134. Action Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Lake), the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian), the Legal Adviser (Hansell), and the Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations (Bennet) to Secretary of State Vance1
SUBJECT
- The Human Rights Institute
Our suggested modifications to the Fascell-Fraser bill should aim at enhancing the proposed Institute’s independence of the Administration (and so limiting our responsibility for its choices of which human rights causes to take up) and at somewhat insulating the Institute itself from controversial political issues. We believe such changes would be in the interest of the Institute; the NGOs it supports; and the Administration.
This could be accomplished by the following specific changes in the Fascell-Fraser draft:
[Page 440]—The Institute should be authorized to assist only nongovernmental organizations abroad, not individuals, (Sections 3. (a) (1) p. 2; 3. (b) (1), p. 3; 7 (a) (3) p. 7; and (7) (a) (9), p. 8).
—All of the activities and programs assisted by the Institute abroad should be through NGOs, not directly (Sections 1–7).
—The Institute should not enjoy Executive mail privileges (Section 7. (a) (6), p. 3).
—It should not have access to Government “information, services, facilities, officers, and employees” (Section 7. (a) (7), p. 8). While agencies would have the right to deny this access, doing so would put them in an uncomfortable position. Granting the access would tie the Institute too closely to the Executive.
In addition, we think either the bill itself or its legislative history should make clear that the Institute’s grants to nongovernmental organizations are to be for generic rather than specific purposes: e.g., to legal aid in a particular country, but not for defense of a specific individual. It should be clear that no arm of the USG will get into the business of deciding who is a legitimate human rights victim in, for instance, South Korea or Iran—or of telling NGOs whom to consider legitimate victims.
Most of us think the Institute should be specifically prohibited from assisting groups which engage in or support terrorism or violence. L believes this is sufficiently covered by the bill’s requirement that the Institute act in accordance with international law and the UN Charter, and that trying to define terrorism or violence would only raise problems.
Finally, we think the Institute should have offices only in the United States. While it will be operating in foreign countries, it should not set up permanent shop in any of them, lest it become directly engaged in controversial situations. (Section 7. (b), p. 8).
L sees no legal obstacle to the Institute’s providing legal defense to human rights victims, via NGOs, as envisioned in the draft bill.
Recommendation:
That the Deputy Secretary propose these modifications to Fascell and Fraser when he calls them to say he is willing to testify on the Hill.2
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P780087–0678. Unclassified. Sent through Christopher, who did not initial the memorandum. Drafted by Jennone Walker. Kreisberg initialed the memorandum for Derian; Marks initialed for Hansell. Not found attached is a copy of the draft Fascell-Fraser bill.↩
- There is no indication as to whether Vance approved or disapproved the recommendation, however, a typewritten note on the first page of the memorandum reads: “This memo is OBE’d. Meetings were held with Mr. Fascell, et al., in which the subject was discussed. No further action will be taken. Per D/SO 5/8/78.”↩