161. Memorandum From Jessica Tuchman Mathews and Robert Pastor of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski)1
SUBJECT
- The OAS and Human Rights
Attached at Tab A is a letter to the President from Secretary General Orfila officially informing him of the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights and thanking him for his attendance at the OAS meeting.2 We believe that no reply is necessary.
In sending the letter to State for comment, we also asked for suggestions of steps which could be taken by the Administration to encourage Senate ratification of the OAS Convention. Now that the Convention is officially in force, thanks in large part to our efforts, we look a little silly in not being able to take part in its implementation since we have not ratified. State discussed ratification with Church’s staff and reports that prospects are not bright. The Convention contains many [Page 521] controversial provisions including those on abortion and capital punishment, and there is also the question of whether the Genocide Treaty and other UN documents should be handled first. State’s assessment, with which we agree, is that nothing could be accomplished unless we assign ratification a relatively high priority and in particular, unless we enlist the vigorous support of the human rights community—of whom many have a special interest in Latin America.
If you approve, we intend to work with State and Madeleine Albright in undertaking additional informal consultations with Senate leadership and staff concerning the possibilities of moving ahead with ratification. In parallel, we would also meet with the human rights community, and would then submit a suggested priority assignment for ratification.
It doesn’t appear at first glance as though ratification of all the human rights treaties is a terribly important issue, but as the current Pravda propaganda campaign illustrates, our failure to ratify these international documents makes us vulnerable to the argument that our human rights policy is “solely for export”.3 It is incongruous when set alongside our aggressive human rights policy.
Also, the Senate’s failure to act provides the President with a potent argument against those who maintain that Congress is the chief actor on human rights. In this case at least, the President has taken important solid initiatives which the Congress has failed to follow through on. This is an argument we should make much better use of, and we will think about ways to do so.
[Page 522]Recommendation:
That you agree that no response to Orfila’s letter is necessary.
That you approve our proposed plan of action to explore the possibilities of securing ratification of the pending human rights treaties—especially the OAS Convention—during the next session of Congress.4
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, North–South Pastor Files, Subject File, Box 56, Human Rights: 6–12/78. No classification marking. Sent for action. Sent through Albright, who did not initial the memorandum. A handwritten notation on the memorandum reads: “FYI—Bob Pastor.”↩
- Attached but not printed. In the July 19 letter to the President, Orfila referenced the Government of Grenada’s actions in bringing the convention into force and effect by the deposit of its instrument of ratification in Washington on July 18.↩
- In telegram 19745 from Moscow, August 17, the Embassy reported that Pravda had capitalized upon an August 9 speech Young delivered in New York, in which he referenced the failure of the United States to ratify the Genocide Convention as “the taking off point for an aggressive attack on the administration’s human rights policy.” The Embassy summarized an August 17 Pravda column, noting that Pravda’s Washington correspondent had asserted that “Americans are beginning to understand, however, that the human rights policy proclaimed by the administration is intended exclusively ‘for export’ and has no influence in the U.S. itself.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780338–0997) In telegram 19933 from Moscow, August 21, the Embassy noted that the Soviet press “continues to belabor propaganda theme that the U.S. abuses human rights at home while promoting them for selfish (usually anti-Soviet) purposes abroad.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780341–0955) In the NSC Global Issues Cluster’s evening report for August 21, Tuchman Mathews referred to the “propaganda campaign” and the failure to ratify various human rights agreements, adding: “but it is clear that the continuing failure to ratify does not comport well with an aggressive policy on our part. This argument falls on receptive ears in many Third World countries and it is therefore perhaps worth considering whether to raise the priority of these agreements in next year’s legislative reports.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Global Issues—Oplinger/Bloomfield Subject File, Box 36, Evening Reports: 7–8/78)↩
- There is no indication that Brzezinski approved or disapproved either recommendation.↩