Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

gious freedom in international and national laws. It calls upon the President and other official representatives of the United States to work for the establishment of a working group on the elimination of all forms of religious persecution and discrimination at the 39th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It is my expectation that the full House will take up this important resolution during the week.

As the Subcommittee examined the various instances of worldwide religious persecution around the world, we were continually faced with the question: What can the American people and their government do to pressure foreign governments to allow the free practice of religion or belief? How do we help those individuals to immigrate to countries which will allow them to worship freely? It is unlikely that the United States can end religious persecution but we can make the issue an integral part of our foreign policy. If America is to remain faithful to her past and the values inherent in those documents which formed this great democracy, then we must stand for religious freedom and human rights in the many countries that still abuse their citizens. Religious freedom is synonymous with the protection and promotion of human rights.

This morning we are priviledged to have with us three distingiushed witnesses to assist us in addressing national and international remedies to the problem of religious persecution.

Mr. BONKER. We shall begin with the former head of our delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights during the 36th session, Mr. Jerome Shestack, who is now president of the International League for Human Rights. Jerry is a very noted leader in this important area and in the field of human rights and no stranger before our subcommittee.

Jerry, it is always a pleasure to have you appear before the subcommittee. We are always enriched by what you have to say. We look forward to your testimony this morning.

STATEMENT OF JEROME SHESTACK, FORMER U.S.

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE U.N. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Mr. SHESTACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I begin by congratulating you on your reelection, which is a tribute to your ability and also to the good sense of the voters of Washington State.

I might say at this point in exercising the kind of nostalgia one encounters, at this time of year that when you first became chairman of this subcommittee, many in the human rights community wondered what you would be like, since you were following a very distinguished predecessor. And we have found that your decency and commitment to human rights, your willingness to take initiatives, your courage in the face of opposition, have been a real boon to the Human Rights Committee and to the human rights community. Speaking as one representative of that community, we congratulate you on your achievements and are glad to consider you a friend of human rights.

Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Mr. Shestack.

Mr. SHESTACK. I am going to speak today on measures to improve the effectiveness of the new Declaration Against Religious Intolerance which was adopted last year at the United Nations. I have a prepared statement, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I shall submit that statement and considerably abbreviate my testimony before the subcommittee today.

Mr. BONKER. Without objection, Mr. Shestack's statement will be placed in the record.

Mr. SHESTACK. The history of the passage of the Declaration Against Religious Intolerance is a fascinating one and is detailed at some length in the statement that Mr. Tom Johnson has prepared and which he will be testifying on, so I won't go into it. Suffice it to say there were 20 years of frustrating negotiations until the matter was finally resolved.

When I was privileged to serve as U.S. representative to the Commission on Human Rights, we made a determined effort to finally end the years of negotiation and achieve the declaration. We did not achieve it in 1980, but we did obtain a resolution from the Commission giving the matter the highest priority and in 1981 the success was achieved.

I would like to mention briefly a tribute to three people who were very closely involved in the success of the declaration and its final adoption. One is Ambassador Yvon Beaulne from Canada, who, as chairman of the Commission in 1979, made heroic progress in moving the declaration along its way.

A second person is Mr. Tom Johnson, who is here today from the legal adviser's office, and who was a member of the U.S. delegation in 1980. I asked him at that time to take charge of the negotiations and the working group on the declaration and he continued thereafter. His persistence and skill played a major measure, I think, in the final adoption of the Commission.

Career officers in the legal adviser's office are not often recognized, but I believe it important to recognize what the persistence of one talented lawyer can do in achieving a favorable result.

The third person is Ambassador Abdullah Diye from Senegal, who was chairman of the working group in 1981 and was enormously skillful and successful in getting the final adoption of the declaration through the Commission, from which point it passed through to the Third Committee and then the General Assembly. The example of those three persons shows that determined and committed individuals can accomplish a great deal. It is a frustrating process at the U.N. and one which discourages many because the pitfalls and obstacles to developing standards are so many. But if you find persons who will persist and are dedicated to the task and who have patience, which one needs badly in that forum, then there is a chance of success. And the adoption of the declaration is an illustration of that lesson.

