United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) online

. (page 89 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 89 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


' For President Kennedy's address at American
University, Washington, D.C., on June 10, 1963, see
ibid., July 1, 1963, p. 2.

■* 46 Stat. 2183 and Treaties and Other Interna-
tional Acts Series 3532.

' 49 Stat. 2957.



States, the greatest power in the world,
should build upon these precedents in joining
worthwhile international efforts in the hu-
man rights field.

It is the part of totalitarian states, not that
of a great democratic nation, to shy away
from human rights conventions. They have
reason for difficulty with such conventions.
But I do not conceive that, in light of our
Constitution, we have any reason that is sub-
stantial.

Before I comment specifically upon each
of these agreements, two points are worth
emphasis: first, that the provisions of these
conventions coincide with fundamental rights
already guaranteed by our Federal Constitu-
tion. To find the domestic sources of these
rights, one need look no further than the
1st, 5th, 13th, 14th, and 19th amendments.
There is thus no question of conflict between
the provisions of the conventions and State
law and no possibility of these conventions'
altering the existing balance between the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government and
the jurisdiction of the States. There is noth-
ing in these conventions that is not already
within the ambit of Federal constitutional
protections. There is nothing in these con-
ventions that in any way contravenes any
provision of our Constitution. And there is
nothing in these conventions that in any way
runs counter to the valid enactment of any
State.

Second, it is important to note that each
of the constitutional rights in question either
requires no implementing legislation or has
already been translated into such legislation.
Ratification of these conventions by the
United States would require no domestic laws
other than those we already have.

These two general points will reappear in
my discussion of the contents of each con-
vention.

I shall first deal with the Supplementary
Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the
Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices
Similar to Slavery, which was opened for
signature at Geneva on September 7, 1956.
On January 1, 1967, 68 states were parties
to this convention.



MARCH 27, 1967



525



As its name indicates, the agreement is
supplementary to the earlier convention on
slavery that was concluded in 1926 and rati-
fied by the United States in 1929. Under
article 1 of the present convention, states
parties are to take all practicable and neces-
sary legislative and other measures to bring
about the abolition or abandonment of cer-
tain institutions and practices akin to
slavery, where they still exist. These institu-
tions and practices are: debt bondage, serf-
dom, delivery of children by parents or
guardians to others for purposes of exploita-
tion, involuntary marriage or transfer of
women for a consideration, and transfer of
widows as inherited property. In states
parties where these last practices — relating
to the status of women — still exist, those
states undertake in article 2 to prescribe
suitable minimum ages of marriage, to en-
courage the use of facilities whereby the
consent of both parties to a marriage may
be freely expressed, and to promote the prac-
tice of enregistering marriages. Of course,
article 2 has no application in the United
States, since we have long ago banished the
practices against which the article is aimed.

Other articles of the convention provide
that the slave trade should be prohibited,
that the act of enslaving another person
should be a criminal offense, and that any
slave taking refuge on board a vessel of a
state party to this convention shall be free.

To the ears of Americans, all of these
provisions have a familiar ring. The 13th
amendment to our Constitution, ratified in
1865, abolished slavery as an institution and
gave Congress the power to enforce its terms
by appropriate legislation. Under this au-
thority Congress has enacted a number of
laws, such as the Slave Trade Prohibition
Act (46 U.S.C. 1355) and the Peonage Laws
(18 U.S.C. 1581, 42 U.S.C. 1994), which
proscribe the practices forbidden by the
convention.

The second agreement that I shall briefly
describe, the Convention on the Abolition of
Forced Labor, was adopted by the Interna-



tional Labor Organization in Geneva on June
25, 1957. As of January 1, 1967, 75 states
were parties.

This convention requires ratifying states
to suppress and not to make use of any form
of forced or compulsory labor for certain
specific purposes: namely, as a means of
political coercion or education or as a punish-
ment for holding or expressing particular
social, economic, or political views; as a
means of mobilizing labor for purposes of
economic development; as a means of labor
discipline; as punishment for having par-
ticipated in strikes; or as a means of racial,
social, national, or religious discrimination.
Ratifying states are required to take ef-
fective measures to secure immediate and
complete abolition of these proscribed uses
of force or compulsory labor.

