130. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (Holbrooke) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)1
Position on the Fascell/Fraser Bill To Establish an Institute For Human Rights and Freedom
The attached memorandum (Tab A)2 recommending options regarding the Fascell/Fraser Bill (HR 11320) to establish an Institute for Human Rights and Freedom has just come to my attention. Since the establishment of a U.S. Government-funded organization to provide support for private (non-governmental) human rights activities in foreign countries has potential political consequences for our bilateral relations with a number of East Asian countries, I would like to let you know this Bureau’s opinions regarding Departmental support for the bill as it is now drafted (text of bill is at Tab B).3
I would like to associate EA with the position taken by S/P4—to support the bill if certain changes are made. I do believe that such an Institute could provide valuable support for the Administration’s human rights policy while enhancing the degree of cooperation with the non-governmental organizations concerned.
My reservations concern two provisions of the bill, notably a mandate for the Institute (as an agent of the U.S. Government) to disseminate material in foreign countries that has been suppressed by their governments and, secondly, the proposed charter for the Institute to operate independently of the Secretary of State. Other provisions of the bill include authorization for the Director of the Institute to “make and perform contract and other agreements with any nongovernmental person however designated” (Sec. 7.(a)(3)), authorization for the Institute to draw upon “information, services, facilities, officers, and employees” of any private or USG organization (Sec. 7.(a)(7)), and authorization for it to “make advances, grants, and loans to any nongovernmental person, whether within or without the U.S.” (Sec. 7.(a)(9)).
[Page 433]The Department, under your direction and utilizing our Ambassadors, has had success in carrying out the President’s human rights policies abroad. Essential to this has been the role the Department and our Ambassadors have played in determining the best tactics for obtaining our objectives and ensuring proper coordination of all USG agencies in Washington and abroad. We have been successful in convincing many governments of the need for them to ameliorate human rights conditions. If an autonomous agency of the USG enters the field abroad, we will face a more difficult task since there is bound to be a lack of synchronization in our actions. The effectiveness of the US human rights policy, and its credibility in this field, would very likely be diminished rather than enhanced. We will surely find, for example, that the actions of the new Institute would be seen by some governments as USG support for opposition efforts to overthrow or destabilize them.
Recommendation:
That you convene a meeting of Assistant Secretaries to discuss the Fascell/Fraser Bill.5
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P780066–1955. Limited Official Use. Drafted by Martens and Frank Bennett. A typewritten notation on the first page of the memorandum reads: “This memo has been OBE’d. No further action will be taken at this time. Per D/S. Oxman, 4/12/78.↩
- Not attached. Printed as Document 126.↩
- Not attached.↩
- See Document 131.↩
- There is no indication as to whether Christopher approved or disapproved this recommendation.↩