Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I strongly believe that the Declaration should be allowed to crystallize for a period of time while follow-up measures already underway or similar to those proposed herein are permitted an opportunity to produce results. Progress may be slower than we would like, but perhaps far more rapid than if the attention and energies of all interested parties were diverted by the commencement of another drafting exercise so soon after adoption of the Declaration.

CONCLUSION

of

The lessons to be learned from the negotiating history of the Declaration and to be applied during such drafting exercises in the future are readily apparent: the importance determined and courageous chairmen in working groups and their higher bodies who are willing to make difficult decisions publicly and to seek compromises in private consultations, the necessity of resorting to a vote on all or part of a draft international instrument under extraordinary circumstances, the effectiveness of a unified and coordinated Western approach to a drafting exercise, the need for flexibility in last-minute bargaining, and so on.

With regard to an international effort to combat religious persecution, I believe that the initial follow-up measures to the Declaration are encouraging and that the proposals for the future outlined above are realistic. There are reasons to be optimistic, and an example of one was supplied by Senator

Kasten in the U.S. statement on religious intolerance delivered in the Third Committee last month and discussed above:

"Every day on Victory Square in Warsaw the people
come to lay flowers in the form of a giant cross,
and every night the authorities sweep it away. Every
day and every night this ritual is repeated--the people
demonstrating in the light of the day their undying
faith, and the regime, furtively and in the dark of
the night, trying unsuccessfully to erase the symbol
of their belief.

It will not work--not in Poland nor in the Soviet
Union nor in any country where the authorities seek to
destroy the human soul for the greater glory of the
State. The human soul will endure. Indeed, it will
prevail."

Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. It is valuable information for the subcommittee.

The subcommittee will go into a very short recess, less than 10 minutes, for the purpose of allowing the members of the subcommittee to vote, following which we will proceed with our final witness, Mr. Liskofsky.

[Recess.]

Mr. BONKER. The subcommittee will now come to order.

We will now hear from Sid Liskofsky, director of the division of international organizations of the American Jewish Committee.

I am sorry for all the delays, but you get to be the anchor person. The video equipment is still here and the reporter is still here, so what you have to say is relevant and will go down for posterity. STATEMENT OF SIDNEY LISKOFSKY, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

Mr. LISKOFSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, a brief word about the American Jewish Committee in whose behalf I appear here. Our organization was founded in 1906 in reaction to the anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia, with the aim of safeguarding the rights of Jews and all people, and particularly relevant to today's hearing, the safeguarding of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. For this reason we welcome the adoption of the Declaration on Religious Intolerance, not least in the hope that it might exert beneficent influence on Soviet policies toward its Jewish and other religious communities. Your letter of invitation, Mr. Chairman, invited comment on the effectiveness of the declaration on national and international remedies and the U.S. role. With your permission I would like to focus on the U.N. setting and to interpret remedies very broadly to refer not only to formal complaint procedures, but also-and particularly-to educational and promotional measures.

My remarks, which will be brief are in two parts: First some comments on the declaration's substance and then, on what we might call educational and promotional measures. I will not repeat the comments, particularly by Mr. Shestack, on the formal complaint procedures.

On the question of the declaration's effectiveness I share the assessment of Roger Clark, a witness at an earlier hearing, and others, that while it is not a perfect instrument, it can be a prime benchmark for anyone who seeks to make a case for religious freedom in the U.N. forums. I would add that it can also help those, including nonbelievers, seeking to make such a case outside international forums.

There are some important deficiencies, for U.N. documents are always a result of compromise. For example, the declaration fails to recognize specifically the right to join or participate in religious organizations, national or international, or to import ritual articles or publications, or to bring teachers from outside the country, or to change one's religion or belief.

On the other hand, the right to change religion and other omissions are safeguarded by article VIII of the declaration, which provides that nothing in it shall restrict or derogate from any of the rights in the Universal Declaration or the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. And article XVIII of the Universal Declaration, for example, recognizes the right to change religion or belief.

Notwithstanding the omissions, we believe the declaration is a significant document overall, in particular because of the article which spells out the protected "manifestations," that is, it protects not only the right to have a religion but to manifest it. The particulars of article VI are, in my view, the most valuable part of the declaration. It specifies freedom to maintain places for worship and assembly, and to teach religion, to establish charitable and humanitarian institutions, to make and acquire ritual articles, to write, publish and disseminate religious publications, to train religious leaders and to communicate with individuals and communities on religious matters at the national and international levels (although it doesn't mention participation in organizations).

What can be done within and through the U.N. to further compliance with the declaration? Proponents of an effective U.N. role, or many of them, emphasize the formal complaint procedures, such as those Mr. Shestack mentioned. Doubtless some governments are sensitive to the moral and political pressures stemming from use of these mechanisms, and victims of religious discrimination and their advocates should be encouraged to use them. However, because they are heavily politicized, it is uncertain-some would say doubtful-that they can be relied on to persuade many governments to reverse discriminatory policies in the religious field.

