INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1979

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claiborne Pell presiding. Present: Senators Pell, Javits, and Helms.

Senator PELL. The committee will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT

We are in the third day of hearings on International Human Rights Treaties. We have quite a long list of witnesses today, and I would hope everyone would limit his or her oral presentation to 7 minutes in order to save time and so that everyone may be heard within a reasonable period of time. Written statements of course may be as long as the witnesses wish, and will be placed in the record in full.

Our first witness today is Hon. George Miller, Chairman of the Members of Congress for Peace Through Law [MCPL] Human Rights Committee. I am very glad to be a member with Congressman Miller in the MCPL.

Congressman Miller, I am sorry you could not be here a few days ago, and we are glad to hear your testimony at this time.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not being able to attend the hearing a few days ago. I will be brief in my testimony since the House, as the Senate, has just gone into session. Being a captive of the bell system, I do not have a great deal of time this morning.

I am testifying as chairman of the MCPL Human Rights Committee. I expect to testify and to lend my personal support and the support of the members of that committee to the ratification of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. We are saying to this committee and to the Senate in support of ratification, that these covenants establish the recognition of basic rights and basic needs of people in countries around the world. These covenants will give us a standard of human rights that can be recognized throughout the world, a standard to which countries can be held, and by which they can be judged. It will not simply be a standard based upon the opinion of a single President of the United States or a few members of the Senate

or Congress, or various citizen organizations or individuals; rather, it will be a standard applicable throughout the world. I think this is the most important thing to remember.

The covenants also will have us recognize the concept in the Third World of basic needs and also to recognize what I think we hold to be the concept of basic rights which should be enhanced by Governments and should not be interfered with.

The covenants which will allow us to engage in the working and ongoing process of the United Nations to help bring about the goal of human rights which certainly this administration has articulated and which you, Mr. Chairman, have articulated, as have many Members of Congress.

Some will argue that there is no enforcement mechanism, that we cannot run around and penalize individual regimes or countries, even in the events in the world today. But, the court of world opinion, if it can be properly focused, as has been done recently, can have an impact. Where this can be done on a uniform basis, where people can be brought to that bar and made to show what progress they have achieved in the area of human rights, or their failure or their outright violation of human rights, the impact will be far beyond what this country can do by itself in the condemnation of human rights violations.

As one who has spoken out about the violation of human rights in many, many parts of the world, I would hope that the United States can become a party to these covenants so that we, too, can participate in bringing a discussion of human rights to the forefront in every part of the world.

With that, I would ask your permission that my full written statement be entered into the record.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. [Congressman Miller's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you in support of ratification of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. These two treaties for the first time set a standard for all nations of the world to follow by defining the full scope of what are considered "human rights." They set a solid cornerstone for U.S. human rights policy in the 1980's.

Members of Congress for Peace through Law (MCPL) is a bi-cameral, bipartisan caucus of 163 Members of Congress who work together on foreign and military policy to support international institutions and to reduce the threat of arms proliferation. MCPL's Human Rights Committee, which I chair, provides a forum for its 21 House and Senate members to speak out on human rights violations around the world.

While I will discuss my reasons for ratification for the two covenants, I am not a legal expert fully familiar with the specific reservations and understandings contained in the President's letter on transmittal; I will therefore not address these questions, except to say that it is my belief that the majority of the Covenants' provisions are fully consistent with our Constitution and our law.

Likewise, I do not intend to address today the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination or the American Convention on Human Rights. While these two items which appear on your agenda are extremely significant, I wish to emphasize the importance of the Covenants by confining my remarks solely to them: it is these Covenants which, alone, set universally accepted standards for human rights practices in all nations.

I would like briefly to review the substance of each Covenant, and then discuss my reasons for supporting ratification.

First, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights represents what most Western countries—our own included—have traditionally viewed as the essence of "human rights." It prohibits torture, arbitrary and inhuman punishment, slavery, and arbitrary arrest and detention. It provides for freedom of movement and affords protection of the right to life. It ensures equality of treatment before the courts and for guarantees in criminal and civil procedure. It expressly forbids arbitrary interference with family, home or correspondence, and guarantees the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to peaceful assembly, and the right to take part in public affairs.

