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:
—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
—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
—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
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
Washington, March 25, 1977
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
