29. Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Lake) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)1

SUBJECT

  • Attached Action Memorandum on Human Rights

The attached memo tries to pull together in one place (1) our general approach on human rights and (2) a nine-point agenda for specific action. We hope that it helps fulfill the following purposes:

[Page 77]

—Apprise the Secretary of items needing his approval/guidance and the range of activities underway.

—Set the framework, substantively and bureaucratically, for follow-up action by the Department’s functional and regional bureaus (in most cases getting them to provide solid specific programs for review by the Human Rights Coordinating Group (HRCG) which you chair).

—Provide a still-shot for all bureaus concerned with human rights of what’s being done and how their human rights efforts relate to the whole.

The memo tells the Secretary that numerous efforts are in train, many of which require your action or review. The following is a checklist of those action items requiring your attention, which D/HA and S/P will help staff out:2

—Request regional assistant secretaries to follow-up on previous strategy papers with specific courses of action for all individual countries (page 5).3

—Meeting of the HRCG to decide follow-up on several nations for which the bureaus have already prepared illustrative Country Action Programs (page 5).4

—Establishment of HRCG core group (page 6).5

—Your chairmanship of interagency working group (page 6).6

—Help in expediting confirmation of Patt Derian as Human Rights Coordinator (page 6).7

—Request AID, together with other concerned bureaus, to devise more means for donor-nation cooperation on human rights (page 9).

—Request status report and action plan to improve women’s rights (page 9).

—Provision for assuring implementation of present human rights legislation and working effectively with the Congress and other agencies on use of international financial institutions (page 10).8

—Request IO to provide “Agenda for US Action on Human Rights at the United Nations” for HRCG review (page 15).

[Page 78]

—Request ARA to provide “Agenda for US Action on Human Rights in the OAS” for HRCG review (page 18).

—Request PM and T to draw on “Program for US Use of Security Assistance to Further Human Rights” for HRCG review (page 19).

—Follow-up on Executive Branch action, legislation, and necessary administrative procedures to modify Section 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, expand refugee and asylum policies, and protect US citizens abroad (page 20).9

—Request for HRCG review of action plans by CU, USIA, and PA (page 21).

Attachment

Action Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Lake) and the Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs-Designate (Derian) to Secretary of State Vance 10

US Foreign Policy on Human Rights: General Approach and Specific Action Program

Issues for Decision

The Carter Administration has moved fast to establish its bona fides on human rights. Problems—most notably, an impression of inadequate coordination within the Executive Branch and backlash from abroad—remain. We now need to assure that our policy for furthering human rights is as effective as possible and that it relates to the full range of US diplomatic objectives. This memorandum thus requests your approval of a general statement of US policy on human rights and specific actions for implementation of that policy and provides you with an overview of programs underway.

1. Statement of General Policy

The world now knows that Jimmy Carter thinks human rights are important. Many—not just representatives of foreign governments and [Page 79]journalists, but also our own personnel—do not know what he means by “internationally recognized human rights,” which human rights are to get priority US attention, and what criteria we plan to apply in individual cases. We therefore believe that a clearcut statement of US policy on human rights should stress the following:

—“Internationally recognized human rights” are those set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Tab 1)11 The 30 articles of that document express rights which enjoy international consensus (adopted by the UN General Assembly), encompass concerns specified by the Congress (e.g., the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended), and reflect traditional American values.

—There is an important relation between the political/civil liberties12 and the economic/social rights specified in the Declaration. We cannot pursue our commitments to both economic development and political freedom if we give one set of rights priority over the other.

—Although our long-range goal is to help raise the standards of national observance of human rights around the world, we may have to set more selective priorities in the short-term. Thus, in addition to continuing pursuit of economic development, social well-being and political liberty, we will take most vigorous action, when constructive for the case at hand, with regard to crimes against the person:13 i.e., officially-sanctioned murder, torture, or detention without fair trial (Articles III, V, VIII, IX, X, and XI of the Universal Declaration).

