Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

THE GENEVA PROTOCOL OF 1925

BEFORE THE

HEARINGS
Conore.is. Seniete,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.

UNITED STATES SENATE

[ocr errors]

NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

EXECUTIVE J, 91ST CONGRESS, 2D SESSION
THE PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR
OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS, OR OTHER GASES, AND

OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE

MARCH 5, 16, 18, 19, 22, AND 26, 1971
[Although these hearings were held in March 1971, they were not
printed until October 1972 for the reasons stated in the Foreword.]

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

58-743

WASHINGTON : 1972

KE 26

F 1971€

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

J. W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas, Chairman JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama

GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont MIKE MANSFIELD, Montana

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota FRANK CHURCH, Idaho

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

JACOB K. JAVITS, New York GALE W. McGEE, Wyoming

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
WILLIAM B. SPONG, JR., Virginia

CARL MARCY, Chief of Staff
ARTHUR M. KUHL, Chief Clerk

VDU! Qala

FOREWORD

A year and a half ago, in March, 1971, the Committee on Foreign Relations held extensive hearings on the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which the President had resubmitted for the Senate's advice and consent. Following those hearings the Committee expressed to the President its strong support for the objectives of the Protocol but asked the President to reconsider the Administration's interpretation that the Geneva Protocol does not prohibit the use of tear gas and herbicides in warfare.

These views were set forth in a letter which I sent to the President on behalf of the Committee on April 15, 1971. (A copy of this letter appears in the appendix to the hearings on page 432.) In the same letter, the Committee expressed its desire to have available to it before acting on the Protocol several studies then in progress within the Executive Branch relating to the use of herbicides and tear gas in Vietnam and their possible utility in other situations. Our letter also indicated that the Committee would await the President's response before taking further action on the Protocol.

More than 16 months have passed since the Committee wrote to the President. To date we have received no substantive reply. The Committee initially delayed publication of these hearings in the expectation of a response from the Executive Branch which would provide a basis for the resumption of hearings. Because the Committee still has received neither a substantive response to its letter nor any indication that one will be forthcoming, and because the end of the current session of Congress is rapidly approaching, there appears to be no justification for further delay in publishing these hearings.

Since March, 1971, there have been several developments related to the issues raised in the hearings. Despite assurances given by the Secretary of State to the Committee that American military use of herbicides in Vietnam would be phased out, the use of herbicides by American forces has been reduced but not eliminated. Similarly, the use of tear gas, particularly of the potent CS2 form, also continues, both by American and by South Vietnamese forces, the latter being trained and supplied by the Americans. There have also been reports of the use of tear gas by the North Vietnamese, this being the almost inevitable and, indeed, the predicted consequence of our own use of

During this interim period there have also been positive developments relating to the control of chemical and biological weapons. The United States and many other nations have concluded a Convention for the Prohibition of Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons. This treaty was signed in Washington on April 10, 1972, and was submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on August 10, 1972. In addition, discussion has now begun in the U.N. Conference of the Committee on Disarmament at Geneva regarding a chemical weapons convention.

It is unfortunate that while these efforts have been going forward that the Administration has not demonstrated any interest in removing the cloud which it has placed over the Geneva Protocol by virtue of its interpretation regarding tear gas and herbicides. This inflexi

such gas.

(III)

106c72

bility coupled with the fact of our continued use of these agents in Vietnam threatens to undermine the ultimate effectiveness of the new conventions.

The preamble of the Bacteriological Convention reaffirms the significance of the Geneva Protocol as the foundation for subsequent international agreements in this area. Most nations of the world take the view that our use of tear gas and herbicides in Vietnam is contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Protocol. Indeed, the preamble of the Convention specifically notes that the General Assembly "has repeatedly condemned all actions contrary to the principles and objectives” of the Protocol. It is difficult in light of these circumstances to see how the United States adherence to the Convention can be reconciled with the Administration's rejection of the universally accepted interpretation of the Protocol.

In my view it is regrettable that the Executive Branch has ignored the Committee's efforts to resolve the difficulties posed by its interpretation of the Protocol. It is now more important than ever that the Executive Branch come to grips with the question of U.S. adherence to the Protocol in order that this issue not complicate consideration of the Bacteriological Convention.

