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

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

Washington, January 2, 1986

SUBJECT

• Treatment of Human Rights After Geneva

In light of the President’s and your discussions with the Soviets,² it is understood that the specific cases and problems on which we hope to make concrete progress in the near term will henceforth be handled through quiet diplomacy.

At the same time we recognize that our fundamental ideological differences, which encompass human rights, will continue to be the subject of public debate. The Soviets will certainly not end their propaganda campaign. On the contrary, under Gorbachev we have already seen a step-up in the propaganda effort, including emphasis on what the Soviets view as our own shortcomings in the field of human rights.

Accordingly, we shall distinguish between matters on which the Soviets seem at least to consider acting positively and those matters on which they are clearly not prepared to engage us in discussion. We should handle our concerns in the first category quietly and our concerns in the second category publicly.

The first category will deal almost exclusively with emigration issues: divided spouses, release of dual nationals, family reunion, and more broadly Jewish, Armenian, and German emigration. It would also deal with the release of certain persons from incarceration, usually followed by emigration. Adjustments in Soviet policy in these areas, it should be noted, would not involve fundamental change in the character of the Soviet state. (It should be understood that though the Department would not go out of its way to emphasize these issues, we shall, as appropriate, occasionally, and generally at levels below the President and you, make it clear that the aforementioned problems do exist and that we hope for early resolution.)

The second category of issues would indeed involve basic change in Soviet domestic policy. It would cover freedom of speech, the press and assembly, the free exercise of religion, cultural freedom, the absence of governmentally-directed repression, an end to psychiatric abuse, etc.

As to this second category of issues it is my understanding that the following guidelines will be adopted:

(1) The President and you will choose the occasions carefully as to when he or you would speak out.

(2) The rest of us will not hesitate to deal with these ideological questions fully. We shall, however, concentrate on the presentation of facts, facts that speak for themselves, rather than engage in rhetorical flourishes. Our public diplomacy efforts in the field of human rights should, therefore, continue, and should, if anything, be more fine-tuned.

It is this last point which needs special emphasis. I believe that our approach to public diplomacy in the field of human rights has tended to be episodic. We have generally picked up on issues to which the media have paid attention and may occasionally have contributed an item or two to the general discussion. What I believe we have not had is a coherent, cohesive, systematic and persistent approach to Soviet human rights violations as part of our public diplomacy effort.

I would propose that we take a leaf out of the Soviet book in this connection. I have been impressed in every encounter with them, how well prepared they are with regard to their propaganda themes and documentation (phony as it may be), how extraordinarily well they synchronize their efforts in different fora, and their ability to stick to a theme long enough to get it to sink in. They have, I believe, been more successful than they should have been in their propaganda campaigns, particularly those that have been directed against us and our friends. They have not been able to do equally well in affirmative propaganda for themselves simply because the product they are seeking to sell is so obviously shoddy.

RECOMMENDATION:

Here is the operational program which I would propose:

(1) In the first instance this Bureau, working with other relevant bureaus of the Department and other appropriate agencies, will identify the important human rights themes for use in our public diplomacy efforts.

(2) As the themes are identified this Bureau will assemble the relevant data and prepare easily readable monographs thereon. The monographs should be available for circulation within the United States Government.

(3) The participants in the group which identified the public diplomacy topics (see (1) above) should then meet to discuss dissemination and (a) identify appropriate target audiences, (b) the manner of dissemination to these audiences, and (c) responsibility for the preparation of the required pinpointed material. Each plan of dissemination will encompass dissemination directly to the target audiences as well as dissemination through multilateral fora (UN, OAS, CSCE, etc.) and interested private organizations.

I recommend we proceed immediately to effect the necessary inter-agency coordination. The HA Bureau could then begin the effort with the use of existing resources. We might need a small number of additional positions and research funding to sustain it over the long haul.³

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P860116–0912. Confidential. Sent through Armacost. Cleared in EUR. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates that Shultz saw it.
2. See Document 80.
3. Shultz initialed the approve option on January 11.