—Our criteria for formulating and implementing this general policy in individual cases will include consideration for the following:14

• Nature and extent of violations—contravention of the Universal Declaration? Recurring regional, class, ethnic, or political patterns to violations?

• Direction of movement—situation improving or deteriorating? For example, we need a particularly sophisticated and nuanced approach for countries which, while still serious violators of human rights, are moving to improve their performance in this area.

• Tradition or level of development—realistic, for example, for US to promote Anglo-Saxon precepts in tribal or feudal society?

• Validity of security justification—is an emergency abrogation of rights needed to meet an internal or external threat that could not be otherwise contained?

[Page 80]

• Openness to outside inquiry—is the country in question willing to permit investigation by such public international organizations as the UN or such respected non-governmental organizations as the International Commission of Jurists?

• Extent of other US interests/leverage—the degree and character of US influence in the country? Likely third-country reaction to US action or inaction on human rights? Reaction of democratic elements in the country concerned? Possible retaliation by the host government against US policies on human rights (such as recent renunciation of military assistance by several Latin American nations or possible cut-off of oil elsewhere)?

Action Requested

—That you authorize a general statement of US policy on human rights which is: premised on the UN Universal Declaration, balanced with attention for both political/civil15 and economic/social rights, most concerned in the short-term with improving performance by those governments committing crimes against the person, and based on consideration of the criteria set forth above.16

—That you authorize dispatch of guidance, to the field and for reference within the foreign affairs agencies in Washington, which reflects this general policy. (Tab 2)17

2. Action with Individual Countries

We continue to resist the idea of a country “hit list.” It would not reflect the universal dimension of our policy—i.e., general concern for all rights everywhere and working with all nations. And, it might be counterproductive—i.e., needlessly antagonize some nations, while giving others a free ride. Flexibility is in order—both for defining the continuum of countries of most concern to us and in discerning what approaches [public or private, bilateral or multilateral, symbolic or substantive, positive or reactive, etc.] could be most useful.18

However, while stressing the fundamental global character of our program, we will inevitably focus on some nations more than others—identifying or responding to particularly egregious cases of murder, [Page 81]torture, or detention; weighing those cases where US action on human rights per se could endanger other objectives (such as disarmament) which, in fact, serve or complement the cause of human rights; or seeking out like-minded democracies for positive initiatives in the United Nations.

Given this range of considerations, we need to augment material now available to help identify upcoming opportunities to advance human rights; deal with specific countries which, for a variety of reasons, may pose more immediate problems for the United States; and avoid overloading the human rights circuit by appearing to single out one country or doing too much at one time. Further, we should pay particular attention to finding positive ways to foster human rights (such as using public statements by the Administration and the Congress, bilateral and multilateral loans, etc.). And, although it is hard to know in advance all the costs of advocating human rights, we must try to identify possible short-term problems and monitor the consequences.

Actions Being Taken

—The Deputy Secretary is asking regional assistant secretaries to follow up on previous strategy papers with specific courses of action for all individual countries.19

—The Deputy Secretary is planning to convene the Human Rights Coordinating Group (HRCG), by April 15, to review action for several illustrative countries needing prompt attention.20

3. Executive Branch Coordination

Measures to strengthen coordinated direction of US policy on human rights should include:

Expediting confirmation of the Coordinator for Human Rights. Patt Derian remains a “closet” Coordinator.21

Enlarging the D/HA Staff. Although five new positions have been approved for the Office for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (D/HA), no assignments22 have been made and expansion of that staff is vital if the Department is to monitor our overall human rights policy.

Providing training. The Foreign Service Institute should expand efforts to stress human rights as a factor in US foreign policy.

[Page 82]

Expanding the scope and effectiveness of the Human Rights Coordinating Group. This group—which you set up recently,23 chaired by the Deputy Secretary and including Deputy Assistant Secretary-level representation from all Department bureaus concerned with human rights—should meet at least once a month to project pending issues and determine matters for decision by you or the Deputy Secretary. A smaller core group—to include D, P, IO, H, L, and S/P—should be available to meet, at Assistant Secretary level, for fast-action items.

