France. CONVENTION ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN-Continued Date of Receipt of Instrument of Ratification or Accession (a) April 22. 1957 December 28, 1965 (a) December 29, 1953 October 7, 1959 February 12, 1958 January 20, 1955 December 16, 1958 August 14, 1966 (a) February 12, 1964 (a) January 17, 1957 (a) *Declaration that it considers itself bound as from date of independence. POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN CONVENTION-SIGNATORIES AND DULLES' STATEMENT Senator CLARK. I note, Mr. Ambassador, with respect to the Convention on Political Rights of Women, that Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt was our principal negotiator of that convention. I also note that when Mr. John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State, he recommended against its ratification. But when the Kennedy administration took office, President Kennedy sent down to the Senate a recommendation that the Dulles disapproval be rescinded and that the Senate ratify the convention. Can you give us any explanation as to the thinking that led up to that changed point of view? Also your views or those of Mr. Sisco and Mrs. Peterson as to why such countries as, for example, Australia, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom do not appear to have ratified the Convention on the Political Rights of Women. I am a little surprised that this list is significantly smaller than the list of ratifications for the other two conventions. Ambassador GOLDBERG. I will try to answer both questions and, perhaps, if my answers are not adequate my colleagues will contribute. First of all, many of these countries that you last mentioned do not have the equivalent of the 19th amendment to the Constitution. We do, and we have crossed that bridge while some of these countries have not crossed that bridge. You will also notice that some countries, particularly those which do not adhere to a republican form of government, have some problems. Senator CLARK. I note, however, that the Soviet Union has ratified this treaty. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Yes. Some countries have problems because of their royal succession laws in terms of whether women can serve as the head of state, not all, because we have some great members of royalty who are women. Now, it is true that Secretary Dulles indicated to the Congress that he was not proposing and he did not deem it desirable that our country sign conventions, ratify conventions, in the area of human rights. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I have that statement here, and I think it would be well to put it fully in the record to be sure that there is no suggestion left that he was against women. Senator CLARK. Then I should also like to put in the statement of President Kennedy, why he was for it. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Of course, it will be, at the proper time. Senator DODD. Very well. (The documents referred to follow :) STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FOSTER DULLES, SECRETARY OF STATE [EXCERPT] APRIL 6, 1953, BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE * 2. This administration does not intend to sign the Convention on Political Rights of Women. This is not because we do not believe in the equal political status of men and women, or because we shall not seek to promote that equality. Rather it is because we do not believe that this goal can be achieved by treaty coercion or that it constitutes a proper field for exercise of the treatymaking power. We do not now see any clear or necessary relation between the interest and welfare of the United States and the eligibility of women to political office in other nations. These same principles will guide our action in other fields which have been suggested by some as fields for multilateral treaties. * [ Office of the White House Press Secretary, July 22, 1963] (The White House made public today the following letter from the President of the Senate :) Honorable LYNDON B. JOHNSON, JULY 22, 1963. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have today transmitted to the Senate three conventions with a view to receiving advice and consent to ratification. These are: 1. The Supplementary Convention to the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, prepared under the direction of the United Nations in 1956, to which 49 nations are now parties. 2. The Convention on the Abolition of Forced Labor, adopted by the International Labor Organization in 1957, to which 60 nations are now parties. 3. The Convention on the Political Rights of Women, opened for signature by the United Nations in 1953, to which 39 nations are now parties. United States law is, of course, already in conformity with these conventions, and ratification would not require any change in our domestic legislation. ever, the fact that our Constitution already assures us of these rights does not entitle us to stand aloof from documents which project our own heritage on an international scale. The day-to-day unfolding of events makes it ever clearer that our own welfare is interrelated with the rights and freedoms assured the peoples of other nations. How These conventions deal with human rights which may not yet be secure in other countries; they have provided models for the drafters of constitutions and laws in newly independent nations; and they have influenced the policies of governments preparing to accede to them. Thus, they involve current problems in many countries. They will stand as a sharp reminder of world opinion to all who may seek to violate the human rights they define. They also serve as a continuous commitment to respect these rights. There is no society so advanced that it no longer needs periodic recommitment to human rights. The United States cannot afford to renounce responsibility for support of the very fundamentals which distinguish our concept of government from all forms of tyranny. Accordingly, I desire, with the constitutional consent of the Senate, to ratify these Conventions for the United States of America. Sincerely, JOHN F. Kennedy. CHANGES SINCE DULLES' STATEMENT Ambassador GOLDBERG. I think that two things have happened since that time which bear upon the desirability of acting now. One is that there has been a great course of congressional action since then in the human rights field, a great course. There has been congressional action which has been supported by both political parties in the human rights area, and the action which has been taken obviates many of the objections which were mentioned in the statement, Senator Hickenlooper, that you mentioned. There were concerns in that area about federalism and State relations. Now, Congress has acted, asserting congressional power in the civil rights area, for example, and, therefore, I can say to you that nothing in these conventions transcends or