Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XX, Eastern Europe

234. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian) and the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Holmes) to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)¹

Washington, December 18, 1980

SUBJECT

• World Bank Power Loan to Romania

SUMMARY

There is a disagreement between HA and EUR, EB, and S/P on how the U.S. Executive Director of the World Bank should vote on the IBRD’s Fourth Power Project for Romania. HA believes the U.S. should abstain on human rights grounds or, if we vote in favor, should follow up this vote with a high-level demarche. EUR, EB, and S/P believe we should vote in favor, and at some appropriate time address the issue at a lower level.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES

In March 1979, you decided to have the U.S. Executive Director vote in favor of a World Bank loan to Romania which did not meet basic human needs (BHN). (See Action Memo of March 15, 1979, copy attached at Tab A.)² At the same time, you approved a demarche to the Romanians based on the premise “that our commitment to human rights extends to MDB matters, that we also have legal requirements and that additional reports such as the one by Amnesty International could in the end force us to withold support from MDB loans.” You decided that we would hold a series of discussions with the GOR on human rights issues and that we would monitor the practical results of this process carefully, with a view to determining our future position on MDB loans. We identified the areas of greatest U.S. concern as “alleged abuse of psychiatry and penal labor to control dissidents, charges of restrictions placed on the cultural life of the Hungarian minority, difficulties experienced by some religious groups and the continuing issue of the so-called Jewish economic criminals.” We also decided to take into account the extent to which the GOR cooperated with Amnesty International or other private groups in reviewing the trends in the human rights situation. In view of the upcoming IBRD vote on a non-basic human needs loan for Romania, we now need to review the situation in Romania and decide how to instruct the U.S. Executive Director to vote on December 23.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The loan is for $125 million to the Investment Bank of Romania to support a three year segment of the Romanian Government’s 1980–85 investment program in electrical energy. It is a heavy infrastructure project that includes hydroelectric generating plants, heat generating plants, heat networks, and power transmission lines. The proposed IBRD loan would finance about 4% of the total cost of the project segment, and about 22% of the foreign exchange cost. The project is part of a longer term effort to reduce energy dependence on imported oil.

HA, EUR, EB and S/P all agree that the project does not meet “basic human needs” (BHN) criteria.

The Human Rights Situation in Romania

Romania pursues a policy of internal orthodoxy on economic and political issues, with very strict limits on the exercise of civil and political rights and economic decision-making. The society operates within strictures determined by a centralized authoritarian state.

Those who are politically active beyond the limits set by the Government or who publicly proselytize for religious converts are likely to be harassed or arrested on trumped-up charges. There are no reliable estimates of the number of political prisoners in Romania. There are allegations that some, including dissident labor union members, are confined in psychiatric hospitals.

Freedom of speech, the press, and assembly are sharply limited. All publications are government controlled. Persons belonging to recognized religions may attend religious services freely. However, evangelical groups have difficulties with the authorities whenever they seek to proselytize outside of church buildings or when they oppose laws which they believe violate their faith.

Romanians can travel freely throughout their country. However, few Romanians are allowed to travel abroad. Leaving or attempting to leave the country without official permission is a crime. The government discourages emigration through social, economic and administrative penalties. Nonetheless, the number of recent immigrants from Romania to the U.S. has increased seven fold in the past five years, exceeding 2,700 people in FY 1980. The large majority of these cases involved family reunification.

The Romanian Government is willing to talk about human rights violations, both bilaterally and within the CSCE context. Romania has allowed some visits by international bodies to discuss human rights abuses, including Amnesty International in early 1979, a group of U.S. religious leaders, and a Congressional study group on the situation of the Hungarian minority. It has stalled on the visit of the International Human Rights Law Group. Romania has participated in a Human Rights Roundtable in Bucharest in February with U.S. officials and private citizens and is expected to repeat this in Washington in 1981.

HA Position:

Since our 1979 demarche and several follow-up discussions between senior U.S. and Romanian officials on the human rights situation, there has been little, if any, improvement in the areas of greatest U.S. concern. There are still reports of the abuse of psychiatry for political purposes. Amnesty International’s 1980 Annual Report describes several cases of psychiatric abuse which took place in 1979. Political prisoners continue to be subjected to hard labor, and according to the Amnesty Annual Report, political prisoners are beaten and mistreated with the tacit approval of prison authorities. The Hungarian minority is subject to regular discrimination in the society at large. This conclusion is supported by the Congressional staff study which visited Romania this year. In our view, despite legislation to prevent such discrimination, the government has failed to take effective remedial action. Members of Evangelical groups have been jailed, harassed or intimidated by the authorities when they sought to proselytize outside of church buildings or opposed highly restrictive laws which curtail religious freedom. Romanian immigration to the U.S. has increased, but only after each immigrant endures a year or more of severe social, economic and administrative penalties. Potential dissidents are often removed from Romania in this manner. There has been progress in the status of so-called Jewish economic criminals—they have received pardons. Despite an earlier commitment to allow the visit of a U.S. private legal group (International Human Rights Law Group) to look into allegations of human rights violations, the Romanian government refused the group entry in 1980.