Assuring interagency coordination. The State Department should take the lead in helping assure a coherent line on human rights by all concerned parts of the Executive Branch (most notably, Defense, Treasury, CIA, USIA, AID). In lieu of the now-cancelled PRM on human rights,24 this effort will require action by the Deputy Secretary through an interagency task force or ad hoc group.

Actions Requested:

—That you inform the President of the policy being implemented by the State Department and propose the use of an interagency ad hoc group, chaired by the Deputy Secretary to help assure Executive Branch coordination. (See Tab 325 for proposed memorandum from you to the President.)26

—Authorize the Deputy Secretary to expedite confirmation of Patt Derian as the Coordinator for Human Rights.27

—Authorize the Deputy Under Secretary for Management to detail five Foreign Service Officers to D/HA by April 1.28

—Request that D/HA, assisted by S/P, provide you with a brief status report (due by the first day of each month) on items proposed in this memorandum and subsequent initiatives on human rights.29

[Page 83]

4. Economic Assistance

US use of economic assistance—whether bilateral or through international financial institutions (IFI’s)—is another means to promote human rights. It fosters economic and social development which is itself a plus for general human rights and a basis for better observance of political and civil liberty and provides a specific tool (positive or reactive) for dealing with individual country performances on human rights.

A. Bilateral Programs. The US Government needs to take several general steps to assure that economic assistance reinforces respect for human rights.

AID country programs should be consistent with other US efforts (security, information) in a given nation. We should not, for example, withdraw economic assistance on human rights grounds at the same time USIA praises the human rights record of the host nation.

—Since promoting human rights is a long-term process, we must resist quixotic fluctuations in our use of economic assistance to further human rights.

—We could help human rights and economic development by increasing participation by the poor in both the direction and benefits of US programs for development aid.

Specific action programs which merit attention include:

Follow-up and expansion of AID’s program for “New Initiatives in Human Rights.” Launched by the then Administrator in 1975 as a complement to the Agency’s “New Directions” program for stress on the poor,30 this effort has foundered on lack of staff, meager encouragement from high levels of the State Department, and specific resistance from certain regional bureaus within the Department. The AID program could address the following: increased cooperation with international and regional organizations, help for the rural and urban poor in gaining effective access to rights and protections provided for them under the law and in development programs, and sponsorship of studies and conferences on human rights problems and their relation to economic development.

Increased consultation with other industrial nation donors. The US Government should follow up on a proposal made last year by the then UK Minister for Overseas Development to confer on best means to wed [Page 84]concern for human rights and economic assistance. Possible approaches: Make this idea an agenda item for talks with visiting senior officials from the OECD area or propose it as a topic for consultation at the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD. With the ground prepared for talking with the British and Scandinavians, the US could be in a position to have the AID Administrator make a major presentation at the next session of the high-level DAC.31

Further efforts in behalf of women’s rights—since available information suggests that women suffer more violations of basic economic, social, and political rights than do men.

Action Requested

—Authorize the AID Administrator to follow up and expand on the “New Initiatives” program, with the first step, formal presentation of an action plan and stipulation of resource needs to the HRCG by May 1.32

Actions Being Taken

—The Deputy Secretary is asking D/HA to follow up with AID on ways to increase consultations on human rights with other industrial nation donors. One end product: a cable to the field, with input from EUR and EA, indicating how the US plans to work with the other industrial democracies to further human rights.33

—The Deputy Secretary is asking AID and IO, in conjunction with D/HA and S/P, to draw up a status report and action plan to improve women’s rights. (Due for review by the HRCG by May 15.)