The Executive Branch studies relating to tear gas and herbicides which the Secretary of State told the Committee were in progress at the time of the 1971 hearings are reported to have been completed. Yet to date none of these studies has been made available to or discussed with the Committee.

Similarly the Executive Branch has ignored the Committee's requests for its comments on two proposals relating to the interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, S. Res, 154 and S. Res. 158, introduced by Senators Humphrey and Brooke in July, 1971. (The texts of these resolutions appear on pages 438 and 436 of the appendix.) While the Committee has not taken a position on these resolutions and could hardly be expected to do so in the face of continued Executive Branch silence, these resolutions do represent constructive efforts to resolve the question of the Protocol's interpretation.

We are hopeful that the appearance of these hearings coupled with the President's submission of the Bacteriological Convention to the Senate will stimulate new interest on the part of the public and the Executive Branch in full U.S. adherence to the Geneva Protocol. It would appear that the only impediment to such progress is the reluctance of the Administration to forego the option to employ tear gas and herbicides in future wars. It is difficult to reconcile this position with our knowledge that their military utility is open to serious question, that their actual use in Vietnam is undermining the restraints inherent in the Geneva Protocol, and that the opprobrium which attaches to their use is nearly universal.

A decision on the part of the Administration to sek ratification of the Geneva Protocol without any special exceptions for the use of herbicides and tear gas in warfare would, in my view, be a constructive act. A renunciation of the option to use these weapons would not adversely affect our national security and, indeed, it would represent the single greatest contribution which our nation could make now to the creation of truly effective and universal barriers against one of the most repugnant of all forms of warfare.

J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman. OCTOBER 3, 1972.

CONTENTS

Page

III

60

183

52

194

264

8

324
267

173
353
158

290

2

261

234

Foreword

Statements by :

Brennan, Dr. Donald G., of the Hudson Institute---

Buergenthal, Thomas, professor of international law, State University,

of New York at Buffalo---

Bundy, McGeorge, president, Ford Foundation..

Bunn, George, professor of law, University of Wisconsin School of

Law

Clark, Hon. Joseph S., president, World Federalists, U.S.A.
Clusen, Mrs. Donald E., chairman, Committee on Environmental Pro-

gram and Projects, League of Women Voters of the United States--
Farley, Philip J., Deputy Director, Arms Control and Disarmament

Agency

Galston, Arthur W., professor of biology, Yale University-
Kanegis, Arthur, American Friends Service Committee.-
McCarthy, Hon. Richard D. Max, former Member of House of Repre-

sentatives
Meselson, Dr. Matthew, professor of biology, Harvard University
Nelson, Hon. Gaylord, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin---
Nutter, Hon. G. Warren, Assistant Secretary of Defense, International

Security Affairs..
Rogers, Hon. William P., Secretary of State--
Sidel, Victor W., chief, Department of Social Medicine, Montefiore,

Hospital, New York, N.Y---
Westing, Arthur H., professor of botany; chairman, Windham College

Biology Department; chairman, Windham College Science Division..

Insertions for the record :

“U.S. Command in Saigon Rejects Pentagon View That Use of Tear

Gas Reduces Civilian Casualties,” article by Robert M. Smith, the

New York Times, September 29, 1969_-

"U.S. Now Uses Tear Gas as Routine War Weapon," article by Ralph

Blumenthal, the New York Times, December 6, 1969_-

Instructions to U.S. Embassies Prior to December 1969 General Assem-

bly vote, Statement by Department of State----

Positions of countries abstaining on 1969 general assembly vote, state-

ment by Department of State..

State Department response to request for information regarding the

extent of damage caused by defoliation.-

Excerpts from transcript of President Nixon's press conference, the

Washington Post, March 5, 1971.--

Use of riot control agents or chemical herbicides in international armed

conflicts, Department of State----

Letter to President Richard Nixon from Senator Jacob K. Javits and

34 other Senators, December 3, 1969_-

State Department responses to questions submitted by Senator Pell---

“Banning Poison Gas and Germ Warfare: Should the United States

Agree?," article by George Bunn, the Wisconsin Law Review (Vol.

1969 : 375, No. 2)---

"Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925," article by R. R. Baxter

and Thomas Buergenthal, from The Control of Chemical and Biolog-

ical Weapons, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New

York, 1971..

Letter to Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird from Senator J. W. Ful-

14

33

bright, February 12, 1971.----

Statement of Senator Gaylord Nelson.--

158

164

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »