032174 A Genocide Treaty: An appeal

First of two Articles

BY JACOB K. JAVITS
Los Angeles Times

Twenty five Years ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and sent to member nations for ratification -a convention making genocide an international crime. This treaty, conceived in the ashes of the ,Nazi Holocaust, expressed the determination of the shocked and horrified community of nations that such a crime against humanity would not be perpetrated again.

It represented a most solemn pledge among ourselves and to future generations that any attempt to annihilate any group would be met by swift punishment throughout the civilized world.  It seemed a simple enough statement.

YET WHEN the Senate last month-for the first time in a quarter-century attempted to consider the ratification of this treaty, it was unable to reach a vote on the proposition because of a filibuster. And so the convention- which has been ratified by 78 nations including the Soviet Union. but not Including the United States --- still languishes.

Proponents of the treat y in the Senate remain confident that. there are 67 votes for ratification. It is difficult to understand why a statement so in keeping with our national
tradition and Ideals has not been accepted by the American people .I believe it is due to widespread misunderstanding about the provisions of the document and its
impact on U.S. domestic law.

In 1948. when the convention was first presented to the Senate for ratification. some felt that it, might he used against the United States because of our treatment of black Americans. Then in the 1960's many feared it would be invoked against our prisoners of war In North Vietnam.

IN Neither  case of course would the genocide convention apply but  it's opponents
were successful in spreading these fears .Today with conditions for black Americans
improved and out prisoners of war returned none of  these arguments unfounded even before is valid And yet during the course of debate last month ,senators were flooded with mail urging the defeat of the treaty and expressing the fear that Americans would be unjustly accused and convicted.

We were told that Americans would be sent abroad to be tried for criminal offenses in International courts we were warned that the President himself would be accused of genocide as a result of the was in Vietnam and we were urged to prevent the widespread trial of Americans in foreign courts under conditions not compatible with our Bill of Rights
What is the truth about the genocide convention? Would it's ratification mean that the US government had nullified the Bill of Rights for  some citizens and put the members of our armed forces in jeopardy of their lives and freedom" "A careful examination of the arguments made against the treaty show, that this certainly is not the case.

THE most frequently heard argument against the treaty was that it would result in
the extradition of Americans for trial in foreign courts- This is simply not true. In
reporting the convention to the Senate for ratification the Foreign Relations Committee proposed the following language be added  to the text of the resolution:

"The United States govemment declares that it will not deposit its instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in Article V has been enacted .

This means that until Congress passes the statute making genocide a crime in this country
 the treaty is not ratified.Then if one but looks, at the proposed implementing statute. which Sen. Hugh Scott and I Introduced, it is clear the United States reserves for itself the right to refuse extradition of an American national to a foreign country even when the genocide charged was committed outside the United States.

Further. although the treaty itself contemplates the possible creation of an International court to try persons accused of these offenses no such court has been created nor can Americans be subjected to it's jurisdiction unless Congress passes separate legislation  which so provides.

 Finally in all candor ,whether or not we ratify this treaty we simply  cannot control or prevent the it trial of Americans in other countries for crimes committed outside the United States and we cannot guarantee every citizen a criminal trial consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights once it, leaves our borders.

Another argument against this  treaty which was widely circulated was that it would put. American soldiers fighting, abroad in serious jeopardy. It is, clear from the words of the treaty Itself. however that acts of war since They do not involve  killing of persons as members of a group with the intent to destroy the group are not actually genocide

Once- again. even though a charge of genocide would be unjustified we could not prevent such a charge from being made, but I believe in ratifying the convention the 

United States would at. the very least be accepting a commonly agreed upon definition of genocide. which would make it difficult for unjustified charges by others nations to be taken seriously.

Another  Argument which was raised was that in making it a crime to kill a part of a group with intent. to destroy the group  we were "essentially making a single homicide an international crime, Here again a reference, to the language of an "understanding'' added by the Foreign Relations Committee, and to  the implementing statute clarifies this term.

The committee report states "that the united States government understands and construes the words, intent to destroy in whole or in part the national, ethnical, racial Or religious group appearing in Article 11 to mean the intent to destroy in such A manner as to affect a substantial part of the group concerns.

I BELIEVE a strong case can be made that the objections raised by the organized opponents of this treat ' v are based on misunderstandings or lack of information about
the terms and impact of the treaty.

Basically it is a very simple. strong declaration of principle to which I believe every American can assent And yet there is a note of fear behind most agreements-as if genocide were rampant in the United States -and that this nation Could not afford to have it's actions examined by the international community.

Neither the Congress nor the courts of this nation have taken leave of their sense or abandoned their responsibilities to protect the rights of Americans, Ratification of the 
genocide (-(-)nvfnti4)n will not have this effect and I hope that in the coming months those
of it,., who strongly support the treaty's can mount a successful campaign to get the
facts to the people- , and build the. support in the country  which will assure Senate ratification .

Human decency remains to be  vindicated in respect to the ratification of the genocide treaty.