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

149. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State, the Embassy in Austria, and the Embassy in Cameroon¹

New York, June 23, 1978, 2231Z

2635. Vienna please pass Matteson USDel Women’s Prepcom. Yaounde please pass Deputy Asst Secretary Dalley. Subject: US Strategy for Human Rights Initiatives in the UN System. Ref: A) Geneva 08339,² B) Geneva 09185.³

1. USUN agrees with reftel A that a strategy session sometime this summer with at least the presence of Young, Wells, Maynes, Dalley, Vanden Heuvel and Mezvinsky would be helpful. Obviously, the presence of Hewitt, Tyson, Matteson and the human rights officer from US Mission Geneva and perhaps someone from US UNESCO office would be helpful, also. (Ambassador Young is now tentatively scheduled to be in Geneva July 3 to July 12.) This message is an attempt to place such a strategy meeting in the context of 1) a proposed general strategy, 2) a series of initiatives in which the US could participate and 3) preparatory meetings and consultations both before and after the session in Geneva.

2. As a general US human rights strategy in UN forums, USUN suggests that given the overall desire of the US to continue to build deeper and broader contacts with key non-aligned nations in both the political and human rights fields, the US should focus on initiatives which can be promoted with non-aligned as well as Western support. It appears to us that the major tasks at this time are: A) the building of a human rights alliance with key non-aligned nations (especially India and Nigeria) and supporting their human rights initiatives. B) Consolidating the recent increased interest in human rights and the recent advances under 1503 in the Human Rights Commission (HRC) by strengthening, upgrading and expanding the Human Rights Division (HRD) staff (see reftel B), and developing plans for an improved UN human rights organization and program to be presented to the next session of the HRC, which will probably be devoted largely to the overall analysis; and C) developing some positive US responses to the non-aligned aspirations expressed in 32/130⁴ for a greater concern with economic, social and cultural rights without sacrificing commitment to civil and political rights.

3. Perhaps the major task of the next few months is the development of a USG model of an ideal human rights program and organization to be the basis for our proposals and responses at the meeting on the “over-all analysis” of the HRC next February–March. It is here that the proposals for a High Commissioner, Regional Commission and Commissioners, Coordinator of Human Rights Programs and Activities with the rank of Under Secretary General, an enlarged commission, two sub-commissions, an International Court for Human Rights, etc., must be evaluated, integrated, and put into a package.

4. As some specific initiatives upon which to begin and in addition to the items contained in reftels A and B, USUN would suggest the following:

A) Proposal for a new agenda item for the General Assembly: “improving the coordination and communication among UN agencies in the struggle to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.” (This would include reports on human rights procedures and activities from ILO, UNESCO, WHO, regional human rights commissions, etc.) This proposal originated and is being developed by IO/HR.

B) A proposal for the General Assembly to authorize and fund a resumed session of the HRC in 1979 should the HRC decide that is cannot adequately complete the “overall analysis” of United Nations human rights programs in order to report to the General Assembly in 1979 (as mandated by 32/130).

C) A proposal (see reftel B) to upgrade the HRD to a department, to expand the staff of the HRD to include at least the following: four more officers in the field of private communications, a regional human rights field officer attached to each of the headquarters staffs of the regional economic commissions, and an additional officer in the New York liaison office.

D) A proposal to the Third Committee that the panel of experts created in 1969 be updated, and that its mandate be expanded to include human rights good offices missions as directed by the SYG, and that funding be allotted for such missions.

E) A strategy of presenting (or stimulating the presentation) to the sub-commission all the available documentation on the three or four most serious human rights national problems, in such a list seeking both ideological and geographical distribution, and seeking to expand the number of 1503 cases to include the worst human rights problems, such as Equatorial Guinea and Argentina.

F) Evaluation of the FRG proposal for the creation of an International Court of Human Rights, that could receive complaints from national tribunals or commissions, and perhaps the sub-commission.

G) Emphasis on the promotion of local, national and regional commissions.

H) Two meetings of the HRC per year, with a differentiated agenda, alternating meetings between New York and Geneva.

I) Discussion of methods to streamline the General Assembly to avoid current duplication in plenary, Third and Fourth Committees on such topics as the Middle East, South Africa and self-determination.

5. In addition to these specifics, USUN also sees some other general problem and or opportunity areas:

A) We need an initiative on racism and racial discrimination that will outflank 3379,⁵ and help us maintain our credibility in this area.

B) We need some initiatives in the area of economic human rights. Perhaps the food corps idea⁶ can be proposed this year.

C) Perhaps we should consider introducing again the US initiative on torture, calling for a special working group of experts to report each year to the General Assembly. This idea, which was originally developed by IO/HR two years ago, complements the process of drafting the convention.

6. USUN believes that the time is ripe for a series of coordinated human rights initiatives in the UN. The prerequisites to success in these efforts are: 1) staff preparation in-depth on each of the proposals selected, 2) continuous coordination and communication among IO, Geneva, and USUN, 3) coordinated and selective consultations with other governments in Washington, New York, Geneva and capitals. The Geneva strategy meetings can play an important role in an ongoing and open-ended process.

7. We agree with Mission Geneva (ref B para 7) that it is basic to the success of any initiatives to strengthen human rights machinery for Van Boven to enforce discipline on his own staff and gain major improvements in productivity. Only then can a demonstrable need for expansion be successfully carried. Secondly, despite the difficulties entailed in guidance furnished him by the UN Controller, USUN considers it essential that Van Boven scrupulously eschew any hint of legerdemain in seeking to justify staff increase (para 1 and 2, ref B). Weak or questionable evidence will merely invite highly effective Soviet attacks in UNGA Fifth Committee.

Leonard

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780263–0040. Limited Official Use. Repeated for information to the Mission in Geneva, Lagos, and New Delhi.
2. See Document 146.
3. In telegram 9185 from Geneva, June 16, the Mission communicated Van Boven’s concerns regarding the staffing and status of the UN Human Rights Division. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780252–0579)
4. Reference is to A/RES/32/130, “Alternative approaches and ways and means within the United Nations system for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,” adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1977. See Document 94.
5. Reference is to A/RES/3379(XXX), “Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 10, 1975.
6. See Document 236.