on maritime boundaries, safety at sea, and other issues where there are major benefits for U.S. citizens. It is important to talk; for example, to be able to express directly to the Cubans our views on international questions as well.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 2018, Sept. 1978, p. 57. See, further, the 1977 Digest, pp. 22–25.

Following an address in Atlantic City on June 20, 1978, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance had held a question-and-answer session, during which he had been asked whether the United States planned to continue trade relationships with Cuba, in view of Cuban activities in Africa. The Secretary replied, in part:

We have said to the Cubans that until we resolve many of the differences which exist between us, we cannot even get to the question of discussing resumption of trade relations. But I think it is important to keep a dialogue going between us in the hope that we may be able to overcome the problems which lie between us at this point and thus begin to move along the road which eventually may lead to better relations. But obviously there are very deep and fundamental differences between us now, particularly in the Cuban activities in Africa; and we have made this very, very clear on any number of occasions, both publicly and privately, to them and have made it clear that this is one of the issues that must be resolved between us.

Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 2017, Aug. 1978, p. 13.

At his news conference (No. 33) on June 14, 1978, President Jimmy Carter had gone into greater factual detail regarding Cuban involvement in the ministries of the Angolan Government, Cuban control over transportation facilities in Angola, Cuban troops and support personnel stationed in Angola, and Cuban training of Katangan invaders into Zaire. See, further, this Digest, Ch. 14, § 8, post. The President also referred to Cuban troops in Ethiopia. Ibid., pp. 6-7; Weekly Comp. of Pres. Docs., Vol. 14, No. 24, June 19, 1978, pp. 1092-1095.

The Dept. of State's position on Cuban involvement in Angola, Ethiopia, and other parts of Africa was stated in July 1978 to be that there could not be any significant improvement in U.S.-Cuban relations until the level of these military adventures was sharply reduced. GIST, U.S.-Cuban Relations, July 1978.

Ghana

On July 5, 1978, Lieutenant General Fred W. K. Akuffu, Chief of Staff of the Ghanaian Army and a member of the Supreme Military Council governing the country, replaced General Ignatius Kuto Acheampong as Chairman of the Supreme Military Council (and head of state) of Ghana, under circumstances implying the latter's forced resignation from office. Except for General Acheampong, the Supreme Military Council continued to operate the Government of Ghana. The Department of State agreed with the American Embassy at Accra, and so informed the Embassy, that, in view of the manner in which the change in office had been effected, the question of recognition did

not arise, since the change was one in personal leadership and not in

government.

Dept. of State telegram 170847, July 6, 1978.

Afterwards, further changes took place both in the Supreme Military Council and at lower governmental levels.

Republic of Mauritania

On July 10, 1978, a military coup occurred in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. President Moktar Ould Daddah was reported to have been arrested; and power was seized by a military Committee for National Recovery, led by the army chief of staff, Colonel Moustapha Ould Muhamed Saleck. A Cabinet, headed by Colonel Saleck, and comprising both military officers and civilians, was also announced. The American Ambassador, E. Gregory Kryza, informed the Department of State that the Presidential Protocol Office had invited him to meet with President Moustapha on July 12, and that he had accepted the invitation. The Department agreed with Ambassador Kryza's recommendation-that he be authorized to say to the new President that the United States did not consider relations with Mauritania to have been broken and expected to carry on business as usual. Dept. of State telegram 175454, July 12, 1978.

Uganda

On February 2, 1978, William C. Harrop, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, testified before the Subcommittees on Africa, International Economic Policy and Trade, and International Organizations, of the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, in regard to restricted relations between the United States and Uganda since 1973.

Emphasizing that continuation of diplomatic relations with another government does not imply approval of that government's policies, Mr. Harrop pointed out that United States opposition to and abhorrence of Uganda's record of massive violations of fundamental human rights was reflected in the limited nature of these relations. Excerpts from his statement follow:

U.S. relations with Uganda have been both limited and cool ever since 1973. In that year a number of problems led successively to the termination of our Peace Corps and AID programs and ultimately to the closing of the American Embassy in Kampala and the withdrawal of all U.S. official personnel. Factors which prompted our official withdrawal included persistent internal security problems in the country, increasing operating difficulties for American programs and personnel, and repeated public threats against Embassy officials and other Americans in the country by high Ugandan officials. The abrupt expulsion of the U.S. Marine Security Guard responsible for

2

the protection of the Embassy led to the final decision to withdraw our remaining personnel and close the Embassy in November of that year. Since that time, American interests in Uganda have been represented by the Federal Republic of Germany which has maintained an Embassy in Kampala.

Under present circumstances, we have no reason to consider the reestablishment of a U.S. presence in Kampala, nor would we do so unless our overall relationship with Uganda were to improve considerably. A prerequisite for this would be a fundamental improvement in human rights conditions in Uganda.

The Ugandan Government has continued to maintain a small Embassy in Washington, currently headed by a Second Secretary as chargé d'affaires. In keeping with the nature of our relations, the Department maintains working level contacts with the Embassy as necessary to conduct official business. No higher level of representation would be necessary or appropriate at present.

When we withdrew our Embassy from Kampala in 1973, we also advised private U.S. citizens to depart, based on the same concerns over unsettled conditions and threats against Americans that affected our official programs and personnel. This guidance remains. in effect and has been periodically reiterated to those concerned. In addition, we have issued travel advisories cautioning American travelers against visiting Uganda-whether for business, pleasure, or any other purpose. Nevertheless, we have no authority to prevent Americans from traveling to Uganda or to require Americans resident in Uganda to leave, and somewhat over 200 Americans still reside there. Approximately a third of these are missionaries; just under a third are professional and technical personnel working under a variety of international and private auspices; the remainder includes students, visitors, some dependents of Ugandans and others. The continued presence of these Americans in Uganda and our concern and responsibility for them is a factor which we must take into account in all our decisionmaking regarding Uganda.

