Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

39. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State¹

Geneva, January 6, 1981, 1745Z

108. Subject: UN Human Rights Commission: U.S. Interests, Objectives and Strategy for the 37th Session, February 2–March 13, 1981. Ref: (A) 80 USUN 5598; (B) 80 Geneva 15676; (C) 80 USUN 5642 (D) 80 Geneva 15659; (E) 80 State 342379.²

1. (C—Entire text.)

2. Introduction/Overview: The 1981 Session of the UN Human Rights Commission affords several excellent opportunities to advance U.S. interests, strengthen cooperation with our allies, increase the West’s overall ability to promote human rights objectives, and contribute to the development of more effective multilateral human rights institutions. As the session starts only two weeks after the new U.S. administration takes office, the positions and tactics of the U.S. inevitably will be interpreted by other governments as constituting the human rights policies of the new administration.

3. As the Commission is expected to devote considerable attention to ways of strengthening United Nations human rights machinery and procedures, the session provides an opportunity to achieve significant advances in the multilateralization of efforts to implement universal human rights standards. Success in this institution-building effort would assure more even-handed and less-politicized treatment of human rights issues in the UN, facilitating the ability of the U.S. to advance its interests without bilateral confrontation. Subjects in this category include the terms of reference for a possible High Commissioner for Human Rights, improvement of international fact-finding activities, establishment of an effective mechanism to implement the Commission’s 1980 resolution on mass exoduses,³ determination of an appropriate inter-sessional role for the Human Rights Commission, strengthening and expanding the mandate of the new working group on disappearances, study of a possible universal trust fund for victims of human rights violations, and an international convention to forbid torture and to obligate states to extradite or prosecute torturers. The session also affords an opportunity to carry forward efforts to involve the Commission in a meaningful way on behalf of Andrei Sakharov and other Soviet dissidents. The Commission will also deal with an increasingly diverse range of regional and country situations under its public and confidential procedures. Other states will be looking for signals as to any new U.S. posture toward such countries as the USSR, Israel, South Africa, Chile and Argentina.

4. As progress in all of these areas serves U.S. and Western interests, we should be prepared to work closely with other Western members to develop and promote concrete proposals. While we may not wish to take the lead in tabling resolutions and seeking co-sponsors, we should be prepared to play a vigorous supporting role. Working-level officers of the ten Western Missions represented on the Commission will meet on January 12 to discuss key agenda items.⁴ We would welcome any preliminary comments and guidance the Department may wish to provide in advance of the meeting on the subjects covered in this cable or other agenda items. The working-level meeting is to be followed by a meeting of all WEO Permanent Representatives o/a January 22. Both meetings are being convened by the UK, January Chairman of the WEO Group. End introduction/overview.

5. High Commissioner: The recently-concluded UN General Assembly adopted a Western-backed Costa Rican resolution requesting the Commission to prepare recommendations for the 1981 General Assembly on possible terms of reference for a High Commissioner for Human Rights.⁵ Although the Commission and the Assembly have considered the subject intermittently since 1965, the Assembly’s renewed mandate to the Commission provides a fresh opportunity to advance the achievement of this long-sought U.S. and Western goal. Establishment of the post of High Commissioner would bring greater impartiality, coordination, and year-round continuity to UN human rights activities. We believe the terms of reference for a High Commissioner should strike a balance between his independence and power of initiative to engage in direct contacts, on the one hand, and periodic policy supervision of his activities by an “intergovernmental oversight committee” (which could be the Human Rights Commission itself). Support for the concept of a High Commissioner has grown steadily over the years, and a balanced approach of the type just described could command sufficient support to gain final approval.

