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

44. Summary Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, February 24, 1981

PARTICIPANTS

• Mr. David Carliner—Chairman, Washington International Human Rights Law Group
• Ms. Amy Young-Anawaty—Executive Director, Washington International Human Rights Law Group
• Mr. Michael Posner—Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights
• Rev. Robert Drinan—former U.S. Congressman (Mass.): Georgetown University
• Mr. Ari Neier—Helsinki Watch Committee; American Civil Liberties Union
• Professor Lou Henkin—Columbia University Law School

• State Department

  • The Deputy Secretary, Judge Clark
  • Acting Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Stephen Palmer
  • Mr. Hugh Simon, notetaker

SUBJECT

• Appointment of Dr. Ernest K. Lefever as Assistant Secretary for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Judge Clark welcomed the visitors, saying that the Secretary, busy with items such as El Salvador, had asked him to receive them. He observed that Justice Frank C. Newman of the California Supreme Court is a mutual acquaintance of several of the visitors and himself.

Professor Henkin began by speaking “for a unanimous human rights community.” He had hoped for a chance to talk before Dr. Lefever’s appointment was announced. The appointment is “a serious mistake” and has drawn more criticism than any other by the Administration.² Opposition to his appointment is in “no sense partisan.” Professor Henkin asserted that Dr. Lefever does not understand human rights, is not committed to a human rights policy, and is not the man for the job.

In reply to Judge Clark’s request to characterize the job, Professor Henkin said that the job is to ensure that human rights remains an important element in foreign policy and to enforce the human rights-related statutes enacted by the Congress. He added that the appointment suggests the Administration wants to repeal that legislation, and wondered aloud why Dr. Lefever wants the job, as he “seems to find human rights particularly distasteful in foreign policy.” Professor Henkin opined that Dr. Lefever’s views on Africa will make life very difficult for the African Bureau in the Department.³

Mr. Neier, speaking for the Helsinki Watch, observed that Dr. Lefever is on record against allowing the internal practices of states, including the Soviet Union, to be a subject of U.S. foreign policy attention. To allow trade decisions with communist countries to be based only on economic considerations, and our foreign policy only on a communist state’s external policies, would be a “radical shift in U.S. foreign policy as it has been since World War II” and is in conflict with positions taken by other Administration officials.

Judge Clark said that the President and Secretary are on record as committed to human rights. He was not aware of Dr. Lefever’s detailed views in the past. Judge Clark reminded his visitors that he had told the Senators during his confirmation hearings that he would not be in a policy-making position, but rather in a role of carrying out Administration policy.⁴ Dr. Lefever, too, would perform such a role.

Father Drinan asserted that a man cannot be expected to implement a policy he opposes. There is great concern on this point in the Church, Congress, and in human rights organizations, especially in Latin America. How can such a person carry out the human rights laws?

Mr. Palmer stated that Dr. Lefever “has made clear to those of us on his staff that the law is to be observed scrupulously.”

Mr. Carliner said that he was reassured by Mr. Palmer’s statement, but focused on Dr. Lefever’s preference for quiet diplomacy. Sometimes, Mr. Carliner said, one must use public methods. It is unnecessarily limiting to exclude in advance the use of public diplomacy. Perhaps Dr. Lefever will change his previous attitudes, as is frequently done by officials after assuming office. Recalling Judge Clark’s mentioning that Dr. Lefever would be in a policy implementing position, Mr. Carliner asked for “some assurance as to how the human rights mandate will be carried out.” He pointed out an apparent contradiction between the recent strong U.S. stand against terrorism and the loosening of human rights sanctions against Chile in the face of Chile’s continuing failure to cooperate against terrorism.

Judge Clark observed that “the effectiveness of sanctions must be questioned when they do not show results over a considerable period of time.” Whether the human rights of many more people are affected by the sanctions must also be weighed. “This is a value judgment we are making in many countries.”

In El Salvador, he said, rather than making the government the target of human rights concern, we are addressing the government because it has jurisdiction over a particular incident—in this case, the slaying of the nuns.⁵ He said that President Duarte has been encouraged by us to continue the investigation using U.S. experts.

Judge Clark reminded the visitors that Secretary Haig has said he expects every bureau and individual to be cognizant of human and personal rights, and not only those in our own situations. Human rights is a very personal thing which cuts across every level and is not a concern which one bureau should claim as its own. He related that at one time his mother, who speaks Spanish, had noticed that a high percentage of Hispanics had been called up for the draft. Without commenting publicly she went to work as a translator for the draft board to see what she could do to remedy the situation.

Although it might be on a much quieter level than under the previous Administration, continued Judge Clark, a large number of appointees will be at work in many ways for the goals and concerns involving human and personal rights. He hoped that our recent action on Chile⁶ doesn’t prejudice our case on anti-terrorism policy.

Mr. Neier said he understood that at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva the United States and the Soviet Union are on the same side on the disappearances issue in opposition to our Allies.⁷This is the kind of thing which concerns us, he said.

Mr. Carliner said he wanted to emphasize the importance of continuing to provide substantive and objective reports on human rights practices to Congress. It would be conceivable that the requirement for reports could be filled by a perfunctory issuance of language on each country, but this would disappoint many users, for whom the reports are valuable as a U.S. government assessment. In the fields of immigration and asylum, they serve as a basis for determining the human rights situation in countries of origin.

Professor Henkin thanked Judge Clark for the opportunity to present the group’s views. He suggested that Justice Newman would be an ideal person for Assistant Secretary for Human Rights. “We have nothing against Dr. Lefever personally but hope you will be able to find him another job.”

After the meeting with the Deputy Secretary, Mr. Palmer extended to the group Dr. Lefever’s invitation to meet with them that afternoon or when mutually convenient.

1. Source: Department of State, Files of the Deputy Secretary of State—William P. Clark, 1981–1982, Lot 82D127, Memoranda of Conversation. Unclassified. Drafted by Simon on March 2 and approved by Palmer and Clark on March 11. The meeting took place at the Department of State.
2. Details are available in Daniel Southerland, “Taking the Thunder out of US Stance on Human Rights,” The Christian Science Monitor, February 4, 1981, p. 1.
3. Ibid.
4. Clark’s confirmation hearings are summarized in Judith Miller, “Senators Give Clark Angry Advice, But Still Consent,” New York Times, February 8, 1981, p. A3.
5. Reference is to the December 2, 1980, murders of four American nuns by the El Savadorian National Guard.
6. See James Goodsell, “Reagan Team Breaks Ice on Chile, Saying ‘What’s the Use of Sanctions?’” Christian Science Monitor, February 23, 1981, p. 9.
7. See Document 42.