To enforce these guarantees, the Covenant calls for the creation of a Human Rights Committee, which has three functions. First, it requires states to submit reports on measures they have adopted and progress they have made in providing the specified rights. Second, it must hear any State's complaint that another State has violated the Covenant: under this procedure, the Committee studies the allegation, and if necessary, attempts to achieve voluntary compliance of the accused State; if that fails, it submits to the General Assembly a report on the facts of the matter. Third, the Committee is authorized to create an ad hoc Conciliation Commission composed of nationals from States that have recognized the Committee's competence to receive complaints: under this procedure, if the Commission fails to reach a solution on the complaint, it files a factfinding report to the General Assembly.

In brief, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights threatens the glare of publicity and resulting embarrassment and international humiliation-against any State which violates the rights of its citizens.

It should be noted that the Human Rights Committee has yet another watchdog role under the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant: Under the Protocol, the Committee is authorized to receive complaints from individuals— as well as States-whose rights have been violated. I am disappointed that the President did not submit the Optional Protocol to the Senate for ratification, since it alone provides protection for individuals whose rights have been viclated. Its power was proven this past summer, when the Human Rights Committee published views on the first case dealt with under the Protocol, and found that Uruguay, a State-Party, was guilty of a number of violations against three citizens of that country. This amounted to a sharp public rebuke to Uruguay before all the nations of the world.

Second, I wish briefly to discuss the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which is to be implemented gradually (depending on the ability of the State in question and the resources available to it), guarantees to individuals the right to education, the right to work, the right to join and form labor unions, the right to social security, the protection of the family, the right to be free from hunger, and the right to take part in cultural life. Just as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights represents the essence of the West's traditional view of "human rights," the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights represents the essence of the Third World's view of "human rights."

As with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides that each State-Party must report periodically to the United Nations Economic and Social Council on the measures it has adopted to guarantee the specified rights. Based on these submissions, the Council will make its own report and recommendations about a country's compliance before the General Assembly. Again, publicity-and a State's international image-are the keystones to enforcement.

I would like to discuss ratification of these two Covenants together, as a package, but before I leave the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, I wish to say strongly that in order for our human rights policies to be taken seriously by Third World and Socialist countries we must go on record in favor of fulfilling basic human needs. After all, political or civil rights are valueless without the simultaneous enjoyment of the right to food, the right to an education, and other essential economic rights.

Why should the U.S. ratify the Covenants, and how would ratification help the U.S.?

First, as I stated in the beginning of my testimony, the U.S. should ratify the Covenants because they are the most important single standard for human rights practiced in the world, and they expand and strengthen the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These two treaties alone outline, define, and seek

to implement, the full scope of what are considered "human rights", not just by the U.S. or the Soviet Union or developing countries, but by all nations of the world.

Second, ratification of the Covenants by the U.S. Senate would signify to other countries large and small-that our commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms is not the commitment of just one Administration, or just one group of Senators, but it is a lasting commitment and a permanent fixture of U.S. foreign policy.

Third, ratification will help to promote a more even-handed less political, and and more effective, guarantee of human rights throughout the world. As we all recognize, U.S. concern for human rights has often been blinded by political considerations, such that we have ignored our allies' violations and harshly criticized the violations of our Cold War foes. Such politicization of the human rights cause is both hypocritical and counter-productive. Ratification of the Covenants would enable us to work through the United Nations, and would provide a multilateral vehicle through which we can express our concerns and increase our effectiveness. I believe that the United Nations, far more than a specific Secretary of State or National Security Advisor, can address human rights issues with an objectivity which individual governments rarely have.

Fourth, ratification by the United States, as an important world leader, might well encourage ratification by other countries. As a result, we should act swiftly and demonstrate our commitment early.

Fifth, ratification is in our own self-interest.

Ratification and especially early ratification-will enable us to participate in the work of the Human Rights Committee to shape the nature of the Covenants. Now, since we are not a party to either Covenant, we cannot participate in the work of the Human Rights Committee. After ratification, we would be able to play a critical role in defining, clarifying and refining the reporting procedures and jurisdiction.

