Letter to Senator John Sparkman from Senator James B. Allen, dated Page May 26, 1977__. Letter to members, Foreign Relations Committee, from Herman Will, associate general secretary, Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, dated May 24, 1976 and enclosed "Actions of the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, International Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide". Letter and enclosures to the chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, from E. F. W. Wildermuth, attorney and counselor at law, dated June 1, 1977. Statement by Dr. Lev E. Dobriansky, professor of Georgetown Uni- "On Banning Genocide: 'We Should Have Been First'," article by President Carter's address to the U.N. General Assembly, March 17, "A Report in Support of the Treaty making Power of the United States in Human Rights Matters," prepared by the Special Committee of Lawyers of the President's Commission for Observance of Human Rights Year 1968, October, 1969‒‒‒‒ 106 108 108 114 117 122 135 139 GENOCIDE CONVENTION TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1977 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Stone presiding, Present: Senators Sparkman, Humphrey, Clark, Stone, Sarbanes, Case, and Javits. Senator STONE [presiding]. This hearing will please come to order. OPENING STATEMENT The Committee on Foreign Relations today begins hearings on the Genocide Convention, which provides that genocide would be a crime under international law and requires that all parties shall prevent and punish genocide. It defines genocide as "certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such." Eighty-three nations have now ratified the Convention. This is not the first time that the committee has considered this treaty. In fact, it will be 28 years ago next month that President Truman transmitted the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The committee held public hearings on it in 1950, 1970, and 1971. The Convention was reported favorably four times: 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1976. It was debated on the Senate floor in 1972, 1973, and 1974, and it is therefore fair to say that the issues raised by the Genocide Convention have already been examined in some depth. Nevertheless, the membership of both this committee and the Senate has changed substantially since the last hearings, and two new administrations have taken office since that time. In addition, the American Bar Association has revised its position and now supports the Convention. Thus, it seems proper that the committee review the Convention in public hearings before considering whether to report it to the Senate. It is the committee's intent to study the important issues raised by the Convention thoroughly and deliberately. Our witnesses today are the Honorable William Proxmire, the Senior Senator from Wisconsin; the Honorable Warren Christopher, Deputy Secretary of State; the Honorable Herbert Hansell, Legal Adviser of the Department of State; Jack Goldklang of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice; and Bruno Bitker, who represents the American Bar Association. Following the hearing of witnesses on the Genocide Convention, the committee will hear a number of nominees for positions in the executive branch. Senator Proxmire, we welcome you here this morning and ask you to proceed with your testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you say, the Genocide Convention has been pending before the Senate since President Truman first submitted it for ratification in 1949. Now just think about that for a moment; 1949 to 1977-that's a full quarter century. An entire generation has been born and grown to adulthood during those years, and still the Senate has not acted. The Senate is the only body that has to act, too. This is not something that has to be acted upon by the House. We don't have to wait for the President. The Senate is the only obstacle in the way of enacting this very important treaty. In your previous hearings, this committee has developed a long record in support of this treaty's ratification. We all know the arguments of the Convention's opponents. I firmly believe that they are as frivolous today as when they were first voiced in 1950. But I do not intend to take the committee's time this morning rehashing old ground. I discussed these points in great detail during my appearance before this committee in 1970, and I am sure that the witnesses who follow will adequately cover them again. IMPORTANCE OF CONVENTION This morning I would like to briefly outline why I believe this Convention is so terribly important, why I have voiced my support for it almost every day on the floor of the Senate since our opening session in 1967, and review the further developments since your last hearings that make ratification this year urgent. Mr. Chairman, there is no human rights treaty that has been subject to more detailed scrutiny and engendered more controversy than the Genocide Convention. Every line, every phrase, every syllable has been studied over and over. Why, then, is this treaty about that it warrants such atttention? Its purpose is quite clear. The Genocide Convention attempts to safeguard under international law the most fundamental human principle the right to live. It is that simple. It is that complex. The treaty language attempts to prevent the destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group by defining genocide, outlawing it, and establishing procedures for trying and punishing violators. These are nice phrases-grand, abstract principles. But let's face it. We are talking about the planned, premeditated murder or extermination of an entire group of people, the most vicious crime mankind can commit. POLITICAL SUPPORT FOR CONVENTION Mr. Chairman, few treaties have enjoyed broader political support. In submitting this treaty for ratification, President Truman sup ported it in the strongest possible terms. Subsequent administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, have