169. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)1
SUBJECT
- 1979 PL 480 I Agreements—Human Rights Language Requirement
Issue for Decision
Which PL 480 I agreements should contain a human rights clause ensuring that the commodities provided or the proceeds derived from their sale will directly benefit needy people?
Essential Factors
Title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 was amended by Public Law 95–88 of August 3, 1977 by adding Section 112 which states:
No agreement may be entered into under this title to finance the sale of agricultural commodities to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such agreement will directly benefit the needy people in such country. An agreement will not directly benefit the needy people in the country for purposes of the preceding sentence unless either the commodities themselves or the proceeds from their sale will be used for specific projects or programs which the President determines would directly benefit the needy people of that country. The agreement shall require a report to the President on such use [Page 539] within six months after the commodities are delivered to the recipient country.2
In response to this requirement, the Department, in consultation with AID, made a determination that for Fiscal Year 1978, language in accordance with the above requirement would be placed in agreements with countries where serious human rights problems exist or are widely perceived to exist by the public or Members of Congress. This liberal application of the statute would ensure compliance while avoiding the creation of a public “hit-list” which could follow from a narrower interpretation. It would also, on the other hand, minimize the accounting workload placed on our AID Missions and Title I recipient governments. Accordingly, language was placed in one third of the Fiscal Year 1979 Title I Agreements and specifically in agreements with the following countries: Bangladesh, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Zaire, and Korea.
The PL 480 I list for Fiscal Year 1979 has recently been submitted to the Congress. It contains twenty-nine countries. Consensus has been reached within the Department to maintain language in the agreements with the following countries on that list: Guinea, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Philippines and Zaire. There is also a consensus to maintain the language through the side-letter arrangement with Indonesia and Korea as long as it is not necessary to negotiate new agreements. There is also a consensus, in view of changing circumstances, to drop the language from the agreement with Somalia. HA proposes maintaining language in the Title I Agreement with Bangladesh and adding language to the Title I agreements with Pakistan, Syria and Tunisia. All four were Title I recipients last year. The NEA Bureau is opposed to re-inserting language in the Bangladesh agreement and to adding language in the other three.
New agreements under PL 480 Title III will be negotiated with Indonesia and Bangladesh later in the year. With HA consensus, language was not included in the 1978 Title III agreement with Bangladesh. Title III by its nature ensures that the assistance provided is used to directly benefit the needy and, accordingly, it is questionable whether separate human rights related language is required. AID’s General Counsel has been asked to provide guidance on this point. If needed, a separate memo on this issue will be provided subsequent to the receipt of this legal guidance.
[Omitted here is information concerning specific Bureau positions with regard to the Title I agreements anticipated for Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria, and Tunisia.]
[Page 540]The Options
1. Add the language to the FY 1979 Title I agreements with Pakistan, Syria and Tunisia and maintain the language in the Title I agreement with Bangladesh. Papers describing the human rights situation are attached.3
Advantages
—This approach will ensure continued compliance with the legislative requirement.
—The language reinforces the Administration’s efforts to make Title I more directly benefit the poor.
Disadvantages
—Addition of the human rights clause could cause friction with recipient governments and lead to delays in negotiating Title I agreements.
2. Do not include language in the FY 1979 Title I agreements with Bangladesh, Pakistan, Syria and Tunisia.
Advantages
—This approach would not jeopardize our bilateral relations programs as indicated above, nor would it delay the negotiation of the agreements.
—The Department would be in compliance with the letter and spirit of the legislation by excluding countries which do not engage in “a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
—We would avoid confusing the leadership for countries where there has been progress in human rights observance.
Disadvantages
—Non-inclusion of language in all but the most serious cases might give the impression that a “hit-list” has been created.
—The accounting workload of our AID missions would not be minimized although, with the exception of the mission in Dacca, neither would it increase.
[Page 541]Recommendation
That you authorize inclusion of the human rights language in Title I agreements with all or some of the four countries discussed.
Bangladesh4
Pakistan
Syria
Tunisia5
Somalia6
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P780176–0654. Confidential. Drafted by Bova on October 25; concurred in by Zak, Jennette, Shurtleff, Buncher, Lister, Cleveland, Graham, and EB/OFP. Schneider initialed for Derian. An unknown hand initialed for the clearing officials.↩
- See footnote 6, Document 58.↩
- The human rights papers on Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Tunisia are not attached.↩
- Christopher indicated his approval and added his initials and the date “11/6.” According to an additional stamped notation, Christopher approved this option on November 16.↩
- Christopher indicated his disapproval on Pakistan, Syria, and Tunisia on November 16.↩
- Christopher added Somalia to the list by hand and indicated his approval on November 16.↩