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

179. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian) and the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs (Hormats) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)¹

Washington, January 24, 1979

Human Rights and Multilateral Development Banks: Procedures for Securing Support from Other Governments for U.S. Positions

Issue for Decision

Governments of several major countries acknowledge that human rights are a legitimate concern in consideration of MDB projects, yet we have had only partial success in securing their opposition to specific projects we oppose on human rights grounds. The issue for decision is whether, beyond notification of an intent to oppose a loan in a reasonable number of instances, we should seek the support of like-minded governments in opposing such loans.

Background/Analysis

Over the course of the past two years, we have opposed about 48 loans to 15 countries for human rights reasons. These actions are in accord with our Congressional mandate and with Administration policy. In our Congressional presentations a year ago we asserted that the Administration actively had pursued its human rights objectives, including in the MDBs, and had made a start in attracting international support.

Other countries have joined us in opposition on approximately 25 loans to five countries. In only one case, however, have we received enough support to have a loan withdrawn by the African Development Fund to Equatorial Guinea.² With regard to assistance financed by the Inter-American Development Banks’ Fund for Special Operations, over which the U.S. holds a veto, the U.S. has been able to keep certain loans from coming forward. Also, it is probable that loans to Chile have not come forward in the World Bank because of the belief that U.S. and other donors would disapprove them. To the degree that increased international support can be generated and other countries also demonstrate their opposition to particular loans, it will strengthen the message of concern with human rights communicated to the violating governments, underline our concern to bank managements about the flow of resources to the government, and enhance Congressional appreciation of our efforts, reducing the likelihood of additional legislative requirements.

Consultations by State and Treasury officials with counterparts from other countries on human rights and foreign assistance including an extensive exchange of views in Paris last month (reporting cable at Tab 1)³ have revealed several points:

(1) Major industrialized and some developing members of the MDBs are committed to trying to enhance respect for human rights throughout the world and agree that human rights is an appropriate and legitimate consideration on decisions concerning foreign assistance, including MDB projects.

(2) In factoring human rights concerns into their decision on specific MDB projects, the industrialized countries want to avoid a “hit list”.

(3) Other governments make their decisions on a case-by-case basis and, in determining whether to support or oppose a specific project in a country with gross human rights violations, they weigh the seriousness of the violations against the extent to which the project will contribute to the country’s development. This criterion is less narrow than our basic human needs exception and, therefore, leads them to consider opposing fewer projects. Moreover, they seem willing to consider opposition only to projects in countries in which the more egregious human rights violations have occurred. In some cases, however, they will oppose even bhn projects because of the seriousness of the violations.⁴

(4) They are very concerned about undermining the apolitical and developmental integrity of the MDBs. Their caution in this regard also leads them to limit, at least initially, the number of countries for which they will oppose MDB projects.

(5) All agreed that consultations were useful but that they should be principally bilateral and that those on specific projects should take place as far as possible before the projects are brought before MDB boards. They observed that our present procedure of advising them of the U.S. position on projects shortly before their consideration by the boards did not allow them sufficient time to formulate their own positions. Our interlocutors agreed that lack of detailed information on projects until only a few days before board decisions was a serious hardship, but suggested that perhaps we could obtain from MDB staffs preliminary or working documents which would provide enough information for our purposes.⁵

(6) They also want to know when we are seeking their support because of the depth of our concern as opposed to simple notification.⁶

(7) Most other governments do not examine documents on MDB projects as carefully as we do; nor do they have coordinated procedures for consideration of human rights issues. Consequently, in order for our solicitations of support to be effective, they must include more complete information on our analysis of projects and human rights conditions.⁷

Given the reluctance of other governments to oppose projects except in the most serious cases, we must select very carefully the instances on which we will solicit their support. Of course, we should continue to advise them when we decide to oppose a project even if we do not explicitly seek their support for our position. Once others become accustomed to opposing projects, we may wish to solicit their opposition on a broader range of projects. As our embassies approach governments on specific projects, we also should advise relevant executive directors at the MDBs and perhaps their embassies here and even in the prospective recipient countries.

At Tab 2⁸ is a list of forthcoming MDB projects in countries with serious human rights problems. We could select a few of these now and begin to collect information and prepare our analysis for presentation to other governments. Since we have already decided to oppose the IBRD Railways II loan to Argentina and its consideration by the Board has been postponed until January 30, EB, HA, S/P and Treasury believe that it might be a good first case. This is particularly so, since even our simple notification drew preliminary positive responses from the UK⁹ and the Scandinavian countries.

ARA, however, believes that this case is not an appropriate one on which to solicit support by other countries as the U.S. is only abstaining rather than voting no.

Recommendation

That you authorize the Working Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance:

(1) to select from the list at Tab 2 several MDB projects (subject to your approval), including the IBRD Railways II loan to Argentina, which the U.S. will oppose; and

(2) to prepare comprehensive descriptions of our views on them¹⁰ for presentation to a few governments in an effort to solicit their opposition to them. (This recommendation is strongly supported by the Treasury Department.)¹¹

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P790022–0354. Confidential. Drafted by Watson on January 22; cleared by Winder, Bushnell, Jennone Walker, and Canner. Watson initialed for Winder and Bushnell; Schneider initialed for Walker. An unknown hand initialed for Derian. Perry and John Spiegel also initialed the memorandum.
2. An unknown hand placed parentheses around the phrase “by the African Development Fund to Equatorial Guinea.”
3. Attached but not printed is a copy of telegram 49899 from Paris, December 14, 1978, reporting upon a December 12 meeting at the Embassy among U.S., UK, Canadian, West German, Dutch, Swedish, and Japanese representatives concerning human rights, foreign assistance, and the MDBs.
4. An unknown hand placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to the portion of this paragraph that begins with the word “seriousness” and ends with the word “violations.”
5. An unknown hand placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to the portion of this paragraph that begins with the word “brought” and ends with the word “purposes.”
6. An unknown hand underlined the portion of the sentence beginning with the word “because” and ending with the word “notification.”
7. An unknown hand underlined the last sentence of this paragraph and placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to this sentence.
8. The undated list, entitled “Upcoming Multilateral Development Bank Assistance to Selected Countries with Human Rights Concerns,” is attached but not printed. Christopher bracketed the word “Concerns” and wrote “Problem” next to it in the margin.
9. An unknown hand corrected “UN” to read “UK” and placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to the portion of the paragraph that begins with the word “governments” and ends with the word “no” in the following paragraph.
10. An unknown hand underlined the phrase “comprehensive descriptions of our views on them” and placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to this and the preceding numbered point.
11. Christopher initialed his approval on February 5, noting that he approved “as modified—see note attached.” The attached note has not been found.