminary period for them. Is it necessary. In other words for them to act tough and traditional before they get quietly. Would they have given more quietly to a Kissinger approach if the cards were on the table I think. I think the jury's still out on that I think one of the things that we often forget is precisely what other countries forget about or about us namely that there are inherent domestic political concerns and constraints in a place like the Soviet Union. There is a lot of shuffling going on now about the brazenness position and you know Pagani so stern and so forth. There is a hawk and a

dove situation there and I I frankly don't feel qualified to say whether there's a lot more give I think there's a generational fight there. I don't think there's much give on if if they think that they're blocking I think the single thing that they cannot tolerate would be an undermining of their control so to speak of Eastern Europe. And if somehow they sensed that that was being undermining that could work one of two ways it could mean that they're going to try to liberalize you know order to sustain their impact there or it could mean that they get very tough and heaven help the rest of us. Well again by implication I don't know the implication of what you said. The Soviets obviously won't won't easily take any interference but are they looking for some indication from the United States as to the deal we are prepared to make if they will tone down their anti dissident efforts if they

will show a little bit more give. It was something under the table that they're looking for. Beyond the press room. Oh certainly. I think there are there are two things one is three things perhaps one is more of a willingness on our part to make some of our material goods available to them. You know that the whole trade situation is an important concern of theirs now. Two is obviously the Strategic Arms Limitation talks. I mean both both the Carter administration and the crime one are constantly saying it isn't a linkage deal but nobody can convince me of that. A lot of what we're seeing is posturing connected with the SALT talks. The third thing which is funny we haven't even mentioned but it's a critical factor in almost any way that the major powers address each other and that is China and the Soviet Union I think another thing that's under the table in all this is you know if we stop and you

guys lay off perhaps you're not going to cozy up to Peking so much. I think that's sort of the a number one concern of theirs. Maybe not the A-number one but a prime and. It affects all these things we're talking about. It sounds like we're in for a decade kind of conversation on this human rights that it all ended young and the president did was just toss out the first hand at the card game. I think they made it an issue. It has become an issue now after having been neglected for a long time and speaking for myself personally I'm delighted. You know I think it was for too long we we had our head under the pillow about speaking up for the kind of things that were important to us. Sounds quite traditional like Ethan Allen knocking on the gates of Ticonderoga yelling. True he didn't say it but it sounds good anyhow. Open these gates the name of the great you Hova in the Continental Congress Clockers know it's a difficult subject. We talked about what is the background to the human rights stance of the United States. I appreciate your

comments very much. This is Bernard Rubin saying good night. Whatever GBH radio and cooperation with the Institute for democratic holy cations of the School of Communications at Boston University has presented the First Amendment and a free people and examination of civil liberties and the media. In the 1970s this program was produced in the studios of WGBH Boston.