246. Memorandum From the Deputy Secretary of State (Ingersoll) to Secretary of State
Kissinger1
2
Washington, January 16, 1975
SUBJECT
I understand that in general you reacted favorably to the S/P paper of
October 22 on US Policies on Human Rights
but that you preferred not to issue guidance on the subject to the
Department and to the field (copy attached). It is not clear to me
whether you had any substantive objections to the material in the
guidance or whether you merely had problems with the idea of officially
promulgating a paper on the subject and distributing it widely in the
building and to our embassies abroad.
I met yesterday with the officers principally concerned with human rights
matters in the Department to acquaint them with recent developments in
this area and to provide them with a clearer idea of the Department’s
current posture on these issues. I am particularly concerned with the
need to give the five officers now designated as “human rights officers”
in the regional bureaus some indication of what their functions should
be and what policy line they should follow.
If you have no objection to the substance of the attached draft, I would
propose to make it available informally and as background to these few
officers as guidance on the Department’s general approach but not to
issue it as a formal guidance memorandum to the Department and the
field.
Approve ____________
Disapprove _______________
[Page 2]
Attachment
Draft Guidance on the Department’s General Approach
to Human Rights Issues
US POLICIES ON HUMAN RIGHTS
- 1.
- Recent Developments in a number of foreign countries,
legislative action by the U.S.
Congress and an intensification of public debate on the issues
involved make it timely for the Department to restate and to
clarify U.S. policy on dealing
with violations of human rights abroad. Reports is of increased
repression in certain countries have resulted in Congressional
action to reduce appropriation for military and economic aid to
those nations and seek assurances regarding the status of human
rights In all countries that are recipients of U.S. aid.
- 2.
-
U.S. policy on human rights
has been expressed in a number of public statements on the
subject during the past year. One was the statement in the
address by the Secretary to the Pacem
in Terris Conference in October 1973:
“We shall never condone the suppression of
fundamental liberties. We shall urge humane
principles and use our influence to promote justice.
But the issue comes down to the limits of such
efforts.”
Another was the statement in the letter of June 27, 1974 from
Deputy Secretary Ingersoll to Chairman Morgan of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee:
“...we take seriously our obligation under the United
Nations Charter to promote respect for and observance
[Page 3]
of human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all. No matter where
in the world violations of human rights occur, they
trouble and concern us and we make our best efforts to
ascertain the facts and promote respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms. At the same time, it must be
recognized that the United Nations Charter does not
prescribe how to fulfill that obligation in respect to
particular violations by others. Thus there are usually
complex questions of policy and tactics to be considered
in deciding whether and how the United States can best
seek to discharge its obligations in a particular case
consistent with its commitment to other goals, including
that of maintaining international peace and security.
Such questions include the seriousness of the violation,
the various options for United States action, and the
consequences of inaction.”
- 3.
- As these statements clearly indicate, in developing its
policies toward foreign countries, the U.S. Government takes human rights factors into
account along with all the other factors affecting its major
objectives of peace and security and its relationships with the
countries in question. Since these relationships and the manner
in which our larger objectives are pursued differ from one
country to another, what the U.S.
Government is able to do in carrying out its general policy of
support for human rights is bound to be different in each
situation. Implementation of this policy has to be handled,
therefore on a case-by-case basis.
- 4.
- Such a case-by-case approach, however, does not obviate the
need for a reasonable degree of consistency
[Page 4]
and coherence in this area of
policy-making. Criteria are needed to determine which of the
many human rights violations that occur around the world deserve
priority attention. The factors that must be considered in
deciding what U.S. policy should
be in a Particular case need to be identified. These criteria
and factors were set out in a recent Department Study as
follows:
- a.
- The seriousness of the violations involved. (Genocide
and other unlawful killing, torture, widespread and
lengthy imprisonment without fair trial, and massive
racial or ethnic discrimination are examples of some of
the more serious violations.)
- b.
- The nature and significance of total U.S. interests in the
country concerned.
- c.
- The degree to which the U.S. Government is popularly identified
with the regime in question and the influence or
leverage which the U.S.
Government may or may not have with that regime.
- d.
- The political context in which the violation occurs
and the direction in which the treatment of human rights
is moving in the country involved.
- e.
- The short-term and long-term consequences of U.S. Government action or
inaction.
- f.
- The degree of U.S.
public and Congressional concern over the issue.
- g.
- Special regional sensitivities and attitudes which may
apply, e.g. in Africa and Latin America.
