Obrázky stránek
[ocr errors]

the crime changes when committed against the same individuals as a group.

In other words, under our common law tradition and, indeed, as part of our religious heritage, to murder one man, for whatever reason, is as inherently evil as to murder a group. That concept has done more in America to prevent genocide than any treaty ever could do. Ironically, the Genocide Treaty would erode that concept implying that the life of a group, or of a group member, is somehow more valued than the life of an individual.

We should not wonder, then, that the term "genocide” is loosely thrown at the United States by Communist and Third World countries in the United Nations when those very countries have, by their own conduct, ignored the sacredness of individual life. Our society is built on respect for the individual, a respect which makes genocide impossible.

T'here are other less philosophical and more technical objections to the treaty. For example, article VI of the Convention would permit persons charged with genocide to be tried by “such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those contracting parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.”

Admittedly, there is now no international penal tribunal of that type in existence, and it is unlikely that the United States would accept the jurisdiction of such an international tribunal, should one be established. However, the fact remains that, if the Convention were ratified, a future administration could agree to accept the jurisdiction of an international penal tribunal and American citizens could be called before that tribunal to answer for an international crime without any-I repeat, without any-of the guarantees given a criminal defendant by the Constitution of the United States.

Presumably, our courts would hold unconstitutional any proposal to send a person charged with a crime committed within the United States outside the country for trial; but that is a risk we ought to not

. take.

I am concerned, too, that article VII provides as follows:

Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.

The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Mr. Chairman, that article would void the provisions found in most extradition treaties which allow the United States to refuse extradition for offenses determined to be of a political or military nature.

For example, a serviceman could be charged with the crime of genocide for fighting enemy soldiers in a country which had contracted with the United States for the extradition of American nationals. The extraditing state would assert that the soldier was guilty of genocide, and under the terms of the Genocide Convention, the United States would not be in a position to refuse extradition on grounds that the crime charged was a political or military offense.

Mr. Chairman, there also is great potential for abuse of the terms of article IX of the Convention. That article provides that disputes between the contracting parties, “including those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide or for any of the other acts enu

[ocr errors]

merated" must be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any party-I repeat, any party—to the dispute.

Under that provision, Vietnam could have charged the United States with genocide in Vietnam and brought the issue before world public opinion, using the forum of the International Court of Justice. Similarly, the Soviet Union could allege that the murder or other act of violence against an individual member of a minority group within the United States constituted genocide, and wage an unfounded propaganda campaign, again using the International Court of Justice as a public forum.

Mr. Chairman, the committee also should consider carefully the potential impact of the provision of article III which makes criminal direct and public incitement to commit genocide."

During the hostage crisis in Iran, any number of Americans urged massive military action against Iran in retaliation for the hostage seizure. Regardless of the wisdom of that form of outcry, it was protected speech under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Should the Genocide Treaty become supreme law, the incitement provision of article III, at a minimum, would chill free speech in any area which might be interpreted by any contracting state as “incitement to commit genocide.”

Using the incitement provision, Iran, as a contracting party, could have called the United States before the International Court of Justice for permitting editorial writers, citizens groups, and even individual citizens, the freedom to urge the bombing of Iran.

Mr. Chairman, these, then, are some of the many legal and political problems which ratification of the convention undoubtedly would

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

The convention has proven ineffective where true genocide has been committed. Where there is no danger of genocide being committed, the convention only would serve the enemies of freedom in their effort to propagandize against the United States and to disrupt our internal domestic liberties.

Mr. Chairman, in preparing this statement, I was impressed by the testimony given in 1950 by Charles B. Rix, vice chairman of the special committee on peace and law of the American Bar Association. At that time, Mr. Rix stated that the Genocide Treaty would change the traditional concept of international law as the law of the relations of states to each other into the law of "relations of states and individuals in states, thereby imposing individual liability for international law and creating unknown individual rights."

The Genocide Convention is uncharted water alien to our free traditions and fundamentally dangerous to our sovereignty and unique institutions.

Mr. Chairman, I urge no action on the convention, other than its return to the President without Senate consent.

I want to say something about the atrocities of World War II. I fully appreciate that fact. I was with the First Army in Europe, and I was there at the surrender. The First Army uncovered the Buchenwald Camp. I have never seen such atrocities in my life. No one who has a humanitarian thought at all, a feeling of compassion and love of humanity would condone such acts. But, Mr. Chairman, again, I repeat that this is not the point here. We all are against atrocities such as that. We are against genocide. But are we going to pass a treaty that can permit Americans, because of some alleged act committed to be sent to another country for trial in violation of the Constitution of the United States ?

I don't think so. I don't think the Senate will approve it. I don't think the American people approve of it.

I hope they won't.
Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very kindly, Senator Thurmond.

Senator Thurmond, we do have a vote on the floor right now on the prior amendment, an up-or-down vote. I think it would be well if I could try to finish my questions of you so that you and I then could go down to vote, along with Senator Pell. Senator Boschwitz has gone to vote and will shortly return. In this way we can keep the continuity of this hearing going.

Senator THURMOND. I have another meeting at a quarter to 11, but I would be glad to come back at a later time, if you desire, to answer your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, let me just put a few questions to you and you can expand on the answers for the record later.

Senator THURMOND. Would you care just to state your questions and let me answer them all for the record in light of my other engagement?


First, because you do work more closely than anyone else with the ABA, I would appreciate your judgment—I think we have time for one or two questions, Senator. Senator THURMOND. I would be very pleased if you would submit all

I of your questions. I really must leave now to vote and I do have another engagement. I am sorry that I don't have time now to respond to your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, Senator. We will submit our questions to you in writing.