6. Fact-finding: The General Assembly and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities passed resolutions this year requesting the Human Rights Commission to develop means to strengthen the UN’s fact-finding capabilities in the human rights field.⁶ UN organs now rely mainly on information supplied by governments and non-governmental organizations, and the feeling has grown that a broader, more systematically-collected data base would contribute to greater objectivity and even-handedness in UN deliberations and decisions on reported violations. Sub-Commission Resolution 19 (XXXIII) recommends the establishment of a new information-gathering service within the UN Human Rights Division. Sub-Commission Resolution 22 (XXXIII) envisages onsite observation visits by Sub-Commissioners. Western countries agree on the need for measures to improve UN fact-finding procedures, although as far as we can determine they have so far devoted little concentrated attention to specific proposals. The terms of reference of a High Commissioner for Human Rights would probably include at least a limited fact-finding role.

7. Intersessional Role of the Human Rights Commission: Perceiving a need for improved year-round attention to human rights issues, the Commission at its 1980 session decided to explore a possible intersessional role for its five-member bureau and a mechanism for convening emergency sessions of the full 43-member Commission. The U.S. and other Western countries supported this move as a modest but logical next step in the evolution of effective international human rights machinery which would partially cover the lengthy gaps between the annual sessions of the Commission, the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Sub-Commission.⁷ Bi-monthly or quarterly meetings of the bureau would provide a simple, relatively inexpensive method for assuring prompt intergovernmental attention to urgent situations of massive human rights abuse arising when the main UN organs are not in session. Such meetings could also provide a forum for interim Commission monitoring of the activities of a High Commissioner for Human Rights. Emergency sessions of the full Commission might be warranted under very exceptional circumstances, although criteria should be carefully drawn to prevent over-use of this procedure. Organizing and conducting special sessions would obviously be cumbersome and expensive if governments followed the pattern of sending delegates from capitals. A simpler and less-expensive alternative would be institutionalized meetings of Permanent Representatives assigned to Geneva. (Bi-monthly or quarterly meetings of Permanent Representatives might also be a feasible alternative to the proposal for interim meetings of the bureau.) We should prepare concrete proposals for early discussion within the Western group.

8. Disappearances: With strong Western backing, the Human Rights Commission at its 1980 session established for one year a five-member working group to begin to deal with the problem of “disappearances” (officially-sanctioned political abductions) on a worldwide basis.⁸ The Working Group has held three sessions and will present its report to the Commission in February. (Ref B describes the group’s most recent session.) Creation of the group was a major U.S. and Western objective at the 1980 session, and has generally been regarded as the major achievement of that session. As the development of increasingly effective international machinery can help to multilateralize efforts to solve this tragic problem, we should join other Western countries in pressing energetically for extension of the Working Group’s mandate. The Sub-Commission adopted a resolution this summer urging the Commission to take this action, and the General Assembly adopted a similar resolution by consensus. As the number of new disappearances declined significantly after the establishment of the Working Group, many Western observers believe the very fact of the group’s existence has helped to curb the practice. We would hope that the Commission would agree to extend the Working Group’s mandate without a fixed cutoff date or, alternatively, for a multi-year period. France is likely to take the lead on this issue, as it did at the 1980 session.⁹ As we reported in ref B, Argentina has not cooperated with the WG. Lord Colville, the Western member of the WG, warned that the GOA will try to raise a procedural smokescreen at the Commission in an effort to block further WG inquiries.

9. Mass Exoduses: The Human Rights Commission’s 1980 Resolution (30 (XXXVI)) requested the Secretary-General “to consider establishing direct contacts with appropriate governments, to assess the relationship between (the mass exodus) and full enjoyment of human rights, and to make concrete recommendations for ameliorating such situations.” To date, however, the Secretary-General has not implemented the resolution. In December, the General Assembly adopted a brief resolution endorsing the Commission resolution. As mass exoduses of refugees have widespread direct implications for the United States, it is in our interest to support continuing efforts to involve the Secretary-General in activities envisaged by the Commission’s 1980 resolution. At the 1981 session, we might want to focus on designing an automatic mechanism for triggering implementation of the existing resolution. We will want to consult closely on this subject with the Canadians, who sponsored the 1980 Commission resolution and the recent GA resolution, and are likely to take the lead again in 1981. We will also want to consult with the West Germans, in the light of the FRG’s strong interest in this subject and their recent successful initiative at the General Assembly (refs C and E).