B. Use of International Financial Institutions (IFI’s). 34 The so-called Harkin Amendment, which injects human rights considerations into the bills authorizing US participation in the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the African Development Fund (ADF)—together with the recent Reuss bill35 and Humphrey proposal extending human rights considerations to all the IFI’s—present us with a difficult [Page 85]tradeoff.36 On the one hand, we want to comply with current legislation, thus giving it a chance to affect observance of human rights and demonstrating our willingness to work with the Congress in this regard. On the other hand, we want to avoid turning our advocacy of human rights into a point of useless political contention within the IFI’s—thus feeding confrontation along North-South lines, fostering even more politicization of the IFI’s, and undermining the legitimate role of these institutions.

Our present approach is to make a good faith effort to fulfill the spirit and letter of Harkin. At the same time, we remain open to Congressional initiatives which might allow more flexibility for Executive Branch use of the IFI’s as one of several means to promote human rights. To facilitate adequate implementation of this approach:

EB must provide all relevant members of the HRCG (D/HA, E, ARA, H, L, and S/P) with prior notice of US decisions on Harkin Amendment votes.

—In addition, EB should draw on previous analysis of human rights and the IFI’s to provide a policy paper for HRCG review by April 15. That paper should include evaluation of such approaches as using US votes to register disapproval of human rights violations, encouraging the institutions themselves to further human rights, and placing priority emphasis on promotion of economic rights.

—H must make special provision for use of the IFI’s in its Congressional human rights strategy (see below).

—E must alert the Deputy Secretary to any inconsistency in State-Treasury-NSC positions on human rights in the IFI’s.

Actions Being Taken

—The Deputy Secretary is mandating the above four steps.37

5. Cooperation with the Congress

Present US policy is in tune with what most on the Hill want. The next step—since some Congressmen fear that we have a helter-skelter approach that could dissolve in the face of Realpolitik—is to demonstrate to the Congress that our human rights program is serious, coordinated, and related to other US national interests.

Our strategy for Congressional relations on the human rights question need not be so much a “strategy” as an attitude. That attitude should start and end with the determination to work with the Congress—not, as sometimes alleged in the previous Administration, [Page 86]contravene legislative intent or use Congress as the culprit in advocating human rights abroad. Hopes that human rights would go away as an issue or efforts to block growing Congressional determination to promote human rights led to the frustration which, in turn, prompted legislation which may or may not be the most useful way to further human rights.

Given that backdrop and present political intent on the Hill, the Executive Branch approach to the Congress on human rights should include:

Extended Contacts with the Hill. Close contact and consultation with both members of the Congress and their staffs are important. Such consultations should not be limited to human rights interest groups on the Hill and D/HA in the Department.

• Each regional bureau and concerned functional bureau, in consultation with appropriate officers in H and D/HA, should work out a regularized schedule of informal contact with Congresspersons and staff in their areas to explain specifically upcoming decisions or problems.

• Such consultations should cover the spectrum of members and issues. For example, as we develop our policy on human rights toward Korea, EA, in consultation with D/HA and H, should consult with interested and key members of Congress.

Top Priority Items. The following items are of particular immediate concern to the Congress and should therefore figure prominently in the Department’s six-month Congressional action plan on human rights.

a. Harkin Amendment on the International Financial Institutions and Bilateral Economic Assistance. (Follow-up on productive consultations with Congressmen Reuss, Harkin, Fraser, Gonzalez, et al.)

b. Security Assistance

General: Executive Branch to review all country programs before September 30, making allowance for changes in human rights performances. Specific consideration should focus on minimal programs in Latin America, especially Central America, and grant security assistance to Indonesia and Thailand.

c. UN Human Rights Covenants and Conventions. (Follow up on President’s March 17 UN speech)38

d. Korea, Philippines, East Timor

e. Rhodesia, South Africa, and Namibia

[Page 87]

Cooperation with Human Rights Lobby. Since there is an increasingly active, vocal, and influential human rights lobby operating on the Hill, the Department should complement its efforts with the Congress with efforts to meet and talk with representatives of the more important human rights organizations in town: the new Washington office of Amnesty International (AI), the Washington Office for Latin America (WOLA), the National Catholic Conference, B’nai B’rith, and the Coalition for a New Foreign Military Policy.

