77. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian) and the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Lake) to Secretary of State Vance 1

SUBJECT

  • Presidential Talk on Human Rights

There still seems to be public misunderstanding of what our human rights policy actually comprises; how we are trying to implement it; and—perhaps most important—how it fits in the President’s overall foreign policy design. Many still seem to think we are talking only about violations of the person and of political rights, and that our criticism of foreign governments on that score may interfere with our other goals.

We think a Presidential talk on the whole range of human rights issues would be useful later in the year, or early next. It should be in the more relaxed and reflective “fireside chat” format rather than a formal speech.

Its purpose would be to explain how “human rights” is a thread that runs through everything the President is doing, and indeed gives coherence to his varied initiatives. To that end, it would:

—Include our definition of “human rights,” as in your Law Day and Warren Christopher’s Bar Association speeches.2

—Explain how our North-South efforts (including the basic human needs emphasis), and our attempts to help bring racial justice to southern Africa (and perhaps the Middle East and Cyprus) are fundamental parts of the “human rights” policy.

—Make clear the relation of these initiatives to American security interests: insofar as we can alleviate the causes of tension and discontent, we will deny opportunities to would-be trouble makers and reduce the risk of wars, thus contributing to a world in which Americans can live in peace and prosperity.

[Page 255]

—Be sober about the limits of American power and influence, but explicitly and firmly reject the notion that because we can’t do everything, we should do nothing.

—Talk quite specifically about how we are trying to use different sources of influence (quiet and public diplomacy; the aid program; conventional arms transfers); how effective we can reasonably expect to be; and what progress we think we already have contributed to.

—Emphasize our efforts to work through international institutions, because long-term positive changes in international respect for human rights are more likely to come when we add our influence to that of others.

—Acknowledge the dilemmas our complex definition of human rights will get us into when, for instance, we must decide whether a particular aid program or loan will do more to help the poor or to prop up a dictatorial regime.

This speech would also enable us to make clear the direct relation between the President’s foreign and domestic initiatives, and specifically what he is doing to complete the unfinished “human rights” business at home. Domestic programs such as welfare reform, efforts to reduce youth unemployment in the cities, new guidelines for the FBI and CIA, should obviously be talked of as ends in themselves, but also as essential to America’s prestige and influence in the world and its right to talk about the human rights performance of others.

Recommendation

That you approve the attached Tarnoff to Brzezinski memorandum,3 recommending that we begin working on such a talk.4

  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Policy and Planning Staff—Office of the Director, Records of Anthony Lake, 1977–1981, Lot 82D298, Box 2, TL 9/1–15/77. Unclassified. Drafted by Jenonne Walker on September 13. Tarnoff initialed the memorandum. The title of Coordinator of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs was changed on August 17 to Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.
  2. See footnote 6, Document 74.
  3. Attached but not printed is an undated memorandum from Tarnoff to Brzezinski.
  4. There is no indication as to whether Vance approved or disapproved the recommendation.