10. Trust Fund: The recent General Assembly requested the Commission to study the possibility of converting the trust fund for Chilean victims of human rights abuse to a universal trust fund, and to develop criteria for the administration of such a fund.¹⁰ The U.S. and all Western countries supported the Assembly resolution. Universalizing the trust fund would be consistent with our goal of promoting even-handedness by UN institutions and avoiding the proliferation of one-country trust funds. Denmark will take the lead on this item at the Commission.

11. Draft Convention Against Torture: Under negotiation since 1978, a Working Group of the Commission has adopted many of the substantive Articles of the Convention, including the difficult definition of torture. Two significant issues remain: a) whether to include in the convention a requirement upon parties to extradite or prosecute alleged torturers (similar to the requirements contained in such conventions as those designed to prevent hijacking and the taking of hostages), and b) the implementation articles, especially the issue of whether the Human Rights Committee of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or some other entity should be charged with responsibility for implementation. The recent meeting of a Western ad hoc group at the Council of Europe (ref D) revealed divergences of view on these matters. However, a completed torture convention would be a useful step in multilateralizing yet another human rights issue and putting international pressure on states to stop this heinous activity. The U.S. should push strongly for an air-tight “extradite or prosecute” provision and for use of the Human Rights Committee (or, preferably, a Sub-Committee chosen from among those states on the Human Rights Committee which are parties to the Torture Convention) as an implementing body. While the U.S. need not be in the forefront of these negotiations, we should ensure that any resulting convention is meaningful and does not, by implication or otherwise, weaken the “extradite or prosecute” obligation in other conventions.

12. Sakharov/Soviet Dissidents: The Commission discussed the question of Andrei Sakharov at length during its 1980 session but deferred further action until 1981, agreeing to accord it priority consideration.¹¹ We should urge the Commission to take a definite stand this year, perhaps in the form of a resolution deploring the practice of punishing, by internal exile or other means, the expression of peaceful dissent in the USSR. The resolution could cite Sakharov and perhaps other Soviet dissidents by name in a preambular paragraph, and might refer to Commission Resolution 23 (XXXVI) affirming the right of all individuals and organs of society to promote human rights. Alternatively, or in addition, the Commission might send a telegram to the Soviet Government protesting Sakharov’s prolonged arbitrary deprivation of liberty and calling upon the authorities to release him. Such a telegram could include a similar expression of concern for other named dissidents subjected to arbitrary imprisonment or exile. Our Western allies will support strong action by the Commission. Success, however, will require a major lobbying effort with selected Third World delegations and probably approaches in their capitals.

13. Regional and Country Issues (Public Agenda Items):

—Middle East: We can expect to see the traditional attacks against Israel, with particular regard to human rights practices in the occupied territories, and a spate of unbalanced condemnatory resolutions. Ambassador Barromi, Israeli Perm Rep in Geneva, believes Arab delegations may raise the issue of the deportation of the West Bank mayors.

—Afghanistan: The Commission last year adopted (27–8–6) a resolution (3 (XXXVI)) condemning Soviet military aggression against Afghanistan. Pakistan took the lead on this issue, and we would recommend following Pakistan’s lead again this year.

—Bolivia: In a U.S. and Western supported resolution, the 35th UNGA requested the Commission to review the human rights situation in Bolivia and to accept the Bolivian Government’s invitation to conduct an onsite investigation.¹² The Commission will also have before it an analysis of the human rights situation prepared by a special rapporteur of the Sub-Commission, pursuant to Sub-Commission Resolution 23 (XXXIII). We should support efforts to conduct a frank and thorough discussion of human rights abuses in Bolivia since the July, 1980 coup.¹³ We should also strongly support an onsite visit by the Commission, perhaps by a 3–to–5 member working group, as a concrete means of further strengthening international human rights fact-finding machinery.

