Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

132. Memorandum From Secretary of State Vance and the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher) to President Carter¹

Washington, March 27, 1978

SUBJECT

• Letter from Congressional Group That Recently Visited Latin America

We have reviewed the letter given to you last week by the seven Congressmen who recently visited Latin America. Their principal claim is that we have been “overly rigid” in bringing human rights considerations to bear on economic assistance decisions, especially as to votes in the IFIs.²

We are committed to the proposition that it is preferable to use positive actions (“rewards”) and normal diplomatic channels rather than “sanctions” in pursuing our human rights objectives. However, in addition to the general thrust of our human rights policy, we are explicitly required by a wide array of federal statutes to oppose grants or loans to human rights violators.

We have acted with moderation in these matters. Of the over 400 loans that have been voted on in the IFIs since January 1977, we have voted against only nine and abstained on only 14 on human rights grounds. In addition, we have sought to defer consideration of about 20 loans pending human rights developments in the countries in question; in several of these cases the deferrals were only temporary.

The countries that applied for the loans as to which we cast negative votes, abstained, or obtained postponements number only 13, as follows:

No Votes	Abstentions	Postponed
Argentina	Argentina	Chile
Chile	Benin	El Salvador
Paraguay	Central African Empire	Korea
South Yemen	Ethiopia	Nicaragua
Uruguay	Guinea	Paraguay
	Korea	Uruguay
	Philippines

We have also been moderate in withholding or delaying our bilateral economic aid on human rights grounds. Of hundreds of AID projects that have been considered since January 1977, we deferred only 22, five of which were subsequently approved. The very low ratio of deferral results from the fact that virtually all of these projects meet basic human needs. Only six countries were involved, as follows:

• Central African Empire
• Chile
• Ethiopia
• Nicaragua
• Paraguay
• Uruguay

The Congressmen allude to “conditions” in the legislation that would “permit flexible administration.” They are presumably referring to the fact that the human rights provisions apply only to governments engaged in “a consistent pattern of gross violations” of human rights and that even as to such governments the amendment permits approval if the loan or project would directly benefit the needy. However, there can be little doubt that the governments of the countries listed above are (or were at the time of the vote) engaged in serious violations of human rights, some in greater degree than others. As for the other “condition” in the legislation—the “needy people” exception—we have already put as much strain on it as it can bear.

All of our actions in this area are the result of deliberations by the Interagency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance. The Group was set up last April pursuant to an NSC directive. To promote better understanding of the lengths to which we have gone to assure that our foreign assistance programs reflect our human rights concerns, we have prepared the attached summary of the Group’s background and operations (Tab 1).³ This summary stresses that the Group’s main purpose is to carry out the applicable statutory provisions and that it has full representation from State’s geographical bureaus as well as current information from our embassies in the countries involved.

Our human rights policy is by no means all “sanctions”. Consistent with P.D. 30,⁴ we are intensifying efforts to direct a growing share of our bilateral economic assistance to governments that show respect for human rights. We are also encouraging the IFI managements to channel their lending to countries with good human rights records and to programs that serve basic human needs. We have urged several of our allies to convey the same message to IFI managements, and we believe some of them are about to do so. (As you know, in response to P.D. 30, an interagency study is underway on the effectiveness of recent U.S. actions in the IFIs, and it will shed further light on the issues discussed above.)⁵ In general, we believe that greater emphasis on “rewards” rather than “sanctions” can lead to beneficial results.

A proposed response to the Congressmen is attached under Tab 2.⁶

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Withdrawn Material, RC # 1126, Box 3 of 9. Confidential. Christopher, in a March 22 memorandum to Vance, indicated that he had drafted the memorandum to the President “from the two of us because he sent the Congressmen’s letter to each of us. You may prefer to respond alone. The proposed response is longer than I would like, but I think it is important for him to see the numbers and countries involved.” (National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 8, Memoranda to the Secretary—1978)
2. During January 1978, Representatives Moorhead, Minish, LaFalce, Wilson, Stanton, Brown, and Hyde traveled to Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia to investigate IADB projects within those nations. In a March 16 letter to the President, the Representatives asserted, “in practice the Presidential and Congressional directives have been too rigidly applied. We concluded that overly rigid application of human rights position by economic sanctions through multilateral agencies are not effective and are probably counterproductive.” After offering their support for the President’s statements on human rights, the co-authors expressed their belief that the Department of State “has overreacted to expressions from the President and the Congress in a way that is not only detrimental to the United States but also to the people about whose human rights we are concerned.” The President’s handwritten notations on the letter instructed that both Vance and Christopher receive copies of it. (Ibid.)
3. Not found attached. Possible reference to a paper entitled “The Interagency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance,” prepared in the Department of State on March 9. (National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 21, Interagency Group—General/IAG Memo)
4. See Document 119.
5. The Interagency Group’s report is printed as Document 139.
6. Attached but not printed is the undated “suggested reply” from the President. The April 12 letter the President sent to Moorhead and a handwritten May 10 note from Oxman to Christopher indicating that Carter had “sent the letter we gave him, with some modifications that made it even stronger” are in the National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Withdrawn Material, RC #1126, Box 3 of 9.