Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume X, Eastern Europe

266. Telegram From the Embassy in the German Democratic Republic to the Department of State¹

299.

East Berlin, January 27, 1984, 1809Z

SUBJECT

• Asylum/Emigration Assistance Cases.

1. We will be presenting you and the EUR and HA working group with our view of the courses of action available to us in the asylum/emigration assistance situation in Berlin. The review will reflect our conviction that two important policy objectives—the promotion of human rights and the credibility of a no-asylum policy—are each valid and are, as they play out here in specific procedures to protect and advance them, in unresolvable conflict with each other. We believe we can contribute to the working group’s review. I hope that despite the events in the larger world that fill your desk, you will find time to insist that the group, whether in its guidance to us for the immediate situation or the long-term, not duck either the inherent policy conflict or the tough, unhappy courses of action that result from it. This is one matter where the difference can’t be split.

2. I feel compelled to write in this fashion because I saw in the instructions we received yesterday² an indication that we may not be choosing between policy options but rather attempting to combine them. And I’m not certain I know why we are trying to do so. For example, I fail to see the moral distinction between removing someone from the Embassy (and into the hands of the Vopos) and denying him food or water so that hunger and thirst might force him out (and into the same hands). I can see a public affairs distinction, but I wouldn’t want the task of proving at a press conference that removing someone from our property is worse than denying them a glass of water. I find them equally dreadful.

3. You and I seem destined to be making the decisions at either end of the process. I think it essential not only to let you know where we’re coming from but also to lay out certain elements on the local scene which cannot be changed. They should be confronted at the outset of our review even as we deal with daily difficulties.

4. Since 1982,³ this Embassy has understood, perhaps incorrectly, that asylum seekers are to be urged and cajoled out the front door and, failing that, to be put out using physical force if necessary. Neither the FRG Permanent Mission nor Vogel (or other lawyers) were to be engaged. Ejection from the Embassy would in all instances be a judgment call by me or the Charge, taking the particulars of each case into account.

5. In the months since my arrival, we have had a succession of cases involving people seeking asylum and emigration assistance. Our practice has been to keep them in an out of the way place and talk, talk, talk. Water and toilet facilities were available but no food. Until last week we had talked them all out of here before close of business. In all cases we have given their names to the FRG Mission so their fate could be followed. When they have decided to proceed from here to the FRG Mission themselves, we have followed them along the streets to see that they made it at least as far as the Mission.

6. In each such case and in the cases this week, we have asked ourselves, where are the Vopos, where is the press? The Vopos are always here (and everywhere). They are outside the door, at the corners, in buildings across the street, in parked or cruising cars. No one has gotten out of here without trouble, either immediately outside, on the street, or after emerging from the FRG Mission. Some very ordinary people who were not seeking asylum have not gotten out of here without trouble either.

7. I have watched the officers at this Embassy assigned the task of persuading people to walk out voluntarily into the certain arms of the Vopos struggle with the tragedy of each attempted asylum case. These are the very same officers who have been commended by the Department for their human rights, peace movement, and Church affairs work. They are as committed to human rights principles as anyone in the Department. They also understood why the Embassy could not become a haven. They would be the first to feel relieved were the burden of the existing guidelines lifted, but would not find any relief in “no water.” It has been tough, but the job has been getting done.

8. Two things were new in last weekend’s case of the six. The press that never before was around was present from the outset and was even a player in the Embassy foyer in its early moments. It was on this basis that the Embassy, for the first time since 1982, brought the Department into a case. And then Genscher called you to ask that we not eject them and thus the Department’s instructions to us to let the FRG play it out for us.

9. With the conclusion of the case of the six, we were back to the status quo ante, excluding the few physical changes in the Chancery made in the hope we could affect the psychology of the asylum seeker and keep at least the initial stages of the problem beyond the controlled doors. There are limits to what we can do. Three disparate examples suffice. The USIA library in the Chancery has been closed this week as we rebuild in the foyer area, but it must reopen. I plan to open the library on Wednesday.⁴ In moving Marine posts around, the Marine can become visible from outside. The Marines should not be placed in a position so as to be caught in the same photo frame as the Vopos at the door. And we cannot conduct our business on the street.

10. And so because the Embassy is here and open for business we have had more asylum seekers. We have gone back to talk, talk, talk, and we still understand physical force is an option, but no longer ours to call. Some cases are meritorious and almost all are poignant. The young man I ordered ejected when talk failed frankly was not among those. By thrusting himself past the guards and inside the controlled area and refusing to give us a name or a plausible, consistent story, he made himself something other than an asylum seeker.

11. We share the hopes and the frustration of those who seek freedom. But the minute they walk in the door, they already are in trouble with the police outside. Only Vogel, for those cases he decides to take, has ever been able to alter that.

12. It is all as stark as that.

Ridgway

1. Source: Reagan Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC Cable File, Europe (State) NODIS IN (01/21/1984–04/23/1984). Confidential; Immediate; Nodis.
2. See footnote 2, Document 265.
3. Telegram 2212 and 3479 from East Berlin, May 23 and August 23, 1982, respectively, outlined the police harassment of GDR citizens who attempted to enter the Embassy and the U.S. démarche in response. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D820273–0418 and D820437–0079)
4. February 1.