Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XX, Eastern Europe

131. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Derian) to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs (Vest)¹

Washington, July 9, 1979

SUBJECT

• The GDR’s Backward Steps on Human Rights

Summary

The GDR appears to be going through a period of intellectual ferment characterized by an open break between the regime and some of its most prestigious writers. The Government has responded with expulsions from the writer’s union and perhaps more ominously with a series of laws late last month all tending to discourage East Germans from contact with the West. There have been some positive signs, most notably, as pointed out by Embassy Berlin, the East German public has been treated to the rare sight of something of an open debate within the GDR cultural establishment on the role of literature and writers. On the whole, however, the trend here and in the related matter of foreign journalistic activity is retrograde. It is particularly unfortunate that the areas affected are those where the GDR had been most liberal, namely the relatively easy access to Western ideas and the Western media.

We seek a constructive dialogue with the GDR on human rights. One tactic that has appeared to offer some prospect is initial concentration not on the areas in which the GDR has hitherto been most nervous, the Wall and issues related to free movement of people, but on those areas where the GDR has been relatively tolerant. It is this area, however, the freer movement of ideas, that is now under attack.

Our ability to make a difference in the internal debate that is occurring in East Berlin is very limited. The GDR will continue to be influenced far more decisively by its own perception of its security problems, whatever advice the Soviet Union is providing, and its judgement of the special needs of its relationship with the FRG. Nevertheless, there are several reasons for us to find an appropriate means to state our views. The GDR does have an interest in improving relations with the U.S. It should be aware of the negative impact that recent actions can have and weigh this in its calculations of gains and losses before it continues on its course. Again, it is useful for us in our efforts to establish the credibility of our desire for a long-term human rights dialogue to demonstrate the ongoing nature of our interest in and concern for such issues.

Background

The present situation has been building for some months. How much it represents a planned policy, how much a response to a series of incidents, is difficult to estimate. The larger issues, as Embassy Berlin points out in its most interesting Berlin 3652², center, however, around a concrete aspect of the modern German reality: “. . . the red thread running through most of the speeches is the Western media and its exploitation by and of GDR dissidents.” The seriousness with which the GDR approaches these issues is suggested by the recent article in the West German Weekly, “Die Zeit,” which characterized the impact of FRG media on virtually all facets of East German life as “the electronic reunification of Germany.”

Against this background, the series of steps taken by the GDR since mid-spring suggests a renewed effort to give teeth to First Secretary Honecker’s separation (Abgrenzung) policy, to manage the GDR’s integration into European and world politics and its relations with the FRG in a fashion that keeps the society sufficiently isolated from Western influences to maintain internal stability and satisfy the ever anxious Soviets. These steps include:

—New restrictions on the activity of Western (primarily FRG) correspondents in East Berlin and the GDR, including a requirement for permission to interview any GDR citizen and to announce intended internal travel 24-hours in advance.

—Expulsion of FRG correspondents for illegal interviews with GDR citizens in violation of the new regulations and refusal of permission under the regulations for correspondents to cover or exercise any journalistic activity with respect to the trial of prominent dissident Robert Havemann on currency charges.

—Denial of permission to several leading writers including Stefan Heym and Rolf Schneider to travel to the FRG for routine literary functions.

—Prosecutions and investigations against leading dissidents such as Havemann and Heym based on currency charges stemming from their publication of writings in the FRG.

—Expulsion of Heym and eight other writers from the Writers’ Union.

—Most recently, on June 28, adoption of a series of laws apparently aimed at further isolating Western journalists and providing the state with new legal weapons to use against East Germans who maintain contact with the Western media or with other institutions in the FRG; these laws include an addition to the criminal code on “treasonable provision of news” (Landesverraeterische Nachrichtenuebermittlung) that subjects to imprisonment for two to twelve years whomever “passes, gathers on their behalf or makes available” to a “foreign power, a foreign power’s institutions or representative, or to a foreign organization as well as to the helpers of a foreign organization” material described as “news that is not subject to being kept secret” but that is subjectively determined to be not in the interests of the GDR. Whoever “takes up contact with or offers himself to work with these organizations or persons or in other fashion supports these organizations or persons” may be imprisoned for one to ten years. Another law appears directed at the sending of manuscripts or recordings to the West.

