the United States to reaffirm its international commitment to human rights. United States laws is in conformity with the provisions of these three conventions, and their ratification would not require any change in our domestic legislation. Consequently, we urge prompt action by the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of these three conventions.

Also pending before the Senate is the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, submitted by President Truman on June 16, 1949. We recommend that the Senate revive consideration of this convention with a view to early ratification.

2. Future Ratification of the Three Conventions on Discrimination. In addition to the four conventions mentioned above, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations has recommended for ratification by 1968 (the International Human Rights Year) three conventions: on discrimination in employment, in education and in women's salaries. A few years ago it would not have been possible for the United States to ratify these conventions, but recent legislation, particularly enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has gone a long way toward bringing our practice into conformity with the principles of these conventions. Consequently, we recommend that these conventions be submitted to the Senate with a view to its giving its advice and consent to ratification, after the pending conventions have been acted upon.

3. United States Leadership in the Preparation and Adoption of Future Conventions and Declarations.-The United Nations has in the past several years been engaged in the preparation of a Declaration and a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and a Declaration and a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance. The United States has played a leading role in the formulation of these instruments, and we recommend that it play a similar role in the formulation of other instruments. The fact that a proposed international convention may go beyond United States legislation, especially on the Federal level, should not act as a deterrent to United States participation in the formulation of such an instrument. In the past the United States has frequently abstained from ratifying an international convention when it was felt that the subject matter of the convention was not within Federal power. We recommend that studies be made of constitutional methods for applying such international conventions in the United States.

4. United States Support for Proposals relating to the Establishment of Appropriate United Nations Machinery for the International Protection of Human Rights.-The United States should support the adoption of sound implementation procedures for the Covenants and other instruments which increase the probability of compliance by accepting States without jeopardizing broad acceptance by the majority of the United Nations membership. This is an area in which the United States ought to play an active role and prepare to take leadership. We believe that the international guarantees of human rights require an executive capacity on the part of the United Nations which today it does not have. The proposal for a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, introduced by Costa Rica in the Human Rights Commission and now proposed for consideration by the General Assembly, offers one possible approach for the achievement of such an executive capacity.

Another possible approach would be to develop the present Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities into a "Permanent Committee of Experts of the Commission on Human Rights," competent to deal with any matter in the field of human rights, as proposed by five nations at the 21st (1965) session of the Commission on Human Rights.

We feel that institutional changes which would facilitate an actual comparison of our accomplishments with those of other nations can only redound to our advantage.

5. United States Participation in Regional Efforts to Increase the Protection of Human Rights.-The countries of the Western Hemisphere have close historic ties, and it is especially important for the United States not to stand apart from efforts extending the protection of human rights in the Americas. While progress might be feasible without United States active participation, only by accepting equal obligations would the United States be able adequately to influence the trend of events toward a democratic and equitable solution.

The Committee also believes that as the United States and Canada share with the European countries a common heritage in the field of human rights, it should be possible for them to join the European countries in their enterprising and successful effort to give international protection to human rights.

6. United States and Refugees. The humanitarian efforts of international organizations assisting refugees have always been supported by the United States. The focus of the problem has now shifted from Europe to Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and the problem appears to be once again increasing. The United States should give consideration to increasing its contributions to these organizations on a selective basis. In addition, the United States should consider ratification of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and of the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons.

7. Participation of Universities and Non-Governmental Organizations in a World-Wide Education, Research and Study Program in Human Rights.-With a few notable exceptions, most international and national non-governmental organizations, as well as universities, have shown only limited interest in the international protection of human rights. It is not enough for the Government of the United States to promote an action program in this area, if there is no general participation in it. Various organizations and universities should engage in such preparatory studies of each proposed convention and of the various measures of implementation as may be needed to facilitate their acceptance and effective application. They should also play an active role in the evaluation of the steps taken by governments to promote human rights. To the extent permitted by various international procedures, they should assist international organs in the preparation and implementation of international conventions and covenants on human rights.

