Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

102. Memorandum From the Assistant Director, Latin America, United States Information Agency (Chatten) to the Deputy Director (Bray)¹

Washington, November 8, 1977

SUBJECT

• Meeting with Southern Cone PAOs on Human Rights Programming

I brought together the PAOs from the four countries of the Southern Cone—Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay—on my recent trip to the area in order to discuss programing relating to human rights themes. The following is a review of the highlights of that meeting divided into four sections: the situation as the PAOs perceive it, our consensus on thematic emphases for programs relating to their countries, the PAOs’ recommendations for support they could use from the media elements and their recommendations for support from non-media elements.

The Situation:

The width of the spectrum of definition of human rights frequently has proved to be an impediment to their search for increased understanding and support for United States positions. The conceptual framework set by the Secretary of State of there being three groups of human rights seemed to suggest a potentially productive approach.² These groups have been called “clusters” by Assistant Secretary Todman. But during our meeting we used the Helsinki terminology and called them basket one (Integrity of the Person), basket two (Economic and Social Justice), and basket three (Civil and Political Liberties). There was consensus that for many purposes of policy explication it would be useful to confine the term “human rights” to references to basket one. This would not preclude extensive programing on human rights in the basket two and basket three areas, but it would dictate a more productive approach to policy explication. It also would prevent defenders of offensive foreign government policies from saying, as some are doing, “We have excellent programs and are making measurable progress in economic and social justice and, while we have for the moment non-democratic governments, there are numerous civil and political liberties to which we point with pride. Since that seems to make up the majority of what you Americans are talking about when you say human rights, our area of dispute is only a small one over on the ‛integrity of the person’ end of the scale.”

But problems of the basket one variety are everywhere. It is a revealing commentary that the phrase “to disappear someone” has entered the language down South.

The governments of all four countries are, to one degree or another, on the outs with the United States, perceiving our approach to be all stick and no carrot. Argentine Charge Max Chaplin, for example, was beset by the implications of the basic, pragmatic problem of how to move President Videla to action when much of the USG approach puts distance between us and him. The Uruguayan and Paraguayan governments are reluctant even to admit they have human rights problems. The Argentine and Chilean governments view threats to their institutions and general well-being as the motivation for their actions. There is a widespread official belief that foreign media distort situations in the Southern Cone. Any time a United States official can be quoted as saying the U.S. media do not give a balanced picture of the Hemisphere, governments (and others) leap upon the statement as support for their positions.

The one problem thread which ran consistently through discussions of the situation was the difficulty PAOs have in answering critics who claim the United States is following a double standard in its application of sanctions on human rights violators. There is considerable resentment, especially at government levels, about people’s perceptions that they are being singled out by the United States.

The cultural and historical context in which human rights are viewed is important in all countries. The context, in brief, has “rights” on a continuum with the institutional preservation of the state, church and family taking precedence over individual rights. Thus, when governments and others say they don’t understand what we are talking about, they are not always motivated by mere self-interest or intransigence, as they are sometimes accused of in Washington.

But while it is useful to remember that governments of Southern Cone countries are not the only audiences to have furrowed brows over just what is meant when U.S. Government spokesmen discuss human rights, non-government audiences usually are more attuned to the positive implications of the U.S. Government policy in all three baskets. Media audiences are particularly important, since out-of-office and opposition politicians congregate there and the media form a traditional and usually not-yet-closed-off forum for debate and opposition to government policies. The academic world is another key sector in which there is considerable sympathy for and more constructive debate about United States human rights policies in all areas. Businessmen and church leaders are other audiences which offer not only promise but have been the locus of some progress in post program efforts. There was unanimity that military audiences should not be written off entirely as targets for USIS programing. The key to these seems to be military educational institutions, which have received, in general, less attention than their importance merits.

Receptivity for human rights related materials has increased everywhere, doubling in two months in Argentina alone, and posts now have developed lists of target audiences for these materials and programs.

In the program realm, all felt that official spokesmen have been particularly good, with Assistant Secretary Todman, Assistant Secretary Derian and Ambassador Lowenstein getting very good reviews as visitors.³ Some programs built around non-official visitors have been quite good, with Judge Christian and William Ascher topping the list. Others got more mixed reviews. Jack Hopkins did well in Chile and Central America but somewhat less well in Argentina and Uruguay.

Whatever USIA Washington’s approach may be, the overriding consideration for programing and focus is the perception of the American Ambassador, who sets the tone of the Mission in all cases. The most dramatic example of this has been in Uruguay, where Ambassador Siracusa’s approach to human rights programing was notably different from Ambassador Pezzullo’s.

USIS is uniquely fitted to approaching certain audiences on this subject and the situation, now that the United States Government’s interest in the subject seems to have been clearly established, brings the USG to a “point of dialogue” with various audiences. Both in policy and in societal projection, USIS now has space in which to grow.

Themes:

Because of the possible confusion between human rights “baskets” and Helsinki “baskets,” I recommend scrapping the terminology of our meeting and using at least a working title of groups 1, 2 and 3.

The following thematic areas have the endorsement of the group for USIA focus in response to the situation as they perceive it:

—The problem involved with human rights, their advocacy, their enforcement and our perceptions are universal, not bilateral. To help meet the double standard question, emphasis upon the universality of application of U.S. criteria would be very useful. Belgrade was cited as a possible example, recognizing the possible pitfalls if the United States were seen as equivocal there.

—“Human rights” per se should refer wherever possible to group one type cases. Groups two and three should be focused more in the area of “problems of democracy” or “problems of development” in order to keep the distinction clear but still leave us room to emphasize all. Thus human rights in the context of democratic traditions would be a valuable thematic area for group three emphasis.