Amnesty International’s just published Annual Report (1980) documents continuing serious human rights violations in Romania in particular, imprisonment, forced labor, and psychiatric confinement for political and religious dissidents, and for those seeking to emigrate or to form free trade unions.

A vote for the World Bank loan at this time would appear to be inconsistent with the human rights situation in Romania and our legislation on the MDBs. A positive vote would also make our previous demarches appear pro forma, given our laws and the prevailing human rights situation. Moreover, it would appear to be inconsistent with our posture at Madrid. At the current session of the Madrid CSCE conference, the U.S. delegation called attention to human rights abuses in Eastern Europe, including Romania.

For the foregoing reasons, HA recommends abstention on the IBRD loan to Romania. However, if because of current political events in Poland, it is not a propitious time for such a vote, HA would propose that an affirmative vote on the loan be followed by a high-level demarche similar to the one made to the Romanian Foreign Minister in March 1979. The demarche, while recognizing positive Romanian efforts, would emphasize our continuing expectation that the Romanian government work to improve the human rights situation for its citizens, particularly in those areas outlined in our March 1979 decision. The demarche would be supportive of recent statements by C and EUR to Romanian MFA American Director Bogdan. It would also express U.S. willingness to move ahead on planning for a Human Rights Roundtable as we and the Romanians had agreed earlier this year at the Roundtable held in Bucharest.

Raising our human rights concerns at the level of the Foreign Minister would convey the importance with which we view these concerns. It would reinforce our Counselor’s representations by elevating to an appropriately high level on the Romanian side our seriousness of purpose. It would further demonstrate a coordinated effort on the part of the USG to further its human rights policy. Because the cable at Tab A has no specificity as to when a demarche will be made, at what level, or whether the specific areas of greatest U.S. concern will be raised, it represents a significant departure from our 1979 position.

EUR, EB, S/P Positions:

During the Carter Administration, the United States Government has voted in favor of every loan for Romania which has come before the IBRD Board. This includes almost $400 million in loans which do not fall in the “basic human needs” category. Now is not the time to change our policy and abstain on such loans for Romania. With the threat of a Soviet invasion hanging over Poland, we do not want to signal a lessening of our support for Romania. On the contrary, our efforts should be directed towards measures which will strengthen Romania’s willingness to resist Soviet pressures to participate in or approve of Soviet actions in Poland.

More broadly, EB also feels that it is important to support projects which increase the world’s overall energy supply and which can contribute, as this project can, to helping Romania maintain its energy independence from the Soviet Union.

We recognize that Romania’s human rights record is poor, but we see no signs that it is worse today than in the past when we voted in favor of other non-BHN loans for Romania. In fact, there are small signs of improvement. In the area of emigration, in particular, Romania’s record has continued to improve. Other positive steps have taken place precisely in those areas which we identified in 1979 as of greatest concern. Most notably,

• —There have been no cases confirmed by the Embassy of psychiatric abuse within the last three years and a Romanian emigre doctor, who was the source of many reports of abuses, has withdrawn his allegations.
• —A Congressional staff study delegation, which was invited to visit Romania to study the Hungarian minority situation, and toured the Hungarian areas extensively, found there was no evidence of a government policy of discrimination.
• —The so-called Jewish economic criminals were amnestied this year, and those who requested to emigrate have been granted permission to do so; and
• —Two free trade union activists were released from jail within the past month.

While one can debate whether these developments constitute rapid enough progress, one must also keep in mind that repression and authoritarian government in Romania did not begin in 1945.

We have expressed our human rights concerns to the Romanians here and in Bucharest, and will continue to do so. Most recently, on December 16, Counselor Ridgway and Deputy Assistant Secretary Barry specifically raised our legislative requirements on IBRD loans with Director of the Americas Bogdan (Tab B).³ Ambassador Aggrey also made a major demarche in Bucharest in November on six specific cases.⁴ As part of our continuing human rights dialogue with Romania, we will follow up with the Romanians to ensure that they do not interpret a favorable vote in the IBRD as approval of their human rights practices. However, in view of these recent demarches and the current situation in Eastern Europe, we do not believe that a positive vote in the IBRD should be conditioned upon another human rights demarche at the Foreign Minister level. At a time when the Romanian Foreign Minister Andrei is providing us with important and sensitive insights into Soviet intentions regarding Poland, we believe that asking Ambassador Aggrey to step up the human rights dialogue with him would be a mistake.

