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

144. Memorandum From the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher) to Secretary of State Vance¹

Washington, May 10, 1978

SUBJECT

• Improved Coordination of Decisions on Economic and Military Programs in Light of Human Rights Considerations

Cy:

This memorandum analyzes the problems we have discussed concerning the lack of coordination in our decision-making on economic and military assistance issues as affected by human rights considerations. It then proposes a remedy which I think will be effective and ought to be implemented promptly.

The Problem

There is a pressing need to assure greater coordination of our decisions on economic and military programs in light of human rights considerations. Under current procedures, human rights review of economic programs is essentially divorced from human rights review of military programs. Moreover, such human rights review as does occur as to both types of programs has not always entailed coordinated consideration of our other fundamental foreign policy interests, in addition to human rights.

More specifically, under current procedures, on military assistance PM conducts a case-by-case review of military issues raising human rights concerns. This review is conducted in accordance with procedures developed by the Arms Export Control Board (AECB) which provide for full participation by HA, S/P, the relevant regional bureau, AID, and ACDA (when the transfer has significant arms control implications). Where differences of view on human rights issues cannot be resolved through these procedures, the matter has been decided through appeal to T and then, if the dispute persists, through Action Memoranda to the Secretary (or the Deputy Secretary if he is acting for the Secretary in the matter). Attempts to resolve the differences at the Bureau level have sometimes produced lengthy delays.

As for economic assistance, the Interagency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance, which I chair, currently brings human rights considerations to bear on bilateral and multilateral economic assistance programs. (The Group includes representatives of State, Treasury, DOD, AID, and the NSC staff, as well as participants from Agriculture, Commerce, OMB, Ex-Im and OPIC. State’s participants include HA, EB, S/P, L, H, E, P, C, T and each of the regional bureaus.) The Group is authorized, under a recently adopted procedure, to consider military programs, but only after any dispute as to them has gone through the usually quite time-consuming PM and T review set forth above, and upon referral from you. As a result, the Group is not likely to be seized of military issues in a timely fashion.

In short, we have a situation in the human rights area in which: (a) decisions on economic matters concerning a particular country are isolated to a very substantial degree from decisions on military matters concerning that country, and (b) the full range of our fundamental interests with respect to a particular country is not clearly brought to bear in the decision-making process. The disadvantages of this anomalous situation are quite substantial. The risk of making inconsistent decisions is plain. The Congress is particularly aware of the disjunction in our current procedures.

The Recommended Solution

To remedy this situation, it is proposed (a) that the Interagency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance should also review military issues as soon as it appears that there is an inter-bureau or interagency dispute involving the human rights implications of the issue in question, and (b) that when the Group is seized with an appeal on economic or military programs for a given country, the regional bureaus should present for discussion by the Group an overall strategy for coordinated use of economic and military programs for that country.

Under the proposal, PM would continue to conduct its case-by-case review of military programs, but as soon as any bureau or agency raised a human rights objection to the case in question, the matter would be referred to the Interagency Group. (T is currently represented on the Interagency Group; a PM representative should be added under this proposal.) The Group would promptly review the matter and make a recommendation to the Secretary. As part of this consolidation, the Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology would become Vice Chairman of the Interagency Group. (Let me say that while I do not covet regularly chairing the group for both economic and military matters, I think it would be best if I do so, for two reasons. First, economic and military issues will have to be considered together as part of a countrywide approach, and it would not be practical to alternate the chairmanship as one or the other type of issue is raised in the course of a single meeting. Secondly, there would be great bureaucratic resistance—both within the building and from other agencies—to the alternating chairmanship approach.)

In addition under the proposal, the regional bureau’s representative at the Group’s meetings would set forth—either orally or in writing—the range of our fundamental interests with respect to the country in question and would state the bureau’s views as to the means by which we can most effectively pursue those interests over time. This presentation would have to include a complete, detailed inventory of all impending decisions as to economic and military matters, including decisions as to particular transactions as well as planned programs and allocations for the next fiscal year and the next budget. To provide context, the regional bureau’s presentation would also have to include a detailed specification of relevant decisions of this kind in the recent past.

In particular, this inventory—which the regional bureaus would be responsible for preparing in advance for all countries likely to be reviewed by the Interagency Group—should include comprehensive data on the following programs and relationships:

Economic:

—AID development assistance

—PL 480 food aid

—IFI loans

—OPIC programs

—CCC credits

—Tariff treatment

—US stockpile management

—International agreements, e.g., civil air

—Other

Military:

—FMS (credit and cash)

—IMET

—MAP

—Export licenses for munitions list items

—Other

The regional bureau’s presentation would then be discussed by the Group. Differences of opinion would be fully aired. After full discussion, the Group would make recommendations on the particular matters under review. To the degree feasible, the Group would seek to make recommendations that applied to categories of transactions and programs and that covered the foreseeable future, thus providing adequate guidance to obviate the necessity for frequent meetings of the Group to consider the same country.

In conclusion, I would note that the proposals set forth above do not entail a net expansion of functions. Rather, they bring together in one entity a number of functions that are currently being performed disjointedly but which must be coordinated if they are to be performed effectively.

If you agree with the proposal, it will be necessary for you to discuss it with Lucy.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 8, Memoranda to the Secretary—1978. No classification marking. Christopher sent the memorandum to Vance under a May 23 covering memorandum, indicating that in light of discussions held on May 22, he thought “the best course will be for me to put the attached memorandum back in my drawer for the time being.” (Ibid.)