Thank you very much.
Senator THURMOND. I thank the committee for its attention.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

The committee would like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Javits. We had previously announced that Senator Javits would be here today.

Senator Javits, please feel free to take a place at the table. Senator Proxmire is voting and will be back to give his testimony, and you can immediately follow him. You can take your place at the table now, if you like, or wait until he is finished.

The committee will recess for a few minutes until Senator Boschwitz and Senator Proxmire return.

TA brief recess was taken.]

Senator BoschWITZ (presiding]. We will continue the hearing. The chairman will join us in a few moments, when he returns from voting.

We will now continue the hearing with our colleague, Senator William Proxmire, from Wisconsin.

For some period of time now-how many vears has it been, Senator? Senator PROXMIRE. I think 13 years, Mr. Chairman.


Senator BOSCHWITZ. Every day for the past 13 years you have spoken on the floor of the Senate with respect to genocide.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, I've missed a few days, but it's been almost every day.

Senator BOSCHWITZ. You haven't missed any votes in that time, though.

Senator PROXMIRE. No.

Senator Boschwitz. It is a great pleasure to have you before us. As you know, my thoughts in this matter are similar to yours.

One of the first things I did upon arrival here in Washington nearly 3 years ago was to come to you to say that I supported your view and that I admired your daily reminders to the American people and the world of the crime of genocide.

It is with great pleasure that we receive your testimony this morning.



Senator PROXMIRE. Thank you very much, Senator Boschwitz. I recall that very well. I cannot tell you how heartening it is to have you indicate your strong support for the Genocide Treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should take a minute to dwell on the term "genocide,” because this is an absolutely appalling crime. It is the planned, premeditated, calculated destruction of an entire ethnic, racial, national, or religious group. It is often carried out by a government. It is different than murder and is very hard to reach. Only with the force of world opinion and a formal treaty can we make any real progress against genocide.

There are some people who oppose the Genocide Treaty who deny that the Holocaust in Europe, via Nazi Germany, took place before and during World War II. We know of the terrible evidence that it did take place. Six million Jews were exterminated. Only 300,000 remained, a pathetic remnant. It was a program

was a program of governmental extermination, far different than any other crime. As I have said, it only can be reached or begin to be reached by a treaty of this kind.

I might just mention in passing that any reference to the notion that this does not reach an act of war is true. It is not purported to reach any act of war. War is different. Poison gas used in war is something else. This does not try to reach every atrocity in the world. But the planned and premeditated destruction of an entire group it does reach. That is its purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I do want also to say how honored and delighted I am to see that you have also as a witness in this room, testifying a little later, Senator Javits. Senator Javits has devoted his enormous talents to this cause. I think that for years, without question, he was the leading intellectual light in the Senate, the brightest Senator who served certainly during the 24 years I served in the U.S. Senate. He is not only an extraordinarily intelligent man, but has a great character and understanding:

In fact, I would say there is no one with whom I have been privileged to serve who has had a more incisive intellect. I admire him for the fact that we were often overwhelmed by the forcefulness of his arguments on behalf of the weak and the powerless in our society.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

I was always impressed with his very real and deeply moving support for human rights across the world.

Senator Javits has been a guiding light and a trusted ally in the fight for ratification of the Genocide Convention, and it is good to welcome him back to the fight.

Also, I would like to say a word about Bruno Bitker, who will be addressing the committee as a member of the next panel. Mr. Bitker is one of my most valued constituents from Milwaukee. He is one of the foremost experts on the Genocide Convention. He has served as the U.S. representative to the International Conference on Human Rights in Tehran in 1968. He was chairman of the Governor's Commissions on the United Nations in Wisconsin, and has been a longtime chairman of various panels of the American Bar Association. I am sure his insights will be of great value.

I want to commend Senator Percy, the chairman of this committee, for the priority he has given this important human rights treaty since assuming chairmanship of this committee. His efforts here today are continuing a long and bipartisan tradition of support for the Genocide Convention, which has been marked by four reports to the Senate from this committee, each enthusiastically recommending ratification. The commitee's tireless efforts to restore America's proper role as a world leader on human rights will not go unnoticed when the Senate ratifies the Genocide Convention, which I am confident it will.

Chairman Percy is right to be moving ahead now. This is an opportune moment.

First, we have a new administration, in office nearly a year now, and it is time to get it on record. In announcing the appointment of Elliot Abrams as the State Department's new Human Rights Coordinator, Secretary Haig pledged to restore human rights as a priority within our foreign policy. This is a welcome step.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that you enter the room only after I have paid tribute to you.

You are a very modest man.
The CHAIRMAN (presiding]. It's just as well that I did.
Actually, I stood outside the door, listening: [General laughter.]
Senator PROXMIRE. Your modesty is overwhelming:

Second, we have a new international climate which firmly underscores the need for the United States to regain the high moral ground in our competition with those who wish us ill. We have yielded this ground all

cavalierly by smugly asserting that our own record speaks for itself. It is a luxury that we can ill afford it our diplomats are to speak out, and speak out forcefully, against the repressive actions of closed, totalitarian societies.

Third, we have a new Senate. Thirty-eight Members have been elected since your last hearings in 1977. Your own committee reflects that change, Mr. Chairman. Only 6 of the current 17 members served on this committee during the 1977 hearings, and only 1, Senator Pell, was here when I testified during the 1970 hearings. A new hearing record will be helpful in dispelling any lingering arguments of the opponents of this convention so that at long last we can proceed to ratification.

Mr. Chairman, in reviewing your earlier hearings, I was impressed by the great lengths to which your committee has gone to consider


« PředchozíPokračovat »