167. Memorandum From Jessica Tuchman Mathews of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski)1

SUBJECT

  • Human Rights: Country Reports, the UN Treaties and a New Strategy

The Foreign Assistance Act requires the Department of State to submit reports by January 31 of each year concerning “the observance of and respect for internationally recognized human rights” in every country proposed as the recipient of either economic or security assistance. The amendments requiring these reports were enacted before this Administration took office.2 Last year’s reports covered 106 countries.

In 1976 we submitted reports drafted by the Ford Administration since they were due one week after the Inauguration. These reports were widely attacked as inaccurate, a sham and a whitewash.3 Last year the reports went to the opposite extreme. Christopher insisted that they be detailed and that serious problems be treated with candor. Publication of the reports caused many problems. On the whole they were praised at home—favorable comparisons were drawn with the 1976 reports—but there were many objections from abroad.4 The Greece-[Page 534]Turkey-Cyprus reports were a particular source of trouble. So was the report on Israel (the West Bank). And there were several others.

The Administration is caught in a Catch-22. If the reports are honest enough to satisfy the domestic constituency, they will disturb important bilateral relations. If they are diplomatically drafted, they will be attacked in Congress as coverups. This year, in my judgment, the countries which clearly are sensitive, or may be so (depending on events between now and the end of the year), include: Zaire, Ecuador, Nicaragua, South Korea, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Turkey, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran and Israel.

I have two concerns: the immediate problem of how to approach this year’s reports; and the longer range question of what our policy should be towards the enactment of statutory reporting requirements?

With regard to this year’s reports, I recommend that the NSC ask to review State’s semi-final drafts before they are sent back to the embassies for comment.5 This may be sensitive since the documents will not yet be cleared and will be the subject of hot intra-State controversy, but if we wait until the end of the process it will be too difficult to make major changes. The schedule is as follows: The embassies have until October 13 to return their reporting (detailed questionnaires covering every aspect of human rights). The regional bureaus at State have until November 1 to comment on them. The Human Rights Bureau (HA) has until November 20 to comment on those drafts. Then INR, together with the bureaus and HA puts together semi-final drafts for Christopher’s final cut by December 20. I recommend that we ask to see the drafts by the end of November, i.e., after HA has worked over the regional drafts.

Regarding the more general problem, I can sympathize with Christopher’s conclusion of last year that we had to make the reports as thorough and accurate as possible in order to meet Congressional criticism of Administration weakness on human rights. To a certain degree we are still in the same position vis-a-vis the Congress this year, but I think the time has come to adopt a more sophisticated policy.6 Specifically, I recommend that this year we link (1) an aggressive (and if need be a critical) stance urging Congress to take meaningful action on human rights by ratifying the 5 international treaties which lie before it; with (2) a campaign to stop and then reverse the trend of enacting mandatory reports on the human rights behavior of foreign countries. (This year two new reporting requirements were added—to OPIC and Ex-Im [Page 535] legislation.7 Next year there could be more.) I suggest that these be linked so that there will be no question that in opposing the reporting requirements the Administration is really trying to back away from human rights. We need to be taking positive actions while we are pushing this “negative” action.8

Our effort on the treaties should begin with the Genocide Treaty since it has seniority and the most support. Once that hurdle is passed, and sufficient strength has been demonstrated by the pro-ratification forces, it may prove much easier to ratify the others. Ratification is certainly possible.9 Last spring, I organized an Administration-NGO group which undertook a vote count on this issue. Letters were sent to every Senator, and only an explicit answer was counted as a positive vote. The result was 53 solid votes for cloture (60 votes required), 11 leaning towards, and 5 undecided. For final passage, (67 votes required) we counted 55 solids, with 14 undecided or leaning towards. Garnering 7 votes for cloture and a maximum of 12 for final passage (absentees lower the total required), should not be very difficult. The elections will change these counts to some degree, but we are clearly almost there.

Our job can be made easier by keying it to the observance of the 30th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10). In recognition of this event, the public interest groups, led by the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy, are launching an effort this fall to build public support for the Treaties and Covenants—the first such public effort. See Tab A for the first publication of many.10 It occurs to me that a good day for the President to make his first statement would be October 11,11 Eleanor Roosevelt’s birthday. The whole effort could be made a tribute to her memory, which would popularize it and perhaps help to get active support from women’s groups, civil rights groups and others. If we miss the October 11 date, the anniversary of her death is November 7, election day this year and therefore appropriate since it is in a sense the birth day of the new Congress that would vote on the Treaties.

On the negative side, our effort to stem the tide of mandatory reporting requirements would center on the argument that the information can be made available on request to any member (or on request by a relevant Committee, depending on how tough we want to be), but that wholesale publication of these types of reports does not promote [Page 536] the observance of human rights in particular, or US foreign policy interests in general. One of many good examples is the break with Brazil which was the direct result of the publication of the 1976 report.12 If we make a firm decision to adopt this strategy, I believe we can make a convincing case that these kinds of public reporting requirements accomplish little and are often actively counterproductive. But this time we have to be united in what we are doing and not apologetic about appearing to “oppose human rights”.

The most limiting factor in this strategy is timing. There is an obvious gain to be had from taking advantage of the UN anniversary of the Treaties, but more important is the fact that the groundwork must be laid now so that the issue can be taken up first thing in the next session. Otherwise it will get hung up behind SALT and they won’t get to it for yet another year. Committee consideration of the Treaty should take very little time (SFRC reported it out last year), and the floor debate could then be scheduled while the Committees are having extensive hearings on SALT.

Recommendation:

1. That you approve a formal Dodson-Tarnoff request for NSC clearance on the draft country reports before November 30.13

2. That you give me guidance on the proposed longer term strategy.

Do you like the idea?

Do you want a memo presenting it for the President’s approval?14

3. It would be possible to make a strong effort on the treaties without trying to revoke the reporting requirements.

Do you prefer this option?15

  1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Global Issues—Bloomfield Subject File, Box 16, Human Rights: Country Reports: 10/78. Confidential. Sent for action. Sent through Albright, who initialed the memorandum. Bartholomew and Inderfurth also initialed the memorandum. Another copy is in the Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Brzezinski Office File, Subject Chron File, Box 94, Human Rights: 1978
  2. See footnote 4, Document 1.
  3. See Document 17.
  4. See Document 115.
  5. Inderfurth added the following handwritten notation in the margin: “I agree. RI.”
  6. An unknown hand underlined the second half of this sentence, beginning with the phrase “the time has come.”
  7. See footnotes 6 and 9, Document 139.
  8. An unknown hand underlined this sentence.
  9. Inderfurth added the following handwritten notation in the left-hand margin: “An up-to-date head count is necessary. RI.”
  10. Not attached and not further identified.
  11. Inderfurth added the following handwritten notation: “too soon.”
  12. Inderfurth placed two parallel lines in the left-hand margin next to the portion of this paragraph that begins with the word “available” to the end of this sentence and added: “We should catalogue other such examples if we intend to make this fight. RI.”
  13. Brzezinski placed a check mark on the approval line. Bartholomew added the following handwritten notation at the end of the memorandum: “I think this is first class and strongly support Jessica’s line!”
  14. Brzezinski did not approve or disapprove either of these recommendations.
  15. Brzezinski did not approve or disapprove this recommendation.