126. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian), the Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations (Bennet), and the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Lake) to Secretary of State Vance1
SUBJECT
- Department Position on Fascell/Fraser Bill to Establish an Institute for Human Rights and Freedom
Issue for Decision
Whether the Department should support the legislation introduced by Congressmen Dante Fascell and Donald Fraser to establish an “Institute for Human Rights and Freedom.”2
Essential Factors
Congressmen Fascell and Fraser introduced legislation on March 7 to establish an independent Federal agency, the Institute for Human Rights and Freedom. The Institute, modeled in part on the National Endowment of the Arts and the Inter-American Foundation, would provide financial and other assistance to private individuals and groups to “openly carry out and promote international respect and observance for human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
Our support is expected on the bill. Endorsing it will yield certain advantages. Opposing it, however, will certainly entail significant political disadvantages.
To date this Administration, which has identified itself fully with a higher priority for human rights, has opposed virtually all legislative human rights initiatives since taking office, thereby raising doubts as to our intentions. The Institute bill is receiving wide support on the Hill [Page 424] and has Brzezinski’s support (see attachment).3 It is being referred to on the Hill as being a “motherhood” Bill.) Hearings tentatively are scheduled in the House for April 5 and 6.4 The Bill is also receiving substantial support from the NGO community including church groups, the International Commission of Jurists, Freedom House, and the International League for Human Rights.
The authors of the legislation have emphasized the autonomy and independence of the Institute. It will be governed by a seven-member board of directors appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. It would have a staff of no more than twenty-five members. The board members are to be chosen from among “individuals in private life with a demonstrated concern for, and experience in matters pertaining to, human rights and fundamental freedoms.” No more than four directors may be in the same political party. The term would be for six years with appointments staggered every two years. An executive director selected by the board would be the day-to-day manager.
The funding of the Institute would be through annual appropriations with a $5 million authorization for FY ’79. It would be a non-profit corporation able to accept private bequests as well.
The Bill attempts to ensure that the Institute would be aware of U.S. foreign policy concerns while avoiding the suspicion that it is an instrument of U.S. policy.
The Bill states “the Secretary of State shall keep the Institute informed on U.S. foreign policy as it relates to activities of the Institute. The Institute shall give consideration to the foreign policy of the U.S. in carrying out this act but shall not be subject to the direction of the Secretary of State in carrying out its responsibilities under this Act.”
Possible amendments to this section could range from having the Secretary’s designee sitting as an ex-officio member of the board, or, as in the case of the Inter-American Foundation, with voting powers. More acceptable to the authors might be a provision which stated that the board should maintain liaison with the Department and invite the Secretary’s designee to participate in its deliberations.
The Institute’s functions according to the legislation are to provide assistance to human rights NGO’s “by means consistent with the UN [Page 425] Charter and other international obligations of the U.S.”, to run or support conferences and seminars, to provide assistance for the publication of books and displays of art suppressed for political reasons, carrying out research and studies, assisting NGOs which support victims of political persecution and their families including the provision of legal aid. Such assistance can only be with the consent of the recipient and must be provided openly. If activities are carried out in a foreign country, they must be consistent with the laws of that country. One approach could be to try to restrict the Institute to informational activities, including arranging for conferences, and research on human rights, and even of publication or display in the U.S. of books and art banned abroad, but eliminate funding for organizations, individuals, and activities abroad which would provide the greatest chance of seriously embarassing our foreign policy. The sponsors of the legislation are likely to resist such constraints strongly, however, since one of their principal motivations is to assist the legal defense of individuals and groups imprisoned or arrested on human rights grounds abroad.
Possible Options
1. Support the Fascell/Fraser Bill.
Pro
—Such an entity can be helpful in supporting efforts to improve human rights conditions abroad and in expanding our knowledge and understanding of human rights issues.
—Places the USG in support of a Congressional human rights initiative.
—The Institute will be a key mechanism to support those private NGOs in the human rights field and our support will be viewed favorably by that constituency.