8. United States Planning for the International Human Rights Year in 1968.— The United Nations General Assembly has already designated 1968, the twentieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, as International Human Rights Year. Advance planning for observance of this year should be undertaken now. A representative committee needs to be appointed as soon as possible to carry through a program of activity at the State, local and national level. As an element of that program, it would be desirable for the United States to act as host to one or more United Nations human rights seminars.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the United States promptly ratify the four human rights conventions which are now pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

2. That the United States ratify as soon as practicable the three conventions on discrimination.

3. That the United States exercise leadership in the preparation and adoption of conventions and declarations on human rights.

4. That the United States support proposals for the establishment of appropriate United Nations machinery for the international protection of human rights, such, for example, as the proposal for a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

5. That the United States broaden its participation in regional efforts to increase the protection of human rights.

6. That the United States consider increasing its assistance to international agencies engaged in helping refugees, and reconsider the question of ratifying the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons.

7. That universities and non-governmental organizations take a more active part in a world-wide education, research and study program in human rights. 8. That the United States plan in advance for observance of International Human Rights Year in 1968.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Walter M. Kotschnig, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, Department of State.

John E. Lawyer, Director, Office of International Organizations, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor.

Leonard C. Meeker, Legal Adviser, Department of State.

James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Norbert A. Schlei, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice.

William Taylor, Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Franklin H. Williams, Ambassador to Ghana.

Harris L. Wofford, Staff Assistant, Field Operations, Peace Corps.

REASONS WHY RATIFICATION OF CONVENTIONS IS URGED

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, my prepared statement makes three very simple points: First, the national interest of the United States is served by the promotion of human rights around the world. I shall say nothing more about that in view of the most eloquent statement we have just heard from Senator Proxmire.

I certainly agree with Senator Clark that our foreign policy has a moral dimension and that our moral position is a fundamental ingredient of our world influence and our world power.

The second basic point in the statement is that our adherence to the Conventions on Slavery, Forced Labor, and the Political Rights of Women will make a practical contribution to this worldwide objective of promoting human rights and therefore to our national interest. And the third point is that there is no reason in law or policy which should prevent the United States from ratifying these conventions.

RATIFICATION IS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST

With respect to the second point, I should like to suggest a few of the practical advantages to the United States in the ratification of the three conventions which are before us today. To begin with, our adherence to these conventions will encourage

Senator DODD. Excuse me, the second point is that our adherence will make a practical contribution

Mr. GARDNER. Our adherence to these three conventions will make a practical contribution to the worldwide promotion of human rights and to our national interest.

One very practical example of the consequences that will follow is that our adherence will encourage other countries which have not yet done so to ratify these conventions and also, those countries which may have done so, it will encourage them to implement them more fully within their territories.

If we do not care enough about these fundamental human rights to act, why should others and why should they implement their provisions within their territories? This is particularly true, Mr. Chairman, because we are already in conformity with the conventions, as my statement says, and we are not getting the international leverage on the actions of others which our own adherence to these standards would entitle us to have by our failure to participate in the drafting of international human rights standards of this kind.

So there is a very practical consequence in encouraging other countries to implement standards which are already secure in the United States of America.

Another practical consequence is that it will give us greater influence in the drafting of new standards in the future, because as long as the United States abstains from ratifying any human rights convention in the United Nations, it will necessarily diminish our influence in drafting other conventions. Foreign countries will say the United States does not ratify these, why should its views be taken seriously into account.

And finally in this second point of practical diplomatic consequences, I would respectfully suggest, sir, that our ratification of

these conventions would liquidate a most embarrassing situation for the United States in the United Nations and elsewhere resulting from a contradiction between our support of human rights and our failure to participate in these treaties.

Senator Proxmire mentioned that we are in a small minority of three original members of the United Nations which has failed to ratify any United Nations human rights treaty.

I have a list of the membership as of last fall, and of 118 members of the United Nations, as of that time there were just nine which had not ratified any of the human rights conventions, and I would like to submit this boxscore for the record.

