474 476 479 480 483 488 492 495 497 498 527 531 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1979 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claiborne Pell, presiding. Present: Senators Pell, Javits, and Helms. Senator PELL. The Committee on Foreign Relations will come to order. As the witnesses know, the hearing is scheduled for 9:30, I think perhaps inappropriately. But, as long as it is scheduled for that time and everyone was duly notified, we will begin. Is the Honorable Arthur Goldberg here? [No response.] Senator PELL. Is the Honorable Warren Christopher here? Senator PELL. Are Ms. Patricia Derian or the Honorable Robert [No response.] Senator PELL. Is the Honorable Charles Yost here? Ambassador Yost. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Senator PELL. Wonderful. My dear, old friend is here and I am delighted. We will begin with Ambassador Yost in this case. Would you please come forward, Mr. Yost, while I deliver my opening statement. OPENING REMARKS The first step toward safeguarding the human rights of all peoples was taken nearly 31 years ago on December 10, 1948. For, on that day, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Eleanor Roosevelt delivered a passionate speech before the General Assembly in support of the Declaration. She said: We stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind, that is, the approval by the General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recommended by the entire committee. This Declaration may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere. We hope its proclamation by the General Assembly will be an event comparable to the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, by the French people in 1789, the adoption of the Bill of Rights by the people of the United States, and the adoption of comparable declarations at different times in different countries. The International Human Rights Covenants before us today represent the culmination of the commitments we assumed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, indeed, the American commitment goes back to the very creation of our Government. We have always believed in human rights and have followed this principle through the years. From the beginning, our Republic was to be a safe harbor for liberty. Government was to be by consent of the governed, with its powers divided among separate branches, and with certain individual rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, decreed to be inviolate. Most Americans felt, along with Thomas Jefferson, that their "great experiment in republican government" would serve as a "standing monument and example for the aim and imitation of the people of other countries." Of course, if we are to set such an example, we must practice what we preach. We must keep striving to end discrimination and attain basic human rights for minority groups and oppressed peoples. Speaking personally, in 1956, I was in charge of the International Rescue Committee's Hungarian Relief operation, and I learned first hand about the human rights violations in that nation. I also grew up in an age when barbaric acts of inhumanity were perpetrated without the slightest regard for human life. Indeed, the Holocaust still stands out as the most massive and savage destruction of people in the history of mankind. In this connection, my own father, Herbert C. Pell, Jr., was the head of the U.S. Delegation to the United Nations War Crimes Commission in 1943, and was responsible for having genocide declared a war crime. Although, I regret to say, we will not be considering the Genocide Convention during these hearings, let us bear in mind that this treaty stands as the first universal declaration that genocide would never again be tolerated by the community of mankind. The International Human Rights Treaties before us today represent the first opportunity to give the full force of international law to the principles of human rights. In the world at large, the sad fact is that free government is the exception and repression the rule. But the United States must still persevere in securing the rights of the downtrodden and repressed. Questions surely abound concerning the appropriate method for achieving these lofty goals. These hearings serve as the first step toward a comprehensive review of the options available to us. At the very least, the human rights treaties before us today codify language that everyone should be able to support. As cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I am concerned that a year from now, when the Second Review Conference is held in Madrid in compliance with the 1975 Helsinki accord, we will be in a poor position to demand full compliance with the Helsinki accords' provisions on the part of the Soviet Union and its allies, if we ourselves have not ratified the foremost human rights conventions in the world. Senator Javits, do you have an opening statement? Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I see Ambassador Yost is at the witness table, and not Mr. Goldberg. Senator PELL. We are trying to begin on time today, and Ambassador Yost was present. SENATOR JAVITS OPENING REMARKS Senator JAVITS. I came this morning because I think these human rights treaties will become another disaster unless they are dealt with and acted on in the proper way. So I want to be here to listen to as much testimony as I can. I want to urge our Government not to make a shambles of this as we have with the Genocide Treaty, which still remains on the shelf only because it has remained on the shelf for so long-all other reasons long having been removed. It is shocking and disgraceful. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will not do the same with this. I will do my best to move this forward and I know the Chair will. I believe that will be the disposition of the committee. Mr. Ambassador, it is very nice to see you here today. Senator PELL. Ambassador Yost, we welcome you very much, indeed, today. I think you know how glad I am to see you here. We have been friends for 30 years. I am asking all of our witnesses to try to limit their statements to 10 minutes. The full prepared texts will be printed in the record. Please proceed in any way you deem fit. