We have prepared a Report informing Congress of the results of the review
the Department of State has conducted with respect to human rights in
countries which are recipients of security assistance. A copy is
attached at Tab 1.
The Report outlines the Department’s efforts to review the human rights
situation in security assistance recipient countries and gives our
conclusions with respect to the advisability of reducing or terminating
security assistance based on violations of human rights. The Report is
designed as a covering document to forward digests of human rights
conditions in the 83 security assistance recipient countries. Eight
country digests—Korea, Brazil, Chile, the Philippines, Egypt, Iran,
India and Ethiopia—are at Tab 2. These illustrate the style and content
of the respective country digests. Sensitive sections will be
classified.
The Report is intended to show our concern with human rights issues.
Congressman Fraser and Senator
Javits, among others, have
pressed the Department for
[Page 2]
action pursuant to Section 502B and we have promised that a report will
be forthcoming. We have also indicated that a report would be submitted
in conjunction with our interim security assistance presentation
material. The latter is scheduled to be transmitted to Congress this
week.
The Report is intended to serve only as a base for discussion by
Administration witnesses. We can expect that Department witnesses will
be questioned closely on human rights issues during the forthcoming
security assistance hearings in any case. The submission of a 502B
report should have a beneficial effect as a step to meet mounting
Congressional worries about Administration perspectives on human rights
questions.
On the other hand, the Report will also be subject to severe criticism by
individual members of Congress who are concerned with serious violations
of human rights in countries for whom substantial security assistance
programs are proposed. They will charge that in some cases (e.g. Chile
and Korea) our digests are inadequate and that we should use stronger
condemnatory language and make findings. It is my judgment,
nevertheless, that the Report will on balance have a positive effect and
should go forward as proposed.
Tab 1
Report to the Congress on the Human Rights
Situation in Countries Receiving U.S. Security Assistance
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, has contained in
recent years several provisions regarding respect for
internationally recognized human rights in countries receiving
United States security assistance. Section 32 of the 1973 Foreign
Assistance Act contained a provision expressing the sense of
Congress that assistance should be denied to any government
practicing the internment or imprisonment of its citizens for
political purposes. Sections 25 and 26 of the 1974 Act limited the
amount of assistance that could be made available to Chile and the
Republic of Korea. Section 46 of the 1974 Act further added a new
Section 502B to the basic Act which expressed the sense of Congress
that, except in extraordinary circumstances, security assistance
should be substantially reduced or eliminated in the case of any
government found to engage in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights, and
established certain precepts and definitions.*
Pursuant to the foregoing the Department of State issued a series of
instructions to U.S. missions in the
field calling for comprehensive reports on the human rights
situation in each country. The first of these instructions was
issued on April 4 of last year and went to a total of 68 posts. Its
text is contained on page 283 of the record of Hearings before the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on the
Fiscal Year 1975 Foreign Assistance Request. Further instructions
were issued over succeeding months and culminated in a cable
regarding Section 502B to all diplomatic posts on January 17, 1975
with a follow-up circular airgram on February 14, 1975. The texts of
both are attached as an appendix to this Report.
[Page 4]
In response to these instructions each mission submitted to
Washington its analysis of the human rights situation within the
country in which it was located. These reports in turn were digested
by the desks in the geographic bureaus of the Department and
submitted for review by panels made up of representatives of
geographic and functional bureaus and offices in the Department and
AID. Panels for countries in
which particular public or Congressional interest had been expressed
were chaired by the Under Secretary for Security Assistance and the
facts and conditions were taken into consideration in deciding the
levels of security assistance for individual countries under the
FY 1975 program. All other panels
were chaired by the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs.
The panels focused initially on the nature and degree of seriousness
of reported violations of human rights. Reports from various sources
were considered, including especially any public or private
investigating bodies, national and international. In each country
the trend of human rights developments was analyzed. Where
situations appeared serious, the question was asked whether the
reduction or termination of security assistance would be effective
in achieving a change for the better and what other ways existed in
long and short term to help in improving the situation. Previous or
on-going efforts of the United States or international organizations
vis-a-vis the government in question were considered in this
connection to determine their efficacy.
In all cases, the rationale for U.S.
security assistance and the nature of that assistance were also
reexamined. Where appropriate further inquiries were put to posts in
the field for more information or comment.
The results of these reviews have been taken into consideration in
the levels of individual country programs proposed for FY 1976 which are being submitted
concurrently with this report. Included in this report are summaries
of the country digests outlining the human rights situation in each
of the countries for which security assistance (as defined in
Section 502B) is being proposed for FY 1976. Administration witnesses, furthermore, will be
prepared to address any questions raised on this score during the
course of the presentation to both Houses of the Congress of the
Administration’s requested program for FY 1976.