- 5.
- Although the Department’s Legal Advisor has determined that,
at the very least, a basis exists in international law for
expressions of official U.S.
concern over human rights violations in another country, the
fact remains that most countries continue to regard external
approaches on such matters as interference in their domestic
affairs.
- 6.
-
In the framework of our general policy of support for human
rights, the extent to which we are able to take effective
action in respect to a particular human rights issue depends
to a large degree on the nature of the relationship between
the United States and the government concerned -whether it
is an adversary, an ally, or a neutral, whether, it is an
aid recipient, is heavily dependent on American aid or
receives no aid at all. Although the case-by-case approach
resists rigid rule-making by categories, some broad
generalizations may be useful:
- a.
- In the case of states, such as those in the USSR and China, where
the overriding concern is to strengthen detente and
reduce the risks of nuclear confrontation, exchanges
on human rights violations affecting their own
citizens must be handled with the utmost care and
anything beyond informal conversations that may
occur in the course
[Page 6]
of normal diplomatic contacts
should not be undertaken without clearance from the
Department.
- b.
- Another type of case is the authoritarian regime
which is heavily dependent on American military or
economic aid and which is often a main target of
American public and Congressional criticism over its
human rights practices. In such a situation,
Department and Mission officers in touch with
leading representatives of the regime should make
them aware of U.S.
Executive, Congressional and public concerns. This
is usually best done by pointing out the concerns
that exist and their objective consequences rather
than by attempting to prescribe for officials the
changes they should make in their governmental
systems. If it is thought desirable to make forma
approaches or to deliver diplomatic notes to
emphasize the importance that we feel would be
attached to the matter, appropriate Departmental
clearance should be obtained.
- c.
- Recent amendments to foreign aid appropriations
measures in the Congress have tended to relate the
provision or level of aid to the behavior of
recipient nations in respect to the human rights of
their own citizens. The Department will seek to
communicate the “sense of the Congress” to the
government affected. Regional Bureaus, through their
own contact in Washington and through our
[Page 7]
Missions
abroad, may use their discretion in selecting the
most appropriate way to convey this sense of the
Congress to the governments involved. It should be
possible to make clear that, in compliance with the
legislation, all affected countries are approached
and none is singled out. In cases of special
nationalistic or regional sensitivities which raise
questions of the timing or even desirability of such
approaches, any decisions regarding delay or
withholding of such approaches should be made in
consultation with the Department.
- 7.
- All Missions should keep the human rights situations in their
countries under review and provide objective reports on
important developments in this field to enable the Department to
appraise conditions relevant to the U.S. interest in supporting human rights, to
respond as needed to Congressional or other US domestic inquiries, and to
develop the U.S. position if and
when the issues involved come before UN or other multilateral bodies. Such reports
should, of course, include any recommendations the posts may
have to offer for the Department’s consideration. Posts should
continue to report all significant approaches to, or exchanges
with, officials of foreign governments regarding human rights
issues as well as any indications of the effectiveness of the
express of US
[Page 8]
official interest in
human rights violations.
- 8.
- Consideration of human rights questions in multilateral forums (the United
Nations and its related agencies, regional organizations such as
the OAS) is based on a common recognition by member nations that
these bodies are competent to consider such questions. Because
of our own commitments as a member to cooperate in good faith
for the achievement of human rights goals of the organ
concerned, we will as a general rule determine our positions in
these forums on the basis of the merits of the cases under
consideration. In cases involving friendly governments we will
take care to consult with them to assure for ourselves a full
understanding of the facts and of the position of the government
concerned. The U.S. record in the
United Nations and other multilateral human rights organs has
been highlighted by the leadership we have shown on a large
number of issues. The United States played a leading part in the
formulation of the landmark Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The U.S. delegation led
the move which was successful in 1970 to establish new
procedures in the United Nations for dealing with complaints of
serious human rights violations within countries. The United
States has consistently pressed for the establishment of a new
post of High Commissioner for Human Rights: At the present
General Assembly we have
[Page 9]
joined in urging strengthened UN measures against torture.
- 9.
- Additional aspects of U.S.
policy on human rights are currently under review in the
Department. These include other types of action that may be
taken to underscore the U.S.
Government’s support for human rights, interdepartmental aspects
of the problem, and our own practices in areas which have human
rights implications such as visa operations, asylum procedures,
and policies regarding provision of police training and
equipment for authoritarian regimes. Further guidance on this
subject will be issued as required.
