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

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

Geneva, March 18, 1981, 1732Z

2796. Subject: United Nations Human Rights Commission: Final Report on the Thirty-Seventh Session

1. (C—Entire text)

2. Summary: This report summarizes the work of the Thirty-Seventh Session of the Human Rights Commission. Department please repeat as appropriate. End summary.

3. The 37th Session of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights met in Geneva February 2 through March 13, 1981. The session opened less than two weeks after the beginning of the Reagan administration. The United States Representative and Principal Alternate Representative were appointees of the new administration. Moreover, the delegation had to cope with political and press speculation regarding a new U.S. human rights policy. The USDel accordingly resolved neither to be defensive nor to disorient friends or foes in the HRC. Instead, USDel launched a persistent, daily effort of private conversations with allies, neutrals, and foes, in order to provide the background against which to interpret U.S. positions as they emerged. Facing skepticism (even anxiety) and puzzlement, USDel aimed gradually to win friendship, understanding, shared conviction (or grudging admission, among foes) about U.S. priorities.

4. The Commission dealt with a heavy agenda with which it was not able to cope fully during the six weeks of the session. Although the Commission decided at the outset upon a timetable which should have allowed for adequate consideration of each of the items on its thirty-item agenda, the Commission by the end of its third week started to fall badly behind. During the fifth and sixth weeks, the Commission resorted to extended day sessions and night sessions, but was forced during the final week to limit debate on the large number of resolutions put forward under agenda item 13 (human rights violations in any part of the world) and to give only perfunctory treatment to several remaining agenda items.

5. Since it was the Latin American group’s turn for chairmanship, the Commission elected as its Chairman the LA group candidate, Ambassador Calero-Rodrigues, the representative from Brazil. Calero-Rodrigues personally presided at every meeting throughout the session, relinquishing the chair to one of the Vice Chairmen only for a brief period at the beginning of one meeting when he was late in arriving. In this respect he broke with normal practice. At past sessions the chairmen have extended opportunities to preside to each of the three vice chairmen.

6. The following were Commission actions of special interest to the U.S. delegation:

A. Israeli-Occupied Territories.

Following settled practice the Commission opened its substantive debate by considering the recurring item relating to human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine. The usual two-part resolution was put forward. One part contained a blanket condemnation of Israeli policies and practices and the other dealt with the application of the Geneva Convention on Civilian Persons to the Occupied Territories. This latter part of the resolution contained a provision first put forward last year characterizing the failure to apply the Geneva Convention as a grave threat to world peace and security. A number of WEO delegations were intending to vote against because of this characterization. Prior to the vote this phrase was replaced so that the failure to apply the Geneva Convention was described as creating “a situation fraught with danger.” With this change, the position of all the WEO delegations except the U.S. shifted to one of support for that part of the resolution. In the final vote, only the U.S. voted against, with no one abstaining. In the vote on the part of the resolution containing the broad condemnation of Israel, the U.S. was joined by Australia and Canada in voting against, and eight abstained.

B. Measures Against Terror or Incitement to Racial or Group Hatred.

This item was placed at an early spot in the Commission timetable as a part of an arrangement whereby the Eastern European group agreed to split the item on self-determination, with part taken up first in conjunction with the Palestine item, and part later in the session. The discussion of the item on terror and group hatred centered upon a draft resolution put forward by the Eastern European group of countries. The U.S. delegation led consultations in the WEO group looking toward a possible resolution dealing with the problem of terrorism as a human rights issue. Although there was general interest in the WEO group in discussing terrorism under the agenda item, and acknowledgement of its importance as a human rights issue, there was also a decided general view that a resolution on terrorism should not be pursued. The Eastern European draft resolution, which featured Nazism and Fascism as current problems, was countered by amendments proposed by several WEO countries designed to broaden the focus to all totalitarian ideologies. The amendments’ sponsors decided to negotiate with the Eastern European sponsors, with the result that a revised text was produced which was acceptable to all WEO delegations except the U.S. In the final vote the revised resolution was approved with only the U.S. abstaining, on the ground that the verbal formulations in the resolution are useless because they merely paper over the fundamental differences of the two sides.

