199. Editorial Note
Secretary of State Cyrus Vance wrote out a formal letter of resignation on April 21, 1980, following President Jimmy Carter’s decision to launch a rescue operation on April 24 in an attempt to free the American hostages in Iran. In his letter, Vance noted, “I know how deeply you have pondered your decision on Iran. I wish I could support you in it. But for the reasons we have discussed I cannot.” The complete text of Vance’s resignation letter is printed in Department of State Bulletin, June 1980, page 2. Vance delivered the letter to Carter the afternoon of April 21. In his memoirs, Vance stated that he “wanted to make it clear that I would resign whether or not the mission was sucessful.” (Vance, Hard Choices, page 411) Vance recounted: “I agreed to his request not to make my resignation public until after the rescue attempt, and to remain in my position until the mission was completed.” (Ibid.) For the text of Carter’s April 25 address to the nation, wherein he indicated that the rescue operation had been cancelled, see Public Papers: Carter, 1980–81, Book I, pages 772–773. On the morning of April 28, Vance met with Carter at the White House; Carter gave Vance a letter accepting Vance’s resignation. In his farewell remarks at the Department of State on April 28, Vance indicated that he would “support fully” the President’s policies related to other foreign policy issues and demurred from further discussion of the details informing his resignation. (Department of State Bulletin, June 1980, page 2)
On April 29, the President announced from the Briefing Room at the White House that he had designated Senator Edmund S. Muskie (D–Maine) as his Secretary of State nominee, touting Muskie’s “extensive knowledge of foreign affairs.” Following Carter’s announcement, Muskie offered a brief statement, remarking: “The world is in turmoil. The issues are complex. But I believe that in this instability the United States must be perceived as stable and as a source of strength in the free world. As Secretary of State, I will devote my full energies to achieve these goals. I respond to this challenge with genuine hope. America remains a land of great opportunity. (Public Papers: Carter, 1980–81, Book I, pages 791–792) The Senate confirmed Muskie’s nomination on May 7. In a White House ceremony on May 8, Muskie was sworn in as Secretary of State. For the President’s and Muskie’s remarks, see Public Papers: Carter, 1980–81, Book I, pages 861–864.
A briefing paper prepared by the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs on May 9 for inclusion in Secretary Muskie’s briefing book summarized the historical antecedents for the administration’s human rights policy and called for a “reinfusion of high level commitment and support to preserve and build upon the accomplishments of the past 3½ years.” The paper outlined six major objectives:
[Page 618]“High Level Commitment and Support
“We need soon broad reaffirmation of the policy by the President and the Secretary, along the lines of the President’s statement of December 6, 1978.
“Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties
“Five international human rights treaties are before the Senate: The Genocide Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the American Convention on Human Rights. Adopted by the UN and Organization of American States, they have been ratified by the vast majority of countries. U.S. failure to ratify the treaties undercuts our efforts in the human rights area. A strong early effort by the Secretary to persuade the Senate to act favorably would signal his personal commitment to the human rights policy and would reassure the human rights community that the policy will be pursued vigorously.
“The Genocide Convention merits top priority. Adopted by the UN in 1948, it has been ratified by more than 80 states and has deep symbolic significance. The President has strongly urged ratification, and the Administration should make strenuous active efforts to achieve this, preferably before the Madrid CSCE Review meeting in November.
“ CSCE Review Conference
“The human rights community would welcome strong affirmation of our commitment to solid[ify] human rights gains at the Madrid Review Conference, maintaining balance in CSCE with military security issues. The community and the various ethnic organizations which follow CSCE are aware that efforts to develop an allied position on military security issues have not been matched by progress in the human rights area. We must strive to eliminate the imbalance.
“U.S. Leadership Role in UN Human Rights Bodies
“Our leadership can be enhanced by adopting positions more responsive to the human rights concerns of non-aligned countries. The recent session of the UN Human Rights Commission, one of the most successful, was marked by our close cooperation with non-aligned countries. HA feels strongly that we should further strengthen this alliance by: stronger support for UN actions against apartheid in South Africa, an evenhanded position on the human rights conditions of Arabs in the Israel-occupied territories; effective efforts to respond to complaints lodged against the U.S. by Native Americans and other of our minority groups; responsive positions on economic and social rights, in particular the right to development. A strengthened alliance would [Page 619] serve to isolate communist and radical (left and right) countries which seek to undermine UN human rights efforts.
“Human Rights and the IFIs
“Under the International Financial Institutions Act of 1977, the U.S. Executive Directors to the Multilateral Development Banks are required to oppose any loan to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights. Thus, all MDB loans to all countries are screened by the Working Group of the Inter-Agency (Christopher) Committee on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance (IAGHR). To date the U.S. has opposed 87 loans to 16 countries. Concern of human rights advocates in the Congress that the review process be institutionalized has led to proposals to legislate the continued functioning of the IAGHR. HA favors the proposals. Human rights groups are watching to see if an assiduous human rights review of MDB loans continues to produce a vigorous policy and a firm U.S. stand in the banks.
“Human Rights and Security Assistance
“We need to ensure that human rights concerns are more systematically factored into our decision-making on security assistance. HA believes military aid and sales should be screened for human rights by an interagency working group, perhaps reporting to the Inter-Agency Committee on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance.”
The remainder of the briefing paper detailed a variety of country-specific issues. (Department of State, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1980 Human Rights Subject Files, Lot 82D180, SHUM Policies 1980)
According to a May 21 memorandum from the Executive Secretariat to all Bureau principals, at Muskie’s May 21 morning staff meeting, the Secretary had requested that each Bureau prepare a list and description of high priority items. (Ibid.) Responding to this request, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Patricia Derian sent forward a 1-page briefing memorandum later that day. Derian’s lead item focused on overall policy implementation:
“Institutionalization of the human rights policy—Despite extensive legislation and the President’s commitment, human rights issues are not yet adequately incorporated into decision-making. We need more systematically to apply human rights criteria to security assistance issues. HA has not been included at relevant PRCs when issues significant to human rights are raised, e.g., last week’s PRC on Argentina. The regional bureaus continue to evince excessive ‘clientitis.’ Many posts overseas fail to do their part in implementing the policy.”
The remainder of Derian’s briefing memorandum discussed human rights situations in Argentina, Israel, Korea, and Liberia. (Ibid.)