124. Memorandum From Secretary of the Treasury Blumenthal to Secretary of State Vance1

SUBJECT

  • Human Rights Policies and the Legislation for the International Development Banks

I want to share with you my increasing concern about our current human rights policies in the foreign assistance field.

Within a week, the Congress will begin to question the Administration on how we are implementing the human rights provisions of Public Law 95–118—on which you and I have a joint responsibility to report within the next six months. There is increasing dissatisfaction by some members of Congress that our human rights strategy is being applied inconsistently and without clear criteria.

As an example, Congressman Charles Wilson of Texas, who until now has been one of our strongest supporters on the Appropriations Committee, plans to seek widespread support for a drastic cut in our requested appropriations for AID and the international development banks because of his dissatisfaction with the inconsistent application of our human rights policy. Such a result would, of course, have serious implications for U.S. foreign policy. I am afraid that a number of other members of Congress, including some of our best friends in past years, have similar feelings.

At the same time, our friends abroad, even though they share many of our human rights objectives, remain concerned about the way in which we seek to promote human rights in the international financial institutions and about the consistency of our approach. Several European governments cautioned our recent State/Treasury Consultations team that human rights sanctions in the IFIs should be applied carefully and consistently, and preferably limited to a small number of countries so as to minimize confrontation and limit the risk that others may seek to introduce narrow political considerations which might jeopardize the integrity of the multilateral institutions. They indicated [Page 415] some willingness to cooperate with us to advance human rights in the IFIs provided we proceed quietly, selectively, and with sensitivity to the risks involved. In fact, President Giscard d’Estaing of France has personally made just these points, in setting French policy on the subject.

It is urgent, therefore, that we review our present strategy and procedures for handling human rights in the international development banks. This will implement the President’s Directive/NSC–30 that “U.S. human rights actions in the IFIs shall be designed and implemented so as not to undermine essential U.S. interests of preserving these institutions as effective economic instruments.” Specifically, there is a need for:

1. Comprehensive human rights strategy papers for problem countries, which analyze the three key issues; our specific human rights objectives in such countries, the relationship between human rights objectives and other U.S. national objectives, and the array of policy instruments which can be used to further the human rights effort.

I believe that U.S. human rights objectives must be part of a comprehensive country strategy which takes into account both U.S. goals and available policy instruments. In certain countries, human rights violations may be so egregious as to overshadow completely all other considerations. But only when such a country strategy is delineated can we decide what U.S. position on prospective IFI loans (and bilateral assistance programs) is the proper one to achieve our objectives. Our current procedures focus too much on specific loans rather than on how, and with what policy instruments, we can most effectively induce offending governments to alter their human rights practices.2

2. A clearer set of criteria for invoking sanctions in the IFIs and for excepting loans which directly meet basic human needs. In my view, sanctions in the IFIs generally should be applied only after our several bilateral policy instruments have been tried.

3. Agreement to limit the use of U.S. votes in the IFIs to clear-cut situations of gross violations, where we are most likely to be supported by other members.

4. A systematic effort to keep other like-minded governments informed of our views and intentions regarding loans to countries which present serious human rights problems, and for ongoing consultations with such governments aimed at developing greater consensus on criteria and policies for dealing with human rights problems.

We need to develop a clear, consistent, and careful approach for dealing with human rights in the international development banks [Page 416] which will engender support both from other governments and the Congress. I believe our two departments should try to develop such an approach as quickly as possible.

W. Michael Blumenthal3
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 16, Human Rights—IFIs. No classification marking. A handwritten notation on the memorandum indicates that it was received in S on March 6. Attached as Tab 1 to a March 10 memorandum from Benson to Vance and Christopher, in which Benson had endorsed Blumenthal’s suggestions concerning the human rights strategy papers. A March 20 draft response from Christopher to Blumenthal is ibid. In a note to Christopher, attached to the draft response, Oxman suggested that it “could serve as the talking points for a meeting with him.”
  2. Vance underlined this sentence.
  3. Blumenthal signed “Mike” over his typed signature.