137. Briefing Memorandum From the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Schneider) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)1

SUBJECT

  • Fraser Amendment on 502B

The following are the reasons why HA believes that the Administration’s position should be to support the Fraser Amendment or to adopt a position of not being in opposition to the amendment.2

First, opposing the amendment would place the Administration in the awkward position of opposing a strong human rights condition on security assistance. We would have to defend the position of desiring to provide weapons to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations.

Second, historically this language is identical to language adopted by the Congress in 1976 and then vetoed by President Ford. It clearly was a position adopted by a Democratic Congress.

Third, contrary to the L/PM argument, the amendment does not require a formal determination that a particular country is engaged in a consistent pattern. We would simply be carrying out the same analysis that we now undertake with regard to the IFIs and AID.

Fourth, the amendment does not alter the “extraordinary circumstances” exception and thus flexibility is maintained.

Finally, the amendment would have the desirable effect of establishing the same psychological circumstances which now govern our analysis of economic instruments. The end result, therefore, should be a far better balance between economic and security assistance decisions in the human rights area.

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 16, Human Rights—Don Fraser. Limited Official Use. Heidi Hanson (HA) initialed for Schneider.
  2. Presumable reference to the first Fraser amendment referenced in Oxman’s memorandum to Christopher; see footnote 5, Document 136.