58. Memorandum From the Administrator of the Agency for International
Development (Gilligan) to the Deputy
Secretary of State (Christopher)1
Washington, June 13, 1977
SUBJECT
- U. S. Policy on Human Rights
Attached are the contributions to PRM 28
which you requested from A.I.D. These are:
—Action Plan for Expanding A.I.D.’s Human Rights Initiatives (Tab A)
—Status Report on the Observance of Women’s Rights (Tab B)
—Use of Economic and Food Assistance to Improve Human Rights Conditions (Tab
C)
The last paper has been coordinated with State/EB as you requested.
These possibilities for additional action in pursuit of the Administration’s
human rights objectives are appropriate for consideration at this point. No decisions
should be made on them at this time, however, since their respective pros
and cons cannot be reflected in a contribution of this length. Each should
be more thoroughly and openly discussed, and coordinated with proposed
action in other areas, to fully develop information on which final action
can be based. I assume such interagency discussions will be part of the
PRM 28 process as it has been for
earlier PRMs.
Tab A
Paper Prepared in the Agency for International
Development2
NEW INITIATIVES IN HUMAN RIGHTS
The A.I.D. program provides support for selective initiatives
specifically addressed to human rights concerns, in the context of
eco
[Page 169]
nomic development. The
kinds of initiatives which we have said we contemplate include, but will
not necessarily be limited to:
(a) Cooperative programs with leading international or regional
institutions, such as the International Commission of Jurists and the
Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which are specialized in dealing
with serious human rights violations;
(b) Programs designed to help the urban poor and rural poor to have
effective access to the rights and protections which are provided for
them under law and under development programs—including arrangements for
local advocacy and for nonformal education aimed at providing the poor
majority with knowledge of their rights and of governmental processes
which affect them; and
(c) Sponsorship of studies and conferences regarding human rights
problems and their relationship to development.
The emphasis is to be on the various categories of human rights
recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as they relate
to each other.
Each A.I.D. regional bureau has proposed to follow a strategy to fit the
particular circumstances and needs of the countries it is concerned
with. LA has stressed legal aid and “public interest” law. NE emphasizes
the need for a better understanding of local social, cultural, and
political conditions. ASIA stresses the work of voluntary groups, such
as the Asia Foundation. AFR intends to encourage studies and
conferences, with emphasis on African participation, which focus on
problems related to the development in multi-ethnic societies, the human
rights aspects of local and traditional values, and the human rights
consequences of economic and political change.
In actions taken to date:
—A.I.D. sponsored a one-day meeting at Johns Hopkins University of
scholars, foundation officials, human rights activists, and officers
from the Executive and Legislative Branch on the relationship between
economic and the other categories of rights. The deliberations are
summarized in the April issue of War on
Hunger.3 A.I.D. also
funded a conference sponsored by the State University of New York at
Albany and the Irish Institute for Public Administration on the roles
which legislative bodies play with respect to the various categories of
human rights. A report on that meeting is available.4
—A.I.D. is sponsoring a program of studies by scholars in various
countries on non-totalitarian approaches toward economic growth with
equity. We are contributing to a program of research on local political
leadership and development programs and progress. Antedating
[Page 170]
the new initiatives, it has
supported a program for technical assistance to representative
assemblies in developing countries, but this support is scheduled to end
in 1977. We have also distributed a collection of reports dealing with
Human Rights and Economic Development.
—A.I.D. supports a major American Society for International Law study of
the role of public interest law as an instrument for economic and social
development. We have helped a legal aid program in Chile and expect to
do the same in other countries.
—We have supported conferences on social and political structures and
rural equity in Afghanistan and Yemen.
—We are providing money for some leaders in the World Peace Through Law
organization to visit African countries for the purpose of surveying the
need for “paralegal” services. A proposal to support a conference on
human rights to be sponsored by the Rwanda Government is pending.
Some of the private voluntary organizations
assisted by A.I.D. have been doing work that is relevant to the new
initiatives. A.I.D.’s latest report to Congress mentions legal aid and
probation reform projects supported by the Asia Foundation.
A.I.D.’s human rights policy for the future will be the subject of a
discussion of A.I.D.’s Senior Staff scheduled for June 10. There are a
number of options which are to be considered; we will inform the Deputy
Secretary of any specific results of that meeting.
Tab B
Memorandum From the Coordinator of the Women in
Development Office, Agency for International Development (Fraser) to the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Intergovernmental and International Affairs,
Agency for International Development (Butler)5
SUBJECT
- Human Rights: AID Response to
PRM 28
Women’s rights are necessarily a part of human rights both because women
are half of humanity and also because women have frequently been
considered second class citizens legally, socially and economically.