requires any legislation on our part. The legislation has been enacted and the Supreme Court of the United States has sustained the congressional legislation in this area. So doubts on that score have now been settled by supervening events. And the second reason is that I think that-and Senator Case can bear me out and others on this committee who have served at the U.N. can bear me out-and that is that the world community has changed since then, and we have to be conscious of developments in the world community in our foreign relations. We try in our foreign relations to follow Thomas Jefferson's great advice, that we must have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. That is one of the foundations of our foreign policy. Human rights is the great concern of the member states of the United Nations, and they have changed dramatically since Secretary Dulles filed his statement. "Great concern" is our own attitude toward human rights. It enters very profoundly in our foreign policy. There perhaps should be a third reason why I should mention that which does not bother the United States but bothers some of the countries, some of the nonsigners that you have mentioned. We are not a colonial power and some are, and they have problems applying these conventions in their territories, whereas with us, our Constitution, whatever territories still remain-and there are very few-our Constitution settled that problem, because our 13th amendment prohibits slavery, involuntary servitude, for example, either existing within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. That would be one instance, for example, of where our Constitution takes care of many problems which colonial countries would have some difficulty in adjusting themselves to. If you look at the history of reservations, for example, in some of these treaties you will find reservations which say, "We sign the treaties for the metropolitan area, we make a reservation," where reservations are permitted, on colonial territories. We in this country have the 15th amendment, which deals with the right of citizens to vote and while that applies to the United States or any State, it is an interesting aspect of our laws where we have territories, that local laws adequately cover this problem in the spirit of our constitutional provision. EXECUTIVE BRANCH POSITION CHANGED ON FORCED LABOR CONVENTION Senator CLARK. Mr. Ambassador, I note that with respect to the convention concerning the abolition of forced labor, which is the only one of the three the Soviet Union has not ratified, on February 9, 1959, the Department of State sent the convention down to the Congress with a note which said: It will be noted that ratification is not deemed appropriate for this convention. I take it that President Kennedy's message of July 22, 1963, changed that position. I wonder if you have any comments as to the reason for change-not at any length, but just very briefly. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Yes. There was great consideration in the executive department of the Government in this area. There was particular concern in the Department which I had the great privilege of leading for a while, the Department of Labor, in this area. Now, in 1963 this was then because of the concern about the right to strike, and the question of whether this convention in any way affected the legal right to strike. There had been reservations about that. Early in President Kennedy's administration an interdepartmental committee was set up, including the Secretary of Labor. I did some work on it when I was Secretary, but the work culminated, as I recall it now, after I was Secretary, and Secretary Wirtz on behalf of the interdepartmental committee sent a letter saying that after reviewing that problem, it was the unanimous conclusion that this in no way affected the legal right to strike. Senator CLARK. Unanimous conclusion of whom? Ambassador GOLDBERG. All departments concerned, including the Department of Labor, and, indeed, Mr. Chairman, this affords me the opportunity of asking Secretary Peterson if she will permit me to read into the record a letter which has just been prepared as of today by the Secretary of Labor. With your permission, I should like to read it. Senator DODD. Yes, go right ahead. Ambassador GOLDBERG. Because it relates to Senator Clark's question. It is addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the subcommittee. May I transmit that to you, Mr. Chairman ? Senator DODD. Yes; it will be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to follows:) HON. THOMAS J. DODD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, February 23, 1967, Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Rights of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR DODD: This refers to the three Human Rights Conventions which are presently under consideration by the Subcommittee: Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Convention for the Abolition of Forced Labor, and the Convention on the Political Rights of Women. The Department of Labor wishes to emphasize its strong support of these Conventions which deal with various human rights assured under the United States constitution and law. Approval of these instruments will demonstrate internationally the United States commitment to these principles. Sincerely, W. WILLARD WIRTZ, Ambassador GOLDBERG. That, I may say, is not new. That was presented by a letter which you will find in your committee files that was part of the submission by President Kennedy which was signed by the Secretary of Labor and on behalf of the interdepartmental committee, and it is dated February 15, 1963. It is contained in Senate Executive K, 88th Congress, first session. It accompanied President Kennedy's message, and it is a letter from the Secretary of Labor indicating review of this by the various departments of the Government and stating what Secretary Wirtz has said in the letter which I just read but at greater length. Senator CLARK. Yes, that letter appears on page 5 of Executive K, July 22, 1963, with a recommendation that it should be approved by the Senate. SENATOR ERVIN'S VIEWS ON CONVENTIONS Senator Ervin, of North Carolina, has expressed some doubts and reservations with respect to all three of these conventions, Mr. Ambassador. I think it might be well if you stated for the record your comments on Senator Ervin's point of view. (The information referred to follows:) Re Convention Concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour. Charlotte, N.C. AUGUST 12, 1966. DEAR GLADYS: The gist of this Convention is set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Certainly, no one can find a valid objection to the provisions of Article 1, which outlaw forced or compulsory labour or the provisions of Article 2, which pledges the nations ratifying the Convention to take steps to make such outlawing effective. |