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

135. Memorandum From Roberta Cohen of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Schneider)¹

Washington, April 17, 1978

SUBJECT

• Congressional Hearings on Human Rights Institute Bill, April 13, 1978

Hearings on the Fraser-Fascell bill to establish an Institute for Human Rights and Freedom began April 13. They were held jointly by the Subcommittee on International Operations and the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the House Committee on International Relations.

Five witnesses were heard and all testified in favor of the bill. They were: Frank Newman (Justice, Supreme Court of California); Alan U. Schwartz (Counsel, International Freedom to Publish Committee); Leonard Meeker (Director, International Project, Center for Law and Social Policy); Stephen I. Schlossberg (Director of Government and Public Affairs, UAW, accompanied by Leo A. Suslow, Director of International Affairs Department, UAW); and Jan Nowak (former Director of Polish Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe).

Functions of the Institute (Section 3 (a))

Several amendments and suggestions were made with regard to the functions of the Institute:

1) Conferences and Seminars—One amendment was the deletion of the provision that the Institute support or sponsor conferences and seminars on human rights (3 (a) (2)). Frank Newman argued that there had already been too many conferences and seminars. If the provision were not deleted, it should be re-worded to provide for conferences and seminars that “would not just talk about human rights” but give serious consideration to “how to promote increased respect for and observance of human rights.”

In contrast, Jan Nowak proposed that in addition to the holding of conferences and seminars in the United States, they should be held around the world in order to encourage the establishment of an International Institute on Human Rights.

2) Inclusion of Domestic Human Rights—It was proposed that the Bill refer to domestic human rights. It was felt that either the Institute support domestic human rights programs or that reference be made to the fact that this problem was being handled elsewhere. Otherwise, the Bill would create the impression that the U.S. was interested in promoting human rights “in foreign countries” but not at home, in contravention of its commitments under the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act.

Frank Newman proposed that the Preamble refer to human rights and fundamental freedom “for all” so that the Bill could not be construed to focus exclusively on foreign countries.

Alan Schwartz noted that because only limited funds were available ($5 million), it might be more appropriate to strengthen the Civil Rights Commission or create a new institution; however, reference should be made to domestic human rights in the Bill. If a larger appropriation were forthcoming, some of the funds could then be donated to organizations for domestic human rights purposes. Stephen Schlossberg concurred with this view.

3) Economic Rights—It was proposed that the promotion of economic rights (in particular health care, trade union rights, etc.) should receive adequate emphasis in the programs funded by the Institute; civil and political liberties should not be the sole focus. (This point was made by Stephen Schlossberg—UAW).

4) Creation of New Institutions and Procedures—Attention should be paid to the creation of national and international machinery and procedures (e.g., 1503 procedures) which would fill gaps in existing international human rights protection. Frank Newman² said that much could be learned in this regard from the civil rights and civil liberties movements in the U.S. He criticized the State Department for placing insufficient emphasis on the creation of institutions. He objected to its treatment of human rights as “diplomacy” which bargained human rights away. The Department, he said, was focusing too heavily in its speeches on whether prisoners had been released. Warren Christopher’s clearinghouse proposal, he said, was a step in the right direction, but a very small one.³

5) Human Rights Awards—Jan Nowak proposed that the Institute make annual awards to individuals who made an outstanding contribution to international human rights or for the articles or books they published. This would protect individuals and also mitigate the effects of censorship.

6) Assistance to Organizations and Individuals in the U.S.—Alan Schwartz noted that the Bill specifically mentioned organizations “in the U.S.” only once (Sec. 3(a) (6)). He urged that the Bill ensure funding to groups in the U.S. promoting international human rights and to individuals and their families residing in the U.S. who were the victims of violations, for example, who had been stripped of their citizenship while visiting the U.S.

Financial Assistance Provided by the Institute (Section 3 (b))

The following recommendations were made with respect to financial assistance provided by the Institute:

1) Providing Assistance Openly—Leonard Meeker proposed the deletion of the phrase “only with the consent of the recipient” from the provision: “Financial or other assistance may be provided under this Act only with the consent of the recipient and shall be provided openly.” (Section 3 (b) (3)). He said its inclusion implied that the Institute might try to provide assistance without the recipient’s consent. He furthermore noted that in some cases, consent could not be gotten. He considered sufficient the phrase “shall be provided openly”. Jan Nowak concurred with this deletion and further proposed the deletion of “provided openly.” He argued that this provision could endanger victims of political oppression; they would be perfectly free to refuse help but should not be involved beyond this point.

Alan Schwartz’ testimony to the contrary stressed the necessity for providing assistance openly. In his opinion, while the Bill’s requirement of complete disclosure of grants of the Institute “may well foreclose the possibility of having grants made to those who require anonymity in order to protect their own security and that of their families, this limitation is far outweighed by the need to have all of the activities of the Institute placed on a fully open basis . . . To permit any covert operation in this area, regardless of the motive, would be counter-productive to the objectives of the Institute.”

