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

77. Memorandum From the United States Representative to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Schifter) to the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Courtney)¹

Washington, July 29, 1985

RE

• Human Rights in the Soviet Union

The basic point I made at our meeting last week is that it is now clear that the Soviet Union under Gorbachev will be aggressive rather than defensive in the area of human rights.² There is no doubt that we can deal effectively with this new aggressive stance. However, more than ever before, we need an overall strategy on how to deal with what is essentially the political and public diplomacy aspect of the human rights situation in the Soviet Union. This encompasses not only conditions in the Soviet Union, but also Afghanistan, repression by the satellites at Soviet behest, and the various issues raised by the Soviets in their efforts to embarrass us, including the right to peace, economic rights, El Salvador, etc.

What I would recommend is that an overarching strategy be developed that would be reflected in our pronouncements in the various relevant United Nations fora, particularly the United Nations Human Rights Commission, and in the CSCE fora, and for which we would actively engage USIA support. I would further recommend that rather than waiting for time to get close to a particular international meeting before we gear up for the event in question we engage in a continuing effort, keeping future international meetings and their potential publicity value well in mind.

To illustrate the point I have just made, let me suggest the following specifics concerning the next session of the Human Rights Commission, which will begin in February 1986:

(1) At the 1985 Session of the Commission,³ the office of a Rapporteur on Torture was established. Largely as a result of our activity, Peter Kooijmans, a Professor of Law at the University of Leyden, was appointed to this position. As Soviet abuse of psychiatry is unquestionably a form of torture, I believe that Kooijmans should be urged to include a report on Soviet psychiatry in his submission to the Human Rights Commission next year. We ought to encouarge the American Psychiatric Association to submit material to Kooijmans and for that Association to organize other psychiatric groups around the world to be in touch with Kooijmans.

(2) The position of Rapporteur on Torture was established in light of the adoption of the Torture Convention.⁴ In view of the fact that in 1981 the United Nations adopted a Declaration against Religious Intolerance, there would be logic in establishing a further Rapporteur’s position, that of Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance. We have suggested to the Belgians,⁵ who are joining the Commission as new members, to take the lead on this subject and they have agreed. However, it is necessary to provide comprehensive support for them. Furthermore, thought should be given as to who might be an appropriate Rapporteur. At the present time the Human Rights Commission does not have any Rapporteurs from Asia. An Asian would, therefore, be considered an appropriate choice. My recommendation would be that we support Ambassador Moreno-Salcedo of the Philippines.

(3) We should make a major effort at the next session of the Commission to end the special U.N. monitoring of El Salvador.⁶ In order to accomplish that result at the Commission, it is also necessary to try to get the United Nations General Assembly to approve a resolution on El Salvador which foreshadows the termination of that country’s special status at the next Commission session.

(4) For years the Soviet bloc, led by Cuba, has used the “Right to Development” issue to attack the West in general and the United States in particular. As indicated in the letter which I have sent to General Walters, I recommend that we go along with the Yugoslav declaration on the Right to Development and that we then use this issue in a manner similar to our use of it in Ottawa.⁷

(5) At the next Human Rights Commission session the Soviet Union will undoubtedly harp again on the “Right to Life” issue, which is its way of introducing disarmament into the human rights debate. In past years we have not made a major effort on this topic at the Human Rights Commission. I would suggest that next year we engage in a detailed analysis of the Soviet Union’s role in the arms race and that we distribute a brochure on that subject.

(6) There will be another Ermacora⁸ Report on Afghanistan at the next Commission session. We should prepare to publicize the Report and the vote on the relevant resolution.

In order to move forward effectively, we should try to identify by the end of August the delegation that will be going to Geneva and enable it to put a comprehensive program together.

Turning to the CSCE process, we can note that all the UNHRC issues other than El Salvador and Afghanistan are equally relevant to that process. Here it would be my suggestion that we begin now to prepare for Berne and Vienna and that we do so by encouraging our NATO allies and Ireland to view the Ottawa proposal which has been designated as OME–47 as our continuing platform.⁹ Our action program should encompass the following:

(1) Repeated references on our part to OME–47 and reminders to the 16 other sponsors that they signed on to this document.

(2) Encouraging the CSCE Commission to develop contacts with Western parliamentarians, who would also be reminded of OME–47.

(3) Preparation at regular intervals of a compendium of recent violations by the Soviet Union of the standards set forth in OME–47.

(4) Staying in touch with Western MFA officials responsible for human rights and CSCE and making sure that they are supplied with the data on Soviet violations of Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act,¹⁰ in general, and the standards of OME–47, in particular.

1. Source: Department of State, CSCE; Vienna Follow Up Meeting, 1986–1989, Lot 92D223, 3–6 Vienna; General Human Rights Issues 1983–7. Confidential. Drafted by Schifter. A stamped notation, dated August 3, on the memorandum reads: “Under Secretary has seen.”
2. No record of this meeting was found.
3. In telegram 110497 to multiple diplomatic posts, April 12, the Department transmitted a summary of the 41st session of the UNHRC. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, D850252–0438)
4. See Document 76.
5. No record of this was found.
6. See Document 84.
7. In a July 12 letter to Walters, Schifter set forth his thoughts on the Right to Development issue. (Department of State, Human Rights Subject Files, 1985, PREL—UNHRC #8 1985)
8. Reference is to United Nations Special Rapporteur for Afghanistan Felix Ermacora.
9. Reference is to the concluding document from the Ottawa meeting. See telegram 199163, July 16, 1983.
10. Principle VII concerns human rights and freedom of religion.