63. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Dubs) to the Coordinator for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian)1
SUBJECT
- PRM on Human Rights: Comments/Suggestions
NEA’s comments and/or recommended changes to specific items in the first draft PRM2 are contained in the attachment to this memorandum.3
The first draft of PRM 28 on Human Rights is a good beginning. It does not, however, present any options, or choices, or suggested courses of action for Presidential decision. For example, the PRM could pose the option of using or not using economic—as distinguished from military and supporting—assistance as a lever to promote human rights. This would provide an opportunity to alert the President to some of the negative consequences which could flow from the denial of economic assistance that is destined for the poor and hungry.
Under Section I, the legal basis for U.S. involvement in attempts to improve the human rights condition of mankind is not spelled out. L should be asked to prepare a short brief on this subject.
In identifying U.S. objectives in the area of human rights, the statement to the effect that all governments manifest an interest in the growth of human rights is not completely true. Many states are primarily interested in economic and social rights and give personal, civil and political liberties a low priority.
Section I, page 5, talks about changing other societies. We do not believe that this should be an objective of U.S. foreign policy. While we are dedicated to improving the human rights condition in various so [Page 203] cieties, we assume that we still want a pluralistic world in which there is room for societies which are not modeled after our own.
The objective to make “pariahs” out of “gross violators of human rights” raises the question as to whether goals are best achieved in international relations through ostracism or through having a presence by means of which some influence could be exerted. Moreover, seeking to normalize relations with human rights violators such as Cuba, the PRC and Vietnam would be excluded if we took the position that we should treat them as “pariahs”.
Some further effort should be made to define what comprises “a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” together with some examples. However, care must be taken not to adopt too rigid or legalistic an approach which could restrict unduly the USG’s flexibility in dealing with human rights problems on a world-wide basis.
In this connection, it would be most useful to provide a list indicating which countries have and which have not signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the various covenants dealing with economic and social rights, civil and political rights, etc. If a nation has signed and ratified the various covenants, etc. this fact should make it more vulnerable to international criticism if it is guilty of violation in the human rights area.
In discussing carrots or sticks to be used in encouraging improvement in the observance of human rights, (page 26), care must be taken to ensure that by cutting off food aid, for instance to an offending country because of its use of torture or ill-treatment of political prisoners, the punitive action does not result in the starvation or deprivation of food to thousands of innocent hungry people who are helpless victims of their own government.
Security Assistance as either a carrot or a stick may also have its pitfalls. A recommendation to cut off or lower security assistance levels to a particular country must take into account during the decision-making process the effects such an action might have on other immediate interests such as, for example, the search for a peace settlement in the Middle East.
The suggestion to emphasize “our human rights concerns in all training programs that we conduct for foreign military personnel” (page 31) could easily be interpreted by a country as a roundabout attempt to “destablize” its government by the encouragement of “subversion” among its military personnel.
Our recent experience in the International Labor Conference (June 1–21, 1977) indicates that whatever legal view we may hold concerning [Page 204] what is “politicization” or what is not, ours is a minority viewpoint.4 Voting for loans or abstaining from voting in IFI’s will be, and is, regarded as a political act. Our use of political criteria on IFI loans may come back to haunt us should the Egyptians move from expressing concern about our policy in the IFI’s to taking advantage of it in an effort to deny IFI loans to Israel on human rights grounds. The Egyptians have used international organizations in the past to further their foreign policy efforts vis-à-vis Israel. Since most of the world community believes that Israel does violate human rights in the occupied territories, our effort to address human rights questions in the IFI’s may place us in an akward and embarrassing position in the future.5
If we do continue to use the IFI’s as an instrument of human rights policy we should concentrate our fire on gross offenders where we have substantial multilateral support, e.g. Uganda. We suggest a cold, hard look at the possible future consequences of this policy be taken before any recommendation is made to the President.
In connection with the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (page 56),6 it should be noted that the USG has, thus far, declined to take part in the Decade because of the equating of Zionism with racism. The draft PRM states that we should consult with key African delegations at the 1977 UNGA in an effort to reach advance understandings for the avoidance of the Zionism-racism issue at the World Conference to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination to be in August 1978.7 Before even attempting this, it should be remembered that Africa also includes such radical states as Algeria and Libya and [Page 205] anti-Israeli states such as Egypt and Tunisia. Therefore, the USG should not participate in the World Conference or the UNESCO Conference to draft a Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice scheduled to be held in Lusaka, Zambia in late 19778 until the connection between Zionism and racism is officially broken by a UN resolution. It should also be noted that it is conceivable that the issue of Israeli-South African relations will be brought up at the Anti-Apartheid Conference scheduled to be held in Lagos in August 1977.
A reversal of previous USG policy not to participate in the Decade or in any of its activities because of the equating of Zionism with racism could have serious domestic and international consequences.9
Our recent experience of prior consultations with African states in connection with the just completed International Labor Conference, Geneva, June 1–21, would indicate that the Africans would more than likely back away from any promises made to the USG before the conference in the face of heavy radical Arab pressure and/or monetary inducements.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 23, Human Rights—PRM I. Confidential. Drafted by Holly on June 24.↩
- Christopher sent the draft study prepared in response to PRM 28 to interagency participants under cover of a June 14 memorandum, commenting that he hoped the addressees would consider it “a chopping block and a vehicle for discussion.” (National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Withdrawn Material, RC # 1126, Box 12 of 13) Dubs is apparently referring to that study.↩
- Attached but not printed is the undated paper entitled “Suggested Changes to First Draft PRM.”↩
- At the ILO Conference in Geneva, the United States lost a vote on a 75-page committee report that contained unfavorable references to several third world countries. In a June 21 article, The Washington Post reported that some delegates indicated that the vote might compel the United States to withdraw from the ILO. (“U.S. Loses Critical Vote in ILO, Raising Possibility of Pullout,” p. C–7) Previously, on November 6, 1975, the Ford administration had submitted a letter to the ILO giving a 2-year notice of intent to withdraw. In a January 21, 1976, letter to Ambassador to Yugoslavia Laurence Silberman, designated as Ford’s special representative to review U.S. relations with the ILO, Ford commented that recent developments within the ILO, including increased politicization and the denial of due process to member states, had resulted in this course of action. (Public Papers: Ford, 1976–77, Book I, pp. 79–80) On May 27, 1977, the White House issued a statement indicating that a Cabinet-level committee was reviewing the membership issue. (Public Papers: Carter, 1977, Book I, p. 1029) The White House announced on November 1, 1977, that the United States would terminate its ILO membership. (Department of State Bulletin, December 26, 1977, p. 912)↩
- An unknown hand bracketed and starred this paragraph.↩
- During its 27th session in 1972, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2919 on November 15, declaring that the Decade would commence on December 10, 1973, the 25th anniversary of the issuance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.↩
- Scheduled to take place in Geneva. UN General Assembly Resolution 3379(XXX), adopted November 10, 1975, equated Zionism with racism. The United States voted against the resolution.↩
- UNESCO adopted the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice at its 20th session in Paris in November 1978.↩
- An unknown hand bracketed and starred this paragraph.↩