C. Africa and Racial Discrimination.

Other subjects of special interest to Third World countries regularly taken up early in the Commission sessions, were the four agenda items relating to South Africa and racial discrimination. The discussions provided the occasion for the new administration to state its views on the problem of apartheid. The debate ended with votes on five resolutions sponsored principally by the HRC’s African members. Of the five resolutions, the United States voted against two, abstained on two, and did not participate in the vote on the one relating to the decade against racism. The voting pattern followed by the U.S. delegation was in line with that followed in recent previous Commission sessions. In the cases of the negative votes we were joined by the FRG, UK, and France. On the resolution concerning Namibia, all of the Western Five were able to abstain.

D. Disappearances.

The item on missing and disappeared persons, which centered upon the issue of whether to impose the rules of confidentiality on the Ad Hoc Working Group established by the Commission at its last session,² featured a draft resolution by the French delegation providing for a simple extension of the Working Group’s existing mandate. The original French resolution went through a number of changes reflecting the results of the long and arduous negotiations carried on privately between the French and Argentine delegations, with the active involvement of UK Representative Lord Colville, the Working Group’s Acting Chairman and spokesman. The U.S. delegation took no part in the debate on the item. Our position favoring a consensus decision was expressed in the regular WEO consultations and was obviously a factor in the willingness of France and Lord Colville to go almost the last mile to achieve consensus. The issue at stake was the extent to which the Working Group would be obligated to keep its proceedings confidential. The compromise language is subject to varying interpretations, and its precise effect must await the functioning of the Working Group during the coming year under its renewed one-year mandate. The shift in the U.S. position on this issue, and our efforts to achieve consensus caused strain with our WEO allies, who favored the original French proposal and opposed the effort to impose rules which could provide a basis for claiming confidentiality.

E. Self-Determination.

The recurring agenda item relating to peoples’ right to self-determination was split into two parts as a result of the efforts of Pakistan to assure that part of the item would be held over until after the completion of the Nonaligned Ministers meeting in New Delhi. The first part was considered together with the item relating to the occupied Arab territories and, as has been customary, resulted in a draft resolution cosponsored principally by Arab delegations supporting Palestinan self-determination, and condemning the Camp David Accords. This resolution received nine negative votes, including that of the U.S. When consideration of the item on self-determination was resumed, three resolutions were presented dealing with Kampuchea, Afghanistan, and Western Sahara. A fourth resolution sponsored by some radical Third World countries once again dealt with Palestine and self-determination together with Namibia and South Africa. There were strong votes in favor of both the Afghanistan and Kampuchea resolutions. In voting on the Western Sahara, the United States reacted to the strong criticism of Morocco by voting no—and gained a warm expression of appreciation from the Moroccan delegation.

F. Human Rights in Chile.

The question of human rights in Chile has been considered at each session of the Commission since 1974. It centered this time on a draft resolution cosponsored once again by the leading activists on the issue, Algeria, Cuba, Mexico, and Yugoslavia. In WEO consultations, USDel made clear its viewpoint that the unequal treatment which had been meted out to Chile by the Commission since 1975³ should end, and that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur should not be renewed. This viewpoint found some sympathy within the group, particularly on the part of the FRG and France. A further USDel argument that the Chile case henceforth be pursued under the confidential 1503 procedures did not, however, find any support in the group. In the voting on the draft resolution, the United States signaled its change in policy by, for the first time since the Chile issue had been considered in the Commission or in the General Assembly, voting against. The trend in the Commission towards a more moderate stand on Chile was reflected in the fact that in addition to the four negative votes, there were 17 abstentions so that only a bare majority of the Commission voted in favor. However, much WEO support for the resolution was lost in reaction to the narrow defeat of a series of FRG amendments designed to bring the proposal in line with the more moderate resolution adopted at the recent General Assembly and to eliminate the special “Chile item” from the Commission’s agenda.

Under a separate agenda item, the Commission approved and sent to ECOSOC a proposal to replace the Chile trust fund by a UN voluntary fund for victims of torture. The new fund would not be country-specific. Approval of the new fund came after the Commission defeated a series of Soviet amendments designed to gut the proposal and/or postpone action indefinitely.