Senator DODD. Very well, we will receive it and it will be made a part of the record.

(The list of countries ratifying the three conventions appears on pages 34-38.)

U.N. MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT RATIFIED ANY OF THE CONVENTIONS

Mr. GARDNER. The nine countries which have not ratified any human rights conventions are Bolivia, the Maldive Islands, Paraguay, Spain, Togo, the Republic of South Africa, Uruguay, Yemen, and the United States of America.

Senator CLARK. Any idea why Uruguay has not ratified that? I am surprised at that.

Mr. GARDNER. I do not know, Senator. I simply do not know the reason for it. It may be that they have not yet got around to it.

Senator CLARK. They have had some political turmoil down there, and have just adopted a new form of government. That may have something to do with it.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that our membership in this small company of United Nations members who have refused to ratify any human rights treaties has become a major diplomatic embarrassment. Our friends cannot understand it; our adversaries exploit it. It is a costly anachronism which we should liquidate without further delay.

Senator CLARK. If I could interject, Mr. Chairman, who gets blamed? The U.S. Senate, isn't that right? It is certainly not the administration. I said it, you did not. [Laughter.]

Mr. GARDNER. I am glad I was not asked to comment on that, Senator.

I think it reflects in all fairness on the country as a whole.

And speaking as someone who has had the occasion to represent the United States at numerous international conferences during the last few years, I must say I have been unable to find a convincing answer to the simple question, why the United States is unwilling to make an international commitment against human slavery?

NO REASON IN LAW OR POLICY PREVENTING RATIFICATION

Now, finally, Mr. Chairman, I come to the third point, namely that there is no valid reason in law or policy why we should abstain from these treaties. They do not conflict with our Constitution, they do not involve any change in our laws. They deal with matters wholly within the Federal domain and therefore would not alter the balance

of Federal and State powers, and they are proper subjects for the exercise of the treatymaking power. It is on this last point that some questions have been raised.

Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I in turn did a little research on this point to satisfy my feeling further, and I was impressed with the very long tradition of American participation in humanitarian conventions of this kind. I found yesterday this treaty dating from 1862, a treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain for the suppression of the African slave trade. That treaty was entered into in 1862 at a time when slavery still existed in this country. That is 105 years ago, and it is hard for me to understand how we could subscribe to a treaty of this kind 105 years ago when slavery existed in this country and not subscribe to a treaty outlawing slavery and practices of engaging in the slave trade in 1967.

I would like to place this treaty into the record.

Senator DODD. I believe it is already in.

Mr. GARDNER. I see. Thank you.

Senator DODD. Just a minute. Let us accept it anyway. If we have it, we have it, and if it is not, we will put it in.

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you.

Senator DODD. Anyway, it may have been referred to at the hearing we had two weeks ago.

(The treaties referred to follows.)

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN SUPPRESSION OF AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

A PROCLAMATION.

WHEREAS a treaty between the United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries, at the City of Washington, on the seventh day of April last, which treaty is, word for word, as follows:

Treaty between the United States of America and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the Suppression of the African Slave Trade.

The United States of America, and Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being desirous to render more effectual the means hitherto adopted for the suppression of the Slave Trade carried on upon the coast of Africa, have deemed it expedient to conclude a Treaty for that purpose, and have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:

The President of the United States of America, William H. Seward, Secretary of State:

And Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, The Right Honorable Richard Bickerton Pemell Lord Lyons, a Peer of Her United Kingdom, a Knight Grand Cross of Her Most Honorable Order of the Bath, and Her Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States of America;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full-powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following Articles :

ARTICLE I.

The two High Contracting Parties mutually consent that those ships of their respective navies which shall be provided with special Instructions for that purpose, as hereinafter mentioned, may visit such merchant vessels of the two nations as may, upon reasonable grounds, be suspected of being engaged in the African Slave Trade, or of having been fitted out for that purpose; or of having, during the voyage on which they are met by the said cruizers, been engaged