—Will expand U.S. influence with human rights constituencies overseas.
Con
—Some countries may object to activities of the NGOs which are supported by the Institute and blame the USG because of our funding of the Institute.
—There would be no control over the Institute’s activities by the Department of State so that activities it undertook could cause difficulties in our bilateral relations with repressive regimes.
2. Support the legislation but endorse amendments to increase the State Department’s role in the direction of the Institute’s activities.
Pro
—It would place the USG in support of the general human rights thrust of the bill.
[Page 426]—It would provide for the possibility of greater State Department control over the activities of the Institute and diminish the likelihood of conflicts with U.S. foreign policy concerns.
Con
—The value of the Institute is in part its independence which will avoid the appearance of being an instrument of U.S. policy thus permitting activities to be undertaken that the State Department could not fund and making it more acceptable internationally.
—Since it is unlikely we would get more than one State Department board member, we would never have complete control and yet we would be held far more responsible for all of its activities by others.
3. Support establishment of an Institute but propose limiting its functions to holding of conferences and conducting of research on human rights issues, but not providing funding or grants for individuals or organizations, or sponsoring any activity in foreign countries.
Pro
—It would provide a basis for individuals concerned with human rights to meet regularly and exchange views and information.
—It would meet a need for clarifying some basic concepts in the human rights field, particularly economic and social human rights.
—It would eliminate the chance of serious foreign policy embarrassment as a result of disbursement of funds to groups or individuals whose activities could be strongly resented and objected to by foreign governments.
Con
—Would not meet the interest of the sponsors in providing funding for responsible human rights groups.
—May be criticized by some NGOs which look to the funding aspect of the Bill.
—Could be criticized as an Administration attempt to “gut” the Bill and eliminate an independent voice in the human rights field, and thus “undercut” our human rights policy position.
4. Oppose the legislation and argue that all of its proposed activities can be undertaken by existing agencies.
Pro
—Clearly places the Department in opposition to the creation of another agency, one whose ultimate activities through NGOs would affect conditions in other countries and U.S. bilateral interests.
[Page 427]—Avoid the creation of another agency while directing existing agencies, perhaps the National Endowment for the Humanities, to undertake some of its research and conference supporting functions.
Con
—It would produce a significant opposition on the Hill and in the NGO community and undercut the Administration’s human rights policy.
—It would alienate key human rights and foreign policy supporters.
—Existing agencies, including the Endowment, are both currently restricted in their funding and would find it difficult to move into this area even to a limited extent and many of the proposed activities could not be undertaken under present charters of those agencies.
Recommendation
That you endorse Option 1 (supported by HA, H and L).
That you endorse Option 2.
That you endorse Option 3 (supported by S/P).
That you approve Option 4.5
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P780066–1957. Limited Official Use. Sent through Christopher, who did not initial the memorandum. Drafted by Schneider on March 14; concurred in by Runyon and Hume, who did not initial the memorandum. Kreisberg initialed the memorandum on Lake’s behalf. The date is hand-stamped.↩
- Fascell and Fraser introduced H.R. 11326 in the House on March 7, whereupon it was referred to the House Committee on International Relations. Zablocki, under a March 14 letter to Vance, sent a copy of the bill to the Department of State, requesting the Department’s comments on the proposed legislation. H.R. 11326 outlined the functions, bureaucratic structure, powers, and responsibilities of the proposed Institute for Human Rights and Freedom. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P780039–2463)↩
- Attached but not printed. In the March 13 letter to Fraser, Brzezinski wrote: “I have learned of your sponsorship along with others of H.R. 11326 which would create an Institute for Human Rights. I heartily support you and the other sponsors in that effort. I believe that such an institute will significantly contribute on a global basis to the improvement of respect for human rights.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P780066–1963)↩
- The hearings began on April 13. See Document 135.↩
- There is no indication as to whether Vance approved or disapproved any of the four options.↩