Use of Fellowship Program: Encourage State Department recipients of Congressional Fellowships to work with known Congressional advocates of human rights such as Fraser, Koch, Harkin, Reuss, Cranston, Kennedy, etc.

Two Caveats. First, no strategy of consultations will be effective unless we have a consistent policy to explain. Second, we must stress promotion of human rights as a joint Executive-Legislative Branch enterprise. Since there may well be short-term costs (at home and abroad) for this policy, we will want Congress aware of potential costs, ready to share responsibility with us during rough periods, and thus able to provide the most enduring consensus for our human rights policy.

Action Being Taken

—H—assisted by D/HA, L, and S/P—following up on the above outline with a six-month plan for working with the Congress to promote human rights. (Due to the Deputy Secretary by April 10.)

6. Multilateral Diplomacy

The US should put increased effort into working with other nations and using multilateral mechanisms to further human rights. Dealing through multilateral channels has the advantages of reducing the image of the US as the moralistic mother-in-law of the world and enlisting the force/leverage of international opinion behind the cause.

At the United Nations, our general approach should include:

—Factoring human rights into all US activities at the United Nations, not just for those occasions (such as meetings of the Human Rights Commission—HRC) when it is specifically on the agenda.

—Determining before both the convening of a new session of the General Assembly and each major UN conference, a few priority human rights issues for special US attention—ones either important to us or ripe for forward movement.

—Consulting early and often with close allies and, when possible, with non-aligned nations, to identify issues of shared concern and forge appropriate coalitions.

[Page 88]

—Seeking greater collaboration with Third World nations by stressing the relation between promotion of all human rights—political, civil, economic, social, and cultural.

—Continuing to involve Congress in the preparation for and participation in UN meetings.

—Concentrating US efforts on the worldwide problems of crimes against the person.

—Trying to assure even-handed study and statements on country and area human rights situations so that not just a few targets (such as Chile, Israel, and South Africa) are singled out without significant reference to other gross violators.

Specific recommendations for US action on human rights at the United Nations should include:

—Pressing for US ratification of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the covenant on political and civil rights and the covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights (as noted in the President’s UN speech, March 17).

—Preparing immediately a human rights strategy for the Spring Session of ECOSOC (New York, April 12–May 13), the September 1977 UNGA and, if and when announced, the Special Session for the North-South dialogue.

—Seeking ways to eliminate the racism-Zionism issue in order to allow full US participation in the international struggle against racism and racial discrimination.

—Considering the selection of one of the USUN ambassadors as US Representative to the HRC. That would facilitate continuity in the US statements and actions at the HRC, ECOSOC, and the General Assembly, and provide one known full-time US spokesperson at the UN. That individual could be charged with factoring human rights considerations into US participation in UN meetings on economic and social development (important for greater cooperation with the LDC’s) and maintaining closer contact with non-governmental organizations which form an important part of the human rights constituency and which lobby actively at the United Nations.

—Finding ways to strengthen the Human Rights Commission, such as following up on the President’s proposal for more frequent meetings of the HRC, returning the Commission to New York, and increasing its mandate with the appointment of a UN Human Rights Commissioner. We should also use the HRC to preserve and defend the Commission’s procedures for dealing with private complaints on human rights.

[Page 89]

Action Being Taken

—The Deputy Secretary is asking IO to expand on the above for an “Agenda for US Action on Human Rights at the United Nations.” For HRCG review by April 5.39

At the Organization of American States (OAS), the US should capitalize on the significant potential of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IAHRC). ARA has come up with the following proposals.

a. Budget Increase. The IAHRC would develop a program justifying a supplementary budget increase request from the OAS to increase substantially its present annual funding of around $463,000. OAS funding of the proposal would be far preferable to another US contribution since it would strengthen the multilateral credentials of the IAHRC and avoid the procedural problems which endangered acceptance this year of our special contribution.

