Contributions of other countries and international agencies to relief for Pakistani refugees in India-Continued 14. United Kingdom: CAFOD. Government £1,000,000 (to the UNHCR). 15. Licross: Red Cross Societies of Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Cash. OXFAM and War on Want: 35 tons, mainly tents and 18. UNHCR_ 19. UNICEF: Drugs, food supplements, other supplies and domestic air freight. 41 jeeps 20. World Council of Churches.. 21. World food program: $10,000 2, 430, 600 480, 000 16, 033 48,000 120,000 500, 000 400,000 (1) 37,000 Existing stocks of oil and NFDM turned over to GOI_____ 1, 100, 000 Total..... 2, 000, 000 26, 077, 112 Unknown. Mr. WHALLEY. What are the prospects of aid from the United Nations? Senator KENNEDY. Well, I would think that there would be some positive response. The U.N. High Commissioner is there at the present time. He is well equipped, both by background and interest and experience, in making recommendations. He has significant influence in terms of the U.N. at the present time. At other times, when he has been involved with dislocated peoples, and humanitarian concerns, he has been extremely effective in winning support. I think all nations have the kinds of budgetary problems which we have. The plan that he will submit, I am sure, will be one of considerable interest and of compelling nature. I would think it would receive a favorable response. Mr. WHALLEY. Can the United Nations move fast enough? Senator KENNEDY. This is always a problem. I think this is always a question, even though they have some very talented people in UNICEF and various other specialized agencies-I think some of the most dedicated people in the world. We have seen what they can do in many areas of the world. Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GALLAGHER. Senator, I understand you are wanted back on the Senate floor. Mr. Fulton, do you have any questions? Mr. FULTON. As a visitor to this subcommittee, a long-time friend of the witness, and members of his family, I wanted to be present and compliment him on his excellent statement first. On the deliberations of your subcommittee, at the Senate level, I think it is very wise that the affirmative positions be taken, because historically it has been the Congress that has acted. Senator KENNEDY. That is right. Mr. FULTON. The various administrations through the years, have conformed to the recommendations of Congress in refugee and dis placed persons' problems. So that your coming here today is much to the advantage of these displaced people, and refugees, because first, they have lost their country, secondly, their citizenship, along with their homes, their assets. The majority of these refugees are women and children, are they not? Senator KENNEDY. That is right. Mr. FULTON. The men always fend for themselves, and can better survive these conditions. Senator KENNEDY. That is right. Mr. FULTON. So wouldn't you agree that as these are mostly women and children, therefore there is a double need for quick action? Senator KENNEDY. That is right. Mr. FULTON. One other point I would like to make is this: Senator Javits and I, ever since he was a Congressman, have both been specially interested in refugees and displaced persons. In fact, I was chairman of the original Displaced Person and Refugee Subcommittee of this House Foreign Affairs on which Congressman Javits and I both served, and went to most of the major displaced person and refugee camps in Europe. On our return we had written a subcommittee report on the whole field of volunteer agencies and U.S.-organized charities abroad, so that it was possible to get an overlook of these total activities. I like your suggestion that we get such an overlook in this particular area, but I think such a program should be done in all of Southeast Asia. Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. FULTON. Would you recommend that? Senator KENNEDY. Yes, I think it would be of great value. There are a few of the volunteer agencies that are getting out of Southeast Asia now, Indochina, because they just think that it-it would be worthwhile to know the reasons why, the problems that they face. Mr. FULTON. Well, your action is centering attention, as Mr. Javits and mine did. We were the only Congressmen that went aboard the refugee ship, Exodus, and came back and reported the terrible conditions of the refugees on the Exodus, and in their camps when they were taken off in the Netherlands. This appears to be a matter for special action by the U.S. Congress, making the push and taking the lead. Therefore, I want to say to you that I would be very glad to join with you and your subcommittee as well as Congressman Gallagher's subcommittee on helping on the refugee problem. There is one point further, and that is, on the $2 million initial aid that is promised by the U.S. Department of State. That sounds as if it is the first of a series. Did they give you any idea about the second or supplemental funds or how much they might give? Senator KENNEDY. No, I think that is a good question. I haven't gotten this. I think the administration ought to be able to provide that. Mr. FULTON. I believe we in Congress ought to come up with some sort of an estimate on that. Mr. GALLAGHER. I think we can probably do that. Mr. FULTON. Thank you for sharing your thinking with our members. We are glad to have you here, and you have made a very good presentation. Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy, for your contribution, and for bringing such great understanding to the subcommittee here this afternoon. Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. Mr. GALLAGHER. Our next witness this afternoon is Professor Gidon Gottlieb. Professor Gottlieb is a distinguished professor of international law at New York University, and has studied the legal implications of situations like East Pakistan for many years. Professor Gottlieb, before you begin, I might say that it appears that the East Pakistan region is not the only place where disasters have occurred. You are appearing here with a broken leg and a broken arm. We will go right into discussing East Pakistan. I do, however, want to commend you for surmounting what must be a rather physically painful trip here this afternoon, and we will be very pleased to hear your testimony. STATEMENT OF PROF. GIDON GOTTLIEB, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Mr. GOTTLIEB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted that you are clarifying the reasons for my peculiar appearance today. Indeed, I obtained these injuries and bandages in New York, and not anywhere else. It wasn't such a bad trip, thanks to the tremendously kind assistance I received from the staff of the subcommittee, and I am most grateful for it. Mr. Chairman, reliable reports of "violence to life and person, murder of all kinds, mutilations, cruel treatment and torture" in East Pakistan were followed by the shocking news that the Islamabad Government had refused to allow into East Pakistan emergency assistance to the civilian population made available by the International Committee of the Red Cross. This news was all the more distressing in that it concerns a region already devastated by the worst natural disaster of the century only months earlier and for which a massive program of international assistance had been undertaken. The tragic events in Bengal touch us directly. They involve not only the direct moral responsibility of the United States, but its legal responsibility as well. This responsibility arises under our treaty