These undertakings are wholly within the
Federal competence and, indeed, are already
contained in our laws. No new legislation is
necessary as a result of ratifying the con-
vention. The use or tolerance of forced labor
by the Government, except as a punishment
for crime, would run squarely into the terms
of our 13th amendment. The use of forced
labor as a punishment for crime would not
be constitutionally permissible in the cases
enumerated in the convention, because the
particular areas in question have the protec-
tion of constitutional guarantees. Thus, a
statute providing for forced labor for violat-
ing an arbitrary rule of racial, social, or
religious discrimination would contravene
the 5th or 14th amendment. Forced labor
imposed as a means of punishing the mere
expression of political views would not be
possible, because any criminal statute pro-
viding for this would run afoul of the first
amendment. Of course, the convention, like
the first amendment, applies only to the
holding or expressing of views. There is
no immunity for those who advocate or
attempt the violent overthrow of the Gov-
ernment.

A word of explanation in regard to the
provisions of the convention relating to labor



526



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



strikes and labor discipline may be in order.
It is apparent from the drafting history that
the agreement was not intended to preclude
the application of penal sanctions for certain
kinds of labor activities. Thus, the conven-
tion would have no application to criminal
sanctions for violations of coui't orders, such
as those commonly issued under the National
Labor Relations Act. Nor would it cast any
doubt on punishments for illegal activities,
for example, assaults, in connection with a
strike. Nor, finally, would the convention ap-
ply to sanctions imposed for having partici-
pated in an illegal strike or for other illegal
labor activities. The convention merely es-
tablishes that forced labor shall not be used
as a punishment for those labor activities
that are the inherent right of men every-
where and that are protected by our own
Constitution and laws.

It is axiomatic that forced labor cannot
be imposed in this country as a result of
labor strikes or activities that are legal.
Forced labor can in no event be tolerated
in the United States except as punishment
for an act that has validly been classified as
criminal.

Parenthetically, you may be interested to
know that the Soviet Union, which has rati-
fied the other two conventions under consid-
eration, has not ratified this one. The concern
of the ILO [International Labor Organiza-
tion] with charges of forced labor in the
Soviet Union is a matter of record.

The third convention, adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in late
1952 and opened for signature in 1953, deals
with the political rights of women. As of
January 1, 1967, there were 51 states parties
to this convention.

Here again, there is no doubt that consti-
tutional guarantees and legislation now in
force already reflect the aims and purport of
the convention. We need no additional laws
to insure that women shall, on equal terms
with men, be entitled to vote in all elections,
be eligible for election to all publicly elected
bodies established by national law, and be en-



titled to hold public office and exercise all
public functions established by national law.

The first of these rights, the right of
women to vote on equal terms with men, is
the precise mandate of the 19th amendment
to our Constitution. The Supreme Court, in
Breedlove v. Stittles (303 U.S. 277, 283
(1937)), has ruled that the amendment "by
its own force supersedes inconsistent meas-
ures whether federal or state." Thus there
can be no question of any divergence in this
country from the standard set out in the
convention.

The other rights provided for in the
agreement relate to publicly elected bodies,
public office, and public functions "estab-
lished by national law." In the United States
the term "national law," as it appears in this
convention can only be taken to mean Fed-
eral law. The history of, and official United
Nations commentary on, the convention fully
support this interpretation of the term.

That the Constitution bars arbitrary dis-
crimination against women in their eligibil-
ity for Federal elected bodies and in their
right to hold Federal office or to exercise
functions in the Federal Government cannot
be doubted. On the other hand, categoriza-
tions dependent upon the natural differences
between women and men are permitted un-
der our Constitution, and I understand such
categorizations to be permissible under the
present convention. Thus, for example, the
history of the convention establishes that
the terms "public office" and "public func-
tions" were not intended to apply to military
service. In voting for the convention, the
United States delegate, Mrs. Eleanor Roose-
velt, stated the understanding of the United
States in this regard, adding that we under-
stood the term "public office" to be cotermi-
nous with "public function." ^

If the Senate were to decide to give its
advice and consent to United States accession
to the convention, it might wish to indicate
its understanding on these two points. Al-



' For backgfround, see Bulletin of Jan. 5, 1953, p.