b. Program of Annual Visits. The IAHRC should use much of the money, members, and staff to schedule an annual visit by a member-or-staff team to almost every OAS member country. Obviously, visits to countries from which there are few if any complaints would be largely pro forma. If such a visit became an annual practice (at least while the present high level of human rights violations continues), the nations that are serious violators could not refuse to receive or cooperate with the investigating team on the basis that they are being singled out unjustly. We have checked with the Legal Adviser’s Office and confirmed that the US can and should cooperate with an IAHRC investigation of human rights complaints in the United States and such constituent territories as Puerto Rico and possibly the Canal Zone.

c. Annual Investigations of Human Rights Complaints Against Cuba. For reasons of equity and to counteract the argument of right-wing governments that left-wing violators were being ignored, we would encourage an annual investigation of human rights complaints against Cuba. Of course, a visit to Cuba by the IAHRC would presumably be impossible as long as Cuba remains a non-participating member of the OAS.

d. Annual Debate on Human Rights Situations. We would push strongly for debate on the human rights situation in each country reported on in appropriate OAS bodies, especially in this June’s annual General Assembly. Our OAS delegate would take care to acknowledge improvements, as well as to denounce violations.

e. Educational Programs. We will push and flesh out a program of Inter-American education in the human rights area which we plan to [Page 90]propose at the next meeting of the Inter-American Education, Science, and Cultural Council.

f. Attention to Terrorism. Since mounting terrorism has recently contributed to worsening human rights situations, we would support broadening the mandate of the IAHRC to investigate the link between abuses of human rights and terrorism. Such an initiative would appeal to the conservative Latin American regimes and thus contribute to multilateralizing support for the IAHRC.

g. Affirmative Reaction Program. A promising approach to the human rights problem, which we could recommend informally to the Commission, would be to emphasize the more positive features of the Commission’s role to study and recommend to member states innovative procedures that safeguard human rights, rather than concentrating on its potential to isolate and shame offending regimes.

h. Unresolved Issue. Should the Commission appear to be developing into a tribunal, able to make judgments and level sanctions on individual governments, present support for strengthening its investigative machinery would wane. The dilemma is how to make the Com-mission a powerful instrument to monitor human rights performances without raising the spectre of political interference in the name of human rights. Southern Cone States are acutely sensitive to US pressure to clean house and are likely to react to that pressure by spreading the idea that our concern with human rights is just another version of “Yankee interventionism” aimed at disrupting Latin solidarity.

i. Pending Questions. Should the State Department submit information concerning violations to the IAHRC? Should the US lobby strongly for the ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights? If the OAS threatens to narrow the mandate of the Commission, or to emasculate it by other means, should the US counter, either by threatening to reduce its budgetary contributions or to withdraw from the Organization? etc.

j. High-Level Speeches. The Department will be providing language on human rights for the President’s speech before the OAS Permanent Council, April 14. You may also want discussion of human rights in your speech before the OAS General Assembly this June.40

[Page 91]

Action Being Taken

—The Deputy Secretary is asking ARA to pursue the above proposals and report to the HRCG by May 1.41

7. Security Assistance

The problem of relating security assistance to human rights has both a procedural and a substantive aspect: we must ensure early introduction of human rights considerations into our decision-making and must weigh our special responsibility to respect human rights in countries receiving security assistance or buying arms from the US against other American national interests. See Tab 4 for elaboration of these procedural and substantive guidelines.42

Action Being Taken

—The Deputy Secretary is asking PM and T, with assistance from D/HA, H, and S/P, to draw on the “Program for US Use of Security Assistance to Further Human Rights” (at Tab 4) for presentation of a detailed six-month action plan to the HRCG by May 1.

8. Protection of US Human Rights

The US should take several steps to put its own human rights house in order. In addition to prompt ratification of the relevant UN instruments, we should:

Visa Policy: Proceed with new legislation and more flexible administration of US visa policies which can eliminate political tests for visitors—which reduce US influence among foreign intellectuals and present us with needless vulnerability in the CSCE.