Human Rights Dialogue with the GDR

Our efforts to establish a solid basis for ongoing discussion of human rights with the GDR have been hampered, as with so many other issues, by the newness and low level of relations. I attempted to explain the humanitarian basis of our concern and our non-ideological approach during my visit to East Berlin in October, 1978.³ I dealt more specifically with several issues, including family reunification, pressure on dissidents such as Havemann and Heym, and anti-Western propaganda in the schools when I had a second meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Nier in Washington in May.⁴ Jim Goodby also laid the basis for detailed discussion of certain Helsinki Final Act issues including family reunification and the restrictions on journalists when he conducted CSCE consultations in November, 1978 and during Dr. Nier’s May visit.⁵

I have discussed with Ambassador Bolen and given considerable thought to the best means to build on these initial efforts and accustom the GDR over time to dealing with us on human rights-related issues. On balance the GDR has a very restrictive record on movement of people, symbolized by the Berlin Wall. This is attributable to the attraction of FRG society, which creates emigration pressure and strain on the state’s stability unmatched in Eastern Europe. The GDR has had, however, a relatively good record on movement of ideas. The country is open to Western broadcasts, and there have been many and widely used channels for GDR intellectuals to play their views back into East German society by means of contact with Western media and publishing houses. This is also a factor, of course, of the unique geographical and political situation of divided Germany. It would be extremely difficult at the present stage to engage the GDR directly on the former type of issues since these could be seen as affecting its very existence. I would hope, however, that we could over time encourage the GDR to build on its relatively good record on access to the spoken word and to foster a more liberal domestic climate by relaxing its attitude toward internal circulation of the printed word and the Western contacts of its intellectuals.

The recent series of events outlined above demonstrates graphically how sensitive these subjects are. Consistency and credibility for our human rights concerns, however, would appear to make it important to respond to the GDR measures. I would be modest in our assessment of what we might achieve in the short run though I doubt that our intervention would injure people like Heym and Havemann who count for their protection in part at least on their standing in the West. Over the longer run, however, I would hope that it would assist us in establishing more firmly some of the guide lines for our relations and in identifying areas in which we can have realistic hopes that the GDR will be able to liberalize its internal controls.

Tactics

I realize that discussion of any of these issues with the GDR at the present time must be considered in connection with the serious Berlin status issue created by the simultaneous decision June 28 to permit direct election of East Berlin representatives to the Volkskammer. Because of that violation of the Four Power status of the city, I understand that we will be holding back on a number of aspects of our bilateral relations such as the signing of the Consular Convention. We can not make this the subject of a direct demarche to the GDR because quadripartite matters are discussed only with the Soviet Union, not the GDR. It would be anomalous and perhaps would offer the GDR indirectly an opportunity to seek discussion of Berlin issues with us were we now to make a formal demarche on human rights. It might also provide a confusing signal as to what were our immediate reasons for holding back on the bilateral relationship. On the other hand, because we will not be going forward for the time being with bilateral steps, we can make some instructive human rights points without risking loss of any immediate practical benefits. The alternative to a formal demarche would appear to be informal discussion as opportunities present themselves in Washington and East Berlin.

Recommendation:

That you and I and our assistants and Embassy Berlin look for appropriate opportunities in official contacts with representatives of the GDR Embassy to make the following points informally:

—We have been observing with concern recent developments involving what appear to be increasing restrictions on the activities of foreign journalists in East Berlin and on GDR intellectuals.

—Some of these matters were raised more formally when Deputy Foreign Minister Nier visited the Department in May. As you know, we consider that we have a legitimate basis to raise these matters because the ability of American journalists to carry on their profession appears to be affected and because the Helsinki Final Act commits both our countries to encourage the freer flow of ideas between East and West.

—Apart from this, however, I would note to you informally that these actions have a serious negative impact upon the way in which the GDR is viewed by important segments of American society. This makes it much more difficult to gain support for steps to build our bilateral relationship in a manner that would be in our mutual interest.

—It is disappointing that this backward movement appears to be taking place in an area—access of GDR citizens to Western media and of GDR literary figures to their very interested Western readership—where the GDR had hitherto created a much more favorable impression. The new criminal code laws in particular appear to be directed at chilling the type of human and professional contacts and flow of information that CSCE aims at. You should be aware of the harm this sort of thing does the GDR in the United States.

An instruction Telegram for Embassy Berlin is attached for your approval.⁶

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, 1979—Human Rights and Country File, Lot 82D103, Box 4, Germany—East 1979. Confidential. Drafted by Greenwald; cleared by Niles, Clark, and Kornblum and in HA and HA/HR.
2. In telegram 3652 from East Berlin, June 29, the Embassy described the ongoing and very public debate taking place in the German Democratic Republic surrounding the expulsion of nine East German writers from the Writers’ Union. The debate, the Embassy suggested, contributed to growing awareness of instability in the East German cultural community. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790298–0907)
3. See Document 123.
4. See Document 127.
5. See Document 129.
6. Attached but not printed. Vest approved the draft, which was sent to East Berlin on July 17 in telegram 184716. In the telegram, the Department authorized the Embassy to make only an informal approach on human rights to prevent any “confusing signal as to our motives for holding back on signature of the Cultural Convention and other bilateral steps.” The Embassy was further instructed to stress that East German actions in the area of human rights will “have a serious negative impact upon the way in which the GDR is viewed by important segments of American society.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790324–0505)