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

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

Washington, April 20, 1987

SUBJECT

• Our Moscow Talks on Human Rights

Summary. The accomplishments of the Moscow trip in the area of human rights encompassed (a) your re-emphasis of our concerns, (b) our getting a better understanding of the specifics of Soviet policy and practices in this field.² End Summary.

Re-Emphasis of our Concerns

The Soviets don’t deal with human rights issues in as crass a manner as Fidel Castro, who, like a medieval potentate, releases prisoners from his dungeons in honor of visiting dignitaries. With the Soviets it is necessary to lay down our markers on human rights issues and await their action. In your discussions and by calling for the designation of an official who would meet with me on human rights issues you once again sent the message that you and thus the United States Government care.

Clarification of Policy and Practices

(1) Religion

I found my discussions with the Chairman of the Religious Affairs Commission, who has operational responsibilities, more enlightening than my discussions with the Foreign Ministry officials, who could only note our comments and promise to pass them on to the offices having direct responsibility.³

What I gathered from him is that recognized denominations will be allowed to open more places of worship, import bibles and prayer books and maintain contacts with co-religionists abroad. The present scheme of governmental regulation of religion will, however, be maintained, the sphere of authorized activity will remain limited to ritual functions, and religious education outside the home will remain prohibited. The Ukrainian Catholic Church, about which I made specific inquiries, will remain outlawed (probably because of the Church’s Ukrainian nationalist tendencies).

A list of 235 religious prisoners was accepted and a report promised.

(2) Political Prisoners

The cases of political prisoners will continue to be reviewed, as will be the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to political crimes. Our expression of concern with regard to Camp 36 at Perm was noted. The matter will be looked into. I presented a list of political prisoners and an appeal concerning them prepared by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, calling attention to the high standing of the Association in the United States and its non-political character.

(3) Emigration

The various lists of prospective emigrants regarding which we expressed concern will continue to be reviewed. The principal problem standing in the way of positive resolution of cases on our rep lists as well as the refusenik list are determinations that a person possesses security-sensitive information, which results in the denial of permission to depart. In response to my observation that some of these determinations may have been wrong in the first instance and in other cases information at issue may now no longer be security-sensitive, I was told that during recent weeks a process has been set up under which requests to review such determinations may be filed with the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. I was further told that the Presidium is required to decide simple cases within thirty days and complex cases within six months. (We subsequently urged persons who could benefit from this procedure to take advantage of it.)

Concerning emigration of persons not on the refusenik list, my principal interlocutor made a point of reading to me, word for word, section 20 of the new emigration decree, concerning non-discrimination, so as to underline the Soviet position that there will be no special treatment of Jews. (This is in contrast with what Morris Abram understood Dobrynin to say to him.)⁴

The list which you were finally given was clearly a status report on a series of cases which we have presented to the Soviets in the past.⁵ (Some of the cases which were reported to us as satisfactorily resolved were cases of whose resolution we have been told before.) Accordingly, I assume that the fact that Feltsman⁶ may merely “go abroad,” which implies short-term visits, does not mean that the final word on his emigration application has been spoken. Similarly the negative response on two of the cases may also not mean that this is, in fact, the last word.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P870099–1749. Confidential. Copies were sent to Ridgway, Solomon, and Kampelman. A stamped notation on the memorandum indicates that Shultz saw it.
2. Shultz was in Moscow April 13–15. See footnote 5, Document 92.
3. In telegram 6023 from Moscow, April 15, the delegation summarized Schifter’s April 13 talks with Kharchev. (Department of State, Subject Files, Human Rights Files, 1987, Lot 89D186, PREL UNHRC Religious Intolerance 1987) In telegram 6026 from Brussels, April 15, the delegation summarized Shultz’s April 14 talks with Gorbachev. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, N870004–0028) In telegram 6027 from Brussels, April 15, the delegation summarized Shultz’s April 13 talks with Shevardnadze, Dubinin, Bessmertnykh, and Karpov. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, N870004–0020)
4. Not further identified.
5. Not found.
6. Soviet pianist Vladimir Feltsman.