Mr. Chairman, the Declaration Against Intolerance is not a document that will be relegated to the archives. It deals not with just the abuses of the past. The plague of intolerance is a virulent strain and appears frequently with all of its ancient viciousness. It is here today in the persecution in Iran against the Baha'is and the persecution in Syria against Jews. In the Soviet Union against Catholics and Jews, it appears in many areas, Moslem against Christian, and Christian against Moslem; Fundamentalists against Moslem Traditionalists, against Buddhists in Vietnam, against Jehovah's Witnesses in many places.

Your subcommittee has taken testimony on many of these instances. I am sorry that the congressional resolutions to which you adverted has seemed to eliminate those examples. They should not be eliminated in the interests of any political vagaries of the time,

but should be included as evidence of the persistence of the recurring plague of religious persecution and intolerance.

The declaration we are discussing today is certainly a document of freedom. While it is not a covenant it still remains a force and a source of customary international law. Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is regarded by many legal scholars today as customary international law, so I believe the declaration in due time will be cited, will be part of resolutions on the international scene and ulimately will be regarded as customary international law despite the fact that is a declaration and not a covenant.

Of the international measures that can be used to make the declaration more effective there are some already existing, and then there is a need to develop new initiatives. With respect to the existing measures, one is the use of the 1235 resolution that allows the expression of concern regarding religious persecution and intolerance before the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission.

There was a time when the use of that procedure to highlight religious persecution in particular countries was frowned upon, but recently there has been a great deal more leeway in the Commission in that connection. During the 1980 session, for example, under that procedure I highlighted persecution of Jews and Catholics, particularly Catholics in Lithuania, Latvia, and the Ukraine, by the Soviet Union. More recently the league and others have highlighted persecution against the Baha'is in Iran. That is a significant complaint forum, and I would hope the U.S. delegates in the future will use the 1235 procedure to identify and highlight religious persecution and intolerance in various parts of the world. The Commission on Human Rights is an important forum, and the highlighting of that persecution certainly must give pause to offending governments. At the very least it gives hope and encouragement to those who are persecuted.

The 1503 procedures at the Commission are confidential procedures. To that extent they are less effective. But they are effective in the sense that governments who are offending and accused in the 1503 procedures are in a sense in the dock and they must answer for their offenses. What is particularly important is to see that the material that is presented before the Subcommission and the Commission is well documented, and that it can sustain the challenges of those who try and remove it from the agenda. The United States, itself, as one of the participants in the 1503 procedure should be well prepared and ready to sustain the complaints that NGO's put in before the Subcommission and which reach the Commission.

Mr. BONKER. Are you familiar with specific examples of countries being referred to in 1503 proceedings as a result of religious persecution?

Mr. SHESTACK. There has been persecution documented in the 1503 procedures in East Germany, in Paraguay, to some extent in Turkey, and in other areas. Since the procedures are confidential I am not at liberty to speak of what happened when I was at the Commission, and I am not knowledgeable as to what has happened in the confidential procedures since. I mention it, though, as a forum in which the United States and other like-minded nations

can put considerable pressure on governments who are accused of persecution. Therefore, it is important to keep that process alive and to play an active role in it. I believe the United States has done so, and is doing so even now.

Another forum is the Human Rights Committee, which reviews reports about various countries. For example, very recently the Human Rights Committee, which deals with the implementation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reviewed reports about persecution of the Baha'is in Iran and the Iranian representative was both questioned and made keenly aware of the allegations of persecution against the Baha'is. It may not do any good, given the enormity of the repression by the regime in Iran today, but it is still useful to have the international concern with the plight of the Baha'is highlighted by the Human Rights Committee and in other international fora.

