Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

136. Memorandum From Steven Oxman of the Office of the Deputy Secretary of State to the Deputy Secretary of State (Christopher)¹

Washington, April 28, 1978

SUBJECT

• Fraser Amendments

These materials describe the four Fraser amendments to the foreign assistance authorization bill.² The materials also describe L’s preliminary views on the amendments (set forth as Administration positions).

We should aim for having a position by Monday morning,³ H tells me, since the mark-up will resume on Tuesday morning and both Fraser and Zablocki will want to know our position at least a day ahead of time.

I have discussed the amendments with Tony Lake. He feels we should not support them but neither should we spill blood opposing them. Rather, we should explain that we think they raise serious problems. S/P will be giving us a memorandum detailing their views.⁴

My view is that we need not affirmatively support the amendments, but that we should be quite careful in the way we articulate our problems with them and in proposing revisions. In capsule form my views on each of the amendments are as follows. The Tab 1 amendment is palatable and opposition to it would be very hard to explain to the public or the human rights lobbies.⁵ We can say, however, that we think the current statute is adequate.⁶ The Tab 2 and Tab 3 amendments go too far.⁷ They would be palatable only if an “extraordinary circumstances” exception were added to them, but in that event they would be unnecessary since the Tab 1 amendment would suffice. The Tab 4 amendment imposes additional reporting requirements: monthly rather than the current quarterly reports and identification of end-users.⁸ I think we should take the position that quarterly reports should suffice but that we would be willing to provide end-user information. The L paper at Tab 4⁹ says it would be infeasible to provide such information but I have pressed L on this, and they concede it could be done without much difficulty.

PM and the regional bureaus oppose the amendments. HA supports them but would not object to the modifications I have adumbrated above.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Office of the Deputy Secretary: Records of Warren Christopher, 1977–1980, Lot 81D113, Box 16, Human Rights—Don Fraser. No classification marking.
2. Reference is to the FY 1979 international security assistance bill (H.R. 12514), which, in addition to funding MAP, sought to amend certain provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act relating to security assistance and human rights. Members of Congress intended to transfer the security supporting assistance provisions from H.R. 12514 to the FY 1979 international development and food assistance bill (H.R. 12222); however, this did not occur until FY 1981. (Congress and the Nation, Volume V, 1977–1980, pp. 57–58)
3. May 1.
4. Christopher bracketed this paragraph and added the following handwritten notation in the left-hand margin: “Steve, This seems right to me.” The Policy Planning Staff memorandum is printed as Document 138.
5. Tab 1, a paper prepared in L that contains a description of the amendment and the Executive Branch position, is attached but not printed. The amendment sought to amend Section 502B(a)(2) of the FAA to ensure that “except under extraordinary circumstances,” the United States would not provide security assistance to any nation engaging in a consistent pattern of gross violation of human rights.
6. Christopher underlined this sentence and added in the margin: “and preferable. I hesitate to abandon willingly the little flexibility we have. Discuss with Doug how best to support Zablocki.”
7. Tabs 2 and 3 are attached but not printed. The amendment at Tab 2 sought to amend Section 502B to provide that “under no circumstances” would the United States provide international military education and training to any nation engaging in a consistent pattern of gross violation of human rights. The amendment at Tab 3 prohibited the extension of security assistance to forces performing “police, intelligence, or other internal security functions.”
8. Tab 4 is attached but not printed. The amendment at Tab 4 sought to amend Section 502B in order to accelerate the reporting schedule on Munitions List items and on “FMS ‘exports’ to forces performing ‘police, intelligence or other internal security functions.’ ”
9. Reference is to the section of the paper (see footnote 8 above) summarizing the Executive Branch position on the reporting requirement: “While the Executive Branch is prepared to accede to such reporting requirements as the Congress may impose, reports based solely on the identity of the end-user of exported or sold items are inherently infeasible, especially in the case of commercial exports of Munitions List items, where the licensing system has long been premised not on the identity of the ultimate end-user but on the country of destination and the nature of the item sought to be exported.”