We continue to deny bilateral U.S. assistance to Uganda, in accordance both with executive branch policy and with recent legislation. Moreover, U.S. representatives to international development banks are under instructions to oppose and vote against loans to Uganda.

Although private commercial trade with Uganda has continued, Uganda does not currently benefit from U.S. programs promoting trade and investments. Neither Eximbank nor OPIC have been active in Uganda since 1973. and Uganda's exports have not been made eligible for general tariff preferences ("GSP”).

Further, we do not and will not license exports to Uganda of items on the munitions list; we believe such exports would be manifestly incompatible with our human rights concerns and interests. We also review other exports to Uganda from the human rights perspective, and in cooperation with the Department of Commerce deny exports which would in our estimation contribute directly to continued human rights violations. This would include, for example, the sale of helicopters or other such equipment to the Ugandan security establishment.

In response to the discovery last fall that Ugandan police personnel were in this country undergoing commercial helicopter training (without the Department's advance knowledge), we instituted a new procedure under which visa applications by officially connected Ugandans and other representatives of Uganda must be referred to the Department for review.

This procedure enables us to prevent travel by Ugandans to the United States such as that of the helicopter personnel which would be incompatible with our human rights interests. (On these same grounds, we also made extraordinary efforts to bring about the early termination of the helicopter training program, efforts which were at least partially successful.)

Overall, then, our bilateral relations with Uganda are highly restricted, most specifically with respect to matters touching fundamental human rights. Within the international community we have also expressed our concerns over Uganda's human rights situation. We strongly supported efforts at the United Nations Human Rights Commission meeting in March of 1977 to bring about a full examination and discussion of Uganda's human rights problems, in the hope that such attention would lead to amelioration of conditions within Uganda. Similarly, we welcome the introduction of a resolution on this subject by the Nordic States, who have shown considerable interest in the problem, in the U.N. General Assembly's Third Committee in December, and the informal agreement which resulted from this discussion that the issue will be given serious consideration at the upcoming 1978 session of the Human Rights Commission. We have made clear throughout our hope that the Ugandan Government would cooperate with such efforts; we continue to hope that this will be the case.

Finally, it is our policy to provide humanitarian assistance to refugees from Uganda, both through contributions to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and through special assistance (such as in the education field) where particular needs are identified.

Nor do we favor breaking relations with Uganda and closing the Ugandan Embassy in Washington or otherwise placing special restrictions on the Ugandan diplomats in this country. We do not view the maintenance of diplomatic relations with another government as implying approval of that government's policies. Except in the most unusual circumstances, we do not favor severing the communications link provided by diplomatic representation. This is why, when we closed our Embassy and withdrew our personnel from Kampala in 1973, we did not characterize this step as a break in relations and did not require the Ugandans to close their Embassy in Washington. The continued presence of a small Ugandan Embassy here has provided a useful direct communications link, especially in emergency situations such as the February 1977 events when the Ugandan Government temporarily barred Americans from leaving Uganda.

As to imposing travel restrictions on Ugandan personnel accredited to the United Nations, basic U.S. practice has been to

restrict the travel of foreign personnel in this country only in instances where those governments have placed similar restrictions on American diplomats. This is not the case with Uganda. Such restrictions would also go against the spirit of our obligations as host country for the United Nations. We are aware of allegations that Ugandan personnel in Washington and New York are engaging in improper activities directed against Ugandan exiles in the United States. We have no concrete evidence that this is the case, but if specific problems of this sort were identified, we have more direct methods of rectifying this type of situation than through the imposition of generalized (and difficult to enforce) travel restrictions.

Finally, as to landing rights of Ugandan aircraft in the United States, we do not believe that the purposes for which Ugandan aircraft have landed in this country raise general problems from the human rights or foreign policy perspectives. However, these flights are subject to standard customs and immigration inspection procedures, and we would of course consider appropriate remedial action should it be determined that these flights are being used for purposes inconsistent with U.S. law or policy.

To summarize, our policy toward Uganda is one of consciously distancing the United States from human rights violations in that country, denying Uganda U.S. products and facilities which would in our view directly contribute to continued human rights violations, and encouraging more concerted international attention to this situation. We believe that this is the most active, realistic and effective approach available to us under present circumstances.

United States-Uganda Relations: Hearings before the Subcommittees on Africa, International Organizations, and International Economic Policy and Trade of the House Committee on International Relations, 95th Cong., 2d sess. (1978), pp. 59-62. See, also, Dept. of State GIST, Uganda, July 1978; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. 78, No. 2018, Sept. 1978, pp. 18–19, based upon a statement by Mr. Harrop, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, before the Subcommittee on Foreign Economic Policy of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, June 26, 1978.

See, further, the 1973 Digest, pp. 11-13.

Vietnam

At a news conference held on August 4, 1978, at the conclusion of the second ministerial meeting between the United States and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), at Washington, Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance was asked about the United States attitude toward normalization of relations with Vietnam, should the Vietnamese drop their previous conditions therefor. The Secretary replied:

We indicated about a year ago that we would be prepared to discuss the question of normalization of relations with Vietnam without preconditions.

In the discussions that were held at three sessions, I believe, over the past year or so, in each case Vietnam has made reference to