G. Economic Human Rights.

The growing concern of the Third World countries over promotion of economic rights as a central task of the Commission on Human Rights was reflected in the debates on this recurring agenda item. In order to avoid a repetition of the situation at the past several sessions in which the West has limited itself to a defensive reaction to the proposals of the more radical nonaligned, the French delegation early in the session instituted and led negotiations between some WEO delegations (including the U.S.) and some nonaligned delegations led by Algeria. The French aim, as frequently explained and defended in the daily WEO meetings, was to achieve agreement on an essentially procedural resolution which could be adopted by consensus and which could possibly signal the beginning of a genuine dialogue between developed and less developed countries. The emerging product of the negotiations gave the USDel increasing cause for concern, but France remained determined to carry them forward and in the end did so without U.S. participation. The resulting draft resolution was presented to the Western group by France as a fair compromise and one which presented an opportunity to the Western delegations which they would ignore at their peril, if their governments were interested in future productive relations with the nonaligned members of the Commission. The resolution was cosponsored by a large number of nonaligned governments but had no WEO sponsors. It was approved with only one negative vote, that of the United States and two abstentions, the UK and the FRG. The U.S. explained its vote by saying that the text contained no genuine compromise of substance. We continue to believe that a comparison with the initial Nonaligned text bears out this judgment. The firm opposition of some Western delegations (e.g., Canada, UK) to our bid for membership on the expert group established by the resolution is a clear reflection of their annoyance at our stand.

H. Violations of Human Rights Anywhere in the World.

This item consumed by far the largest number of meetings of the Commission. A perhaps disproportionate part of these meetings was devoted to the confidential part of the item under which the Commission acted pursuant to the procedures of ECOSOC Resolution 1503. Fourteen country situations were considered in these confidential procedures. Those which occupied the bulk of the Commission’s time were the GDR, Argentina, Bolivia, and Ethiopia. The high point was the decision by the Commission to keep under review the human rights situation in the GDR. The low point was the decision of the Commission to cease consideration of the human rights situation in Ethiopia, a decision which was made almost inevitable by the benignly favorable last-minute report issued by the Secretary-General’s representative. In both cases the Communist delegations went to extraordinary, time-consuming lengths to achieve dismissal. Other highlights of the 1503 proceedings were the decision to keep the case concerning Afghanistan under review, the dismissal (at least partly at U.S. urging) of the case against Japan, the decision to keep the Argentina case under review, including the disappeared persons part of that case, the refusal to move the Bolivian case from public to private proceedings, the dismissal of the case concerning Paraguay, the continuation of the case concerning Uruguay, and the decision to keep the case concerning the Republic of Korea under review. A final episode which occurred at the end of the 1503 proceedings involved the initiative undertaken by the USSR to reopen the GDR case as a result of the publication in the local press of an interview given by the U.S. representative. The interview evidenced a breach of the rule of confidentiality and led to an explanation of regret by the U.S. representative. After several delegations objected to nullifying the decision on the GDR, the USSR deleted that portion of its proposal. However, the adopted decision deploring the breach of confidentiality contains language which the Soviets will no doubt cite in trying to dismiss the case against the GDR next year.

The public proceedings under this agenda item began as the Commission was entering its final week. Because of the heavy workload, the Chairman was forced to set time limits on statements, with the result that many Western delegations were unable to say as much about the worldwide human rights situation as they had intended. A record number of resolutions was put forward under the public part of the item, including two important U.S. initiatives: The draft resolution condemning the taking of hostages and a draft decision assuring consideration next year of the plight of Sakharov.⁴ The hostages resolution, which in its original conception was designed to secure a condemnation of Iran for its taking and maltreatment of the hostages, was throughout the session progressively modified to remove in the end any direct or implied mention of a target country. The generalized version was easily approved by consensus. The draft decision concerning Sakharov was greeted by a counter resolution from Byelorussia focusing on the racial situation in the United States and designed to force a withdrawal of the U.S. proposal. In the end, the draft decision and the draft resolution, together with another set of resolutions involving Jordan/Syrian charges and counter-charges, were disposed of, over U.S. opposition, by a procedural motion to take no decision. However, in a separate resolution implicitly intended to cover dissidents in the USSR and Eastern Europe, the Commission strongly reaffirmed the right to defend human rights and deplored “all harsh and punitive treatment” of people who exercise this right.

The issue which consumed the greatest amount of the time of the U.S. delegation concerned El Salvador. Engaging in long discussions within the WEO group and working closely with the Netherlands delegation acting as leader, the USDel significantly influenced an outcome which saw the adoption of a comparatively moderate Netherlands/Denmark text instead of a competing Algerian/Mexican/Yugoslav text. Other important decisions taken under the item which were supported by the United States concerned the human rights situations in Guatemala and Bolivia.

The Commission took a step toward implementing last year’s resolution on mass exoduses by deciding to appoint a Special Rapporteur to study the question of human rights and mass exoduses.