[Page 5]
Conclusions:
The general conclusions reached on the subject of reducing or
terminating security assistance to countries found to present
problems of serious violations of human rights may be summed up as
follows:
We view Section 502B as an authoritative expression of Congressional
concern for human rights in all countries receiving security
assistance. The Executive Branch shares this concern and agrees with
the Congress that the promotion of human rights and fundamental
freedoms throughout the world is an important and legitimate goal of
our foreign policy.
When we consider using security assistance as a possible lever to
improve the human rights situation in a particular country, however,
we are faced at the outset with at least two fundamental questions:
- 1.
- Would the substantial reduction or termination of security
assistance to that country damage our own national
security?
- 2.
- Would the substantial reduction or termination of security
assistance improve the human rights situation in that
country or make it more difficult to make our views
known?
The Foreign Assistance Act of course is designed to support many
U.S. interests, among the most
important of which are U.S. security
and the protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights. This is
illustrated in the Statement of Policy of Part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act:
“The Congress declares that the freedom, security, and
prosperity of the United States are best sustained in a
community of free, secure and prospering nations. In
particular, the Congress recognizes the threat to world
peace posed by aggression and subversion wherever they occur
and that ignorance, want, and despair breed the
[Page 6]
extremism and
violence which lead to aggression and subversion. The
Congress declares therefore that it is not only expressive
of our sense of freedom, justice, and compassion but also
important to our national security that the United States,
through private as well as public efforts, assist the people
of less developed countries in their efforts to acquire the
knowledge and resources essential for development and to
build the economic, political, and social institutions which
will meet their aspirations for a better life, with freedom,
and in peace.”
Similarly, the statement of policy of Part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act states:
“...It is therefore the intention of the Congress to promote
the peace of the World, and the foreign policy, security,
and general welfare of the United States by fostering an
improved climate of political independence and individual
liberty...”
It is thus clear that the Foreign Assistance Act recognizes both the
need to protect basic human rights and freedoms in all countries and
the importance of protecting U.S.
security interests. The question presented is what is to happen when
one of these objectives cannot be accomplished without prejudicing
the other in our relations with a particular country.
We know that some members of Congress feel that the U.S. Government should simply
disassociate itself from repressive governments, even if such
actions would have no effect on human rights problems there. Others
feel that if our security interests (or other kinds of national
interests, for that matter) are strong enough, these interests
should prevail. Our view is that while both security interests and
human rights are important, each country needs to be looked at
individually to determine where our predominant interests lie in
every case.
[Page 7]
We believe, in the spirit of Section 502B and the statements of
policy quoted above, that the USG
should take positive actions to improve human rights wherever
possible. There are many ways of doing so, however, by direct and
indirect means, such as diplomatic representation, multilateral
efforts in concert with other countries, educational and exchange
programs and the pressures of public and private opinion.
Partially, as a result of the review process described earlier,
renewed efforts are underway both within the Department itself and
in AID to develop new programs with
particular focus on the betterment of human rights in various
countries around the world. These include new emphasis on human
rights concerns in programs sponsored by the Department’s Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs and an effort to continue open and
cooperative relationships with relevant sections of the American Bar
Association, with the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights under law,
the International Commission of Jurists, the World Peace through Law
Center, Amnesty International and many other organizations concerned
with human rights. AID is planning
to do more important work in this area. Examples of possibilities
are programs to improve the capability of legislatures in human
rights matters, technical assistance to provide competent legal
advice from local counsel and exchange programs between law schools
with particular emphasis on human rights problems.
Our security assistance programs are designed to meet U.S. security interests as well as those
of other countries. The reduction or termination of security
assistance thus can have a direct adverse effect on our own
security.
In particular instances, moreover, the reduction or termination of
security assistance may be wholly ineffective so far as improvement
of human rights conditions in a particular country are concerned or
may serve only to impair whatever influence we otherwise might have
been able to wield in this regard.
Our studies indicate that if reduction or termination of security
assistance to a country would adversely affect U.S. security interests in a particular
country and be unlikely to produce a favorable impact on the human
rights situation there, it would not be useful to do so. Other means
should be sought, however, to improve the
[Page 8]
situation if possible or to distance the
U.S. Government from too close an
association with the local government in political terms, making
clear our position regarding the need to respect human rights.
Where, as in the case in South Korea and several other countries,
U.S. security assistance is
favored both by the regime in power and the opposition, reduction or
termination of security assistance is unlikely to improve the human
rights situation and should not be undertaken with this as a goal,
but other avenues should be pursued to that goal.
Suppression of human rights or failure to provide adequate protection
for them is in many cases symptomatic of a basic insecurity on the
part of the government in a developing country. It is possible,
therefore, that U.S. security
assistance by contributing to the economic stability of a country or
by enhancing a government’s sense of security from outside attack
may serve to improve local attitudes toward the protection of human
rights.
The situation in each country must always be weighed individually and
assessed on the basis of careful analysis to where U.S. interests with respect to security
and human rights lie and how they can be best served. This is what
we have tried to accomplish through-the reports, analyses and
evaluation described earlier in response to Section 502B.
