127. Memorandum of Conversation1
PARTICIPANTS
- Dr. Kurt Nier, GDR Deputy Foreign Minister
- Patt Derian, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs
ALSO PRESENT
- Ambassador Grunert, GDR Ambassador to U.S.
- Ambassador Bolen, U.S. Ambassador to GDR
- Joachim Elm, Planning Staff, GDR Foreign Office, Berlin
- GDR Interpreter (nu)
- Gisela Marcuse, Language Services
- Jonathan Greenwald, HA/HR (Notetaker)
SUBJECT
- Human Rights Questions including CSCE, Divided Families, GDR Restrictions on Journalists and Dissidents, GDR Educational Policy, Jewish Claims
Ms. Derian and Dr. Nier expressed pleasure at seeing each other again so soon after their discussions in Berlin in October.2 Dr. Nier said that he had spent the morning in consultations with U.S. representatives, headed by Deputy Assistant Secretary Goodby, on many questions important to bilateral relations.3 He could say that in some areas we have come forward a step. The Consular Convention has visibly neared conclusion. Ms. Derian expressed satisfaction.
Dr. Nier said that a further step has thus been taken that can produce a positive effect upon other areas. The agenda had not yet been completed. There would be a chance to continue with Mr. Goodby the following day.4 His program also called for meetings with other figures in the Department and the Executive Branch and the Congress. It was an intensive program but one that he welcomed because he hoped and was persuaded that it would produce not just an exchange of views, but also concrete results.
Ms. Derian said that she had tried during the conversation in Berlin to lay the groundwork for an understanding of U.S. human rights policy, in particular for an understanding of why development of bilateral relations required that account be taken of that policy. She had sought then to keep the discussion general. Today she would like to speak more specifically.
Ms. Derian said she knew that Mr. Goodby had passed over a copy of our divided families’ representation list. It was a smaller list than we have with some other countries, but it is very important for the people involved. The U.S. has also talked with the GDR about measures for expediting the handling of emergency visitation cases. This is one of the first things we raise because it is so important for the families.
Ms. Derian said she was sure Ambassador Grunert had called attention to the wide reporting in the press of the new restrictions the GDR had recently placed on journalists. These restrictions had come as a surprise to the U.S. They were inconsistent with CSCE since they involve more restriction on the free exchange of ideas. This type of thing, when coupled with the new restrictions placed on Havemann and Heym, creates great interest in the U.S. Together they are serious barriers to the development of our relations. We hear about them from members of Congress and from the public. These steps give rise to an impression that things are not going well between our two states, that the CSCE Final Act is not being implemented. Thus tensions grow when things appeared to be going along well between our countries, just at the time of such an important and positive step as the Consular Convention.
Ms. Derian said she wanted also to ask a question with regard to Jewish claims. She understood that the private American concerned with this question, Benjamin Ferencz, had proposed that the GDR export goods to the U.S. with the proceeds earmarked for compensation. She wondered how the GDR would react to this idea. She asked this question somewhat out of the context of the rest of her remarks because she understood that Mr. Ferencz may have some Congressional interest in special legislation to facilitate this but does not wish to pursue the idea unless there was GDR interest. She realized it was not possible for Dr. Nier to answer this question immediately, but she hoped he would think it over. If the idea appears interesting to the GDR, Mr. Ferencz could be advised.
Ms. Derian said the last topic she wished to raise concerned military education in the schools. There was growing concern that part of the curriculum appears to deal with attitudes toward the West, that the teaching promotes hatred for the West among young people. This is out of step with CSCE. She wondered whether there was a reason for this. On one hand, the GDR seeks to improve relations; on the other [Page 396] hand, children are taught hatred. This along with her points about journalists, Havemann and Heym were what she wished to convey. She said she had heard that Havemann’s wife and six-year old daughter were subjected to tight controls; Heym could not travel out of the country. These are unusual and unexpected measures that create tensions. She would appreciate an explanation.
Dr. Nier said he would have to begin with a clarification of what are properly questions relating to bilateral relations and what are internal matters and therefore not appropriate to bilateral discussions. He had explained the basic GDR position on Helsinki Final Act implementation in Berlin and again this morning. The GDR does not consider that the Final Act deals only with family reunification or humanitarian cooperation. It has three baskets, and success in further implementation is only possible if the Final Act is considered in its entirety. Overall there are many positive results. There can be no doubt that the GDR is prepared to continue along the way of implementation in cooperation with other participating states, but there will always be the need to keep all aspects of the Final Act in mind.
Dr. Nier said he had also explained the GDR’s fundamental position on human rights in Berlin. Nothing has changed or can change in this position. He had already spoken to one question, that of family reunification, this morning. He had referred to the GDR’s regular practice with the U.S., which was a generous one. More than 100 cases had been resolved. Other cases are under review and will be decided on the basis of GDR laws and regulations. He had to mention that GDR citizens, GDR laws, and internal GDR affairs were involved. But there was no basis to doubt the GDR’s generous practice in this area.