The Women’s Rights Movement has its roots in the U.S. Civil Rights
Movement beginning with the abolition of slavery, running
[Page 171]
through the demands for
suffrage and reasserting itself following the Civil Rights Movement of
the 1960s. Legislation frequently includes both the terms race and sex.
When it does not there is often parallel legislation. Likewise, many
private and voluntary organizations are becoming increasingly interested
in women rights. The AID Women in
Development Office is seeking contact and response to requests from both
the traditional women’s groups and the newer women’s rights groups
concerning the women in development issue. The women in development
sections of the Foreign Assistance Act both current and pending6 are responses to the women’s rights movement
within the U.S. and International Women’s Year.
The AID Action
Plan
1. Meetings, seminars and conferences with experts and other interested
persons at home and abroad on the general issue of women in development
and on the specific elements contained in the World Plan of Action for
the Decade for Women.7
2. Concentration on the Five Year Minimum Goals as set forth in the U.N.
World Plan which include:
a. A marked increase in literacy and civic education of women through
primary, secondary and vocational training to the highest level of
education;
b. Participation in policy and decision making by women;
c. Recognition of the economic value of women’s work, both in traditional
work (home and child care which is uncompensated) and in that work
inside and outside the home done for cash or in exchange for goods or
services;
d. Increased provision for health education, sanitation, nutrition,
family education, family planning and other welfare services.
3. Constant monitoring of all programs, projects and activities. This
monitoring to be in accordance with the current legislation, with
implementation to include:
[Page 172]
a. Evaluation by Bureaus and Missions of current and proposed
programs:
—to assure that women’s needs, interests, concerns and efforts are not
overlooked or ignored;
—to determine whether and how AID
programs promote the Five-Year Minimum Goals in the World Plan of
Action.
AID will provide operating units with
simple, objective criteria for use in this assessment.
b. Allocation of funds in which central AID administrators inform the appropriate operating units
of the nature and extent of efforts required to assure that programs
provide sufficient emphasis on women’s rights.
Tab C
Paper Prepared in the Agency for International
Development8
USE OF ECONOMIC AND FOOD ASSISTANCE TO IMPROVE HUMAN RIGHTS
CONDITIONS
Economic assistance and food assistance are potential tools for pursuing
our human rights objectives. Both have strengths and weaknesses in this
regard.
—Economic assistance is perceived to be
immediately responsive to policy control—the presumption is that we
could cut direct financial assistance to governments pursuing policies
of which we disapprove. A distinction should be made between development
assistance, which is intended to benefit the poor majority, and security
supporting assistance which is extended for political reasons.
Manipulation of development assistance programs to achieve short-run
political leverage, however, is not consistent with sound development
programming since it is aimed at the needy, who may be those suffering
most from denial of human rights. Security supporting assistance could
and should be more responsive to short-run political considerations.
—Food assistance under PL 480 Title I is more amenable to short-run manipulation,
in that it may technically be seen as balance-of-payments assistance.
Such use runs the considerable political risk, however, of appearing to
deny food to hungry people in order to achieve U.S. political
objectives. (The domestic purposes of the program may also argue against
sharp increases and decreases.) Title II,
[Page 173]
which is programmed specifically for humanitarian
purposes, ought not to be considered for human rights leverage.
Economic Assistance
A.I.D.’s legislation requires that it be sensitive to human rights
considerations in the design and implementation of its programs. Section
116 of the Foreign Assistance Act requires a denial of all development
assistance under the Act to governments which engage in consistent
patterns of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights,
unless the assistance directly benefits the needy people of that
country. Section 502B declares that no security assistance shall be
provided to a government that engages in a consistent pattern of gross
violations of internationally recognized human rights, except under
extraordinary circumstances.
A.I.D. currently:
—reviews ongoing and proposed projects in each country which may be a
serious violator of internationally recognized standards of human
rights.
—ensures that such projects will directly benefit the needy people of the
country.
A.I.D. will:
—submit assistance proposals for such countries to the Interagency
Committee on Human Rights and Foreign Assistance for discussion of
overriding political considerations.
—ensure, in developing its proposals for projects in developing countries
in which there is a serious question about human rights, that full
consideration will be given to the impact of the program on the
improvement of human rights in that country.
—constantly examine the implementation of its programs in all countries
to ensure that they are supportive of the Administration’s human rights
objectives.
—review annually, on a country-by-country basis, its total proposed
levels of bilateral development and supporting assistance to ensure that
these levels are fully compatible with the Administration’s policy of
positively promoting a commitment to human rights.
