41. Memorandum From Jane Pisano of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs (Aaron)1
SUBJECT
- Interagency Group on Human Rights
Substituting for Jessica Tuchman, I attended a meeting today of the interagency group chaired by Warren Christopher. Treasury, State, DOD, AID, and NSC were represented.2 Virtually 80 percent of the discussion was about specific loans which will be considered by IFI’s next week.
Specifically, we discussed loans to Paraguay, the Philippines, Ethiopa, Malawi and El Salvador, which are summarized at Tab A.
The discussion left me uneasy for several reasons: (1) We were deciding the U.S. position on individual loans
—in the absence of country studies (which will, when completed, include U.S. objectives and outline the range of foreign policy instruments at our disposal.) Without these studies, there may be a tendency to rely too heavily on voting in IFIs, which may not be the best means of influencing a state’s human rights performance.
[Page 123]—in the absence of explicit criteria for assessing human rights performance. I understand that guidelines are being prepared in light of Vance’s recent speech.3 This will help. However, we also need to be clear about whether we are going to evaluate trends in human rights performance (if so, over what period of time) and/or overall level of human rights violations. (I know that we want to maintain our flexibility on this point, but our internal discussions should not be fuzzy).
—in the absence of criteria for defining minimum human needs projects. The State staff recommendation on loans for Ethiopia, for example, was to vote “yes” on an agricultural irrigation project and “no” on a rural roads project on grounds that the former met minimum human needs while the latter did not. This distinction escapes me. (As far as I know, State is not yet addressing this problem).
While I have no doubt that these problems will eventually be resolved, we will in the interim be making ad hoc decisions which may set precedents for further decisions. And while flexibility is important, we have to be careful not to make arbitrary decisions, justified in the name of human rights or basic human needs. If that happens, Congressional support will surely dwindle—as it did for bilateral assistance in the early 1960’s when we justified giving aid to whichever countries we wanted by citing one of several aid rationales.
(2) For future meetings we will be informed in advance of the cases to be considered. NSC regional staff should participate, along with Jessica, when important loans to countries in their region are being discussed.
Procedures for examining impending loans were presented briefly by Treasury and will be reviewed at the next meeting. The procedures should be considered in light of the PRM on Human Rights, assuming the proposal is approved.
[Page 124]Tab A
Paper Prepared by Jane Pisano of the National Security Council Staff4
Washington, undated
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS
Paraguay. Two loans: industrial credit and rural development. The U.S. will support the loan proposals because of recent improvements in human rights and because one (rural development) meets minimum human needs criteria. State will, however, call in the Paraguayan charge to express our interest in their favorable response to a visit by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.
Philippines. One loan which meets minimum human needs. The U.S. will support the loan because it meets human needs and because of recent improvements in human rights. We will inform Philippines that we are watching human rights carefully. Treasury should brief Don Fraser.
Ethiopia. Two loans: irrigation; rural feeder roads. The decision was deferred until Christopher could talk to Habib and the African Bureau.
Malawi. One loan: water supply. U.S. should vote affirmatively but communicate our concern about human rights performance to Malawi government.
El Salvador. $90 million IDB loan for hydroelectric power. U.S. has veto power. After extended discussion of the deteriorating human rights performances and consideration of the precedent that would be set by U.S. veto of a loan to a country which is not among the worst human rights violators, it was decided to postpone indefinitely consideration of the loan. Also a factor: NGOs are planning a campaign against this one and there may be substantial Congressional pressure to turn down the loan.
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Subject File, Box 28, Human Rights, 5/77–11/78. No classification marking. Sent for information. A copy was sent to Tuchman. A handwritten notation on the memorandum reads: “DA [David Aaron] has seen.” Inderfurth also initialed the memorandum.↩
- A 4-year listing of Christopher Committee meetings and countries discussed, prepared in 1980, indicates that the Committee met for the first time on May 6. (Department of State, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1980 Human Rights Subject Files, Lot 82D180, IAGHRFA—History & Organization)↩
- See Document 39.↩
- No classification marking.↩