Dr. Nier said he had also discussed the competence of foreign journalists in the morning. The new regulations were fully in accordance with the Final Act. Every state has the right to enact its own laws and to safeguard its own interests in so far as there is no conflict with international law. Every state, the GDR included, has the right to prevent any interference in its internal affairs. The GDR knows how to exercise this right. Foreign correspondents are afforded every opportunity to do their work and to engage in objective reporting. So long as they act in a professional and serious manner and comply with their Helsinki Final Act obligations, they will be given every support and opportunity to do serious reporting. There were individuals, however, who tried to abuse their work for interference in internal affairs. They will be prevented from doing so because the GDR knows how to protect its interests, as do all states. He said that an important part of the Final Act is the recognition that noninterference in internal affairs is recognized as one of the leading principles that should guide relations between states. He repeated that there was no reason to express concern [Page 397] about the regulations. A serious, professional correspondent who acts in the spirit of the Final Act to promote understanding, peace and friendship, has received in the past and will receive in the future all necessary support.
Dr. Nier said that two questions had been asked that could not be discussed. He had in mind what had been said about Havemann, Heym and education. These were matters fully within the internal competence of the GDR. They involved domestic laws. The GDR did not concede anyone else the right to say anything about them. The GDR was not in agreement with much that happened in other countries. To the extent that those events were based on internal legislation, however, the GDR would not interfere. If someone violates laws in a country, this can not be discussed by other countries. The GDR, for example, was concerned that in some countries children do not enjoy the full right to education, vocational training, and adequate career opportunities. The GDR regretted this deprivation of young people’s rights, but such a matter could not be the subject for government to government relations. The GDR educational system enjoys international esteem. It reflects high standards of academic excellence and is also marked by a spirit of peace, humanism and understanding that flows from the state’s general policy.
Ms. Derian said she wished to ask a question of clarification. She believed Dr. Nier might have answered one of her questions obliquely, but she wished to be certain she understood. Was he saying that GDR children are taught to have a high regard for peace and for people of other countries and that reports we have that children are taught an attitude of hostility are incorrect?
Dr. Nier said that if anyone alleges that GDR children are taught hatred for children in Western countries, it is a defamation and a slander of the GDR’s policy. The GDR’s basic educational principle is the solidarity of youth everywhere in the world, be it Vietnam, Africa or elsewhere. Such reports, from wherever they come, are, simply put, a slander. He asked to be excused for his frank response.
Ms. Derian asked whether the GDR distinguished between what children are taught about other children and what they may be taught in a military context. Dr. Nier responded that there is simply no teaching of hostility. All GDR education is based on love for peace, solidarity, friendship, and understanding among peoples. Of course the GDR also teaches that peace must be defended and secured. If there are classes in this context in which young people are acquainted with national defense, this has nothing to do with reports of the sort Ms. Derian had mentioned.
Dr. Nier said he would reiterate again, however, that these were matters of internal competence. Sovereign states should base their relations on matters that pertain to bilateral affairs in accordance with principles contained in documents like the Final Act and the UN [Page 398] Charter. If the objective is to develop relations, which he repeated is what the GDR desires, they should be guided by efforts to contribute to detente and should concentrate on such matters. He explained that he had said in the morning that the U.S. and the GDR should act in areas where progress is possible. This was basic to further development of relations. There will naturally be questions on which it will not be possible to agree, but these matters should not become obstacles to the progress that was possible.
Ms. Derian noted that Dr. Nier had to leave momentarily for an appointment at the Commerce Department. She felt it was important, however, to cover two points. She said that the U.S. and the GDR have parallel objectives. Dr. Nier had spoken twice about the Final Act being a single entity that should not be divided up. But it is not possible to speak at the same time about all its aspects. Issues have to be addressed one at a time, and human rights is part of the Final Act.
Ms. Derian said that the two countries were trying to make a new relationship. She feared she had failed to transmit the message that as steps are taken that build that new relationship, humanitarian matters, policies that affect people, were essential to our ability to move ahead. She understood the GDR position, but progress in the human area was necessary if we were to move ahead. Of course the GDR could say for years that all of these were internal matters, but if we want to go ahead, they must be addressed. She noted that there is a well-known board game where players are occasionally told, “return to go”. Perhaps relations were sometimes like that, but the U.S. wants to move ahead.
Ms. Derian said she was grateful for the opportunity to talk with Dr. Nier again. It was frustrating just to begin and then to have to stop. She recalled that Dr. Nier had, in the Berlin conversation, commented that all countries had constitutions and seemed to discount them as not of much significance. She asked if that were also the GDR’s view of the Final Act.
Dr. Nier said that he had not meant to give that impression, that the GDR’s constitution was filled with life and was not just words. The GDR had the same feeling about the Final Act. But this could not happen with just this or that part of the document. He believed there had been progress in the past few years. The situation should be compared with 1975 when the Final Act had been signed. The present situation in Europe reflects forward movement between states with different social systems. There was no reason why more progress could not be made, but there was a need to prepare carefully and thoroughly so that we could go forward. Ambassador Grunert spoke up and said he would be interested in ongoing discussions.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1979—Human Rights and Country Files, Lot 82D103, Box 4, Germany—East 1979. Confidential. Drafted by Greenwald on May 9. The meeting took place in Derian’s office.↩
- See Document 123.↩
- In telegram 112470 to East Berlin and Bonn, May 4, the Department reported that during their meeting the previous day, Nier told Goodby that the German Democratic Republic agreed with the April 16 U.S. proposal on the nationality issue in the Consular Convention. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790202–0894)↩
- See Document 129.↩