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

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

Washington, November 20, 1978

SUBJECT

• Human Rights Meeting—November 22²

Genocide Vote

We now see 62–63 clear votes for cloture. Final confirmation of that number will be available in a week or two as a result of contacts now being made by the Ad Hoc Committee for Ratification of the Genocide Convention (a group of NGO organizations). The count is 47 certain, 16 probable, and 8 undecided. A list is attached.³

We cannot expect an absolutely firm count until the decision is made to go ahead, since there is a chicken-and-egg problem for many Senators—they will not make a commitment until they are sure that the Administration is committed, and vice versa. Nevertheless, if this count holds up in the preliminary contacts, I would argue that there is no question but that we should try for ratification early next session. With cloture in hand, the remaining four or five votes will come easily. The issue may require a half dozen phone calls by the President, but no more.

What is most often forgotten in the debate on this subject is that a win on Genocide will be an important victory for the President, and will therefore strengthen his position on SALT, and help to erase the press view that this is a much more conservative Congress than the last. If he wins on this, Carter will have achieved something that 5 previous Presidents have tried and failed to do, and that’s a powerful argument.

Thirtieth Anniversary Speech

Our thinking on the speech has been that it should announce the Genocide effort as its primary press hook. It could also reiterate the importance of the other international human rights treaties—the UN Covenants, the American Convention and the Helsinki accords, among others—and from there naturally lead into a discussion of the importance of the international fora in promoting human rights, and a brief review of the significant steps that have been taken in this area in the past year.

State has suggested two other initiatives that might be mentioned. The first is to propose that the jurisdiction of the US Civil Rights Commission be expanded to include human rights obligations, including those stemming from international commitments. The name of the Commission would be changed to the Human Rights Commission. This linkage of human rights to civil rights will strengthen the already existing ties between human rights and civil rights groups, and should increase domestic support for the human rights policy. State discussed this proposal with the Commission last year. They reacted positively, but urged that it be put off until this year, after their authorization was extended by Congress. The extension was successfully acted on last session.

State’s other suggestion seems to me a little off the wall, but perhaps warrants closer examination. The proposal is a call for a worldwide amnesty for prisoners of conscience. If one ever tried to actually implement it, it would be a nightmare. Who would decide who is a prisoner of conscience? Are the Wilmington 10?⁴

One additional important announcement could be included, dealing with refugees. Vance and Bell are now engaged in discussions on a possible new parole that Newsom would announce in Geneva on December 11. If they reach agreement (and OMB approves) this could mean 15,000 additional spots for Indochinese and 15,000 for Cambodian refugees. This would also be worthy of major press attention. Bell would have completed necessary Congressional consultations beforehand.

Finally, we have suggested that the speech conclude with the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Roger Baldwin and to A. Philip Randolph. An award to Randolph would return to the theme of the congruence between human rights and civil rights. Baldwin’s credentials are obvious.

The appropriate audience for such a speech would include not only representatives of the NGOs and religious groups active in human rights, and the obvious Russian and Eastern European groups, but also black, Hispanic and others. Joe Aragon has strongly suggested, and Pastor has tentatively supported the idea, that released Cuban political prisoners also be invited. We need your views on this. The audience would of course also include appropriate members of the Congress and the press.

I have already met with Anne Wexler on setting up the meeting. She will take prime responsibility on the invitation list (we and State will submit suggestions). Her staff is already at work.

Public Relations Campaign

We suggested in the schedule proposal⁵ that the event begin with a briefing by Vance and yourself on the Administration’s human rights policy. To the extent it is possible (without infuriating other governments by implying that decisions they took were made under US pressure) this briefing should be used to demonstrate what the US policy has accomplished. With press in attendance, it can be used to kickoff an Administration effort to take more credit where credit is due, and possibly (if desired) to tactfully draw attention to unwise statutory requirements which have recently been enacted.

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Global Issues—Bloomfield Subject File, Box 16, Human Rights: Genocide Treaty: 11/78–4/80. No classification marking. Copies were sent to Schecter and Albright.
2. Notes of the November 22 meeting are in the Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Inderfurth and Gates Chron File, Box 3, Inderfurth Chron: 11–12/78.
3. Attached but not printed is the list entitled “GENOCIDE VOTE COUNT As of November 16, 1978.”
4. Reference is to 10 individuals arrested, tried, and convicted on arson and conspiracy charges in Wilmington, North Carolina, in February 1971. At the time, African American students in Wilmington had instituted a boycott against the city’s schools in response to attacks on African American students prompted by desegregation of the school system. The boycott precipitated various acts of violence, culminating in the firing of shots at firefighters attempting to extinguish an arson fire. The “Wilmington 10” were implicated in this action, despite the lack of evidence regarding involvement, and, as a result, were perceived as political prisoners and thus deprived of their human rights. Eventually, the case against the Wilmington 10 was overturned in 1980.
5. Not found and not further identified.