032274 Genocide treaty: A Warning

Second of two articles

BY SAM J. ERVIN JR.
Los Angeles Times

During the 1940s, activists connected with the United Nations engaged in strenuous efforts to establish treaties superseding domestic laws of nations throughout the world: the genocide convention represents one of these efforts.

It originated in a resolution of the United Nations condemning genocide as a crime committed on religious, racial. political or any other grounds.'' Ultimately. genocide committed on "political" grounds was excluded because some parties to the convention did not wish to surrender their control over political groups hostile to their rulers.

 UNDER THE conventions provisions, private individuals as well as persons exercising governmental power would be subject to trial and punishment for offenses that have always been regarded as crimes within the domestic Jurisdiction of' the various nations.

The genocide convention was adopted by the General Assembly Dec. 10, 1948. and was submitted by President Harry S. Truman to the Senate for its consideration on June 16, 1949. A Senate foreign relations subcommittee conducted hearings in January and Feb 1950. and reported to the full committee that the United States should not ratify the convention in any event unless the Senate adopted four substantial understandings 

These interpretive qualifications do indeed point out some of the severe deficiencies and ambiguities contained in the control but by, no means would they overcome the convention's inadequacies if adopted if the Senate.

Since that report in 1950, the Senate has by it's inaction wisely refused to ratify this convention.

ON MARCH 6, 1973 the Foreign Relations committee resurrected the genocide convention and reported it to the Senate ,Once again for consideration not withstanding the fact that there had been no change of circumstances which would have made "what was unwise since 1950 wise in the 93rd Congress The Senate once again refused to ratify the convention by defeating two motions to close off debate.

On  Feb, 5, 1974 the first cloture motion was defeated 55 to 36 falling six votes short of the necessary two-thirds. On the following day Feb. 6, a similar motion was defeated. 55 to 38. Thus the Senate once again put aside, the genocide convention.

This brings me to the major consideration  which should continue to deter the Senate from ratifying the genocide-convention.

IF THE SENATE should ratify the convention, the United States would Be obligated by it to prosecute and punish public officials and private citizens of our country for acts alien to any reasonable concept of genocide.

According to the terms of the convention, genocide embraces specified acts "committed with intent to destroy. in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. as such." This definition is inconsistent with the real meaning of the term. which is "the systematic, planned annihilation of a racial, political or cultural group.

Nevertheless, under the convention a government official or a private individual would be subject to prosecution and punishment. for genocide if he intentionally destroys a single member of one of the specified groups. The treaty would thus make virtually every person in every nation adhering to it a potential victim of genocide as the meaning of that term is distorted by the convention. This is true simply because every person on earth belongs to one or more of the four groups specified.

ARTICLE VI of the Constitution provides that..."All treaties made or which shall he made. under the authority of the. United States. shall be the supreme law of the land. This means that the provisions of the genocide convention would immediately supersede all state laws and practices inconsistent with them and would nullify all provisions of all acts, of Congress and prior treaties of the United States inconsistent with them.
It is noted that virtually all the other nations of the earth have no constitutional or legal principle similar to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution- and that, for this reason, treaties do not take effect as internal law in other nations unless their legislative branches of government adopt laws subsequent to their ratification giving them such effect.

The convention would also impose upon the Congress an implicit. commitment to support the creation of an international court for trials of American citizens tot, genocide I am strongly, opposed I,, subjecting our citizens to trial conviction ind sentence for acts of genocide committed in Ili(, United States bY ,in international tribunal where they would not. he accorded the constitution safeguards and legal rights accorded persons charged with domestic crimes.

CONSIDER ALSO what effect Senate ratification of the genocide convention might have on American soldiers fighting under the flag of their country in foreign lands.

 Article I of the convention provides that genocide is punishable in time of peace or in time of war and the convention contains no provision exempting soldiers engaged in combat from the coverage of' the convention.

When our soldiers kill or seriously wound members of a hostile military force they certainly do so with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national group as such.
Thus their acts in combat fall clearly within  the purview of the convention. In such cases they would be triable and punishable in the courts of the nation in whose territory their acts are committed or in international penal tribunal not yet In existence.

I have no doubt as to the good intentions of those who drafted the genocide convention or those who favor ratification. All of  us are opposed to the systematic, planned, annihilation of any national ethnic or religious group.
Nevertheless. The existing laws of the United States and it's several states are adequate to punish ail of the physical acts of violence denounced by the convention.
The Senate does not need to ratify the genocide convention in order to make these  acts punishable as crimes if committed within the borders of our Land.