commitments and is multiplied by our involvement with military and economic aid to the Government of Pakistan. The Pakistan Government has chosen to use some of the aid made available to it in the Bengal civil war-it has thus made us politically at least a party to the events there. So we note the beginning of yet another U.S. involvement in a civil war in Asia just as we are trying to extirpate ourselves from Vietnam. But just as we had been prepared to pour massive military and economic aid into Pakistan it is now asserted that there is little that the United States can do for humanitarian purposes except offer to make assistance available if requested. This offer is made in the knowledge that international relief will most probably be delayed by the Government of Pakistan for a considerable period and that attempts will be made by that Government to channel all relief through its armed forces. The Government of Pakistan has already asserted that events in East Bengal are an internal matter and has denied the right of the international community to intervene in any manner, even for humanitarian purposes, in its domestic affairs. These contentions, Mr. Chairman, are equally unsound: The U.S. Government can do more than merely offer relief to East Pakistan; it can make acceptance of emergency assistance through international humanitarian agencies a condition for renewing and extending loans and economic assistance. The Pakistan Government cannot claim that alleged practices involving violations of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions governing civil wars are a matter essentially within its own domestic jurisdiction. Allow me to elaborate on the second point first. Pakistan is bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war. Parties to the Conventions, including the United States, are not merely themselves required to respect the terms of the Conventions-they are also obligated to insure respect for their terms by other states in all circumstances. This obligation to insure respect for the Conventions includes the provisions of article 3 governing conflicts of a noninternational character. It is no intervention in the domestic affairs of other parties to the Conventions to insist on respect for the minimum terms of article 3. This is because all parties to the Conventions have implicitly agreed under article 1 that it is proper for all states to insure respect for their terms. The combined effects of articles 1 and 3 is to preclude the application of the general principle of international law governing the inadmissibility of intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states. This is the view of Pictet in his authoritative commentary to the Geneva Conventions issued under the authority of the International Committee of the Red Cross which is the internationally recognized guardian of the Conventions. In this commentary he writes that if a state were to violate its obligations, the other high contracting parties are in duty bound by the terms of article 1 to lead that state back to full respect for the Conventions. There is no exception for situations under article 3, that is for civil wars. The sovereignty of a state cannot be more sacred than the international law which constitutes that sovereignty. Where the Geneva Conventions are concerned, parties cannot raise the "no intervention" principle to resist humanitarian measures. The reported massacre “on orders" of the educated elite of Bengal and the generation of more than a million refugees is more than a mere local disturbance. In 1962, a Commission of Experts convened by the ICRC for the study of the 1 Article 1: The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. Article 3: In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: 1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria; to this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: a. Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; b. taking of hostages; c. outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; d. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. 2. The wounded and the sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceeding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict. 63-112-71-3 question of aid to the victims of internal conflicts wrote, "in the Commission's opinion, the existence of an armed conflict, within the meaning of article 3, cannot be denied if the hostile action, directed against the legal government, is of a collective character and consists of a minimum amount of organization." This authoritative statement should not obscure the fact that every party to the Convention has the responsibility to determine for itself whether its terms are faithfully applied. No government can under the Convention arrogate to itself the exclusive right to claim that its provisions are not applicable, since respect for their terms is the lawful concern of all parties. There is little doubt in my opinion that an armed conflict of a noninternational character now exists in East Pakistan and there are reliable reports alleging that the minimum humanitarian rules governing such conflicts have been violated. Mr. Chairman, other arguments could also be advanced to refute Pakistan's argument that the events in its eastern region are an internal matter. Allegations of genocide, if substantiated, as well as of gross and consistent breaches of human rights, would under international law equally override Pakistan's claim that the international community has no right to intervene in the matter. We need not really go into these legal arguments in any detail. Reported incidents on the Indian border, public statements made by the powers and the outpouring of refugees, highlight the potential threat to international peace and security implicit in this situation. Mr. Chairman, let there be no doubt about this: The situation in Pakistan has ceased to be under international law an internal matter for the Government of Pakistan. It cannot shield behind legal norms to resist international humanitarian action; it cannot demand that U.S. policy continue to be one of aiding the Government without providing relief for its victims. II This takes me, Mr. Chairman, to the options facing U.S. policymakers. The political problem for the United States is how to act without stepping into the quicksands of another foreign civil war in Asia. The humanitarian problem is how to get the Pakistan Government to agree to the effective distribution of emergency assistance without delay. The humanitarian problem can be resolved by resolute diplomacy designed to make Pakistan accept international relief from voluntary agencies and from humanitarian agencies under the authority of the United Nations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Children's Fund, which have already contributed much for the cause of human rights in armed conflicts. Mr. GALLAGHER. Professor, I would like to ask you at this point, what evidence do you have that the Government of Pakistan will not accept such relief? Mr. GOTTLIEB. The only evidence that we have, it really was shattering evidence at the time, is, of course, the rejection of Red Cross relief, the fact that the Red Cross plane was turned back. This was at the time an extremely serious thing to see happen. We do not now have further evidence that they are not prepared to accept relief. Indeed, the arrival of the UNICEF representative in Dacca is a most encouraging development. In all these matters, it would be perhaps appropriate to try and secure these agreements |