—El Salvador: The General Assembly adopted an unbalanced resolution sharply criticizing the Salvadorean Government and calling upon the Commission to examine the human rights situation at the forthcoming session.¹⁴ As most Western countries abstained or voted in favor of the resolution at the GA, we can expect difficulties in achieving a balanced approach by the Commission. Success will be conditioned to an important degree by developments within El Salvador itself.

—Chile: We would expect the Commission to follow established lines, i.e., to adopt a resolution endorsing the report of Special Rapporteur Dieye (Senegal), criticizing continuing human rights violations, and extending the Rapporteur’s mandate for another year. Western countries have traditionally supported such resolutions and are likely to do so again at the 1981 Commission session. In the absence of significant improvements within Chile, it is difficult to justify discontinuation of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. We should be prepared to remain with other Western countries on this issue, accompanying our vote with an appropriate explanation as in the past.

—Kampuchea: We have supported previous Assembly and Commission resolutions on human rights violations in Kampuchea and should do so again this year. The Commission will have before it a Sub-Commission Resolution (24 (XXXIII)) recommending, inter alia, that the Commission “consider inviting the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to assist in restoring full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms as speedily as possible in Kampuchea”.

14. Country and Regional Issues (Confidential 1503 Cases): The Sub-Commission referred to the Commission complaints against the following thirteen countries: Afghanistan, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, Haiti, Japan, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique, and the Republic of Korea. Information concerning these cases is contained in document E/CN.4/R.66,¹⁵ copies of which were forwarded to the Department (IO and HA) on November 3, 1980. The Commission also decided last year to keep several additional country situations on its confidential agenda on the basis of earlier complaints forwarded by the Sub-Commission. A five-member Working Group of Commission members (Netherlands, Panama, Zambia, Cyprus, Yugoslavia) will review all of these cases at a one-week pre-sessional meeting beginning January 26.¹⁶ The most noteworthy feature of this year’s list is the inclusion for the first time of a Warsaw Pact country; the Sub-Commission elevated complaints against the GDR concerning denial of the right to emigrate, imprisonment for attempted emigration, and problems concerning family reunification.

Helman

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810007–0392. Confidential; Priority. Sent for information to USUN New York.
2. In telegram 5598 from New York, December 5, 1980, USUN reported on a December 3 meeting of the UNHRC. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800581–0330) In telegram 15676 from Geneva, December 20, 1980, the Mission reported on a December 18 briefing conducted by the UNHRC Working Group on Disappearances. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800605–0392) In telegram 5642 from New York, December 9, 1980, USUN reported on a UNGA resolution to avert new flows of refugees. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800586–0051) In telegram 15659 from Geneva, December 19, 1980, the Mission reported on a Council of Europe meeting on the Convention Against Torture. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800604–0994) In telegram 342379 to Bonn, December 31, 1980, the Department reported on a West German UNGA resolution on refugees. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810001–1187)
3. In telegram 4247 from Geneva, March 17, 1980, USUN summarized the 36th Session of the UNHRC. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800138–0059)
4. In telegram 419 from Geneva, January 15, USUN summarized the January 12 meeting. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810021–1054)
5. In telegram 5759 from New York, December 16, 1980, USUN reported on the December 15 vote at the UNGA. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800598–0852)
6. In telegram 5783 from New York, December 16, 1980, USUN reported on UNGA human rights discussions, including the resolution on fact-finding capabilities. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800600–0807)
7. See footnote 3, above.
8. See footnote 3, above.
9. In telegram 57570 to Vienna, March 4, 1980, the Department reported on U.S. and French efforts to draft a resolution related to disappeared and missing persons. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D800111–0541)
10. See footnote 5, above.
11. See footnote 3, above.
12. See footnote 5, above.
13. Reference is to General Luis Garcia Meza Tejada’s seizure of power in Bolivia.
14. See footnote 5, above.
15. Not found.
16. In telegram 1324 from Geneva, February 10, USUN summarized the UNHRC Working Group on Confidential 1503 Procedures report. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810064–0720)