Refugee and Asylum Policy: Encourage legislation and necessary administrative action to expand our refugee and asylum policies in order to permit entry into the United States of more victims of repressive regimes.

Protection of American Citizens Abroad: Strengthen our representations on behalf of American citizens adversely affected by repressive measures in foreign countries.

Actions Taken

—Interagency study on visas, chaired by SCA, completed March 21.43

[Page 92]

—Deputy Secretary is mandating D/HA—assisted by SCA, H, L, S/P, and other concerned bureaus—to assure follow-up on Executive Branch action, legislation, and necessary administrative action to modify Section 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, expand refugee and asylum policies and protect US citizens abroad.

9. Public Diplomacy

In the best of all worlds, promotion of human rights should stand on its own merits and speak for itself. We can, however, maximize impact and understanding for US policy on human rights by taking the following actions:

—Mandate representation by USIA on the Department’s Human Rights Coordinating Group. Both PA and CU already participate.

—Authorize preparation of human rights action plans by CU, PA, and USIA and subsequent review by the HRCG. See Tab 5 for illustrative outlines of such programs by CU and USIA.44

PA should be tasked with preparing a plan which helps you and other senior-level officials of this Administration explain US policy on human rights. That plan should include projection of major speeches to be made (with an eye for optimal timing and impact vis-à-vis other contemplated measures on human rights) and preparation of materials for mailing to important opinion leaders/groups and use by State Department employees speaking throughout the United States. A special effort should be made to encourage influential US intellectuals to speak out in behalf of human rights.

—Authorize one member of the D/HA staff to be the point of coordination for those elements of the foreign affairs agencies dealing with human rights via press/media statements, programs for information, cultural or academic exchange, etc.

Actions Being Taken

S/P is drafting a speech on human rights as a possible presentation for your “Law Day” appearance in Georgia, April 30.45

—The Deputy Secretary is asking CU and USIA, with the cooperation of other concerned bureaus, to draw on the action program outlines at Tab 5 for final HRCG review by June 1.46

[Page 93]

—The Deputy Secretary is asking PA to prepare a comparable plan, as outlined above, for HRCG review by April 15.

D/HA, on behalf of the Deputy Secretary, is asking USIA to participate in the HRCG.47