The strengthening of sound development policy which is necessary to reach
the needy people of developing countries however, requires long-range
planning. A.I.D.’s internal procedures require keen sensitivity to human
rights issues, and the process described above should serve to ensure
built-in responsiveness. Therefore, we hope that development assistance
would not be used to send short-term signals of approval or disapproval
except in extreme cases. Further, while reductions in development
assistance in reaction to flagrant violations of human rights may be
appropriate in extreme cases, sudden increases would be much harder to
implement productively. Positive incentives should thus be limited to
instances of longer-term steady improvement
[Page 174]
of human rights conditions rather than specific
individual actions. Supporting assistance is more political in nature;
this means that sudden changes are less disruptive but also that there
may be overriding political arguments against using it to pursue human
rights objectives.
Nonetheless, there are possibilities for additional action which could be
considered.
—Automatic cutoff of development and security supporting aid to flagrant
violators. This should be reserved for extreme cases only. It would not
preclude humanitarian assistance to meet disasters.
—Increase development and/or security assistance to reward positive
steps. It is difficult to programmatically justify short-term responses
in development assistance.
—Respond to longer-term human rights trends by raising or lowering
programmed aid levels. This is more consistent with sound use of
development resources. Could be coupled with demarches in capitals to
explain this policy.
—Develop projects specifically directed to enhancing the respect for
rights.
—Consult with other donors to achieve coordinated action. This would
require considerable time and effort, but could be effective over the
longer term.
A.I.D. will continue to reflect, in its development assistance policy,
continuity and perseverance of support of the respect for human rights,
including the fulfillment of such basic human needs as food, shelter,
health care, and education. A.I.D. will continue to examine the
appropriate mix of these possibilities for additional action.
Food Assistance
The new food aid legislation pending in Congress9 contains a provision that no Title I assistance be
provided to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross
violation of internationally recognized human rights, unless the
agreement directly benefits the needy. An agreement will not be
considered to directly benefit the needy unless either the commodities
themselves, or the proceeds from their sale, will be used for specific
projects or programs which the President determines would directly
benefit the needy.
The following are some additional measures which the Administration might
consider for using food aid to promote human rights, together with
discussions of their possible usefulness and drawbacks:
—Publicize U.S. intentions to include human rights considerations in food
aid programs. Instruct Ambassadors and Chiefs of Mission to inform host
governments. Make the point in speeches and statements by senior
officials.
[Page 175]
Discussion: This initiative would help to
underscore to our missions abroad and to foreign governments the U.S.
intention to incorporate human rights considerations in programming food
aid; the effort should increase host countries’ sensitivity to human
rights problems. This is a low-cost course of action; we see no serious
disadvantages.
—Use food aid agreements to seek human rights reform on a case-by-case
basis. Specify during negotiations what human rights actions would be
required to obtain food aid. Indicate that progress would be considered
a positive factor in future food aid decision-making, while regression
or continued violations would be regarded negatively.
Discussion: This procedure would give the U.S.
considerable leverage to seek improvement of human rights conditions.
This leverage would be hard to exercise discreetly, however, in a way
which avoids forcing the recipient nation to acknowledge publicly it is
a human rights violator. Not every case would lend itself to pressure
through food aid. Failure to reach agreement on a food aid program due
to human rights issues would adversely affect bilateral relations and
could lead to charges of U.S. intervention.
—Reduce or eliminate food aid programs in countries which we believe have
performed poorly in the human rights area.
Discussion: The problem with a sanctions approach
is that it creates animosity without providing a positive incentive for
a country to improve its human rights performance. When American food
aid is withdrawn, needy people may suffer badly. While there may be
regimes whose human rights performance is so repugnant as to require
withdrawal of American food aid, in general it would appear desirable to
avoid this action.
—Include human rights self-help measures in appropriate PL 480 agreements.
Discussion: Self-help development measures are
currently included in each PL 480
agreement. The principle could be extended to human rights measures.
These provisions would have to be carefully drafted to avoid giving
unwarranted offense. This would be difficult to enforce and could result
in limited bilateral tension, but is an option. It would be more useful
in communicating concern than in securing actual progress.
—Shift our food aid programs to countries with favorable human rights
performance. Announce that we will give priority to such countries and
provide food assistance on more favorable terms.
Discussion: This proposal is the most forthcoming
and would specifically make human rights performance a key criteria in
programming food aid. Many would question such a criteria when food
needs
[Page 176]
in many countries are so
great, however, and the proposal does not give the U.S. much leverage
over offending countries where the need for food assistance is
recognized to be great.
At a minimum, we should inform missions that we plan to give increased
emphasis to human rights considerations in the allocation of food aid.
We should avoid using food aid to chastize poor human rights performance
but seek to encourage improved performance by recognizing progress in
our negotiations. Measures beyond this should be implemented only in
extreme cases, due to the high visibility, humanitarian justification,
and domestic support of food aid programs.
For these same reasons, Title II should not be considered as a source of
leverage to achieve human rights objectives.