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES YOST, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Ambassador YOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Javits. I agree heartily with the remarks you both have made about the Genocide Convention. I am particularly happy to have an opportunity to testify on behalf of the four treaties pertaining to human rights which are before the committee because, while I was not directly involved in the negotiation of the conventions and covenants they embody, those negotiations occurred, for the most part, during my first assignment to the United Nations, and the process of adherence to them by United Nations member states was in full swing during my tenure as principal U.S. representative at the United Nations. I strongly recommended signature and ratification at that time, some 10 years ago. I am not a lawyer and will leave to those better fitted than I, discussion on the legal aspects of the treaties. I do note, however, that our Department of Justice has concurred in the judgment of the Department of State that, with the inclusion of a number of recommended reservations, understandings, and declarations, "there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification." My comments will relate to the political effect our ratification or failure to ratify has on our relations with other nations and on the implementation of American policies abroad. As the committee is aware, the support of fundamental human rights, particularly political and civil rights, has been an important element of American foreign policy since the founding of the Republic. If we had the time, any one of us could cite many statements to this effect by American Presidents and other distinguished American statesmen throughout the past 200 years. Conspicuous modern examples were the enunciation of the Four Freedoms by Franklin Roosevelt in the early days of World War II, and the decisive role played by Eleanor Roosevelt in the negotiation at the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on which these covenants and conventions are based. This policy has been given new impetus by the administration of President Carter. I believe his emphasis on this issue has been among those policies which have aroused the strongest sympathy and applause among the American public. We have before us now two covenants and two conventions which, for the first time, give broad international sanction and support to these traditional American policies. These covenants and conventions echo and seek to apply internationally much of the Bill of Rights and other provisions of our own Constitution. They represent, to a considerable degree, an international acceptance and application of some of our most cherished principles. One would have thought, therefore, that the United States would be among the first to ratify these instruments. Yet, in fact, we are lagging far behind. The Convention on Racial Discrimination, which has been in force for more than 10 years, has been ratified by 104 nations. The two United Nations Covenants on Political and Economic Rights, which have been in force for only 4 years, have nevertheless been ratified by, respectively, 60 and 62 nations. The Soviet Union has ratified all three; yet the United States has not ratified any of them. There are, in my judgment, few failures or omissions on our part which have done more to undermine American credibility internationally than this one. Whenever an American delegate at an international conference, or an American Ambassador making representations on behalf of our Government, raises a question of human rights, as we have in these times many occasions to do, the response public or private, is very likely to be this: If you attach so much importance to human rights, why have you not even ratified the United Nations' conventions and covenants on this subject? Why have you not taken the steps necessary to enable you to sit upon and participate in the work of the United Nations Human Rights Commission? Our refusal to join in the international implementation of the principles we so loudly and frequently proclaim cannot help but give the impression that we do not practice what we preach, that we have something to hide, that we are afraid to allow outsiders even to inquire whether we practice racial discrimination or violate other basic human rights. Yet we constantly take it upon ourselves to denounce the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, Argentina, Chile, and many other states for violating these rights. We are in most instances quite right to do So, but we seriously undermine our own case when we resist joining in the international endeavor to enforce these rights, which we ourselves had so much to do with launching. Many are therefore inclined to believe that our whole human rights policy is merely a cold war exercise or a display of self-righteousness directed against governments we dislike. We have spoken a great deal of the importance of our "credibility" in connection with guarantees and assurances to allies. Here is a case where our credibility is very seriously questioned, but where we can reestablish it quickly by a simple act of ratification. I therefore strongly urge this committee and the full Senate to join in removing this impediment to the implementation of basic American principles, indeed this cloud of suspicion which we ourselves have raised around our good name on this fundamental issue. I am certain myself that we have nothing to hide. We have almost completely overcome the racial discrimination with which we could have been justly charged in the past. Our record on civil and political rights, on economic, social, and cultural rights, is as good as, or better than, those of almost any other nation. Moreover, the powers of the two international bodies applying the Convention on Racial Discrimination and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are so strictly limited that it is impossible for them to intrude in the domestic affairs of a party to these instruments without the consent of that party. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not even have an implementing body of any kind. Despite the firm conviction of developing countries, more than twothirds of the United Nations membership, that economic rights are more "fundamental" than political rights, because they are more essential to mere human survival, this covenant is in fact merely, as Secretary Christopher's letter of transmittal to the President puts it, a "statements of goals to be achieved progressively." Finally, there are the reservations, understandings, and declarations which the President proposes be included in our ratification and which would relieve us from any obligation which could conceivably be considered inconsistent with our Constitution or domestic legislation. In each case, for example, it is proposed that the United States declare that the operative provisions of the covenants and conventions "are not self-executing;" in other words that, for them to be executed in the United States, appropriate domestic legislation would be required. With these meticulous and stringent safeguards, it seems to me that plausible objection to ratification of these treaties has been overcome. For the reasons which I have described, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that the Senate, at the earliest possible time, extend its advice and consent to these four treaties pertaining to human rights. Thank you. Senator PELL. Thank you very much, indeed, for your testimony. MORE ACTIVE POLICY IN THE UNITED NATIONS AS A RESULT of RATIFICATION Do you expect that we will pursue a more active policy in the United Nations as a result of the ratification of these treaties? Will it have an impact on our work there? Ambassador YOST. Well, I would hope so. Of course, we endeavor to be active on these issues now and we always have, but we are limited by the fact that we have not ratified them and therefore cannot participate as directly in the work of the Human Rights Commission as we otherwise could. ACCEPTABILITY OF RESERVATIONS Senator PELL. Do you have any concern about any of the reservations, or do you think, in general, that they are perfectly acceptable? |