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

172. Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Inderfurth) to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski)¹

Washington, December 1, 1978

SUBJECT

• Human Rights Performance

For background purposes I have prepared the attached unclassified paper on “Human Rights Performance: January 1977–December 1978.” It is based on CIA’s “confidential” study which the Agency (Bob Bowie) refused to declassify.² I suggest that you—and others—use this information to background the press on human rights improvements during the Carter Administration. We do not want to appear to take credit for all such improvements, but the fact remains that the President’s human rights policy has made the world a better place to live in and he should get some of the credit for this.

In addition to discussing worldwide improvements (and regressions) in human rights, you might also use the following, which is based on an earlier memo from Jessica.³

The Carter Administration has three human rights objectives:⁴

—To raise global awareness of human rights so that the issue is a regular concern of all governments and an expected component of relations both with other countries and with the international community.

We have met this objective.

—To organize U.S. foreign policy making so that human rights concerns are taken into account in all relevant decisions including foreign assistance, political actions and economic benefits.

We have partially met this objective. Excessive delays and inconsistent decisions still persist.

—To begin the lengthy process of strengthening the international institutions (including the UN and its commissions, the IFIs and the regional human rights organizations) so that ultimately they can become the primary focus of international human rights activity.

We have partially met this objective. The UN and OAS commissions are vastly improved and some progress has been made in gaining support in the IFIs. There is still a long way to go.

Recommendation:

That you use the attached paper to background the press at the time of the December 6 White House human rights event.⁵

Attachment

Paper Prepared in the National Security Council⁶

Washington, undated

Human Rights Performance: January 1977–December 1978

Over the past two years the human rights situation worldwide has improved but in several countries deteriorated. Worldwide trends indicate significant patterns of change. Since January 1977 there have been human rights improvements in 41 countries where 2½ billion people live. Most of these countries, however, still have less than good human rights records. In at least 10 countries, the standards of human rights have declined, affecting almost half a billion people. On a regional basis, these changes have been noted:

—Yugoslavia’s human rights record is by far the best in Eastern Europe and it has improved in the last year. Hungary has improved on such issues as emigration, family reunification and travel. Human rights abuses have increased in Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union’s record has deteriorated, although the regime has apparently liberalized its Jewish emigration policy.

—There have been a few changes in human rights practices in the Middle East over the past two years, although some improvements have been noted in Morocco, the Sudan and Syria.

—Although many of the nations of East Asia and the Pacific region have found themselves at odds, to varying degrees, with U.S. human rights policy, improvements have been evident in South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Republic of China (ROC), and Thailand. In addition, there have been indications of improvement in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Conditions have deteriorated in Vietnam and continue to be deplorable in Cambodia, where Western influence generally has made no impact.

—In South Asia, India’s return to constitutional practices dramatically improved its human rights record. Conditions have also bettered in Iran due to the Shah’s program of liberalization. Bangladesh has seen some improvement. The human rights situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated since the April 1978 military coup.

—Over the past year human rights practices in some African countries have improved, including Benin, Djibouti, Ghana, Guinea, and the Ivory Coast. Nigeria has welcomed the U.S. emphasis on human rights and has proposed a regional UN human rights commission for Africa. There have been some improvements in Rhodesia but no real change in South Africa. Uganda and Equatorial Guinea remain two of the worst violators in the world today.

—Of the 26 countries in Latin America, human rights progress has been made in 12. There has been a marked decrease in the worst kinds of abuses, such as officially condoned killings, torture and prolonged and illegal detention. International and regional human rights organizations have taken a more active role in the region and have been receiving cooperation from many governments. Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil have all taken steps toward more constitutional procedures. Improvements have been noted in Chile, Uruguay, Honduras and Guatemala. Recently there has been a deterioration in Nicaragua.

—In Western Europe there have been two positive developments. Spain’s overall human rights rating has clearly improved. A new constitution, soon to be submitted for ratification, contains comprehensive guarantees of democratic freedom. In Cyprus, the human rights situation has improved markedly during the past 18 months.

The causes of the changes cited above are complex. Increased U.S. attention to human rights practices have contributed to a global climate of greater sensitivity to the issue and to the heightened concern of a large number of countries. In a number of cases, U.S. bilateral representations have been an important factor in the improvements noted. In other cases, governments that have rebuffed direct U.S. initiatives as interference in their internal affairs have, as a compensating action, permitted Amnesty International or some regional human rights organization to conduct its own investigation.

In many cases, however, especially where substantial and far-reaching improvements have taken place (for example, India and Spain), these changes have reflected dramatic internal political developments. Similarly, the several instances of retrogression can be explained largely by internal dynamics, though at times fear or traditional resentment of international pressures have played a part.

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Inderfurth and Gates Chron File, Box 3, Inderfurth Chron: 11–12/78. No classification marking. Copies were sent to Schecter and Tuchman Mathews. Brzezinski wrote the following handwritten notation in the top right-hand corner of the memorandum: “RI, good, put in folder for the meeting. ZB.”
2. Presumable reference to a CIA study of the same name prepared by the National Foreign Assessment Center in September 1978, which Inderfurth forwarded to Oksenberg under an October 27 memorandum. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Inderfurth and Gates Chron File, Box 3, Inderfurth Chron: 10/78)
3. See Document 168.
4. An unknown hand drew an arrow from the margin to this sentence.
5. See Document 176.
6. No classification marking.