THE OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES - 1977/06/28

• Document Type: SPECIALCOLLECTION
• Collection: Argentina Declassification Project - The "Dirty War" (1976-83)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 06627956
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: April 3, 2019
• Document Release Date: April 12, 2019
• Publication Date: June 28, 1977

Approved for Release: 2018/10/02 C06627956
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Directorate of Intelligence
28 June 1977
INTELLIGENCE MEMORANDUM
The OAS General Assembly and. the Human Rights Issue
Delegates to last week's OAS General Assembly in Grenada
returned home convinced of the depth of Washington's commitment
to the defense of human rights. The conference, in fact,
turned out to be a battleground for the US human rights
policy and almost all of the discussions were devoted to it.
Even though the delegates have been thoroughly sensitized to
the issue, however, the outlook for progress in curbing
human rights abuses is still mixed at best.
The thirteen nations voting for the US initiative on
human rights were Panama, Jamaica, Barbados, Surinam, Grenada,
Costa Rica, Trinidad, Mexico, and Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Haiti, Venezuela, and Peru. Seven of these countries are
from the Caribbean. Five are countries visited by Mrs.
Carter in early June. The southern cone countries of Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay abstained--a polite
"no" vote--as did Guatemala, Colombia, and El Salvador.
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Bolivia did not vote.
It has been apparent for some time now that US spokesmen,
including Mrs. carter, Secretary Vance, and Ambassador
Young, have been getting the human rights message across to
the Latin Americans. The doubts about Washington's long-
term seriousness on the issue have given way in many cases,
in fact, to concrete action by several of the countries to
curb the worst abuses. For example, Chile claims that it
has freed its last political prisoner. While the OAS was in
session the Chilean government also negotiated a settlement
of a hunger strike, staged by families of missin. 'ersons,
that had been in progress at the United i
Approved for Release: 2018/10/02 C06627956
3.5(c)
Approved for Release: 2018/10/02 C06627956
T
headquarters in Santiago. Argentina and Brazil have directed
security forces to be more circumspect when arresting suspected
terrorists. Paraguay is again talking about inviting the
Inter-American Human Rights Commission to make an onsight
inspection in Asuncion.
These positive steps, however, do not mean that the OAS
community will soon develop a unaminity of views on the
human rights issue. Although no country would ever voice
opposition to the defense of human rights intrinsically, the
reasons for the negative votes continue to be fear of
political and economic destabilization caused by communism
and terrorism. The psychological and real factors are
unlikely to go away in the near future. In fact, it is
conceivable that some of the countries voting with the US on
this issue may be faced in the future with a security problem
which could lead to systematic violations of human rights.
Haiti, for example, already has one of the worst records in
the hemisphere on human rights. Politically-related violence
is already common in Jamaica, always threatening in Panama,
and never far from the surface in the Dominican Republic.
Haiti's vote for the US resolution is difficult to understand
except for Ambassador McGee's explanation that the Haitians
had decided to vote yes on everything that came up at the
meeting.
Although we do not have much hard evidence, the positive
vote by Jamaica, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela
could well have been influenced by Mrs. Carter's visit to
these countries. More than likely, however, other considerations
were just as important. Even though Mrs. Carter reportedly
was assured by Jamaican Prime Minister Manley that he would
support the US on human rights, Manley was effusive in his
praise for President Carter on the human rights issue well
before Mrs. Carter's trip. Moreover, Jamaica sorely needs
Us financial assistance now. Costa Rica and Venezuela, two
of the few practicing democracies in Latin America, would be
expected to support the US, as would Mexico.
An Ecuadorean spokesman has said that his country's
vote for the US resolution stemmed from a sincere belief in
human rights. Another Ecuadorean said, however, that Quito
has an ambivalent attitude toward the issue because it could
be construed as interference in internal affairs. He added,
however, that the government had decided to support the US
-2 -
Approved for Release: 2018/10/02 C06627956
Approved for Release: 2018/10/02 C06627956
S E T
policy before Mrs. Carter's visit and could not change its
position even if it wanted to. Both denied that the possibility
of acquiring arms from the US was a factor in their vote,
but the Ecuadoreans are again inquiring about US aircraft.
In the case of Peru, the positive vote was not out of character
with the Morales Bermudez government. Peru has generally
supported public declarations of human rights and it is
believed that the US declaration on human rights will be
incorporated into the new Peruvian constitution.
The support for the US position by Barbados, the Dominican
Republic, Panama, Surinam, Grenada, and Trinidad-Tobago was
not unexpected, but Jamaica had to put pressure on the
Grenadans in order to get their vote. Progress in the canal
negotiations certainly was a factor in winning Panama's
vote.
In the final analysis, the Grenada meeting of the OAS
may be remembered in the future as the beginning of a new
era of understanding between the US and Latin America or it
may do down as the final dissolution of the special relationship
most Latin American countries have long assumed they enjoyed
with Washington. Despite the US victory on the human rights
issue, the voting pattern raises disturbing questions. The
southern cone countries remain a solid intransigent bloc,
with Brazil emerging as a leader of this faction and exerting
its influence to a certain extent over Bolivia and Colombia.
The US is thus left with solid support from Mexico, Venezuela,
Ecuador, Peru, and the Dominican Republic among the Spanish-
speaking countries. Continued backing for US initiatives
from the English speaking Caribbean appears to be tenuous at
best and may, in the long run, be contingent on how forthcoming
Washington is in providing economic assistance.
:13 -
Approved for Release: 2018/10/02 C06627956