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

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

Geneva, March 17, 1982, 1628Z

3170. Subj: UN Human Rights Commission: Final US Delegation Report on 1982 Session.

1. (C—Entire text.)

2. Introduction: This message summarizes the work of the UN Human Rights Commission at its 38th Session, Feb. 1–March 12, 1982. It is descriptive in character; an evaluative summary will follow by March 31.² Dept please repeat as appropriate. End introduction.

3. Commission Officers and Agenda: It was the Eastern European group’s turn for the Chairmanship and, as foreseen, they selected Ivan Garvalov of Bulgaria for the post. The Vice-Chairmen were Prof. Kooijmans (Netherlands), Amb. Salah-Bey (Algeria), and Amb. Pouyouros (Cyprus). Argentine Mission Counselor Daverede was chosen Rapporteur. The provisional agenda was adopted without debate, since the U.S. had decided on the basis of intensive consultations in capitals and in Geneva to raise the Polish issue³ under the following item (Organization of Work) rather than to seek inscription of a separate new agenda item on the topic.

4. Organization of Work (Poland: Phase One): The U.S. and Western countries brought the Polish issue to center stage on the second day through substantive statements by Canada and Denmark (the latter for the EC–10), and by the tabling of a draft decision expressing concern about violations in Poland, according priority to the Polish question under Item 12 (violations anywhere in the world), and requesting the Secretary General to prepare an initial report for consideration at the present session. Western statements on Poland and on the draft decision were frequently interrupted by the USSR and its friends on points of order, and Syria eventually moved adjournment of debate on the draft decision until Item 12. Overruling (and in some cases merely ignoring) procedural objections from Senegal, Brazil, and several Western delegations, Chairman Garvalov pushed the Syrian motion to a vote in which all WEOG delegations plus Japan, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay refused to participate. Although its subsequent “adoption” by 11–0–14–14 (non-participation) meant that Poland was not formally given priority, USDel accomplished its initial objectives of focussing early attention on Poland while forging a strongly united Western position on the issue. Beyond that, we obtained priority anyway by tabling the Polish resolution before any other resolutions under Item 12. Had our draft decision come to a vote, winning votes were possibly available. But the procedural wrangles resulted in a dramatic, suspended meeting, much press attention, and building suspense for the rest of the session. The Bulgarian Chairman seemed to bend or ignore the rules and otherwise move lazily; the resulting bad publicity increased the pressure on him to be more conscious of his reputation—and the rules—late in the session. The USSR won the support of barely a quarter of the Commission’s membership. The result demonstrated relative strengths and weaknesses.

5. Israeli-Occupied Territories: After the initial debate on Poland, the Commission settled into the time-honored ritual of belaboring Israel for alleged misdeeds in the occupied territories and also, this year, for its decision to annex the Golan Heights. The Commission adopted the usual two-part resolution (a) condemning Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories and (b) condemning Israel’s refusal to apply the fourth Geneva convention to the occupied territories. The vote was virtually identical to that in 1981: On Part A (32–3–7), the U.S. was again joined by Canada and Australia in voting no, and was alone in voting against Part B (41–1–0). The resolution condemning the decision to annex the Golan Heights was adopted 22–11 (WEOG minus Greece plus Japan and Fiji) –7. Peru and the Philippines refused to participate. Under the agenda item on self-determination, the Commission also adopted another resolution this year rejecting the Camp David Accords and endorsing the PLO. Although the final vote (24–8–10) fell only slightly below last year’s tally (25–9–8), a separate vote on a paragraph rejecting the Camp David Accords was retained by only 17–12 (U.S.) –12. The vote last year on a similar paragraph was 21–11 (U.S.) –10.

6. Scientific and Technological Developments: Although the Eastern Bloc asked that this item be scheduled early in the session in order to serve its all-fronts disarmament campaign, Western delegations were able to focus much of the discussion on Soviet abuse of psychiatric confinement. USDel distributed to all delegations and main NGOs a package of materials on this subject.⁴ The Commission passed four resolutions under this agenda item (versus one last year). The first was similar to last year’s, a Byelorussian text on the use of science and technology to ensure “the right to work and development.” It passed 31–0–12 (WEOG, Japan, Philippines); last year’s tally was 28–1 (UK) –13. A resolution condemning the Israeli raid on Iraq’s nuclear reactor was adopted 30–1 (U.S.) –11 (Japan, Costa Rica, Fiji, WEOG minus Greece). A Soviet disarmament resolution passed 32–0–11 (Japan, China, WEOG minus Greece) after having been substantially modified through negotiations. A UK resolution on protection of persons detained in psychiatric institutions and endorsing the Subcommission’s ongoing work in this area was adopted by consensus.

