61. Telegram From the Department of State to All American Republic Diplomatic Posts1
140421. For Ambassador from Luers. Subject: Human Rights Evaluation Reports.
1. The Department is undertaking a broad scale effort to implement the administration’s human rights policy as effectively as possible. One of the principal components of this effort will be the development of specific proposed courses of action with respect to each individual country. It is not repeat not the Department’s intention to compile a country “hit list,” but these human rights evaluation reports (earlier called human rights country action plans) will enable us to determine where we should concentrate our attention. The Bureau has been requested to submit these reports to D/HA not later than July 1, except those for Brazil, Colombia and Peru, which should be submitted by June 15 if possible.
2. D/HA originally intended to prepare a cable for worldwide distribution setting forth the background for the effort and providing an outline of the required report format.2 On June 8 however the decision [Page 193] was taken to leave action up to each individual bureau. This cable will therefore set forth the background for this effort, the required format for reporting, and the specific action requested of each post.
3. Background. In his Law Day speech at the University of Georgia April 30 (copies have been forwarded to each post), the Secretary specifically defined the human rights which are the subject of our policy, and set forth in detail the questions to be considered as we determine whether and how to act with respect to human rights. Further, he stated that once we choose to act, the means available range from quiet diplomacy in its many forms, through public pronouncements, to withholding of assistance. Evaluation reports should focus on all of the means of action he indicated. Both bilateral and multilateral approaches and all forms of economic and military assistance should be considered, especially possibilities for carrying out our policy through the U.N. and the international financial institutions.
4. Evaluation reports should, in a concise manner, describe the current condition of human rights, the extent of violations, their intensity and the most recent instances, and give recommendations for both short and long-term strategies to improve the human rights situation. The following format should be used.
Outline for evaluation reports:
A. Condition of human rights in (appropriate country).
1. Respect for the integrity of the person, including freedom from:
a. Torture
b. Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
c. Arbitrary arrest or imprisonment
d. Denial of fair public trial
e. Invasion of the home.
2. Respect for civil and political liberties
a. Freedom of thought, religion, assembly
b. Freedom of movement within a country, foreign travel and emigration policies
c. Democratic processes assuring the freedom to participate in the political process.
3. Recent trends in governmental policies relating to the fulfillment of basic needs for food, shelter, health care and education.
[Page 194]a. Policies designed to respond to the needs of the poor and policies which tend to ignore the needs of the poor.
b. Corruption of such a nature that significant resources are diverted toward the nation’s elite and away from the majority of the population.
4. Describe the level of the government’s responsibility for the foregoing human rights record, including the extent to which positive human rights measures are articulated as public policy or violations condoned as public policy because of security or other justifications. Evaluate the genuineness of those justifications.
5. Describe the willingness and past record of the government regarding independent, outside investigation of alleged human rights violations.
B. Analysis and recommendations
1. Identify legitimate objectives over the next three, six, twelve months in relation to improving conditions in (fill in appropriate country), with respect to categories A 1, 2, and 3 above. Define in terms of (a) importance, (b) feasibility, (c) U.S. leverage, (d) likely international support and (e) provide options and recommended actions (e.g., quiet diplomacy, IFI loans, security assistance, EXIM bank credits, etc.) in terms of their usefulness and likely consequences.
2. Identify principal reactions in the host countries, pro and con, to the new U.S. human rights policies and Embassy actions and proposed actions in support of those policies, including reactions of the government, opposition leaders, church and the most influential private and intellectual groups and the general public.
3. Evaluate reactions in 2 above in terms of the implications for positive and negative changes in the human rights conditions.
4. a. Where a human rights record justifies U.S. actions, evaluate the impact of those actions on other U.S. interests in that country, i.e. political, economic, security, diplomatic (influence of the host country on U.S. interests in the region).
b. Where the human rights record is good or encouraging, indicate the likelihood of the host government’s supporting U.S. efforts to promote human rights through governmental and non-governmental organizations.
End outline.
5. Action requested: A few ARA Embassies have already received copies of the above outline by pouch. They are preparing to cable in first drafts, or have already done so. However, first drafts for most countries will be prepared in the Department and then cabled to posts for comment and suggestions. The first draft for Brazil, prepared by the [Page 195] Desk, will be cabled to Brasilia upon clearance with D/HA and S/P.3 The drafts for Colombia and Peru, based largely on the drafts cabled in by Bogota4 and Lima,5 will be reviewed and cleared here, and will then be cabled back to the field for still further review and comment.6
6. All messages on human rights should include SHUM in the TAGS line to ensure distribution to interested offices in the Department.
7. Assistant Secretary Todman’s personal comment and guidance on the above are being provided by separate cable.7
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770215–0996. Confidential; Immediate. Drafted by Lister; cleared in draft by Schneider and Devine; approved by Luers. Repeated to USCINCSO.↩
- In a June 2 memorandum to Christopher, Oxman noted that D/HA had prepared a draft cable on human rights reporting mechanisms and country action plans, adding that Derian and Schneider hoped that the cable could be dispatched immediately. Oxman commented that the first 4 pages of the cable required “drastic revision” and indicated that in his suggested version he had deleted references to country reports and tried to reshape the cable in an attempt to make it “consistent with the substance of the Law Day speech.” Although Schneider asserted that none of the regional bureaus expressed any “strong objections” to the proposed cable, Oxman pointed out that Lamb had received several telephone calls “expressing opposition on the grounds that the cable seeks to rate countries’ human rights performance on some kind of a scale.” He added: “I don’t think that is an accurate description of what the original cable does, and I certainly don’t think my redraft seeks such a rating.” (National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 19, Human Rights—Tasking Memos)↩
- In telegram 204237 to Brasilia, August 26, the Department noted that the draft Brazilian human rights report had been pouched for delivery to the Political Counselor on July 13. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770310–1104) In telegram 7203 from Brasilia, August 31, the Embassy transmitted suggestions for revision. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770315–0838)↩
- In telegram 5282 from Bogota, June 7, the Embassy transmitted the Colombia draft evaluation report. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770202–0952)↩
- In telegram 4544 from Lima, June 2, the Embassy transmitted the Peru draft evaluation report. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770197–0770)↩
- In telegram 263597 to Lima, November 3, the Department requested that the Embassy revise the draft evaluation report prepared in June. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770406–0099) The Department request to the Embassy in Bogota has not been found.↩
- The Department transmitted Todman’s guidance regarding the reports in telegram 141243 to all American Republic diplomatic posts, June 17. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D770218–1071)↩