[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 36-37]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      REMOVAL OF INJUNCTION OF SECRECY--TREATY DOCUMENT NO. 106-1

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following 
treaty transmitted to the Senate on January 6, 1999, by the President 
of the United States: The Hague Convention and Hague Protocol, Treaty 
Document No. 106-1.
  I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the 
first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and the 
President's message be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The message of the President is as follows:

To the Senate of the United States:
  I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to 
ratification, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural 
Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Convention) and, for 
accession, the Hague Protocol, concluded on May 14, 1954, and entered 
into force on August 7, 1956. Also enclosed for the information of the 
Senate is the report of the Department of State on the Convention and 
the Hague Protocol.
  I also wish to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for the 
prompt approval of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 
12 August 1949, concluded at Geneva on June 10,

[[Page 37]]

1977 (Protocol II). Protocol II, which deals with noninternational 
armed conflicts, or civil wars, was transmitted to the Senate for 
advice and consent to ratification in 1987 by President Reagan but has 
not been acted upon.


                          the hague convention

  The Convention was signed by the United States on May 14, 1954, the 
same day it was concluded; however, it has not been submitted to the 
Senate for advice and consent to ratification until now.
  The Hague Convention, to which more than 80 countries are party, 
elaborates on obligations contained in earlier treaties. It also 
establishes a regime for special protection of a highly limited 
category of cultural property. It provides both for preparations in 
peacetime for safeguarding cultural property against foreseeable 
effects of armed conflicts, and also for respecting such property in 
time of war or military occupation. In conformity with the customary 
practice of nations, the protection of cultural property is not 
absolute. If cultural property is used for military purposes, or in the 
event of imperative military necessity, the protection afforded by the 
Convention is waived, in accordance with the Convention's terms.
  Further, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural 
property rests with the party controlling that property, to ensure that 
the property is properly identified and that it is not used for an 
unlawful purpose.
  The Hague Protocol, which was concluded on the same day as the 
Convention, but is a separate agreement, contains provisions intended 
to prevent the exportation of cultural property from occupied 
territory. It obligates an occupying power to prevent the exportation 
of cultural property from territory it occupies, requires each party to 
take into its custody cultural property exported contrary to the 
Protocol, and requires parties to return such cultural property at the 
close of hostilities. However, as described in the report of the 
Secretary of State, there are concerns about the acceptability of 
Section I of the Hague Protocol. I therefore recommend that at the time 
of accession, the United States exercise its right under Section III of 
the Hague Protocol to declare that it will not be bound by the 
provisions of Section I.
  The United States signed the Convention on May 14, 1954. Since that 
time, it has been subject to detailed interagency reviews. Based on 
these reviews, I have concluded that the United States should now 
become a party to the Convention and to the Hague Protocol, subject to 
the understandings and declaration contained in the report of the 
Department of State.
  United States military policy and the conduct of operations are 
entirely consistent with the Convention's provisions. In large measure, 
the practices required by the Convention to protect cultural property 
were based upon the practices of U.S. military forces during World War 
II. A number of concerns that resulted in the original decision not to 
submit the Convention for advice and consent have not materialized in 
the decades of experience with the Convention since its entry into 
force. The minor concerns that remain relate to ambiguities in language 
that should be addressed through appropriate understandings, as set 
forth in the report of the Department of State.
  I believe that ratification of the Convention and accession to the 
Protocol will underscore our long commitment, as well as our practice 
in combat, to protect the world's cultural resources.
  I am also mindful of the international process underway for review of 
the Convention. By becoming a party, we will be in a stronger position 
to shape any proposed amendments and help ensure that U.S. interests 
are preserved.
  I recommend, in light of these considerations, that the Senate give 
early and favorable consideration to the Convention and the Protocol 
and give its advice and consent to ratification and accession, subject 
to the understandings and declaration contained in the report of the 
Department of State.


                         protocol ii additional

  In his transmittal message dated January 29, 1987, President Reagan 
requested the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification of 
Protocol II. The Senate, however, did not act on Protocol II. I believe 
the Senate should not renew its consideration of this important law-of-
war agreement.
  Protocol II expands upon the fundamental humanitarian provisions 
contained in the 1949 Geneva Conventions with respect to internal armed 
conflicts. Such internal conflicts have been the source of appalling 
civilian suffering, particularly over the last several decades. 
Protocol II is aimed specifically at ameliorating the suffering of 
victims of such internal conflicts and, in particular, is directed at 
protecting civilians who, as we have witnessed with such horror this 
very decade, all too often find themselves caught in the crossfire of 
such conflicts. Indeed, if Protocol II's fundamental rules were 
observed, many of the worst human tragedies of recent internal armed 
conflicts would have been avoided.
  Because the United States traditionally has held a leadership 
position in matters relating to the law of war, our ratification would 
help give Protocol II the visibility and respect it deserves and would 
enhance efforts to further ameliorate the suffering of war's victims--
especially, in this case, victims of internal armed conflicts.
  I therefore recommend that the Senate renew its consideration of 
Protocol II Additional and give its advice and consent to ratification, 
subject to the understandings and reservations that are described fully 
in the report attached to the original January 29, 1987, transmittal 
message to the Senate.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, January 6, 1999.

                          ____________________