29.



MARCH 27, 1967



527



though I personally believe that this is not
necessary in light of Mrs. Roosevelt's state-
ment, I would note that President Kennedy
recommended such an understanding when
he submitted the convention to the Senate
in 1963.

As you can see, then, each of these con-
ventions coincides very closely with the ex-
pressed principles and values of the United
States. Each is a simple, forthright docu-
ment aimed at the achievement of a com-
mon international standard on matters of
interest to the international community. And
each is concerned with the eradication of so-
cial abuses that could, and that have at
times, become sources of bitter differences
among the nations. In my view there is no
doubt that these agreements are valid and
proper subjects of the treaty power.

Before concluding, however, I wish to lay
before you several further considerations
that seem to me to indicate the advisability
of United States ratification of these agree-
ments.

The first is that there is a widely shared
view in this country that we should take im-
mediate steps to live up to our public pro-
fessions of interest in the human rights
field. Judging by the expressions of opinion
that have come to the attention of the ad-
ministration, ratification would appear to
fulfill the wishes of the American people.

The second point I want to make is that
now is a particularly appropriate time for
favorable consideration of these conventions.
The General Assembly of the United Nations
has proclaimed 1968 as the International
Year for Human Rights, a year for new
achievements and progress in this most
important of areas of international concern.
In my view we would usher in the Interna-
tional year for Human Rights most felici-
tously by adherence to these conventions. For
in so doing, we would demonstrate that this
nation will not stand aloof from a major
world effort to elevate human rights stand-
ards everywhere.

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly,
there are the tremendous consequences of



our decision whether to ratify these conven-
tions. I do not mean solely the consequences
for the United States, which I have previous-
ly mentioned. I am referring, also, to the
consequences for the conventions themselves,
for their effectiveness, and for the respect
their provisions can command. Without the
support of the United States, these agree-
ments may appear insignificant to many
other countries. If we do not consider it im-
portant to sign the conventions, why should
they? And more importantly, why should
they implement the conventions ?

With United States ratification, on the
other hand, these conventions would have a
new life. In expressing our acceptance and
in faithfully implementing the provisions
of these agreements, we would encourage
states that have thus far withheld adher-
ence to reconsider their position. When there
are departures from the standards that the
conventions lay down, the United States
would be able, as a state party, to exert its
influence to bring about renewed observance
of those standards.

A tremendous impetus would thus be pro-
vided for the worldwide battle for human
rights. And the solemn human rights pro-
visions of the United Nations Charter would
receive some real content. I believe that the
United States, with its profound commit-
ment to the rule of law, can only contemplate
such a prospect with approval.

We are, after all, a nation that stands for
something in world history. "Certain un-
alienable rights" were proclaimed in 1776
as the heritage of "all men" — not just Amer-
icans. Abraham Lincoln said there was
"something in that Declaration giving lib-
erty not alone to the people of this country,
but hope for the world, for all future time."

It is deep in our American character to
believe in it. And the influence of those
brave words of 1776 in country after coun-
try, generation after generation down to our
own day, is solid proof that these ideas are
universal and that they can move men to
action on a very large scale. When such ideas
come to the surface anywhere in the world,



528



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



our national conscience does not allow us to
be indifferent to them.

I would urge your committee to recom-
,mend to the Senate that it advise and con-
sent to all three of the conventions before
you.



President Transmits Fifth Annual
Report of Peace Corps to Congress

Whito House press release (San Antonio, Tex.) dated March 6

To the Congress of the United States:

Of the many efforts undertaken by this
Nation to advance peace, prosperity and
understanding, few have inspired greater
admiration among the people of the world
than the Peace Corps. In five years, it has
?iven new purpose to thousands of Amer-
icans, and new hope to millions abroad.
In 1968 Peace Corps volunteers will:

— -Assist more than 400,000 farmers in
;heir struggle against hunger.

— Help educate more than 700,000 school
children.

— Help train 55,000 teachers.

— Provide health services to more than
iOO,000 persons.

— Help 75,000 men and women help them-
selves through private enterprise.

