STATEMENT OF HON. LESTER L. WOLFF SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE PRESIDENT TO RESUBMIT THE GENEVA PROTOCOL OF 1925 TO THE U.S. SENATE FOR RATIFICATION, NOVEMBER 18, 1969

There is little doubt in most men's minds that the possibility of the use of chemical and biological agents adds a horrifying dimension to the context of waging war. The universal condemnation of the use of such weapons is further justified by the recent assertions from various respected sources as to their limited military effectiveness, and their damaging effect on efforts toward international peace and security. It is unfortunate that until recently Congress has directed so little attention toward these weapons; our awareness of the potential dangers of chemical-biological warfare is made more painfully clear when one reads about the extensive development and stockpiling of chemical-biological agents in the world's already overflowing arsenals. It is not unreasonable to declare that the future of the civilized world could rest on the outcome of endeavors to prevent the use of chemical-biological weapons. It is with this thought in mind, but with no grandiose illusions of offering an easy solution to a complex problem that I have supported and co-sponsored H.R. 504, calling on the President to resubmit the Geneva Protocol of 1925 for prompt Senate approval and subsequent ratification. Such action is essential, if we expect to proceed toward the settlement of so crucial an issue.

But it is not as if we have ignored this question altogether. In 1925, men and nations saw fit to conclude a treaty which prohibited the first use of these insidious weapons in war. The United States was among the leaders who sought such an agreement, and signed it. Yet I regret to say that when the Geneva Protocol of 1925 entered into force in 1928, the United States was not among the nations which had ratified it. And today, the United States and Japan remain the only major industrial powers which have not become parties to the treaty. The fact that the Geneva Protocol is the only major international agreement in force which treats the use of chemical and biological weapons makes this fact all the more disturbing.

The United States has taken the position that it observes the principles and objectives of the Geneva Protocol. Despite the fact that we did not ratify it in 1925, several Presidents and representatives in international negotiations have not hesitated to reaffirm our adherence to the principles of the agreement. In 1943, President Roosevelt issued a strong statement in which he declared: I have been loath to believe that any nation, even our present enemies, could or would be willing to loose upon mankind such terrible and inhumane weapons. . . Use of such weapons has been outlawed by the general opinion of civilized mankind. This country has not used them, and I hope that we will never be compelled to use them. I state categorically that we shall under no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first used by our enemies.

Our actions and restraint in both World War II and the Korean War served to strengthen the force of that statement. In 1960, President Eisenhower upheld this policy when it was believed by some that there had been suggestions made to alter it.

More recently we have consistently maintained a position with regard to our aim to observe the principles of the Protocol. In 1966, the United Nations passed a resolution calling on all nations for a pledge of their "strict observance by all States of the principles and objectives" of the Geneva Protocol; the United States co-sponsored and strongly supported this measure. United States failure to ratify the Geneva Protocol was defended by Ambassador Nabrit at that time. He maintained that "whether or by what procedure, States that have not yet done so

should adhere to the Geneva Protocol is for each of them to decide in the light of constitutional and other considerations that may determine their adherence to any international instrument, and particularly one which dates from 1925." Similar arguments were advanced by United States Ambassador William Foster last December, although the United States again supported another resolution which sought steps toward greater control, the first being the Secretary General's report issued in July of this year. The findings of that report, arrived at by men of science and reason, resulted in an overwhelming indictment of chemical and biological agents as having no place among legitimate weapons of war.

The record of our policy, as well as our actions in keeping with that policy, establishes a meaningful rationale on which to base this move toward ratification. How much longer can we continue to voice strong support for the worthy goals of this treaty, and expect these statements to be credible, if we bypass ratification again? The amount of propaganda which our critics in international forums have been able to reap from our inactivity to date has been substantial. And as long as the United States is not a party to the Protocol, we can be assured of more of the same.

In light of our past policy and the negative effect of our neglect of the Geneva Protocol, I find that there are few, if any "constitutional and other considerations that may deter" our adherence to this agreement. Queries to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and to the President himself have been met with promises of a review of national policy, moves which have only served to delay action and thereby weaken the United States position. President Nixon stated in the United Nations on September 16 that we would continue to support arms control measures with regard to chemical and biological warfare. At a time when so much emphasis has been placed on the capacities of nations to destroy each other, and more important, at a time when we might be approaching the most significant negotiations of the nuclear age at Helsinki this week, what better gesture could be made to enhance international trust in our objectives than to meet this challenge, and to take a step toward peace? Ratification of the Geneva Protocol would not only put an end to a needless source of embarrassment and irritation for the United States, but it will greatly serve to strengthen this nation's position in a manner other than, and quite contrary to, a display of military prowess.

Moreover, ratification of the Geneva Protocol by the United States will contribute to those efforts to establish some rein over the terrifying force of these weapons. Some have contended that because of the universal abhorrence of the employment of chemical and biological weapons, there is no need for a formal instrument to enforce an established precept of international law. But the presence of such a feeling has not prevented the steady accumulation of chemicalbiological weapons. As this accumulation is allowed to proceed, we can expect to run increasing risks of the occurrence of full-scale chemical and biological war. I would hope that eventually control over chemical-biological weapons will lead to their elimination from the world's arsenals. But arms control measures take time, and need to be undertaken in an atmosphere of trust in one another's desire for and end to futile competition. Thus, as an important step toward control over chemical-biological weapons, and toward curtailing the arms race, adherence to the Geneva Protocol, especially by a great power such as the United States, cannot help but strengthen the foundations of international law and provide an added incentive to seek an end to an unnecessary source of world tension.

