trb@drutx.UUCP (BuckleyTR) (04/03/85)
Note: The following letter was written by me and submitted to the Rocky Mountain News, in Denver, for publication in their Letters to the Editor section - trb. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Editor: The Genocide Convention, a United Nations Treaty once again up for consideration, has never been ratified by the Senate, despite repeated attempts during the last 36 years. Why has there been so much opposition to ratification? After all, who could be FOR genocide? The Convention defines genocide as "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." When it was first offered for consideration before the UN in 1948, the text also condemned the destruction of "political" groups. Yet, because Soviet delegates to the world body objected, this term was deleted. This means that the slaughter of tens of millions of victims of Communism - in some cases entire classes, races, amd religious groupings - would not be punishable under the Genocide terminology because "political" crimes are exempted. U.S. delegates also sought to add the phrase "with the complicity of government" to the definition of the crime of genocide. They reasoned that the horrors of Nazi Germany and various Communist regimes could never have occurred without government force. But, when Soviet delegates objected once again, this matter was also dropped. As a result, the Genocide Convention exempts the only consistent perpetrator of genocide, the Communist governments. Not surprisingly, all Communist governments have approved the measure. And remember, in 1974, former Colorado Senator Peter Dominick stated that the horrors of Nazi Germany's genocide against the Jews are not dealt with by the Convention. The dangers inherent in the Convention become obvious in reading it. The measure prohibits a host of loosely worded crimes such as "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group," "public incitement to commit genocide," and more. Since everyone is a member of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, any alleged harm to another - even "mental harm" - could invite a charge of genocide. So, too, could many exercises of free speech be labeled "incitement to commit genocide." Indeed, even American fighting men could be subject to trial and punishment during a war for killing members of the enemy's military forces, as Article I states that genocide is a crime punishable "whether committed in time of peace or in time of war." The Supreme Court has ruled that a treaty, like this Convention, overrides domestic law, even the Constitution. Any charge of genocide could bring an American citizen up before an international tribunal where his rights under the Constitution are not honored. We cannot and must not ratify this treaty on the basis of "taking a stand against genocide, no matter what the treaty says." Twenty nations that have ratified this Convention have done so only after adding their own declarations, understandings, and other qualifications. Ten other nations have objected even to these reservations. This measure is ambiguous, full of pitfalls, and is a dangerous intrusion on the rights of the American people. It must never be ratified. Thomas R. Buckley ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Buckley AT&T Information Systems ihnp4!drutx!trb (303) 538-3442