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

185. Briefing Memorandum From the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Schneider) to Secretary of State Vance¹

Washington, March 20, 1979

SUBJECT

• Human Rights Reports

The third annual volume of public human rights reports recently was submitted to the Congress. These reports, mandated under Sections 502B and 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act, have improved each year in thoroughness and specificity.

Debate over the costs and benefits of these reports has continued since the previous Administration sought to maintain them on a confidential basis and was rebuffed by the Congress.

The following benefits flow from the preparation and submission of these public reports.

First, the Department’s view on current human rights practices of foreign assistance recipients does provide the Congress with data to evaluate our budget requests.

Second, the preparation of the report stimulates within the Department a disciplined and regular fact-finding and analysis process which might not otherwise be present.

Third, the reports enumerate human rights practices in considerable detail, communicating to those governments our concerns with a degree of specificity which generally is lacking in bilateral consultations. Also, by being mandated by law, some of the onus for raising these specific abuses is removed from the executive branch.

Fourth, the publication of the reports at times permits information about the human rights conditions to make its way into the host country’s media encouraging human rights constituencies.

Fifth, the reports themselves provide an impetus for bilateral discussions with host governments concerning the specific abuses cited.

Sixth, the American public is better informed regarding these conditions as a result of the publication of the reports.

Finally, the reports have come to symbolize the continuing importance of human rights concerns to our foreign policy decision-making. Any Administration effort to see them removed as a requirement would be read as a lessening of that concern.

With regard to costs, the initial dire predictions of irreparable harm have not been realized. Nevertheless, the following disadvantages have been argued to exist.

First, the preparation of the reports involves a considerable expenditure of time and resources, at embassies, within regional bureaus and most particularly, within our Bureau.

Second, by limiting the countries covered to those receiving aid, as specified by statute, many countries with poor human rights records, particularly the eastern bloc governments, are not covered.

Third, we cannot control the timing of the public release of the reports and therefore the publication of the reports can conflict either with the timing of other bilateral pursuits or with the timing of the human rights strategy itself in a particular country.

Finally, the public release of the reports produces some friction in bilateral relations with some countries although the attached summary of host country reactions to this year’s submission demonstrates that they are becoming accustomed to this mid-winter ritual. It is noteworthy that all but one of the countries which initially stated they could not participate in assistance programs if reports were to be submitted on them have reversed that position.

Modifications which have been suggested include the following:

First, having such reports prepared by an independent international clearinghouse. No such international, non-governmental institution now exists. Also, U.S. human rights non-governmental organizations generally oppose removing the Department from involvement in the report preparation.

Second, altering the countries covered in the reports. A proposal to expand the list to cover all countries was rejected by the Congress last year but remains under discussion. Another alternative is for the Congressional committees to submit a list of specific countries to be covered, whether or not they receive aid. This proposal presumably would reduce the overall number of reports, omitting mini-states and countries without serious human rights problems but including many, if not all, of the communist countries.

Third, altering the timing of the reports. One proposal is for requests to be prepared on a biennial basis with annual updates on particular countries dependent on congressional requests. A second suggestion has been to have the reports prepared and submitted earlier so that they do not appear on the eve of the UN Human Rights Commission annual meetings. Another view is that flexibility in the timing of submission could be provided so that the Department would have a time period of several months in which to file the reports.

HA is following closely the hearings on the reports and our policy being conducted by Representative Bonker.² Although we are not presently of the view that legislative changes are essential, we will be examining further the implications of these possible modifications and any conclusions reached by the Bonker Subcommittee.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1980 Human Rights Country Reports and General Information, Lot 82D274, Human Rights Reports. Limited Official Use. Sent through Christopher, who did not initial the memorandum. Drafted by Schneider and concurred in by Jennone Walker. Attached but not printed is a March 9 memorandum from Tarnoff to Brzezinski transmitting HA’s undated report on official country reactions to the 1978 country reports. According to the March 5 NSC Global Issues Cluster’s evening report, Tuchman Mathews had requested that the Department prepare such a report on country reactions. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Global Issues—Oplinger/Bloomfield Subject File, Box 37, Evening Reports: 1–3/79)
2. Reference is to Representative Don Bonker (D–Washington), Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.