Another arena is the UNESCO confidential complaints. Not too long ago various nongovernmental bodies filed a complaint involving the case of Joseph Bagun, a person sentenced to imprisonment in Siberia merely because he wanted to teach Hebrew. He was accused of parasitism, a thin excuse for repressing his religious and civil rights. There was a great deal of pressure put on by NGO's (nongovernmental organizations) as a result of which his situation was eased. However, very recently he was rearrested again. When he was released from Siberia, he was banned from Moscow. And apparently he was picked up in the environs of Moscow and, on very little pretense, imprisoned again.

It is important to be well prepared at these UNESCO sessions. In a sense UNESCO has been very disappointing, largely perhaps because of the caliber of the leadership of UNESCO. Instead of being a force for human rights and freedom, very often it has been an instrument for blocking complaints, for putting up jurisdictional and procedural obstacles to the airing of complaints.

The United States can play a significant role; and considering the importance of the United States in the funding of UNESCO, the leverage that the United States has should be utilized as much as is feasible.

Another committee is known by the acronym CERD, which deals with the implementation of the International Covenant on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. There are complaints that have been made there with respect to Soviet discrimination against Jews and Catholics. Soviets disclaim this pointing to their laws which forbid such discrimination. But there is a wide gulf between Soviet laws and what actually happens in the Soviet Union, and the CERD Commission is a good forum in which to point that out.

In concluding, I should like to make some specific recommendations that this subcommittee might recommend in its report. One, is that a working group be established to deal with cases of religious intolerance and persecution, very similar to the working group that was established in connection with disappearances. Mr. Chairman, you were present in Geneva when we were debating the disappearances resolution. I had some role in helping establish the working group which is now chaired by Lord Mark Colville of the United Kingdom in a very committed and brilliant way.

A similar working group which can investigate complaints, gather information, and negotiate with offending governments would be very desirable to help implement the declaration against religious intolerance. There is a good analogy there because the resolution against disappearances is also a form of a declaration; it is not a covenant. It has no operational protocol or implementation procedure, and the working group supplied some of that.

A working group in this area would also be useful and would be a good initiative to try to establish at the next session of the Commission on Human Rights.

Mr. BONKER. Do you think that would be a natural step to go from the Commission's work on the declaration, to the formation of a working group? Or do you think our delegation would encounter arguments that we have already dealt with, such issues as religious persecution?

Mr. SHESTACK. I don't think that is the case. I believe the American delegation is committed to pursuing the declaration, and this would be a natural step. Whether, in the atmosphere of the nexi session of the Commission such a working group can be achieved, I don't know. It is hard to achieve new working groups. Still it seems to me that is an initiative worth trying.

Sometimes these initiatives do not succeed the first year they are tried. One has to pave the way. It took 20 years to get the declaration against intolerance adopted. I have often said this is an area which is not a sport for the short-winded. Twenty years is longer than it should be. Perhaps we can accelerate it with respect to a working group here.

A second area is to disseminate information about the declaration. Right now it has still not been translated into Russian, where it is badly needed, nor into Arabic where it is also needed, nor into Chinese. To the extent we can push the United Nations to disseminate the declaration widely in all of the needed languages that would be very useful.

Third, the United States can also take the lead in suggesting seminars to deal with problems of the religious discrimination. The United States has not often been a host to U.N. seminars, and this would be a good one for it to serve as host.

I have already mentioned the use of 1235 and 1503 procedures, and these should be pursued vigorously and seriously.

A fifth recommendation deals with the Human Rights Committee and the CERD Committee. The United States is handicapped in not being able to be a participant in those committees because it has not ratified the covenants. Therefore, this is another case where we see the urgency of the need to ratify the covenants, so that we can play a useful role with respect to those committees, and particularly in the area of religious intolerance and persecution.

Another area is that the United States can play a continuing and active role with NGO's. In the long run, over 20 years, the active support of nongovernmental organizations, groups like church groups-the American Jewish Committee, in particular-other religious bodies were very useful in keeping the pressure on for the adoption of a declaration. The United States can meet frequently with leaders of NGO's to pursue initiatives that might be used in

« ÎnapoiContinuă »