7. Africa and Racial Discrimination: The four agenda items related to these subjects were again dealt with at length for four largely wasted days early in the session. The debate followed traditional and predictable lines, with no surprises. The Commission adopted five resolutions under this cluster of items. US was able to shift from no (1981) to abstention this year on the general resolution on violations in South Africa; however, we found ourselves alone in not supporting the text (adopted 41–0–1) because last year’s five abstainers and two other negative votes went into the yes column this time. On Namibia, the vote (37–0–6) was almost identical with last year’s tally; the same was true for the resolution on the Apartheid Convention (32–0–11) and the Decade Against Racism (34–0–8); the US abstained on the first two resolutions and did not participate in the vote on the decade. The vote on adverse consequences of assistance to South Africa was 32–4 (US, UK, FRG, France) –7 (other WEOS plus Japan).

8. Self-Determination: As was the case last year, the Commission adopted resolutions on Afghanistan, Kampuchea, the Western Sahara, and Southern Africa. All were basically similar to their predecessors, except that the last-named differed from its 1981 counterpart by omitting references to the Palestinians. Pakistan again took the lead on the Afghanistan resolution, which passed 32–7–4, closely approximating last year’s tally of 31–8–3. The result on the Kampuchean resolution showed a similar trend (28–8–5 this time compared with 26–9–6 last year). The US voted for both resolutions. The Western Sahara resolution was adopted 27–3 (US) –13, as compared with 26–5–11 a year ago. The resolution on self-determination in Southern Africa passed 32–8 (US) –3, which differs from last year’s tally only by the addition of one yes vote.

9. Right to Development: This issue, which stands near the top of the priority list for a substantial number of members of the Commission, was the subject of extended public discussion and intensive consultations, led by Senegal and France, to develop a consensus resolution. The effort very nearly succeeded (40–0–1 (US)), and the resulting text is a significant improvement over last year’s version. Although the US was in the end instructed to call for a vote and abstain, our constructive attitude during the protracted consultations, as well as during the four weeks of Right to Development Working Group meetings over the past year,⁵ was well received by many developing nations. Our abstention, although isolated, was also recognized by some as a positive move; on recent GA and HRC resolutions, where we have cast a (lone) negative vote. All US public comments were conciliatory, constructive.

10. The Subcommission: The Commission adopted five resolutions related to the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. The one which sparked the most interest was an Italian-Costa Rican resolution to direct the Subcommission to prepare proposed terms of reference for a High Commissioner for Human Rights and to submit its recommendations to the next Commission Session. The idea arose from the Subcommission’s own strong display of interest in this approach last summer.⁶ The proposal was adopted 29 (US) –8–6 after the Commission narrowly approved (16–15 (US) –12) a set of Brazilian amendments which soften it in some minor respects but leave its essential elements intact. Once again, Greece deserted the West by supporting the amendments; a no vote, or even an abstention would have been decisive in our favor. The Commission also approved three resolutions submitted to it by the Subcommission. A resolution to create a new Presessional Working Group on Indigenous Populations was adopted 35 (US) –0–7. A resolution on slavery and slavery-like practices (apartheid, prostitution, etc.) passed 34–0–9 after a separate vote approved (30–7 (US) –5) retention of a paragraph calling for mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa. A third resolution, on the publication of the SC’s Report on Child Labor, was adopted without a vote. Finally, the Commission adopted an Australian-Byelorussian proposal reaffirming the SC’s terms of reference and urging that special care be taken in cases where an alternate expert must be appointed. The latter provision is intended to discourage the practice of appointing permanent mission officers and other government officials as alternates for the elected members, who are, in principle, independent experts.

11. Poland: Adoption of a strong resolution on Poland, providing follow-up action by the Secretary-General, was the major US objective at this session. Intensive, US-led consultations within the Western Group began well before the Commission session opened and continued on a daily basis throughout the entire period. These consultations, including repeated high-level démarches in capitals⁷ and soundings among selected non-Western delegations, produced a common Western draft resolution and strategy. Further intensive and sustained lobbying in non-Western capitals and among non-WEO delegations gradually increased the number of commitments to support our resolution. Repeated démarches in capitals helped to ensure against slippage; equally important, they enabled us to secure commitments of support against the expected Eastern procedural moves to prevent a decision on the resolution itself. When the crunch came on the night of March 10, it quickly became apparent that these extraordinary efforts had borne fruit: On the first vote, we defeated by 13–20–8 a Zambian motion to postpone action until next year. Subsequent procedural motions went our way by even larger margins. The final vote on the resolution almost exactly matched our expectations: 19 in favor, 13 opposed, and 10 abstentions, with 1 not participating. The Polish question clearly provided the main drama at this year’s session; even when other topics were being discussed, the Polish issue remained in people’s minds; we worked hard to keep it there. When we finally reached the hour of decision, the atmosphere in the packed hall was charged with anticipation. Because of our earlier efforts, we were confident of success. That we were able to reach a decision at all is due primarily and essentially to the intensive lobbying described above. In retrospect, we see that it was also critically important that ours was the first resolution tabled under this catch-all agenda item, and therefore had to be taken up before the dozen or so other controversial (and time-consuming) proposals submitted under it. This point is worth remembering for future top-priority initiatives; in the past, we and our allies have sometimes been too slow in tabling our proposals, with the result that we are forced into a damage-limiting posture, or, equally bad, that our initiatives are not even considered. Our clear-cut resolve precluded this happening in the case of the Polish resolution.