renewed that endorsement. In his recent address before the United Nations General Assembly, President Carter has committed himself to ratification as well. It is important to note that support for this treaty has not been based solely in the State Department. Successive Attorneys General have repeatedly certified the constitutionality of the Convention and concluded that the objections of the opponents are without merit. In addition, the Defense Department has specifically given its support. Two important nongovernmental groups have scrutinized this treaty. The American Bar Association is one of them. The bar initially raised a number of objections to the Genocide Convention in its testimony in 1950, and I might say that the bar association is the reason why this treaty has not been enacted to date. But in the intervening years the bar recognized that its objections had not withstood the test of time and unanimously reversed its position last year. REASONS FOR RATIFICATION SUPPORT The list of supporters goes on and on. Why do so many groups support ratification? First and foremost, they do so on moral grounds. The United States is the only major nation, except the People's Republic of China, that has not joined in condemning this heinous crime. In fact, all of our major NATO and SEATO allies have acceded to the treaty. We stand alone among the Western nations. Second, our failure to ratify this treaty has been a constant source of embarrassament to us diplomatically that has puzzled our allies and delighted our enemies. During your 1970 hearings, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Charles Yost, detailed the way this fact was smugly thrown in our diplomats' faces whenever we had protested gross violations of human rights in other nations. There is no logic in continuing to provide others with a club with which to hit us. Third, our ratificatiton will strengthen the development of international law in this crucial area of human rights. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the development of international law is a slow and tedious process, requiring the concurrence of all of the major powers. Our inaction impeded the development of these fundamental moral principles. Fourth, as a party to the convention, we would be in a better position to use our moral influence to bear in specific cases where genocide is alleged. For example, State Department personnel have written me in the past and indicated that our efforts to halt the genocide that occurred during the Nigerian civil war would have been far more effective had we been a party to the convention. Instead, we were viewed as moral hypocrites. Fifth, U.S. ratification at this time will help to spur renewed interest in the treaty among the newly emergent nations of the world. CASE FOR PROMPT SENATE ACTION The case for prompt Senate action is even stronger today than when this committee last held hearings. First, we have a President who has given human rights a new priority-their proper priority-in the foreign policy of our Nation. He has committed himself to new initiatives in the human rights area, and he has clearly let the Senate know that he considers the ratification of the Genocide Convention an important first step. Second, the American Bar Association has endorsed the convention strongly in a unanimous reversal of its previous stand. I have mentioned this point before, but it bears repeating since the bar association's position was the cornerstone of the opponents' case. Third, we now have a specific endorsement of the Genocide Convention by the Defense Department. The General Counsel of the Department and the Judges Advocate General of the three military services wrote to Harry Inman of the American Bar Association in early 1976 endorsing the convention. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these letters be included in the hearing record following my testimony. Senator STONE. Without objection, they will be included at the end of your testimony. Senator PROXMIRE. Four, by ratifying the two conventions on the Political Rights of Women, despite formal opposition by the American Bar Association, the Senate has demonstrated a new willingness to end the backlog of human rights treaties that are pending before the Senate. CONCLUSION Mr. Chairman, in conclusion it is clear that the Genocide Convention is a moral document. It is a call for a higher standard of human conduct. It is not a panacea for injustice. But in the same way that the Geneva Conventions for the Treatment of Prisoners of War have improved the treatment of prisoners of war, the Genocide Convention will also make an important step toward civilizing the affairs of nations. In closing my testimony in 1970, I recalled the words of the late Chief Justice Earl Warren, who said, "We, as a nation, should have been the first to ratify the Genocide Convention." My plea to this committee and to my colleagues in the Senate is let us not be the last. COMMENDATION OF MR. BRUNO BITKER Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one closing note. I am delighted to see that the committee will be hearing from Bruno Bitker this morning. Mr. Bitker is one of my most valued constituents in Wisconsin. He is from Milwaukee and is one of the foremost experts on the Genocide Convention. He is known as Mr. U.N. in Wisconsin and is a remarkable man. He has long been active in the crusade for human rights. He has served as the U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Human Rights to Teheran in 1968, was chairman of the Governor's commission on the United Nations in Wisconsin, and is chairman of the American Bar Association's Committee on International Human Rights. I am confident that his insights will be of great assistance to the committee. INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN I have one more note. The Governor of Wisconsin will be appearing before this committee a little later, I understand. I have to go back to the Banking Committee to chair a hearing there. But I will suspend |