55. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (Bergsten) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)1
SUBJECT
- Human Rights and the IFIs
From our experience thus far I strongly believe we need the following to improve the process by which we make human rights decisions in connection with IFI loan proposals:
1. timely written reports on the human rights situation in the borrowing countries in question,
2. specific criteria for judging performance and changes in the human rights situation in offending countries, and
3. a system for coordinating with other countries concerning U.S. action on human rights and foreign assistance.
Concerning (1), above, the recent case of Benin made it clear that we need up-to-date reports on the status of human rights conditions before making a decision on how the United States should vote, and on any other necessary actions. In the Benin case we abstained on two IDA credits in May, apparently on the basis of a human rights report made in January of this year.2 I believe we should have an up-to-date written report on the human rights situation (including an indication of sources [Page 164] and reliability of information) in each country under consideration by the Inter-Agency Group so that all of its members can participate with full knowledge in arriving at decisions on each proposed loan. Knowledge of the specific human rights situation in each country is also important for our Executive Directors in the IFIs so that they can intelligently discuss the reasons for the U.S. positions with EDs of other countries, and with the managements of the Banks. (Our ED in the World Bank was placed in a difficult situation when other Directors questioned the validity of our view on Benin.) We should also have written copies of the proposed instructions for demarches to countries being approached in connection with human rights matters.3
On (2) above, we need a specific set of human rights criteria against which to formulate decisions on proposed loans to violating countries and to measure changes in their human rights situations. In this connection, Secretary Vance’s speech of April 30, on human rights policy4—while useful—was too broad in scope for the purposes of the Inter-Agency Group. It seems to me we need to have specific criteria so that we can be absolutely clear on the type of actions to which we object, and on specific corrective measures we want to see taken before we alter our position on a particular IFI loan or loans.
On the matter of systematic and timely consultation with other countries, we found at the IDB Annual Meeting in Guatemala that a number of IFI donor countries were receptive to our general human rights position; they felt, however, that in applying our human rights policy to IFI loans we were taking a unilateral approach and were [Page 165] making arbitrary or selective moral judgments. Thus, in general, they seemed to resent our manner of handling human rights in the IFIs. We therefore need to have systematic discussions with other like-minded countries to explain our human rights position, not only on IFI loans but also concerning our approach on other forms of assistance, particularly when there appear to be inconsistencies in our position. By consulting with other countries through our Executive Directors in the IFIs and directly with their governments, we will avoid confrontations and stand a chance of building a consensus in favor of our position on the human rights issue.
I recommend that we discuss these matters in the next meeting of the Inter-Agency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P770148–1054. No classification marking. Katz transmitted Bergsten’s memorandum to Christopher under a June 21 action memorandum and requested that Christopher approve a response to Bergsten indicating that the Interagency Group on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance (IGHRFA) would, at its June 24 meeting, consider the procedural issues Bergsten raised. Handwritten notations on Katz’s action memorandum read: “OBE Per Steve Oxman Mtg Held 6/24 8/10/77” and “FW 6–23–77.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P770148–1052 and P770148–1053)↩
- Presumable reference to early 1977 Department of State human rights reporting requirements. In telegram 14518 to multiple African diplomatic posts, January 22, the Department indicated that it was in the process of reviewing human rights conditions in the development assistance recipient countries (countries not part of the annual Congressional security assistance presentation) and asked posts to report on these conditions by January 31. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770023–1100) In telegram 226 from Cotonou, January 28, the Embassy described Benin as a “police state,” commenting that “rule of law is irrelevant and there are no guarantees for the protection of internationally recognized human rights.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770031–0853) The Benin IDA question was discussed at the May 19 IGHRFA meeting. Schneider noted that the Bureau of African Affairs felt “that the suggested approach to Benin, i.e., to abstain on two upcoming votes for the needy, is appropriate.” (National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 17, Human Rights Interagency Group I)↩
- In telegram 117008 to Cotonou, May 20, the Department indicated that the U.S. Executive Director of the IBRD would be instructed to refrain from the May 24 vote on the IDA loans for Benin “because of our concern for human rights conditions in that country, particularly arbitrary arrests and imprisonment.” The Department instructed the Embassy to démarche the Beninese prior to the May 24 action. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770180–1025) In telegram 916 from Cotonou, May 25, the Embassy reported that the Chargé made the démarche. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770186–1008) In telegram 920 from Cotonou, May 26, the Chargé expressed frustration that the Embassy had not been consulted or allowed to contribute to the IGHRFA decision concerning the abstention, adding that while “Benin’s record on human rights is far from laudable,” many of the political arrests had been linked to a January 16 mercenary attack on Cotonou. He concluded, “I believe that Benin should indeed be taken to task for its violations of human rights but I think the timing and the nature of the measures involved will greatly determine whether our actions will have the desired or the opposite effect. Even if our views on the subject were rejected we would at least have appreciated the opportunity to have our voice heard.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770189–0444) In telegram 998 from Cotonou, June 9, the Embassy reported that it was in the process of revising telegram 926, the “tone and content of which were heavily influenced by the fact that it was written 10 days after mercenary attack and at time when post-coup security measures were at their most stringent. Situation showing some signs of improvement.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770205–1186)↩
- See Document 39.↩
- Bergsten signed “Fred” above his typed signature.↩