12. Disappearances: The debate on this item centered around the annual report of the UNHRC Working Group established two years ago to deal with the problem of enforced disappearances, and on the need to renew the WG’s mandate for another year. The debate lacked the suspense of last year’s discussion and the overall tone was much more moderate. A controversy erupted over whether the International Commission of Jurists could designate Emilio Mignone, the head of the ICJ’s Argentine affiliate, as its spokesman. Argentine Ambassador Martinez objected, asserting that Mignone, a well-known human rights activist and former Undersecretary in Peron’s government, was politically-biased against the GOA. In the end, most delegations agreed that an NGO’s right to select its representatives should not be restricted, and Mignone was able to address the Commission. Later in the session, the Commission adopted by consensus a French resolution extending the Working Group’s mandate for another year.

13. Chile: Although there is growing sentiment in Western delegations to eliminate the separate agenda item on Chile and include the question under the general item on human rights violations, this goal could not be reached this year. An Uruguayan amendment to this effect was defeated 13 (US) –22–7; a similar proposal by the FRG last year was rejected 12 (US) –19–12. The Commission then adopted, 28–6 (US)–8, a resolution very similar to last year’s, once again extending the mandate of the public Special Rapporteur. The vote last year was 22–4 (US) –17.

14. Country-Specific Action by the Commission Under the Confidential Procedures: The Commission considered eight countries this year under the confidential procedures established by ECOSOC Resolution 1503. It decided to drop the cases concerning Paraguay (19 (US) –8–13), the Republic of Korea (30 (US) –7–4), and Venezuela (consensus). After a hard-fought battle, the Commission voted 22 (US) –12–11 to keep the GDR under review. The vote last year was 19 (US) –14–9, but it should be noted that a preceding vote, which tested the substance of the resolution, went our way by only one vote. On Afghanistan, the Commission voted 33 (US) –7–2 to keep the situation under review. In 1981, the resolution on Afghanistan was adopted without a vote, but only after the acceptance of amendments which tended to soften it. This year’s resolution is couched in stronger terms. The Commission decided by consensus to keep Argentina, Uruguay, and Haiti under review. The resolution on Uruguay includes a clause looking toward possible discontinuation of the case next year. Inclusion of this provision made the resolution acceptable to the Uruguayan delegation. USDel contributed to this outcome.

15. Violations Anywhere in the World (Public Procedures): the Polish issue, discussed elsewhere in this message, clearly dominated the proceedings under this item. El Salvador was probably the second major topic. Given the General Assembly voting pattern of Commission members on the El Salvador issue, it seemed fairly clear from the outset that our efforts would have to be of a damage-limiting character. Our initial exploration of the possibility of a moderate, balanced resolution persuaded us that the prospects were dim at best, and that we should try instead to erode support for the expected condemnatory resolution. The Salvadoran Ambassador fully shared this view, and we worked closely with him throughout the session. The results were mixed, leaving the final outcome (25–5 (US) –13) almost exactly the same as the GA pattern. The only significant shift was the FRG, which went from yes to abstain. The Salvadoran delegation expressed warm gratitude for our efforts. A strong resolution on Guatemala passed 29–2–12 (US), and a balanced text on Bolivia was adopted without a vote. On Iran, the Commission adopted (19 (US) –9–15) a strongly-worded resolution focussing on summary and arbitrary executions and on the plight of the Baha’s. A highlight of the Commission’s work under this agenda item was the report of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan on human rights and mass exoduses; Prince Sadruddin’s personal prestige, and the intellectual power and depth of his report, focussed special attention on the issue. (E.g., a separate speakers’ list was opened for discussion of the topic.) A Canadian resolution providing for follow-up action was adopted by consensus. Another Canadian proposal, on the right to individuals and groups to promote human rights—designed to express moral support for Helsinki Monitors and similar groups—also passed by consensus. It goes beyond previous resolutions on this subject by requesting the Subcommission to prepare draft Principles for the Commission’s 1984 Session. The Commission also adopted a Danish resolution deploring summary and arbitrary executions and providing for the appointment by the Chairman of the Commission of a Special Rapporteur to examine the question and prepare recommendations. Ethiopia cast the lone negative vote on the proposal; there were several abstentions. (Given the bias shown by the Bulgarian Chairman, attention will have to be paid to try to ensure that the Rapporteur will be of high caliber.) The Commission also adopted by consensus a resolution, similar to one last year, concerning UN-system assistance to Equatorial Guinea in rebuilding the institutional framework needed to effectively safeguard human rights.