Whatever the actual present value of such mechanisms, I would attach at least equal significance at this juncture to the long-term cumulative values of educational promotional activities. I refer to the types of programs the U.N. conducts routinely at present in such fields as apartheid, racial discrimination, anticolonialism, Palestinian issues, women's rights, and others.

I would suggest that the United States take these as precedents in pursuing the goals of the declaration. An example, is this U.N. publication, which I am holding, which spell out the world plan of action for the International Women's Year; and it is replete with suggestions of different techniques to promote of women's rights objectives.

Mr. BONKER. Could you identify that publication for the record?

Mr. LISKOFSKY. It is entitled "World Plan of Action for the Implementation of the Objectives of International Women's Year," a plan of action adopted for the various regions of the regional groupings of the U.Ñ. system. There are, Mr. Chairman, analogous documents on the U.N. racism decade which particularize the techniques and programs that are underway in that area, and similar ones for other areas of U.N. concern, human rights and as well as others.

In fact, there have already been some beginnings, albeit modest, along these lines in the religious area. For example, ECOSOC's request to the Secretary-General last spring to disseminate the declaration widely and in as many languages as possible, including the U.N.'s official languages. As mentioned, it has been reprinted in three of the languages, English, French, and Spanish, but not yet Russian, Chinese, and Arabic. And ECOSOC's action was followed just last week by the Assembly's adoption of a mainly Western resolution which invited governments to take necessary steps to publicize the declaration widely and called on the specialized agencies, including UNESCO, to consider measures to implement it. These agencies, in turn were asked to report to the Commission at its next session and the Commission was requested to report through ECOSOC to the Assembly next year.

The same resolution decided to include on the Assembly's next agenda, an item entitled "Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance." It is of interest that in prevoting negotiations about which Tom Johnson knows a lot more than I do, having been involved in them, I assume—the Soviet bloc and some other delegations, according to rumor, resisted use of the term "implement" in connection with the declaration. They yielded in regard to two operative paragraphs after the sponsors cited precedents showing this was customary in resolutions following up Assembly-issued declarations.

But the sponsors had to agree, in exchange, to replace proposed wording of the agenda item for the next Assembly-namely, "implementation" of the declaration—with more general wording; that is, "elimination of all forms of religious intolerance." They also had to give up a clause suggesting that governments bring the declaration to the attention of schools and other places of education. The Soviet bloc, it would seem, did not want future Assembly deliberations to focus on the declaration, with its particularized provisions. In short, the road ahead in this area is likely to have its share of obstacles.

Two other developments in the educational promotional category which should be noted took place last September just prior to the current Assembly. One was a request by the Subcommission to the Secretary-General to present at the Subcommission's next session all available information regarding the current dimensions of the problems of religious discrimination, as a basis for deciding whether to update its 1960 study of this subject.

Mr. Chairman, this study by the Indian Scholar Arcot Krishnaswami was truly seminal, and many of the ideas in the present declaration had their antecedents in this early work of the U.N. Subcommission.

Other educational promotional proposals have been put forward by a group of nongovernmental organizations in a recent communication to the President of the General Assembly. One of their suggestions has been mentioned by Tom Johnson. This was that the Assembly declare November 25, the date the declaration was adopted, as World Religious Freedom Day to be observed each year with appropriate events.

They also suggested that an international seminar focused on the Declaration be held next year under the U.N. Advisory Services Program.

To sum-up: The United States might encourage the United Nations to develop in the religious rights area educational and promotional programs like those instituted in other areas of U.Ñ. concern, such as commemorative days and associated events; international and regional conferences and seminars; studies and reports; invitations to universities, legal associations, information for media and other institutions and interest groups to engage in relevant activities. The Secretary General could be requested to submit annually to ECOSOC a report containing information from non-governmental and other relevant sources. The Human Rights Commission could be requested to make studies of the kinds of situations that lead to denials of religious freedom: For example, of the propagation, deliberately or otherwise, of religious intolerance by the press, cinema, and television; and the role of private groups in combating it. Associations of jurists, sociologists, historians, and other professionals could be encouraged to study these and other aspects of religious intolerance. The U.N. documents on the racism and women's decades abound in programmatic ideas.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it is probably optimistic to expect the U.N. majority, with its priorities centered race, colonialism, economic and other issues, to agree that the organization sponsor so extensive a volume of activity in furtherance of the declaration. For this reason it is all the more important to look to the private sector, to religious and other citizen groups in the United States and other free countries. Unimpeded by the political constraints encumbering U.N. bodies and agencies, they have the capacity to make the declaration a living, vibrant document by using it actively and imaginatively for education and advocacy. They can see to it that it does not end up as a collection of mere words gathering dust in libraries but that it becomes a potent force in the struggle for religious freedom.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Liskofsky's prepared statement follows:]