Office of the Historian

81. Information Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Schifter) to Secretary of State Shultz1

Washington, November 22, 1985

SUBJECT

  • Human Rights Policy after Geneva Summit

At our staff meeting with Deputy Secretary Whitehead this morning, we had a brief discussion on the issue of our human rights policy toward the Soviet Union.2 There were differences of opinion around the table as to what the present guidelines might be concerning our tactics on this subject. I believe it would be helpful if there were a [Page 245] meeting of all those directly concerned to clarify such questions as now exist.

I would like to take this opportunity to present a few thoughts on what I believe to be the import of the President’s recent statements on human rights. The President has evidently taken the position that we should adopt a policy of quiet diplomacy in dealing with Soviet human rights cases.3 I assume that this means that specific cases of prominent or not-so-prominent individuals should be discussed privately with our Soviet interlocutors in an effort to resolve these cases without bruising Soviet egos.

On the other hand, I note that the President had this to say to the Congress:4

“We cannot assume that their ideology and purpose will change.

“This implies enduring competition. Our task is to assure that this competition remains peaceful. With all that divides us, we cannot afford to let confusion complicate things further. We must be clear with each other and direct. We must pay each other the tribute of candor.”

Human rights is at the heart of our ideological differences with the Soviet Union. The foregoing statement, it seems to me, makes it clear that by committing himself to quiet diplomacy on human rights cases, the President did not intend for us to consider ourselves muzzled in any discussion of the systemic shortcomings of the Soviet Union in the human rights area, nor to give any impression that we are becoming less vigilant in our role as a leading defender of universal human rights. To be sure, our discussion should not be shrill and undignified. We could speak more in sorrow than in anger. But we would, I hope, not hesitate to lay before the world the fundamental defects of the Soviet system. (I am certain that they will not stop laying before the world their negative views of our socio-economic system.)

  1. Source: Department of State, Correspondence File—Ambassador Richard Schifter CHRON and Subject Files, 1984–1991, Lot 94D411, R. Schifter’s Monthly Chron—November 1985. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates that Shultz saw it. A copy was sent under a November 25 covering memorandum from Schifter to all HA officers. In the upper right-hand margin an unidentified hand wrote: “GPS: ‘I agree with your summary. Please arrange for you and I and others who are concerned to talk about how, tactically, we can handle this issue.’ Per SECTO 27002.” Telegram Secto 27002 from Shultz’s delegation, November 23, is in the Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, N850012–0372.↩
  2. No record of this meeting was found.↩
  3. In an October 29 interview with the BBC, Reagan stated: “I don’t think, however, that the human rights thing should be a kind of public discussion and accusing fingers being pointed at each other and their claim that this is an internal matter with them.” (Public Papers: Reagan, 1985, Book II, pp. 1310–1316)↩
  4. For text of Reagan’s remarks see Public Papers: Reagan, 1985, Book II, pp. 1411–1415.↩