Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

68. Memorandum From the Counselor of the Department of State (Nimetz) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)¹

Washington, July 15, 1977

SUBJECT

• Human Rights

I have been giving considerable thought to your suggestion that I write an analytical introduction to PRM–28 in defense of the human rights policy, particularly in light of our last interagency meeting on the PRM.²

It is my view that this PRM is not an exercise in which the human rights policy ought to be re-argued as if we were writing on a clean slate. I know there are some who want to take a fresh look at the policy. Jessica Tuchman of the NSC staff holds this view. I do not believe this is a credible alternative. The President articulated a human rights policy, not once, but consistently. The Secretary has spoken with authority on the subject. Decisive actions have been taken in its name. Reactions have occurred around the world. History, as it were, has been made.

I happen to believe that including human rights as a significant factor in foreign policy decisions is correct, on moral grounds, on strategic grounds and on domestic political grounds. But whether or not one agrees with the basic thrust of the policy, the fact remains that it is firmly imbedded as a part of this Administration’s over-all foreign policy. To re-argue it now, or even to suggest, in a fundamental policy document that is bound to receive wide circulation, that the policy is open to question would have very detrimental effects. It would certainly be seen by the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world, as a tremendous victory for Moscow and a weakening of the American President’s resolve under pressure. It would cause consternation among our friends abroad, who have adjusted to our policy, and to supporters of the human rights policy in the Congress and throughout the country. It would cause bureaucratic havoc in the Department where bureaus are now beginning to work human rights factors into their daily work program. It would be a foreign policy and political disaster.

What is needed now is refinement of the policy so that day-to-day decisions can be made effectively. I believe that everyone who has thought seriously about this matter recognizes that human rights can never be the fundamental goal of our foreign policy, which must be rooted firmly in our national security interest. But it should be one of a number of important concerns around the world to be pursued over the long term. Like environmental concerns or economic development interests, the sooner we transform “human rights” from an ideological crusade to a series of working level problems, the better we will all be. We must, so to speak, tame the human rights thrust and make it work for us, and workable by us.

For these reasons, I continue to believe that the PRM memorandum should not take on an analysis of the basic policy but should take off from the unshakable premise, eloquently elaborated by the President and the Secretary, that human rights concerns will play an important part in the formulation and implementation of United States foreign policy.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Secretary: Mr. Matthew Nimetz, Counselor of the Department of State, Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology, Lot 81D85, Box 1, MN Chron—Official July 1977–December 1977. No classification marking.
2. See Document 67.