— Bring greater opportunity to thousands
)f people through community development.

By August 1967 we will have more than
L 6,000 volunteers serving in 53 countries
md one territory. By August 1968 there
vill be more than 19,000 volunteers — nearly
louble the number in 1964 — active in 60
countries.

The Peace Corps has captured the imag-
nation of our youth. Two hundred and ten
chools in 30 nations are operating today
)ecause American students have voluntarily
issisted them under the School Partnership
'rogram which we initiated in 1964. Their
upport, together with the help of Peace
]orps volunteers, and with labor and land



donated by the host country, is providing a
home for learning for a great many children
around the world. We hope to build 500
schools by mid-1967 and at least 1,000
schools in 45 countries by mid-1968.

The Peace Corps has provided an oppor-
tunity for tens of thousands of idealistic
and able Americans, young and old, to serve
their fellow men — with little thought of self
or comfort, and with little recompense other
than the reward of seeing human lives made
better by their efforts.

It is building a growing reserve of capa-
ble and tested citizens devoted to public
service. By 1970, there will be some 50,000
returned volunteers in the United States.
Many of them, directly or after completing
their education, plan to enter Government
service. Some have already returned to train
new volunteers, and others are helping to
administer programs throughout the world.

The Peace Corps produces a high yield
in results, at a low budgetary cost. The num-
ber of volunteers has increased at a much
faster rate than the Peace Corps budget.
Over the years, the average cost of the pro-
gram per volunteer has declined steadily —
from a high of $9,074 in fiscal 1963 to an
estimated $7,400 in 1967.

Today, the Peace Corps idea — the idea of
voluntary public service abroad — is spread-
ing to other countries. Already 18 "Peace
Corps", most of them based on the U.S.
model, have been established by other in-
dustrialized nations. This is testimony, not
only to the soundness of Peace Corps princi-
ples, but also to the living example of Peace
Corps volunteers.

I am pleased to transmit to the Congress
the Fifth Annual Report of the Peace Corps, i
It will be gratifying reading to all who are
interested in this pioneering and humane
endeavor.

Lyndon B. Johnson
The White House, March 6, 1967.



\



ARCH 27, 1967



' Single copies of the report are available upon
request from the Peace Corps, Washington, D.C.,
20525.



529



TREATY INFORMATION



Current Actions



MULTILATERAL

Consular Relations

Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at
Vienna April 24, 1963.'

Accession deposited: Madagascar, February 17,
1967.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

Protocol to the international convention for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (TIAS 2089) relat-
ing to measures of control ;

Protocol to the international convention for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (TIAS 2089) relat-
ing to entry into force of proposals adopted by
the Commission.

Done at Washington November 29, 1965.^
Ratification deposited: Norway, March 9, 1967.

BILATERAL

Cameroon

Agreement relating to investment guaranties. Ef-
fected by exchange of notes at Washington, March
7, 1967. Entered into force March 7, 1967.

India

Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities
under title I of the Agricultural Trade Develop-
ment and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended
(68 Stat. 454; 7 U.S.C. 1701-1709), with annex.
Signed at New Delhi February 20, 1967. Entered
into force February 20, 1967.



' Not in force for the United States.
' Not in force.



Check List of Department of State
Press Releases: March 6-12

Press releases may be obtained from the
Office of News, Department of State, Wash-
ington, D.C., 20520.

Release issued prior to March 6 which ap-
pears in this issue of the Bulletin is No. 43
of March 2.

Subject

Visit of Louis-Lansana Beavogui,
Foreign Minister of Guinea (re-
write).

Rusk: statement on the Outer
Space Treaty before the Senate
Foreigrn Relations Committee.

Macomber sworn in as Assistant
Secretary for Congressional Re-
lations (biographic details).

Braderman: "U.S.-Philippine Re-
lations — Where We Stand To-
day."

U.S. Chiefs of Mission conference,
Baguio, Philippines.

Program for visit of II Kwon
Chung, Prime Minister of
Korea.

SEATO Council of Ministers,
SEATO Military Advisers, and
ANZUS Council to meet in
Washington in April.