—All felt that human rights materials related to the Soviets would be particularly useful. If we criticize the Soviets on human rights, it undercuts the notion that human rights violations are an unfortunate but necessary result of fighting communism, a position advanced universally by Southern Cone governments. Such materials also would help counter the feeling that the United States is singling them out.

—Governments and other audiences are quite sensitive to their image abroad and its decline as a result of human rights-related confrontations, a useful theme to pursue.

—Though there was general awareness that U.S. reporting on human rights developments elsewhere carries dangers of being counter-productive if people were to see us as taking credit for progress, all felt that such information should be made available to them for discreet use in policy explication. The basic logic was that it now is no secret that the United States is focusing many of its foreign policy concerns around human rights but that there remains a sometimes critical shortage of additional information, especially facts that would lend credence to our attempts to universalize the problem and our approach to it.

—There was consensus endorsement of all materials developing the concept of human rights over time and geography. E.g., there are historical roots within U.S. society that could be emphasized in countering the notion that the human rights policy is an aberration which appeared on their doorsteps last January 20. The world context of all three groups likewise is a productive theme, the PAOs felt.

Media Guidance:

Aside from reference to the previous section on themes, the PAOs can use well:

—Soon-as-possible receipt of all human rights-related statements of the State Department spokesmen.

—All official human rights-related policy statements on videotape (16 mm film for Argentina).

—A compendium of basic human rights documents from RSC, leading with the Christopher statement,⁴ which all believed was the most useful single policy declaration made to date.

—All speech texts and transcripts of testimony.

—Interpretive materials on all human rights-related votes in IFIs.

—Copies of any VOA commentaries on the subject.

—A human rights focus in the magazines, but only if care is taken not to allow this focus to exclude other materials. The logic was that USIS and the United States have great credibility on a wide variety of other subjects ranging from science and technology to culture and education. This credibility should be used to associate with and enhance whatever we have to say about human rights.

—Uruguay can use tapes of testimony or speeches in order to make cassettes for use on a special human rights tape deck set up in the library. Uruguay also needs particular attention to radio materials since they are especially useful there.

Other Support:

The PAOs also suggested as useful:

—Q and A papers or background think pieces on subjects related to all three groups to send to their “human rights lists” or for use in preparing local talks (Chile and Paraguay).

—A continuing availability of official visitors who could serve as spokesmen, as long as peculiar local circumstances are taken fully into consideration, as was the case of Uruguay and Ambassador Lowenstein.

—IV grants from both media and military, for reasons outlined in “situation”.

—Full sets of the State Department reports to Congress for placement in the library reference sections, the reports which did so much set the human rights policy ball rolling.⁵

—Books concentrating principally upon group three items—institutional problems of democracy. Presentation copies in English are the minimum they could use, but all hoped for program books in Spanish as well.

—Approximately four Washington-supplied speakers a year who need not bear any labels of being “human rights speakers”. These would concentrate primarily in the group two and three area. It was expected that official visitors should concentrate on group one, with some background discussion on groups two and three with the reverse being true for non-government spokesmen. Argentina and Uruguay were particularly insistent upon “high quality” speakers, with English speakers being acceptable if spokesmen are up to the standards of, say, Judge Winslow Christian.⁶ Programers should avoid the mid-December through February period in which programing of any sort is difficult. In Paraguay, that should be extended back to the end of November.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 306, Office of the Director, Executive Secretariat, Secretariat Staff, Correspondence Files, 1973–1980, Entry P–104, Box 146, 7704660–7704669. Limited Official Use. Copies were sent to Reinhardt and IOP. Bray and Liu initialed the memorandum, indicating that they saw it. In an undated note to Chatten, Bray commented, “Very interesting. Suggest distribution to other areas and D/HA, Derian. Will you be following thru on basic ideas? CB.” A notation in an unknown hand on the note reads, “11/14 Delivered orig. of note & memo to ILA.” (Ibid.)
2. In telegram 98034 to all diplomatic and consular posts, April 30, the Department referenced Vance’s April 30 address at the University of Georgia School of Law (see footnote 15, Document 67), and outlined the “high points” of the address, including the definition of human rights as: “1) The right to be free from governmental violation of the integrity of the person, such as torture, etc; 2) The right to the fulfillment of such vital needs as food, shelter, health care and education; and 3) The right to enjoy civil and political liberties, such as freedom of thought. etc.” The telegram is printed in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, vol. II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, Document 39.
3. Derian traveled to Argentina in April and August; Lowenstein visited Chile in early August, as did Todman, who also traveled to Uruguay and Argentina. (“Carter Rights Aide, Visiting Argentina, Warns on Violations,” The New York Times, April 3, 1977, p. 11; Juan de Onis, “Carter Aide Again in Argentina for Assessment of Human Rights,” The New York Times, August 9, 1977, p. 4; “Brazil Rejects Visit by Lowenstein,” The New York Times, August 12, 1977, p. A–5; John Dinges, “Visiting U.S. Official Praises Progress on Human Rights in Chile,” The Washington Post, August 14, 1977, p. C4, and “U.S. Official Has Talks in Argentina,” The New York Times, August 16, 1977, p. 6) Documents on Derian’s and Todman’s visits are scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, vol. XXIV, South America; Latin America Region.
4. Reference is presumably to Christopher’s March 7 statement before the Subcommittee on Foreign Assistance of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For the text, see Department of State Bulletin, March 28, 1977, pp. 289–291. The statement is also printed in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, vol. I, Foundations of Foreign Policy, Document 27.
5. Reference is to the annual human rights country reports produced by the Department of State.
6. Christian was a justice on the California Court of Appeals and the first executive director of the National Center for State Courts.