122. Paper Prepared by the Policy Planning Staff1
[Omitted here are the table of contents and Section I “Introduction.”]
II. VALUES
American values provide the base of our policy. Our concern for the welfare of others coincides with our own national interest:
—to do what we can to alleviate injustice and tension before they erupt into violence;
[Page 410]—to help reduce the threat of war and the high cost of military establishments;
—to contribute to the global economic growth and equity on which our own national prosperity depends.
Human Rights:
The human rights policy of this Administration most clearly represents the application of our values to the practical decisions of foreign policy.
Our concern is for those human rights which have been recognized internationally—in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other UN covenants and conventions; in the American Convention on Human Rights; and in the final act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. These documents codify the right to be free from torture or arbitrary arrest; the right to political freedom; and basic economic rights and opportunities. Our focus on these human rights is not an attempt to impose the American political system on others. These rights can be enjoyed under various political systems and in differing manner. They are rights to which all are entitled.
It is easy to be for all these rights in our rhetoric. Indeed no civilized nation has ever declared itself against them. It is more complex to take the human rights dimension into account in the major foreign policy decisions we take. We are trying to do that. That is how we view our obligations to American law and tradition.
Human rights concerns have been integrated into all levels of our dealings with foreign governments—from Presidential exchanges to the discussions of working level officials. It is clear to all governments that we consider how they treat their own people as an important factor in all our dealings with them.
We have affirmed our commitment to formal international standards—by finally signing the UN covenants on economic, social, and cultural rights and on civil and political rights and by signing the American Convention on Human Rights. We are working to improve the human rights machinery of the UN and the Organization of American States, and to secure better implementation of the human rights provisions of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. These multilateral efforts are important since they emphasize that America is not preaching to the rest of the world, but adding its voice to all the others who are working to improve the plight of individuals.
Words must be supported with actions. Proposals for American assistance—loans or grants through our aid program; our position on loans in the international development banks; military assistance or even sales—are carefully reviewed from a human rights point of view. This is a time-consuming process, since we analyze the human rights [Page 411] situation in the country concerned, who will benefit from the assistance, and how we can effectively assist the cause of human rights and the lot of the neediest.
We have modified aid allocations on human rights grounds and we are working to ensure that our bilateral programs meet the basic human needs of the poor for food, shelter, health care, and education. We oppose loans in the international development banks to countries with serious human rights problems, unless the loans are aimed at satisfying basic human needs. We have accepted the fact that our relations with certain countries may be strained as a result of our attention to human rights. As human rights conditions improve, these strains should be eased.
It may be of interest to record some of the actual dilemmas we face, for example, in linking human rights and foreign assistance. We often ask ourselves: should we oppose a loan which could promote the economic condition of poor people, in hopes of influencing their governments to permit a greater exercise of political rights? Would withholding security aid in a particular situation stimulate a siege mentality, leading to an even harsher crackdown on dissident elements, or would its practical effect be to promote human rights? How can we best show recognition of the progress a society is making, and thus reinforce that process, even if the general human rights situation remains unacceptable?
These and other hard questions require case-by-case analysis. Some observers will find our choices inconsistent. This is because tactics should be adaptable, although our goals are not. We will take those actions we believe will be most effective in each country, and which are consistent with statutory provisions designed to promote respect for internationally recognized human rights.
We must also keep our human rights concerns in balance with other national interests. We often must determine how best to respond to the needs of individuals living under authoritarian regimes, while still retaining the necessary cooperation of their governments on security or economic matters that are vital to us. Even in striking this balance however, our broad goal remains the same: economic and security policies, as well as policy on “human rights”, are guided by a concern with the impact of all we do on the welfare of individuals.
We are embarked on a long term endeavor. Progress must be measured over the long run. This Administration will probably not see the full results—successful or not—of our efforts in this field. Nor can we claim credit for many decisions made by sovereign foreign governments. But we have contributed to an international climate in which tangible progress was made in 1977:
—Thousands of prisoners have been freed.
[Page 412]—Some political systems have become a little more open. States of siege have ended and elections have been scheduled in a number of countries.
—International human rights commissions have been permitted to visit countries formerly closed to them.
The world was not transformed by such events. But many individuals were better off at the end of 1977 than at its beginning.
This is a sound beginning, but our experience has shown us that there are sometimes even better ways to proceed:
—In this first year we have most often reacted to human rights violations by reducing or ending economic or military assistance programs. We wish to increasingly emphasize positive actions to help governments which are trying to improve the lot of their own people. We are working to find ways to use our assistance affirmatively, to promote human rights, rather than in ways which are primarily punitive.
—We must work even more closely with international organizations and foreign leaders to find the most constructive ways to advance human rights in cultures and political traditions different from our own.
—In our dealings with other nations and people we must recognize human rights problems of our own. The President’s plans for welfare reform, urban renewal, more jobs for disadvantaged youth, are all part of a commitment constantly to improve our own human rights performance.
In sum, there has been a perceptible change in the international view of what the United States stands for in the world. Our most durable source of strength is the symbol of individual liberty and opportunity that we represent to others.
[Omitted here are Sections III (“Peace”), IV (“Individual Economic Well-Being”), and V (“Conclusion”).]
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Policy and Planning Staff—Office of the Director, Records of Anthony Lake, 1977–1981, Lot 82D298, Box 1, Envelope 12, 3/2/78, 2 Copies of Report on 1977 prepared but not released. No classification marking. Although no drafting information appears on the paper, a February 24 memorandum from Christopher to Lake, commenting upon an earlier draft of the paper, indicates that Lake prepared it. (National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 8, Memoranda from WC to Bureaus—1978) A handwritten notation on the first page of the paper (not printed) indicates that the report was not published. Typewritten comments on this page note that the report was “prepared at the request of Secretary of State Vance. It presents a general overview of our foreign policy: the reasons for our approach to key issues; the beginnings that were made on these issues in 1977; and the agenda for 1978 and beyond.” (National Archives, RG 59, Policy and Planning Staff—Office of the Director, Records of Anthony Lake, 1977–1981, Lot 82D298, Box 1, Envelope 12, 3/2/78, 2 Copies of Report on 1977 prepared but not released)↩