Visit of Mohammed Hashim Mai-
wandwal. Prime Minister of
Afghanistan.

Solomon: "Cotton in the World
Trade Arena."

Visit of Cevdet Sunay, President
of Turkey.

Amendment to program for the
visit of the Prime Minister of
Korea.

* Not printed.

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin.



No.


Date


145


3/6


t46


3/7


*47


3/7


t48


3/8


49


3/7


*50


3/8



51 3/8



*52 3/9



t53


3/9


*54


3/10


*55


3/11



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN

The Department of State Bulletin, a
weekly publication issued by the Office of
Media Services, Bureau of Public Affairs,
provides the public and interested agencies
of the Government with information on
developments in the field of foreign rela-
tions and on the work of the Department
of State and the Foreign Service. The
Bulletin includes selected press releases on
foreign policy, issued by the White House
and the Department, and statements and
addresses made by the President and by
the Secretary of State and other officers of



VOL. LVI, NO. 1448 PUBLICATION 8218 MARCH 27, 1967



the Department, as well as special articles
on various phases of international affairs
and the functions of the Department. In-
formation is included concerning treaties
and international agreements to which the
United States is or may become a party
and treaties of general international inter-
est.

Publications of the Department, United
Nations documents, and legislative material
in the field of international relations are
listed currently.

The Bulletin Is for sale by the Super-



intendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.. 20402.
Price: 62 issues, domestic $10, foreign $16 ;
single copy 30 cents.

Use of funds for printing of this publi-
cation approved by the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget (January 11. 1966).

NOTE: Contents of this publication are
not copyrighted and items contained herein
may be reprinted. Citation of the Depart-
ment of State Bulletin as the source will
be appreciated. The Bulletin is indexed in
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature.



530



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



INDEX March 27, 1967 Vol. LVI, No. 1U8



Asia

Ambassador Goldberg Reports on His Trip to

' Asia (transcripts of news conferences) . . . 505

SEATO and ANZUS Councils To Meet in

Washington in April 516

U.S. Mission Chiefs in Asian and Pacific Area

Meet at Baguio (communique) 517

Australia. SEATO and ANZUS Councils To
Meet in Washington in April 516

China. The Great Transition: Tasks of the First
and Second Postwar Generations (Rostow) . 491

iCongress

Human Rights Conventions (Goldberg) . . . 524

President Reviews U.S. Position on Bombing of

North Viet-Nam (letter to Senator Jackson) 514
President Transmits Fifth Annual Report of

Peace Corps to Congress 529

Mr. Roth Named Representative for Trade

Negotiations 523

Department and Foreign Service. U.S. Mission

Chiefs in Asian and Pacific Area Meet at

Baguio (communique) 517

iJeveloping Countries. The Great Transition:
Tasks of the First and Second Postwar Gen-
erations (Rostow) 491

Genomic Affairs

^rom the Iron Curtain to the Open Door
(Humphrey) 486

?he Great Transition: Tasks of the First and
Second Postwar Generations (Rostow) . . . 491

Vhy the United States Should Expand Peace-
ful Trade With Eastern Europe (Solomon) . 518

ilurope

from the Iron Curtain to the Open Door
(Humphrey) 486

'he Great Transition: Tasks of the First and
Second Postwar Generations (Rostow) . . 491

Vhy the United States Should Expand Peaceful
Trade With Eastern Europe (Solomon) . . 518

1 '"oreign Aid. President Transmits Fifth Annual
Report of Peace Corps to Congress .... 529

luman Rights. Human Rights Conventions
(Goldberg) 524



International Organizations and Conferences.

SEATO and ANZUS Councils To Meet in
Washington in April 516

New Zealand. SEATO and ANZUS Councils To
Meet in Washington in April 516

Presidential Documents

President Reviews U.S. Position on Bombing of
North Viet-Nam 514

President Transmits Fifth Annual Report of
Peace Corps to Congress 529

Trade

Mr. Roth Named Representative for Trade Ne-
gotiations 523

Why the United States Should Expand Peace-
ful Trade With Eastern Europe (Solomon) . 518

Treaty Information

Current Actions 530

Human Rights Conventions (Goldberg) . . . 524



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 89 of 90)