16. Working Groups: The Commission’s Working Group on the drafting of an international convention against torture registered some progress under its new Chairman, Herman Burgers (Netherlands). However, the fundamental issues of universal jurisdiction and of implementation still remain unresolved, in the former case because of Argentine obstructionism. If efforts are not made to bring Argentina around, it can be anticipated that next year’s work on the convention will not be conclusive. As reported comprehensively septel, the WG drafting a Convention on the Rights of the Child also moved forward, albeit at a stately pace, with USDel again serving as WEOG spokesman and coordinator, with primary responsibility for drafting and negotiating numerous revisions and amendments to unsatisfactory Polish draft convention. The Working Group considering a draft Declaration on the Rights of Minorities, a Yugoslav project, was relatively less active but did complete preamble. The fourth working group, on alternative approaches, forwarded several nuts-and-bolts proposals intended to improve the functioning of the Commission. They include the possible rescheduling of the sessions of the Subcommission and Commission to provide a more logical sequence of UN human rights meetings (e.g., Subcommission, Commission, ECOSOC, GA); establishing at the next HRC session an informal agenda group to “rationalize” (i.e., redraft the titles of) the agenda items for the succeeding session; considering the establishment of a time limit on statements (in order to avoid the lack of discipline which led to a lengthy series of late-night meetings this year); and examining the organization and functioning of open-ended working groups. The resolution also provides for continued consideration of the High Commissioner proposal, taking into account the work which is to be done by the Subcommission under the separate resolution on the subject.

17. The Totalitarian Ideologies: In the closing moments of the final substantive session, the Commission agreed to postpone until next year the consideration of any action under this item. In recent years, the Soviet Bloc has used this item as a propaganda vehicle to criticize Western countries for allegedly tolerating a resurgence of Nazism and Fascism. This year, the item fell into the oblivion of the end-of-session calendar and was not even debated. The East Bloc made a half-hearted attempt at the last minute on behalf of a draft which would have narrowed the scope of the resolution from totalitarianism to Nazism/Fascism, but withdrew in the face of Western opposition (principally from the Netherlands). The Netherlands also objected that the Eastern Bloc sponsors had made no effort to consult with Western countries on the text and had ignored language in previous resolutions on the item which was widely acceptable.

18. Advisory Services: This item, another perennial end-of-session footnote, received little attention again this year. However, the Commission approved by consensus a Ugandan resolution calling for UN-system human rights assistance to Uganda to help rebuild its judicial and related institutions.

19. Alternative Approaches: In addition to the aforementioned proposals by the working group on this subject, the Commission also adopted by consensus a resolution providing for the wide dissemination of the recently-adopted declaration on the elimination of religious intolerance.⁸ The US co-sponsored the resolution.

20. The USDel made a special effort this year to develop and maintain closer liaison with accredited NGOs. A series of meetings with them at the US Mission, a reception, and a luncheon strengthened and improved our relationships. The NGOs said they appreciated these efforts from our standpoint, we welcomed their important inputs of ideas and information. Further development of close relationships with human rights oriented NGOs is recommended. Some of them expressed interest in having meetings in Washington or New York prior to the start of next year’s Commission session. We suggest Department and USUN bear this in mind when we begin next year to gear up for the Commission.

21. This summary is intended to be descriptive; an evaluative summary will follow from Washington by March 31 when US Reps Novak and Schifter and IO Officer Warren Hewitt return.

Swaebe

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D820142–0716. Confidential; Priority. Sent for information to Brussels. Sent to Paris and USUN.
2. Not found.
3. Reference is to the December 13, 1981, declaration of martial law in Poland.
4. Not further identified.
5. In telegram 7549 from Geneva, July 27, 1981, USUN reported on the working group session held July 20–24. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810349–0710) In telegram 12220 from Geneva, December 11, 1981, USUN reported on the working group session held from November 23 until December 4. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810592–0702) In telegram 1567 from Geneva, February 9, 1982, USUN reported on the working group session held January 18–22. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D820071–1033)
6. In telegram 9068 from Geneva, September 11, 1981, USUN reported on a UNHRC vote on a measure urging the establishment of the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D810427–0991)
7. In telegram 22116 to multiple recipients, January 28, the Department transmitted the text of a démarche on the human rights situation in Poland. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D820047–0611)
8. See footnote 5, Document 47.