188. Paper Prepared by Thomas Thornton of the National Security Council Staff1
HUMAN RIGHTS
I have been holding this horse for you only since Jessica’s departure;2 hence, I have not been deeply involved in a number of aspects of it—substantive or procedural. It is very important that you get together soon with Jessica and have her fill you in. I do have a number of observations to make however; perhaps you will find some of them mildly interesting.
Human rights is probably the main success story of this administration’s foreign policy, at least in a long-term historical view. We have developed a policy in which we can take pride. We have made human rights an issue of international standing. We have had a definite beneficial impact on the lives of thousands of people throughout the world. And we have created a basis for mutual respect with leaders such as Morarji Desai, Julius Nyerere and others who were alienated from the [Page 589] previous administration. Most important, perhaps, we have stuck with the policy. The President continues to support it strongly (more so than many of his would-be advisers) and the administration in general has not gotten too “bored” with the issue.
Clearly, not all is roses. There are quixotic aspects to the policy and quixotic people associated with it. There has been some misdirection of our efforts. And, of course, there are many areas that we simply cannot affect.
Sometimes the quixotic elements are positive. Our single-minded voting against loans to HR violators in the IFIs has no impact on the loans since they are approved anyway. It is important, however, that we portray a picture of consistency as part of our overall campaign.
You are going to have to risk looking quixotic yourself, if you are going to do this job adequately. The human rights portfolio is an adversarial one. Your geographic colleagues will often have good political reasons not to push human rights too hard. Don’t let them get away with it. Sometimes you will have to take fairly extreme positions just to force a reasonable compromise. Your function (and this is true of non-proliferation as well) is to keep your teeth firmly dug into others’ heels. Otherwise you will be disregarded—even by people who are at least as warm-hearted as you, but who are faced with a different set of issues. And not all of them are quite that warm-hearted. There are plenty of people in State—and not only there—who consider human rights a misguided effort and play along with it only to the minimum extent necessary to humor a President who “doesn’t understand” the realities of international politics. Kissinger lives.
A major problem at the beginning of the administration was the inability of some to understand that there are different categories of human rights; that there are differences among torture, lack of free press, and inadequate access to pure water. Fairly early on, we were able to get the theoretical distinction accepted, and not too long thereafter, even Patt Derian was brought around to the belief that some violations had priority over others. It is an issue that needs to be watched constantly, however, for there are still many who simply aggregate all human rights listed in the UN declaration.
An unfortunate example (albeit one that the Administration is not responsible for) is our concentration on Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. There are many worse things that happen to people in the Soviet Union than (a) being Jews and (b) having to stay there. Many much worse things happen to people outside the Soviet Union. Obviously Jewish emigration is a legitimate human rights issue. It should not, however, enjoy the priority that it gets.
An example of ineffectiveness is not hard to find. We are unable to do anything about Equatorial Guinea and never did much about Pol [Page 590] Pot or Amin, although there may have been some glimmering in the latter case. The point here is that we are able to do less about countries that (a) receive no aid or other benefits from the US and/or (b) are ruthless enough to keep outsiders from finding out what is going on in their countries. Clearly Chile and Korea are less egregious offenders than Kampuchea or Eq. Guinea. But you would never know it by reading the international press or reviewing the list of US actions taken. Unfortunately, there is no ready answer to this. Nor, for that matter, to the unwillingness of LDCs to cast stones at others’ glass houses. We just have to keep plugging away.
Another weakness of the policy is that we find it much easier to punish than to reward. I know, offhand, of no case where a country has unambiguously gotten a larger aid program because it performed well on human rights. On the other hand, the generosity shown to Sri Lanka and India is not unrelated to human rights considerations. Some creative thinking about this would be very useful—assuming, of course, that we will have any money available! Another scarce but extremely important resource in this regard is Presidential attention.
About the only substantive things that I have gotten involved in at all relate to the two Presidential trips that occurred in the past month—the Vienna Summit and Korea. In both of these cases the bureaucracy was prodded to take adequate note of human rights considerations (Mark Schneider of Derian’s staff is excellent at this) and in both cases the President performed admirably, probably going beyond what anybody expected of him. This points up one thing that you should follow carefully—whenever the President is meeting with somebody who has a human rights problem, insist on getting a shot at the briefing book and talking points. See that they give the President some tough things to say, if he feels so inclined.
A large volume of work is generated by people who write letters on human rights issues—overwhelmingly Soviet cases. Generally this is handled directly by State with an info copy to us. You will want to monitor this though. Occasionally, especially on Congressionals, an answer from here is more appropriate. Don’t, however, spend too much time on it.
There are some issues that I have not gotten involved with but will concern you. One is the Madrid CSCE conference and our preparations for it. There was a lot of flak about Belgrade and Arthur Goldberg’s performance there. And, of course, the Congressional group is hovering in the wings. Another one is the Moscow Olympics—freedom of access issues, etc. There is a certain amount of file material available on this but, again, get Jessica to brief you.
There are two major operational issues. One is the annual submission of a human rights report to Congress on countries receiving US [Page 591] aid. There is some attempt afoot to reform this rather dubious undertaking. I will discuss it with you. The second is the Christopher Committee of which you will be a member. It is charged with deciding how we will vote on IFI loans to alleged human rights violators. It is staffed in State and runs generally well, despite the fact that it is one of the more “quixotic” of our undertakings. It seems to meet about every two months.
There are, of course, many country-specific issues. Some of them I have not even gotten involved in myself. To the extent possible, I will fill you in when you get time.
Of all the pieces that I am passing on to you, this is the only one I regret giving up. Use it well.
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Global Issues—Bloomfield Subject File, Box 16, Human Rights: 7/78–7/80. Confidential. In a July 3 memorandum, Brzezinski asked Thornton to prepare a “comprehensive memorandum” from Brzezinski to Bloomfield outlining Bloomfield’s new duties and responsibilities. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Brzezinski Office File, Subject Chron File, Box 59, Administration’s Policy: NSC: 1979) Thornton sent a copy of this paper to Brzezinski under a July 11 covering memorandum, indicating that he had prepared it for Bloomfield per Brzezinski’s request. According to the NSC Global Issues Cluster’s July 18 evening report, Thornton had given Bloomfield “an extraordinarily helpful briefing on the human rights and UN portfolios” that day. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Global Issues—Oplinger/Bloomfield Subject File, Box 37, Evening Reports: 4–8/79)↩
- Tuchman Mathews left the NSC Staff in June. Bloomfield then assumed responsibility for human rights issues within the Global Issues Cluster. In the NSC Global Issues Cluster’s August 7 evening report, Bloomfield described his press contacts for that day: “Again, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, of the Washington Post, but in her kindly capacity of passer-on of the baton.” (Ibid.)↩