In this connection, Mr. Schwartz furthermore proposed that the “detailed report” to be submitted by the Institute to the President and Congress be a published report (Section 9). He noted that whereas Section 4 on Public Information specifically referred to the publication of Institute grants, Section 9 could imply a covert relationship between the Institute and the President and Congress, harmful to the independence of the Institute and to the NGOs and individuals it would support.

2. Consistency with Foreign Laws—Leonard Meeker proposed the deletion of the phrase “Assistance provided under this Act for use in a foreign country must be consistent with the laws of that country” (Section 3 (b) (4)). He argued that this phrase would encourage governments to find reasons for discouraging assistance, i.e., they would claim that grants made by the Institute violated internal laws. Secondly, he argued, it would be too difficult to determine what was consistent with the laws of another country, and the Institute was not the appropriate body to interpret and apply foreign laws.⁴

Jan Nowak concurred; so did Alan Schwartz but he proposed amending the wording to read that assistance provided for use in a foreign country should be consistent with “the various constitutions or other governing documents of that country.” He noted that repressive regimes were “notorious in their desire to put high-flown and democratic phraseology into their constitutions.”

3) Jan Nowak proposed that the Institute “match” privately-raised funds to NGOs in order to enhance and stimulate public support for human rights projects rather than replace it.

Relationship to United States Foreign Policy (Section 5)

Most witnesses stressed the necessity of Institute independence from the U.S. Government. In this connection, Leonard Meeker proposed the deletion of this entire Section. (The Section reads: “The Secretary of State shall keep the Institute fully informed on United States foreign policy as it relates to the activities of the Institute. The Institute shall give consideration to the foreign policy of the United States 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.”)

Leonard Meeker further proposed for the same reason that the Institute should not be allowed to avail itself of “the use of information, services, facilities, officers” etc. of the U.S. abroad (Sec. 7 (a) (7)).

Alan Schwartz’s testimony to the contrary supported Section 5 on the grounds that it gave the Institute governmental “clout” with foreign governments and at the same time enabled it to retain its independence.

Management of the Institute (Section 6)

The following amendments were made:

1) Politicization of the Institute—To ensure that the Institute would promote human rights globally and not become the tool of either the right or left (a point raised by Congressman Fraser), Frank Newman proposed that the preamble of the Bill refer to “universal” respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and that Section 6 (Management of the Institute) read that the Board of Directors have a demonstrated concern for, and experience in matters pertaining to “universal respect for” human rights and fundamental freedoms. This, he commented, could help ensure that issues such as preventive detention in the Federal Republic of Germany, race relations in the U.K. and migrant labor problems in Europe be given adequate attention.

2) Alan Schwartz proposed that all members of the Board of Directors should not be appointed by the President; some should be appointed by Congress. This would ensure that the body which created the Institute would have a continuing voice in its composition.

3) Alan Schwartz further proposed that the Executive Director’s term of office be limited to 4 years with the right to have his term renewed. (The current Bill places no limit on the term.)

4) It was pointed out that the Board should not get locked into trying to give equal attention to all NGOs. Careful criteria should be developed for making grants. Emphasis should be on funding projects that would increase the protection of human rights and not on funding “pet” NGOs.

Corruption of NGOs

Congressman Fraser raised the problem of whether furnishing Government funds to NGOs would “corrupt” them. The general response was no. Some organizations (e.g., the ICJ) already accepted U.S. Government funds and this had not prejudiced their policies, programs or effectiveness. In Alan Schwartz’s view, Government financing would give greater “leverage” to private groups in their dealings with foreign governments. It was noted that in some cases, this problem would not arise because certain NGOs as a matter of principle would reject Government funds. If corruption took place, it would not be on the part of the NGOs but on the part of the Board of the Institute for trying to control the NGOs.

Relationship of the Institute to the Clearinghouse Proposal

Alan Schwartz in his statement seemed to feel that the clearinghouse was in essence created by the establishment of the Institute, since the Institute would coordinate human rights information.

Jan Nowak questioned whether the clearinghouse would have more credibility “if taken over by the Institute assisted in this task by information resources of the State Department” or if it were directly “carried on by the U.S. Government.”

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 15, Human Rights Center. No classification marking. Copies were sent to Derian, Morin, Jennone Walker, Oxman, and Runyon. David Kenney (H) also prepared a synopsis of the hearings in an April 19 memorandum, which he sent to Bennet, Derian, Oxman, and Walker. (Ibid.)
2. An unknown hand underlined Frank Newman’s name.
3. See footnote 4, Document 117.
4. An unknown hand bracketed this paragraph.