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

183. Memorandum From Michele Bova of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs to John Spiegel of the Office of the Deputy Secretary of State¹

Washington, March 9, 1979

SUBJECT

• Suggestions for Improving the Procedures of the Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance

Mr. Vest’s recent memo² reiterates some of the problems and frustrations faced by your office, our bureau and all those involved in the interagency review process of human rights and foreign assistance. The problems are not new. Some of them can probably never be resolved satisfactorily. Others can. From the perspective of someone who has been dealing with this process since its inception and who will soon be leaving for another tour, I would like to offer some frank suggestions on what can be done and some observations on how to minimize dissatisfactions with what will always be a less than perfect procedure.

This is not an official memo. I have not cleared it with anyone and it is not in the “system”. The principals in my own bureau would probably not agree with some of my points. I offer it as the last salvo of a departing bureaucrat who has seen much progress in implementing a new, controversial and broad reaching policy but who is also disappointed that so much of what has been done depends on the initiatives of individuals rather than the existence of institutionalized procedures or the inadequacy of those which have been established. This lack is not fair to busy men like Mr. Christopher and it is not good for the human rights policy.

If you conclude that some of the suggestions which follow should be implemented, I believe the most effective way to achieve this end would be for Mr. Christopher to direct that they be done. If you would like a more democratic approach to be followed I suggest that an ad hoc group be called which would be tasked with preparing a paper on methods of improving current procedures. Such a paper should represent the consensus of the group and should not take the form of yet another Solomon’s choice options memorandum. The attached list of suggestions, or a modified version thereof, could serve as the starting point for discussion.

One last observation is that we have a sound procedural basis on which to build—i.e. the Working Group, the Inter-Agency Group, and the close consultation and information transfer process already established with Treasury and A.I.D.

Suggestions for Improving the Procedures of the Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance

—The Working Group should identify upcoming projects at least two months before action is due to be taken to implement them. (In the case of MDB projects this will result in some inefficiencies as projects identified even this close to Board action will sometimes slip or be re-structured).

—The State Department should develop action plans on a quarterly basis which include current assessments of the human rights situation and set forth recommendations on appropriate action on all upcoming assistance for the following quarter. Such action recommendations will be based on an analysis of tactical and legal considerations, both bilateral and global. Action plans should be prepared on all countries to which the U.S. has opposed assistance over the past two years as well as those countries which have come up consistently for review by the Inter-Agency Group³ for the Word Committee.⁴

—The Inter-Agency Group should review projects identified by the Working Group in the context of the State Department’s Action Plans. In the case of MDB projects, the group will make a recommendation on appropriate USG action, at least one full week in advance of Bank Board consideration.

—In cases where dates for project consideration by MDB Boards slip into the timeframe of the next quarterly review of the action plan, and if there is no State Department consensus as expressed in the action plan to support the recommendation of the Inter-Agency Group, the Working Group shall re-submit the project for Inter-Agency review in accordance with the above delineated time constraints. Other agencies participating in the Working Group can also recommend re-submission to the Inter-Agency Group.

—In those few cases where major and essential changes occur in the human rights situation in a country prior to Bank Board consideration, if a Group member believes that the decision reached is no longer justified, that Group member shall initiate an action memorandum, and clear it with all interested Group members. This memorandum must reach the Deputy Secretary at least one full week and preferably two weeks before Bank Board action.

—A.I.D. or Treasury⁵ will be designated to recommend whether a project meets BHN criteria in time for this determination to be included on the agenda of the Inter-Agency Group.

—The BHN determination will be based on information available at the time. Treasury will cooperate by obtaining information from bank staffs if necessary. (This will have the added spin-off of sensitizing the Banks to the USG interest in questions of equitable development and greater attention to meeting basic human needs, a stated goal of Treasury in its policy speeches and reports to the Congress. If, however, Treasury wishes to minimize the need of going directly to Bank staffs, an alternative would be to have the Banks submit final project papers to all Executive Directors at least four weeks prior to Board consideration. Currently, there is a ten working day rule in the World Bank and the IDB. Often lesser lead time is available in the ADB and we usually can’t get information in the AFDF until the last minute).

—In the absence of sufficient data to support the conclusion that a project meets the BHN exception provided in the law, the recommendation of the designated agency (A.I.D. or Treasury) will be that the BHN exception does not apply. Such a project will be considered by the Inter-Agency Group as if it were a non-BHN project.

1. Source: Department of State, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1979 Human Rights Subject Files, Lot 82D102, EAID IAGHR 1979. Confidential. A handwritten notation in the right-hand corner of the first page reads: “BB [Barbara Bowie]—FYI (This was never distributed beyond MS [Mark Schneider] + John Spiegel). Michele.”
2. Not found and not further identified.
3. The countries involved are: Argentina, Central African Empire, Chile, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Korea, Laos, Mozambique, Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Vietnam, Yemen (PDR), Nicaragua, Haiti, Afghanistan, Zaire, Romania. [Footnote in the original.]
4. Presumably Bova is referring to the Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance; the phrase “for the Word Committee,” is an error.
5. A.I.D. is bureaucratically the most appropriate agency to review projects on BHN grounds. It has the most expertise in this area and it is a less interested party than Treasury. If Treasury was tasked with the responsibility of making BHN recommendations on all controversial projects, however, it can be assumed that, since Treasury may have to defend such determinations before Congress when it goes up for MDB appropriations, it will be judicious in its application of BHN criteria. [Footnote in the original.]