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 nore in America to prevent genocide than any treaty ever could do. Ironically, the Genocide Treaty would erode that concept by 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.

There 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

ed" must be submitted to the International Court of Justice at quest of any party-I repeat, any party-to the dispute. der that provision, Vietnam could have charged the United States genocide in Vietnam and brought the issue before world public on, using the forum of the International Court of Justice. Sim', the Soviet Union could allege that the murder or other act of ice against an individual member of a minority group within the d States constituted genocide, and wage an unfounded propaa campaign, again using the International Court of Justice as a c forum.

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

ring the hostage crisis in Iran, any number of Americans urged ive military action against Iran in retaliation for the hostage re. Regardless of the wisdom of that form of outcry, it was pro1 speech under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. ould the Genocide Treaty become supreme law, the incitement ision of article III, at a minimum, would chill free speech in any which might be interpreted by any contracting state as "inciteto commit genocide."

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

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

e.

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

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

he Genocide Convention is uncharted water alien to our free traons and fundamentally dangerous to our sovereignty and unique itutions.

[r. Chairman, I urge no action on the convention, other than its rn to the President without Senate consent.

want to say something about the atrocities of World War II. I y appreciate that fact. I was with the First Army in Europe, and as there at the surrender. The First Army uncovered the Buchend Camp. I have never seen such atrocities in my life. No one who a humanitarian thought at all, a feeling of compassion and love humanity would condone such acts. But, Mr. Chairman, again, I eat that this is not the point here. We all are against atrocities such

s that. We are against genocide. But are we going to pass a treaty that an permit Americans, because of some alleged act committed, to be ent to another country for trial in violation of the Constitution of he United States?

I don't think so. I don't think the Senate will approve it. I don't hink 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 rior 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 o 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?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

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 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 uestions.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, Senator. We will submit our questions to you n 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 avits. We had previously announced that Senator Javits would be ere 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 mmediately follow him. You can take your place at the table now, if ou like, or wait until he is finished.

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

[A brief recess was taken.]

Senator BOSCHWITZ [presiding]. We will continue the hearing. The hairman will join us in a few moments, when he returns from voting. We will now continue the hearing with our colleague, Senator Wiliam Proxmire, from Wisconsin.

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

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

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

nator BOSCHWITZ. You haven't missed any votes in that time, gh.

nator PROXMIRE. No.

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

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

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

TEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM PROXMIRE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

WISCONSIN

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

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

here are some people who oppose the Genocide Treaty who deny t the Holocaust in Europe, via Nazi Germany, took place before I during World War II. We know of the terrible evidence that it take place. Six million Jews were exterminated. Only 300,000 ained, a pathetic remnant. It was a program of governmental ermination, far different than any other crime. As I have said, it y can be reached or begin to be reached by a treaty of this kind. might just mention in passing that any reference to the notion t this does not reach an act of war is true. It is not purported to ch any act of war. War is different. Poison gas used in war is hething else. This does not try to reach every atrocity in the world. t the planned and premeditated destruction of an entire group it es reach. That is its purpose.

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

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

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

Senator Javits has been a guiding light and a trusted ally in the ght 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 ddressing the committee as a member of the next panel. Mr. Bitker s one of my most valued constituents from Milwaukee. He is one of he foremost experts on the Genocide Convention. He has served as e U.S. representative to the International Conference on Human Rights in Tehran in 1968. He was chairman of the Governor's Comissions on the United Nations in Wisconsin, and has been a longtime hairman of various panels of the American Bar Association. I am ure his insights will be of great value.

I want to commend Senator Percy, the chairman of this commitee, for the priority he has given this important human rights treaty ince assuming chairmanship of this committee. His efforts here toay 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 ratication. The commitee's tireless efforts to restore America's proper ole 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, nd it is time to get it on record. In announcing the appointment of Elliot Abrams as the State Department's new Human Rights Coordiator, Secretary Haig pledged to restore human rights as a priority vithin 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 undercores the need for the United States to regain the high moral ground n our competition with those who wish us ill. We have yielded this round all cavalierly by smugly asserting that our own record speaks For itself. It is a luxury that we can ill afford if our diplomats are to peak out, and speak out forcefully, against the repressive actions of losed, totalitarian societies.

Third, we have a new Senate. Thirty-eight Members have been lected since your last hearings in 1977. Your own committee reflects hat change, Mr. Chairman. Only 6 of the current 17 members served on this committee during the 1977 hearings, and only 1, Senator Pell, vas 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 -atification.

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