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

186. Memorandum From the Counselor of the Department of State (Nimetz) to the Special Adviser to the Secretary of State (Shulman)¹

Washington, June 8, 1979

SUBJECT

• CSCE, Human Rights and the Summit

I have reviewed the talking points paper on these subjects for the Summit.² I fear if the President does not approach the human rights issue more straightforwardly, he will look weak in the eyes of the Soviets and will find it harder rather than easier to manage a sustained relationship,³ especially in so far as CSCE is concerned. Moreover, you should not underestimate the public impact of factors related to CSCE—including human rights and military security—both for important domestic groups and abroad.

The President came into office with human rights as the “soul” of his foreign policy. He has sent us all out to pursue it vigorously. If, in his one chance in four years to talk to the Soviet leadership personally, he does not mention it officially, he will demonstrate inconsistency and give the Soviets the impression that he lacks the courage of his convictions.⁴ I do not want the President to moralize or launch a propaganda attack against the foundations of the Soviet system. I do believe, however, that the President should in a plenary session, with others present, offer a non-defensive explanation of his human rights policy which ties it to a balanced approach to CSCE,⁵ including improved implementation and enhanced dialogue before the Madrid meeting.⁶ If he merely expresses a few generalities privately to Brezhnev, it would seem apologetic and may be worse than not mentioning these subjects at all.

As far as the talking points themselves are concerned, I would favor an effort to explain our approach simply and in an intellectually honest way. I think the points included in the background paper on CSCE, if combined with elements in the background paper on human rights, would be appropriate.⁷ In any event, I believe strongly that you should delete the peculiar statement that human rights are “internal matters” which is contained in the summary talking points. It is our official position that matters involving implementation of international agreements like UN Covenants and the Helsinki Final Act are legitimate for discussion between states.

Concerning human rights, I think the reference to the four freedoms and jointly fighting fascism is good and I would suggest retaining it.⁸ I would also find a way to use the following contingency points, which I have altered somewhat:

—U.S. human rights policy is based on our commitment to international standards, including the joint pledges our two countries have made in the Helsinki Final Act. It is necessary and proper for one signatory of that politically and morally binding document to raise with another signatory its concern about the implementation of all elements of that agreement.

—In so doing, we are not seeking unilateral advantage from our human rights policy. There is great domestic U.S. interest in human rights throughout the world, including our own country. This attitude is based on real concern and on our belief that, to be lasting, détente must involve improvements in the spiritual and material lives, as well as the security, of ordinary people. Within the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act, progress on human rights clearly strengthens détente.

Post Script: There is a section on Working Conditions for U.S. Journalists which appears too positive about Soviet behavior.⁹ I believe in the carrot more than the stick, but I think it is just not right to “welcome” the improvements in this field when the period since Helsinki has seen, inter alia, legal action against journalists, backsliding in the GDR, and allegations that journalists have been poisoned and harassed.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 9, Memos from WC to Offices/Bureaus—1979. Confidential; Sensitive. Copies were sent to Christopher and Vest. Dworkin initialed the memorandum. Christopher subsequently transmitted a copy of Nimetz’s memorandum, various briefing papers, and a June 6 action memorandum from Derian to Vance to Shulman under a June 11 handwritten note, commenting: “I think Matt has a good point. Let’s discuss. Chris.” (Ibid.)
2. Reference is to the summit meeting between Carter and Brezhnev scheduled to take place in Vienna June 15–18. Documentation is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, volume VI, Soviet Union. The talking points paper is in the National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 9, Memos from WC to Offices/Bureaus—1979.
3. Dworkin underlined the part of the sentence that begins with “I fear” and ends with “sustained relationship.”
4. Dworkin underlined this sentence, placed an asterisk in the right-hand margin, and added an illegible comment next to the asterisk.
5. Dworkin underlined the part of the sentence that begins with “I do believe” and ends with “to CSCE.”
6. The CSCE Review Conference was scheduled to take place in Madrid in November 1980.
7. The June 1979 briefing papers on CSCE and human rights are in the National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 9, Memos from WC to Offices/Bureaus—1979.
8. The talking point reads: “U.S. human rights policy has a long historical background that includes the Four Freedoms, for which we fought alongside the Soviets against the Nazis, and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (Briefing Paper, “Human Rights”; ibid.)
9. The Working Conditions for U.S. Journalists section of the talking points paper noted “improvements in this area” since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act. (Ibid.)