Ratification will affirm the civil liberties guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, and will establish important economic goals to be implemented, thus requiring the progressive realization of such rights as the right to a safe and healthy place to work, the right to receive health care, and the right to employment.

Ratification will provide a single standard for us in the Congress and in the Executive by which we must implement our foreign policy. Congress has exerted significant leadership over the last five or so years in the field of human rights: through public hearings and legislation it has sought to disassociate the U.S. government from the repressive practices of our allies, and has tried to apply human rights standards in all areas of our foreign policy. In this effort, we have frequently disagreed with the Executive Branch as to the application of standards. Ratification would ease these tensions, and provide a legal set of standards.

Sixth, ratification and subsequent actions or sanctions imposed on violator governments will indeed improve the lives of those fighting against economic and political injustices. Some hold that there is no enforcement mechanism, and point to ratifications by the U.S.S.R., Chile and Uruguay, for instance, who have all ratified the Covenants yet continue to systematically violate the human rights of their citizens. I agree that the Covenants do not force compliance by governments. And I agree that the act of ratification by this kind of country represents but a cynical stroke of the pen. But look beyond the surface, and we find that for the individuals of these countries, especially for those who exercise their rights under the Optional Protocol, their government's ratification will mean that human rights violations will indeed be judged, and judged severely, against the standard of the Covenants. Once it is mobilized, international public opinion can be a formidable weapon in the fight against economic and political injustices.

Finally, in summary, our country's credibility as the champion of human rights around the world would be destroyed if we failed to ratify the two Covenants. Certain representatives at the United Nations have already alleged that our failure to ratify is a result of our unwillingness to subject our domestic human rights record to international scrutiny. We will appear to have set a double standard, one for us, one for all other nations. We will appear to want immunity for ourselves while we speak out against other, less powerful countries. And finally, without ratification we will have no power, except on a limited bilateral basis, to affect the human rights of individuals in other countries in the world.

If we are to exert a practical influence, let alone a moral influence, in support of human rights around the world, we must promptly ratify these two Covenants. Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Congressman Miller.

I notice in many hearings that the Senators and Congressmen who appear as witnesses make their points more briefly than the nonpolitician witnesses. I thank you as well for the brevity of your

statement.

Mr. MILLER. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee.

Senator PELL. Since you have chaired many meetings, I am sure you notice the same thing that I do, which is that when written statements are read in a monotone for 20 minutes you remember absolutely nothing. But you do remember important points when a statement is short and actively delivered. I only wish nonpolitician witnesses would recognize this fact.

I appreciate very much your being here. I know the fine job the MCPL does.

CHANCE OF RATIFICATION IF PRESENTED TO THE HOUSE

Do you think if the House of Representatives were faced with these treaties a two-thirds vote in the House would be forthcoming for their ratification?

Mr. MILLER. I think it would. I think it is a fact that part of the problem with discussion of human rights violations on an ad hoc basis is it is left to determinations by individuals or groups of individuals. But here, I think people can argue that either the standard will apply or it will not apply, the covenants have been breached or have been adhered to. I think even those people who believe joining in a covenant such as this is an invasion of our sovereignty might prefer to have that standard rather than 15 Congressmen standing up and firing away at a country where a President tries to cut off aid on an ad hoc basis. I think the House of Representatives would welcome that standard.

HOUSE VOTE IF PRESENTED GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Senator PELL. Do you think the House of Representatives would give a two-thirds vote to the Genocide Convention?

Mr. MILLER. A two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives, as you know, is difficult on any matter, as you can appreciate in your requirements in the Senate.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I cannot say regarding that particular covenant. But I think clearly on these two that would happen. I don't know how you would argue against these.

Senator PELL. There are four that are before us today.

Mr. MILLER. I am testifying on only two covenants, those on political rights and economic and cultural rights. I think the House would be hard-pressed to argue against those.

Senator PELL. Thank you.

I personally regret very much that we do not have the Genocide Convention before us at this time because I would like to report that out.