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Withdrawn Material, RC #1126, Box 12 of 13. Secret. Drafted by Vogelgesang on March 24. Christopher returned the memorandum to Lake under a handwritten note: “Tony—This is valuable. Please see my notes and let’s discuss. Chris.” The note bears the handwritten date “3/28/77” and Lamb’s initials. (Ibid.)
  2. Christopher placed an asterisk next to this paragraph and noted at the bottom of the page: “*need to have comprehensive statement for testimony or speech, building on Tab 2.”
  3. Christopher placed a check mark to the left of this point.
  4. Christopher wrote in the margin to the left of this point: “Early April.”
  5. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote: “OK informal”
  6. Christopher placed a question mark next to this point.
  7. Christopher placed a check mark next to this and the two subsequent points.
  8. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote: “Ann Swift at work.”
  9. Christopher bracketed this point and also placed a check mark next to it, next to the three points above, and the one below.
  10. Secret. The date is hand-stamped. Neither Derian nor Lake initialed the memorandum. Sent through Christopher and Habib. Drafted in S/P on March 24; concurred in by Nimetz.
  11. Attached but not printed.
  12. Christopher inserted the word “personal/” before “political/civil liberties.”
  13. Christopher underlined the phrase “crimes against the person.”
  14. Christopher placed a vertical line in the margin next to the first two bulleted points below and wrote: “These need to be added to my hurried ‘6 questions’ testimony. Perhaps next testimony can be 10 questions—and some answers.”
  15. Christopher inserted the word “personal/” before “political/civil.”
  16. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote in the margin: “Tab 2 is a good start.” Christopher initialed his approval of the request on March 27.
  17. Tab 2, an undated “General Statement for U.S. Policy on Human Rights” paper, is attached but not printed. Christopher wrote above this paragraph: “This is a good start. Q & A could be incorporated into text of next testimony—WC at HIRC [House International Relations Committee] (?).” Christopher drew an arrow from the disapproval line to the approval line and wrote: “To be reviewed after general statement prepared. Note telegram I sent last week,” a presumable reference to Document 28.
  18. Brackets in the original.
  19. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote in the margin: “Please prepare memo.”
  20. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote in the margin: “Early April.”
  21. On March 5, the President announced Derian’s nomination as Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. (Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, p. 327)
  22. Christopher underlined the phrase “no assignments” and wrote in the margin: “This is in process—PD [Patt Derian] has Deputy [illegible].”
  23. See Document 9.
  24. See footnote 1, Document 22.
  25. Attached but not printed is an undated memorandum from Vance to the President. The final version of this memorandum is printed as Document 48. Christopher wrote in the margin next to this point: “? Do we want to get a lot of others involved; will it dilute effort and hamper flexibility? Is coordination worth it?”
  26. There is no indication as to whether Christopher approved or disapproved the recommendation.
  27. Christopher initialed his approval and added: “Bennet should be asked to check on hearing date.” Derian’s nomination was subsequently submitted to the Senate on April 29. Her formal swearing-in ceremony took place at the White House on June 17. (Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, pp. 746 and 1131–1132)
  28. There is no indication as to whether Christopher approved or disapproved the recommendation. He bracketed this point and wrote in the margin: “question necessity if PD can build permanent staff.”
  29. There is no indication as to whether Christopher approved or disapproved the recommendation.
  30. Section 102 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973 (see footnote 4, Document 58) on Development Assistance Policy, contains the provisions of the “New Directions” mandate, which focuses on fuctional categories such as population planning and agricultural production as criteria for foreign assistance. (Congress and the Nation, Volume IV, 1973–1976, pp. 851–852)
  31. The 1977 DAC High Level Meeting adopted a “Statement on Development Co-operation for Economic Growth and Meeting Basic Human Needs.” It emphasized that meeting basic human needs was an essential component of economic growth.
  32. Christopher initialed his approval.
  33. Christopher bracketed this point and the one below and wrote in the margin next to each: “ok, WC.”
  34. Christopher placed a vertical line in the margin next to this paragraph and added: “This point needs more study—Ann Swift is supposed to be preparing paper.”
  35. Reuss introduced H.R. 5262 in the House on March 21. A section of the bill required the United States, “in connection with its voice and vote” in the international financial institutions to “advance the cause of human rights, by seeking to channel economic assistance to governments that do not engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”
  36. See Document 33.
  37. In the left-hand margin next to the previous paragraph, including the four points, Christopher placed a parallel line and added: “Ann Swift working on paper.”
  38. See Document 26.
  39. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote in the margin: “ok, WC.”
  40. The President’s April 14 address to the Organization of American States, delivered at the Pan American Union, is printed in Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, pp. 611–616 and is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy. Vance headed the U.S. delegation to the General Assembly of the OAS, meeting in St. George, Grenada, June 14–24. Vance’s intervention before the General Assembly, his statement on U.S.–Panama negotiations, a transcript of his news conference, and his remarks upon his return to Washington are printed in Department of State Bulletin, July 18, 1977, pp. 69–76.
  41. Christopher bracketed this point.
  42. Tab 4, an undated “Program for US Use of Security Assistance to Further Human Rights Procedural Guidelines” paper, is attached but not printed.
  43. Study not found.
  44. Not found attached. The undated “CU Action Program on Human Rights” and “USIA Action Program on Human Rights” papers are attached to an undated version of the memorandum delivered to Habib’s office. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P770118–2014)
  45. Christopher bracketed this point and wrote in the margin: “I am back-up in case Secry c/n attend.”
  46. For Christopher’s requests to the functional bureaus regarding preparation of a human rights action plan, see Document 52.
  47. Christopher bracketed this paragraph and added “ok.”