intervention and the accompanying publicity, the Iranian

government took steps to bring an immediate end to the physical persecution of the Baha'is and to eliminate the danger of a

massacre. Such ad hoc measures are always available to the

Secretary-General.

In terms of obtaining the facts concerning cases of religious persecution, the Department of State's annual country reports on human rights practices provide general information. An additional source which could be very helpful would be periodic and detailed country reports compiled by nongovernmental organizations, along the lines of Amnesty International's annual report. In addition, General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights resolutions can regularly request the Secretary-General to submit reports on observance and implementation of the Declaration based on comments solicited from governments and international organizations, as well as all information available to the UN Center for Human

Rights.

In the context of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one idea that has been suggested is that the Human Rights Committee (which reviews mandatory reports from States Parties to the Covenant concerning compliance with its terms) should use the Declaration as a standard for evaluating State conduct under Article 18, which deals with freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This initiative may be

pursued by individual members of the Committee, which consists of eighteen persons who are elected to serve in their personal capacities and who are nationals of States Parties to the Covenant.

A more global and investigatory approach could, of course, be carried out by a committee of experts or working group established by the Commission on Human Rights to deal with actual cases of religious persecution. As previously suggested by the chairman of this Subcommittee, such a body could operate in a manner comparable to the Commission's working group on disappearances. Clearly, as is true with regard to that group,

the crucial factors in determining the success of a body devoted to implementation of the Declaration or investigating allegations of religious persecution would be the precise terms of its mandate, the degree of support for it in the Commission (i.e., adoption by consensus or an overwhelming majority as opposed to a close vote), and the cooperation provided by the governments concerned.

One initiative which should not, in my opinion, be considered at this time is any effort to revive the draft international convention on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance. The language and provisions of the Declaration are about the best that we could realistically have hoped for, and a premature effort to draft a convention could undermine the Declaration's credibility and diminish its

impact. Although the United States and other Western countries strongly support the terms of the Declaration, the precise language of a future convention cannot be predicted and might be objectionable in various respects. Moreover, an ongoing drafting exercise often effectively stifles discussion of the subject concerned and causes delegations not to raise hard questions or difficult cases for fear of jeopardizing progress in the negotiations. This happened with religious intolerance,

as can be seen by comparing the strong statement delivered by Senator Kasten during the current session of the General Assembly with the less controversial U.S. statement last year prior to adoption of the Declaration.

This phenomenon is occurring now in connection with the Draft Convention against Torture or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. To a great extent,

discussion of the subject in the Commission and the General Assembly has ceased, although I am pleased to be able to report that the Third Committee has just adopted a related item without a vote, namely a document entitled "Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel, Particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment". Among the draft instruments before the Third Committee during the 1982 session, the U.S. Delegation accorded the highest priority to this text.

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.