I. Religious Intolerance and Other Working Groups.

A signal achievement of the session in which the U.S. played a key role as WEOG coordinator was the approval after twenty years of effort of a draft declaration on religious intolerance. The result was achieved despite of determined obstructionism by the Soviet and Byelorussian delegations. The final product is in full conformity with positions urged by the USDel and can be regarded as a significant new instrument for furthering the promotion of religious freedom in the world. U.S. follow-through at ECOSOC and the General Assembly will be essential to ensure final adoption.⁵ Other drafting exercises on the Draft Conventions Against Torture and on the Rights of the Child and a Declaration on Minorities proceeded slowly with only the Rights of the Child Convention making noticeable progress. Progress on the Torture Convention was blocked mainly by Argentina, Brazil, and the USSR, in that order. Argentina made it clear it did not want the negotiations to succeed. The Netherlands and Australia played maverick roles, complicating the effort to present a united Western front on the issue. In the case of the Rights of the Child Convention, the original Polish draft has been gradually transformed, primarily through U.S. efforts, into a document much more in concert with Western concepts, values, and priorities. Although Eastern Bloc obstructionism eventually prevented consensus in the Working Group on strengthening UN human rights machinery, the group was able to focus the discussions largely on Western proposals to develop an intersessional role for the Commission’s bureau, and to lay the groundwork for further consideration of this subject next year. As this working group was allotted only six meetings, there was insufficient time to explore the limits of Eastern flexibility on this and related issues. The proposal for a High Commissioner, which was dealt with mainly outside the framework of the Working Group, saw no progress, but we understand Senegal intends to pursue the matter at the next General Assembly.

J. Subcommission on Discrimination and Minorities.

At the initiative of the Brazilian delegation, the Annual Report of the Subcommission on Discrimination and Minorities was given a more prominent than usual place in the timetable, with the result that a quite thorough examination of the Subcommission’s role took place. The Brazilian intention was to underscore its concern over recent tendencies of the Subcommission to move beyond its mandate and assigned functions without the authority of its parent body. While the Brazilian critique received some sympathetic echo in the debate that took place, the end result was only a mild resolution of concern with no restriction at all on the Subcommission’s existing mandate. A related item concerned the election of the entire Subcommission membership. Of the 26 seats open, six were available to WEO candidates. Of the seven WEO candidates, the U.S. nominee narrowly defeated the seventh candidate in a runoff vote. This election outcome was the first time that a U.S. candidacy for a post on a body in the ECOSOC structure came so close to failing.

6. The foregoing summary of the results reached with respect to the principal items on the agenda of the 37th Session of the Commission features a number of specific accomplishments in line with United States objectives. In a number of cases, the United States delegation was in a minority position, extending in three cases to isolation. More important than the tally sheet of resolutions adopted and votes recorded must be the impression made by the United States delegation speaking for the new administration. Our daily contacts with the WEO delegations and less systematized contacts with delegations of other regions assured knowledge of and, we believe, a growing understanding of our new approaches and the new points of emphasis. The USDel had the principal task of continuing the traditional U.S. emphasis on human rights, while executing smoothly a new administration’s unique sense of strategy and tactics. The change in strategic focus by the United States delegation consisted in advocating three main substantive points: (1) no more double standards in the Commission; (2) human rights exist in mediating institutions of due process and in constituencies committed to moderation and law in making such institutions work; and (3) the special threat to human rights institutions posed by the new international terrorism. With respect to voting patterns, the United States delegation maintained overall consistency with past U.S. positions; the most striking differences occurred in changed strategy and tactics for improving the human rights situation in South and Central America.

Helman

1. Source: Department of State, Assistant Secretary Files—Elliott Abrams Subject and CHRON Files, 1981–1987, Lot 89D184, Human Rights—1981 UNHRC. Confidential; Priority. Sent for information to Madrid for USDel, CSCE, and USUN.
2. See Document 41.
3. In telegram 44937 to Saigon, February 27, 1975, the Department transmitted the text of a draft UNHRC resolution on Chile. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D750072–0614)
4. Reference is to Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov.
5. In telegram 2095 from New York, June 22, USUN provided a summary of the Economic and Social Council session, including the proposed measure on religious intolerance. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810292–1125) In telegram 4445 from New York, December 3, USUN reported that the UNGA had adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief on November 25, without a vote. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810573–0603)