196. Paper Prepared in the Department of State1
THE IMPACT ON U.S. FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNTRY REPORTS
Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, direct the State Department to submit Reports on human rights practices in countries receiving U.S. security or economic assistance. An amendment adopted in 1979 expanded this directive to require Reports on all foreign countries that are members of the United Nations, as well as on all countries receiving U.S. assistance.2 Reports are also being written in 1979 on North Korea, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, Taiwan, and Namibia.
The State Department has sent to the Congress three sets of Reports, covering 1976, 1977, and 1978. The 1979 Reports, now in preparation, will be delivered by January 31, 1980. The Reports are written by the State Department on the basis of information from a wide range of sources, including reports from our Embassies in the countries concerned and reports from official international organizations and non-governmental organizations.
In preparing the Reports, the State Department has tried to provide as complete and objective an assessment as possible of the human rights situation in the countries covered. Reports have been as specific and accurate as permitted by available information, even where this has impinged on sensitivities of the governments or countries con[Page 611]cerned. The Reports have sought to describe the human rights situation in the context of a country’s history, political conditions, education levels, economic resources and development, judicial institutions, and religious and cultural traditions. Efforts have been made to improve the Reports each year, in terms of comprehensiveness, additional factual information, and coverage of aspects of human rights in which Members and Committees of the Congress have taken special interest.
Each year when the Reports appear, our posts give copies to their host governments, and many foreign embassies receive them in Washington. Frequently delivery of the Report leads to a discussion of the U.S. human rights policy and enables U.S. officials to call attention to the overall objectives and concerns of that policy, as spelled out by the Congress and the Administration. In many cases this dialogue continues over time in relation to specific issues, for which the Human Rights Reports provide general background. In some cases, described below, foreign countries have objected strongly to certain portions of a Report, particularly when it describes serious violations of human rights. In a few other cases, governments have objected expressly to the fact that Reports are prepared at all, regarding them as interference in internal affairs. We explain that the Reports cover a wide range of countries, that no country has been singled out for criticism, and that all are described using a standard format.
There have been both benefits and costs associated with the annual preparation and submission of these public Reports. The benefits are as follows:
First, the Department’s view on current human rights practices of foreign assistance recipients aids Congressional evaluation of budget requests, and the Reports also furnish a useful reference in Executive Branch decisions on foreign assistance.
Second, the preparation of the Reports stimulates within the Department a disciplined and regular fact-finding and analysis process.
Third, the Reports enumerate human rights practices in considerable detail, communicating our concerns with a high degree of specificity to the governments involved. The Reports themselves often provide an impetus for bilateral discussions with host governments concerning the specific abuses cited.
Fourth, 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.
We have also experienced the following costs:
First, when the statute required Reports only on countries receiving aid, many countries with poor human rights records, particu[Page 612]larly the eastern bloc governments, were not covered. This lack led to criticism, and also deprived us of many of the benefits described above with respect to those countries. The 1979 amendment has remedied the situation.
Second, since we do not control the timing of the public release of the Reports, publication 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 friction in bilateral relations with some countries, and occasionally complicates achievement of other U.S. objectives.
In most instances, however, the impact on our bilateral relations—whether positive or negative—has been modest. A more detailed description of the impact of the reports on U.S. foreign relations is provided, region by region, in the sections that follow.
Europe and North America
Most European countries have had little or no official reaction to the Reports, and the Reports had little impact on our bilateral relations with those countries. The Federal Republic of Germany and Yugoslavia registered minor objections to specific aspects of the 1978 Reports. France objected officially to the fact that a Report was prepared on its human rights practices. The Governments of Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus each expressed displeasure with the Reports, focusing primarily on the discussion of Cyprus in each of these Reports. Since Reports on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe will be prepared for the first time in 1979, there has been no reaction thus far from these countries.
Central and South America
Because U.S. policies on human rights issues are generally well-known in Central and South America, the publication of the Reports has had little impact on our relations with most nations in that region. Most host governments review them with interest but generally offer little or no official comment. In many cases, the Reports have served as a useful resource for the discussion of specific human rights issues in Latin American countries, and for internal human rights reviews related to aid decisions and U.S. votes in the international financial institutions. The Reports generally have had the positive effect of reaffirming to host governments our commitment to human rights, and of reminding individual countries of specific issues which deserve special attention.
While a few countries—for example, El Salvador, Jamaica, and Uruguay—have criticized alleged inaccuracies in the Reports, the [Page 613] strongest reactions have come from governments which object to the very existence of the Reports as interference in their internal affairs. Brazil, for example, removed itself from the reporting requirement in previous years by rejecting U.S. assistance.3 (A Report on Brazil, as a UN member state, will, however, be prepared in 1979.) Most negative reactions to the Reports, however, reflect the continuing discomfort of some Latin American governments with our general human rights stance.
East Asia and Pacific
There has been little reaction to the Reports in East Asian and Pacific countries, from either the governments or the public, and they have had no significant impact on our bilateral relations. Some countries in this region have indicated to us indirectly that they regard the very existence of the Reports as an intrusion into internal affairs. In some cases where a Report was critical, supporters of the government concerned have attacked its veracity, while critics of the government have praised the Report or criticized it for not going far enough.
While the Philippines sent the State Department a thirteen-page response from the Philippine Solicitor General attacking the Report as a rehash of “half-truths,” our Embassy in the Philippines believes the Report has been helpful to it in representations to the Government on human rights issues. The Republic of Korea and Indonesia have not reacted officially to the Reports.
Africa
Most African countries had little or no official comment on the Reports. In some cases where a country’s record has been good, the Report predictably had little impact. In others, where the government has displayed little sensitivity to human rights issues, the government apparently preferred not to engage us on this subject, and the local press was not free to comment.
The Reports have, however, had a positive effect on our bilateral relations with a number of countries in the region, where they have provided a useful supplement to a continuing dialogue on human rights. One African President told our Embassy that the U.S. human rights policy was “useful” in “disturbing the conscience of government leaders everywhere.” In another country, which has had a poor human rights record, the Report contributed to an increased comprehension of the role human rights play in United States Government decisions.
In a few countries in the region, the Reports have had a negative impact on our bilateral relations. For example, one government [Page 614] claimed that the U.S. placed too much emphasis upon civil and political rights and not enough on economic and social rights. In another case, officials of the host country complained that the Report failed to take into account recent developments in the country.
Near East, North Africa, and South Asia
The Reports have had little effect on our relations with countries in this area. Most governments in the region have offered little reaction. The Israeli government, however, expressed dissatisfaction with the Report, centering on the question of treatment of Arab prisoners in the occupied territories.
Several countries (Tunisia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran) suggested the Reports constituted interference in domestic affairs and charged that our own human rights record did not permit us to pass judgment on others. The new Iranian Government in 1979 said that previous Reports on Iran were insufficiently critical of human rights conditions under the Shah.
In two countries, Sri Lanka and Nepal, the Reports became a topic of discussion in domestic political debates, and may therefore have marginally increased local awareness of our human rights concerns.
- Source: Department of State, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1980 Human Rights Subject Files, Lot 82D180, SHUM Annual Report to Congress 1980. No classification marking. No drafting information appears on the paper. Atwood transmitted a copy to Speaker of the House O’Neill under a November 15 covering memorandum. (Ibid.)↩
- See footnote 4, Document 190.↩
- See footnote 4, Document 91 and footnote 16, Document 108.↩