128. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Luers) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)1

SUBJECT

  • Institute for Human Rights and Freedom

Can we head off the Fascell/Fraser proposal to establish an “Institute for Human Rights and Freedom”?

There is one series of arguments that just might persuade both Don Fraser and Dante Fascell to revise their proposal. It goes like this:

—We agree fully that the U.S. Government needs more program money directed overtly toward the promotion of human rights.

—We have been discussing with the Endowments for the Humanities and the Arts, with USIA/ICA, with the Library of Congress, HEW and other agencies how significantly to increase budgetary programs for conferences, publication of books, art displays and research into human rights problems.

—Our approach has been to expand the activities of existing government agencies in all these activities so as to promote an integrated human rights policy. Our objective is for all agencies of government to think human rights when they act internationally and domestically.

—Part of the problem in redirecting budgets and programs toward human rights programs has been one of mandate. How “political” should the Endowments for example become in their domestic and international funding? Another problem has been one of inertia. How to get agencies and individuals to think “human rights” when they act?

—The best approach would be for the Congress to give a clear mandate to or indeed instruct specific government agencies to expand significantly funding of the human rights programs envisaged for the “Institute”.

—The advantages of such an approach are persuasive:

. . . We would not create still another government bureaucracy that could consume as much in overhead as in program money.

. . . We would require the major government agencies to develop programs to promote human rights—thereby integrating human rights [Page 430] more directly into the daily operations and thinking of the bureaucracy. Surely this is the major objective.

—We would designate a senior advisor to the President to assure that the major government agencies carry out this mandate.

—We would be prepared to give you specific draft legislation to redirect budgets of key agencies to cover virtually all of the programs envisaged by the “Institute”.

—If in two years time you do not witness a significant expansion of government positive programs for human rights we will strongly endorse your call for a separate “Institute”.

I have talked to Don and Dante along these lines and found them receptive to this line of reasoning. It may be too late to head off the enthusiasm developing for the Institute. But I am persuaded it is worth a try if the Executive Branch is prepared to demonstrate it can and will redirect existing budgets into positive human rights programs. They should be approached separately and informally.

I have also had discussions over the past four months with the two Endowments, with USIA/ICA and other agencies. I am convinced that all the major agencies would be willing and able to expand considerably their funding of human rights programs. I can provide you with a more elaborate agenda of the possible programs each of the agencies can and should undertake.

I have also been consulting outside government and have a pretty good feel for what would be acceptable in the way of U.S. Government money. Publishers, voluntary agencies, NGO’s and others in this area are quite justifiably chary of direct funding. But there are solutions and opportunities which I could suggest.

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 15, Human Rights Center. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Luers.