Considering that the development of chemical-bilological agents has contributed an extremely sophisticated weapons system to the vast array of man's monstrous weapons, and the fact that an international agreement toward a sane course has been in existence among most of the great powers for nearly 45 years, I cannot stress enough the urgency of the task under consideration here today. The time is long overdue for this nation to take a positive step toward the control of chemical and biological weapons. I consider ratification of the Geneva Protocol the most logical and expedient course of action toward this goal.

STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY AND SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOR RATIFICATION OF THE GENEVA PROTOCOL, NOVEMBER 20, 1969

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to urge your approval of legislation toward United States ratification of the Geneva Protocol. As a sponsor of House Resolution 439 which declares it the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should submit the Geneva Protocol of 1925 to the Senate for ratification, I strongly support this goal.

The Geneva Protocol commits nations not to initiate use of gas and bacteriological warfare. Ironically, such an agreement among nations was first urged by the United States. Representative Theodore E. Burton, of Ohio, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, led the American delegation to the Geneva Conference for the Control of the International Trade in Arms, Munitions, and Implements of War which met in Switzerland in 1925. Representative Burton proposed an amendment to the convention being considered by the Conference prohibiting the use of gas and bacteriological warfare. An amendment was added and signed by the U.S. Representatives at the Conference. The Senate did not take up ratification of the protocol until a year later, however, and in the interim we are informed that the American chemical industry and the Army Chemical Warfare Service lobbied successfully against it. The protocol was never brought to a vote on the Senate floor, and to this day the Senate has not had an opportunity to vote on it. And now it cannot, until the Geneva Protocol is again submitted by the President. Requesting him to do so is the purpose of the legislation which I support.

While the United States has failed to act on this humane agreement to ban the first use of deadly gas and bacteriological warfare agents, more than 60 other nations-including every other NATO country and every Warsaw Pact nationhave done so.

This year the Congress has acted to control our own testing of these agents. The Senate unanimously approved strict curbs on the testing and transportation of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents and the House approved similar limitations. These provisions, included in the military procurement bill, are now before the President for his signature.

Congress has gone on record expressing strong disapproval of these deadly and obnoxious agents. It is now time for the Executive Branch to respond by taking the next step toward a humane national policy in this field. There is no reason why the United States cannot join the rest of the world's industrial nations in ratifying the Geneva Protocol. This agreement does not prevent our use of such weapons in the event they are first used against us by an enemy. Our failure to guarantee only against first use stands as a threat to potential aggressors, who may be encouraged in times of conflict to use CBW agents first because the United States has not agreed not to itself.

In my opinion we may have already violated the Geneva Protocol by our use of repugnant chemicals like napalm and defoliating agents, and I believe that the President should direct an immediate ban on their use. It is shocking to read accounts of innocent people poisoned, and of birth malformations, resulting from these defoliants which now pollute the Vietnam environment.

By adopting this legislation, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will continue the anti-CBW tradition it has followed for decades. We can do no less for the cause of peace and humanity, and I request with strongest urgency that you approve this resolution.

LETTER AND RESOLUTION FROM THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.

Hon. CLEMENT ZABLOCKI,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

December 19, 1969.

DEAR MR. ZABLOCKI: I have followed with interest the hearings being conducted on the question of chemical and biological weapons by your Subcommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Developments. The National Council of Churches, on the basis of its policy statement on "Defense and Disarmament: New Requirements for Security", adopted a resolution on December 4 on the subject of chemical and biological weapons.

You will note that it commends the President for the initiative he has taken in this area of concern, and calls for the prompt ratification by the Senate of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, but "without crippling reservations and interpretations such as those which would permit continued use of chemical defoilants and of tear gas as an accessory to lethal weapons." It seems that the use of chemical defoilants which deprive segments of the Vietnamese population of the food necessary for life, and the use of tear gas (CS) to flush opponents from cover and into the range of lethal weapons, should both logically fall under the President's rubric of lethal and incapacitating weapons. At least a majority of the present Protocol signatories appear to agree with this interpretation.

I would hope that word of this action by the National Council of Churches would be brought to the attention of your Subcommittee as they pursue the CBW question in their hearings.

Sincerely,

ALLAN M. PARRENT,
Director of Program.

RESOLUTION ON CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

(Based upon General Board Policy Statement "Defense and Disarmament: New Requirements for Security," September 12, 1968)

ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DECEMBER 4, 1969

Whereas the NCCCUSA has previously called for "the strengthening of international revulsion against the production and use of chemical and bacteriological weapons and the development of effective control and verification measures to reinforce international restraints," and

Whereas the use in warfare of chemical and biological weapons is repugnant to the Christian conscience, particularly because of the indiscriminate nature of such weapons, their horrendous effects, and the threat their use would pose for the whole human race, and

Whereas the President of the United States has recently

(a) Reaffirmed the U.S. renunciation of first use of lethal and incapacitating chemical weapons,

(b) Stated his intention to submit to the Senate for ratification the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibiting "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and-the use of bacteriological methods of warfare," (c) Renounced the use of all methods of biological warfare, and (d) Begun steps to dispose of existing stocks of biological weapons,

Therefore be it resolved that the Assembly of the NCCCUSA

1. Commends the president for his initiative in taking a major step toward outlawing chemical and biological warfare and weapons and supports him in his renunciation of the use of such weapons;

2. Recognizes this action as a praiseworthy attempt to find that concurrence between legitimate national interests and the general welfare of the international community for which responsible statesmanship is always seeking;

3. Urges the prompt ratification by the U.S. Senate of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, without crippling reservations or interpretations such as those which would permit continued use of chemical defoliants and of tear gas as an accessory to lethal weapons;

4. Records its opposition to the production, maintenance, or use of all chemical and biological weapons;

5. Encourages the President in his stated intention to dispose of existing stockpiles of biological weapons.