Therefore, EUR, EB, and S/P recommend that the U.S. Executive Director be instructed to vote in favor of the loan for Romania.

L Comments

There are serious human rights violations in Romania. Nonetheless, it is possible to maintain that Romania is not engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally-recognized human rights. Such a conclusion would have to rely heavily on the small signs of improvement, the inconsistency in GOR human rights performance, and the GOR’s efforts within Romania and within the Soviet bloc to increase respect for human rights. The credibility of this position depends in large part on the Department’s assessment of whether U.S. attempts to persuade Romania to do better and to resist return to past patterns of violations are having effect.

Recommendation

That you approve:

—Option One, an abstention on the loan. (HA favors)

—Option Two, a positive loan vote combined with a demarche in Bucharest.⁵ (HA favors as second choice.)⁶

—Option Three, a positive vote, with no Foreign Minister level demarche. (EUR, EB, and S/P favor.)

1. Source: National Archives, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1980—Human Rights and Country Files, RG 59, Lot 82D177, Box 16, Romania—Nov thru Dec 1980. Confidential. Drafted by Bache, Simon, and Bradtke; cleared by Bridges, and in HA, L/HR, EB, and S/P. Sent through Ridgway. Barry initialed for Holmes.
2. Tab A is an action memorandum to Newsom from Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Mark Schneider, Vest, and Lake dated March 15, 1979. Newsom had approved the recommendations on March 20. In telegram 69437 to Bucharest, March 20, 1979, the Department instructed the Embassy to raise the issue of U.S. votes at the World Bank in support of Romanian loan applications in connection with Romanian performance in human rights. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790152–0595) The Embassy reported Aggrey’s March 26, 1979, conversation with Andrei in telegram 1905 from Bucharest, March 27. Aggrey raised the question of World Bank loans and suggested a Romanian goodwill gesture in the area of human rights would be an important consideration. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790141–0218)
3. Attached at Tab B, but not printed, is telegram 333465 to Bucharest, December 17.
4. On October 24, Aggrey reported in telegram 8780 from Bucharest that he had delivered a démarche on human rights to Bogdan on five human rights cases. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800509–0875) On November 6, during Bridges’s visit to Bucharest, the démarche was once again brought to the attention of Bogdan. In telegram 9189 from Bucharest, November 8, the Embassy reported Bogdan’s conversation with Aggrey and Bridges. Concerning human rights, Bogdan responded that the two countries should seek to minimize differences and reach practicable solutions to individual cases. Stressing that the issues were in no way related, but that “solving it would help,” Bogdan also commented on the ongoing demonstrations in front of Romania’s UN Mission in New York and its Embassy in Washington. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, [no film number]) Aggrey again asked Bogdan about a response to the démarche on December 12. In telegram 10166 from Bucharest, December 12, Aggrey reported that Bogdan “revealed, confidentially, one of the problems had been the hostile demonstrations at the Romanian UN Mission and a view among some authorities in Bucharest that the protection was not what it might have been.” Bogdan noted the demonstrations had been moved, “and with that in mind” he promised “to look into the matter once more” but requested that the U.S. Government “continue to monitor the demonstrations.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D800591–1193)
5. Newsom added an asterisk at this point and handwrote at the bottom of the page: “at the Vice Foreign Minister level. Revise telegram to stress that this was not an easy choice in view of continuing human rights problems.”
6. Newsom initialed his approval on December 22. The Department informed the Embassy in telegram 339063 to Bucharest, December 24, that the Department believed “it is important that we continue to make clear to the GOR at a high level that our commitment to human rights extends to MBD matters, that we have legal requirements, and that we remain concerned about the human rights situation.” On a copy of the cable, Derian underlined the statement and wrote in the margin: “Which we did NOT meet on this.” (National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1980—Human Rights and Country Files, Lot 82D177, Box 16, Romania—Nov thru Dec 1980) Aggrey reported his conversation with Deputy Romanian Foreign Minister Maria Groza in telegram 10536 from Bucharest, December 31. Aggrey wrote: “Groza said she understood the situation and appreciated my demarche. She believed future human rights problems affecting our bilateral relations would be considered by the GOR in the light of the background I had outlined.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D810001–0652)