[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 19757-19760]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

                                 ______
                                 

                        TREATY DOCUMENT 109-10A

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of 
the following treaty and that it be placed on the Executive Calendar:
  Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and 
relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem, adopted 
at Geneva on December 8, 2005, and signed by the United States on that 
date.
  I further ask unanimous consent that this protocol and those that 
remain in committee be assigned designations of ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' 
respectively to reflect that three protocols were received as part of 
Treaty Document 109-10.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint 
statement with Senator Biden, and accompanying materials, regarding the 
Geneva Protocol III--the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions 
of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional 
Distinctive Emblem--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Joint Statement of Senators Lugar and Biden

       Today, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we 
     have requested that the Committee be discharged from further 
     consideration of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva 
     Conventions of August 12, 1949, and relating to the Adoption 
     of an Additional Distinctive Emblem, which was adopted at 
     Geneva on December 8, 2005, and signed by the United States 
     on that date (Treaty Doc. 109-10A) (``Geneva Protocol III'' 
     or the ``Protocol'').
       The Protocol creates a new distinctive emblem, a Red 
     Crystal, that will serve the same purposes as the Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent emblems. The Red Crystal is a neutral emblem 
     that can be used by governments and national societies that 
     face challenges using the existing emblems or that believe 
     this neutral emblem may offer enhanced protection in certain 
     situations. The Protocol also paved the way for Magen David 
     Adom, Israel's national society, to become a member of the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
       As chairman and ranking member of the Committee, we have 
     reviewed the Protocol, as well as responses provided by the 
     Department of State to written questions that we have 
     submitted on the Protocol. Based on our review, we believe 
     that the Protocol is in the interests of the United States 
     and urge the Senate to act promptly to give advice and 
     consent to ratification of the Protocol. Ratification of the 
     Protocol will reinforce and extend the longstanding and 
     historic leadership of the United States in the law of armed 
     conflict. We support prompt ratification of the Protocol this 
     year, as such action emphasizes the U.S. commitment to the 
     humanitarian objectives of the International Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent Movement and its fundamental principles of 
     universality and neutrality.
       Because the Committee has not formally acted on the 
     Protocol, there is no Committee report. Therefore, in order 
     to assist senators in evaluating the Protocol, we are 
     submitting for the Record a summary prepared by professional 
     staff of the Committee outlining the purpose and background 
     of the Protocol, as well as its key provisions. We also are 
     including the responses from the Department of State to 
     questions that we submitted on the Protocol.

 Staff Summary of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 
    August 12, 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional 
               Distinctive Emblem (Treaty Doc. 109-10A).

                               I. Purpose

       The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 
     12, 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional 
     Distinctive Emblem, was adopted at Geneva on December 8, 
     2005, and signed by the United States on that date (Treaty 
     Doc. 109-10A).
  The Protocol, also referred to as Geneva Protocol III, creates a new 
distinctive emblem, a Red Crystal, in addition to and for the same 
purposes as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent emblems.

                             II. Background

       The 1949 Geneva Conventions provide for the respect and 
     protection of military medical and religious personnel during 
     international armed conflicts. The 1949 Geneva Conventions 
     retained the distinctive emblems as a means of easily 
     identifying and protecting such personnel, their vehicles and 
     their facilities. The Conventions also permit authorized 
     national societies of the High Contracting Parties to the 
     Geneva Conventions to use these emblems in certain 
     circumstances. The Geneva Protocol III creates a new emblem, 
     the Red Crystal, equal in all respects to the existing 
     emblems (Red Cross, Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun), 
     to be used by military medical and religious services and 
     authorized national societies.
       The new distinctive emblem, the Red Crystal, is a neutral 
     emblem that can be used by governments and national societies 
     that face challenges using the existing emblems or that 
     believe that this neutral emblem may offer enhanced 
     protections in certain situations. The United States had 
     urged the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention 
     to conclude a protocol on this issue as an important step 
     towards achieving truly universal membership in the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The text 
     of the Geneva Protocol III was drawn up in October 2000, 
     following discussions within the Joint Working Group 
     established by the Standing Commission of the Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent pursuant to the mandate assigned to it by 
     Resolution 3 of the 27th International Conference of the Red 
     Cross and Red Crescent and subsequent consultations. This 
     draft followed attempts to resolve this issue during the 
     negotiations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and during the 
     negotiations of Protocols I and II in the 1970s. As adopted, 
     the Geneva Protocol III paved the way for Magen David Adom, 
     Israel's national society, to become a member of the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

            III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Agreement

       The key provisions of the Geneva Protocol III establish the 
     new emblem, the Red Crystal, and set forth applicable rules.
       Article 2 establishes the new emblem ``in addition to, and 
     for the same purposes as'' the existing distinctive emblems. 
     It also establishes that the emblems ``shall enjoy equal 
     status'' and that the conditions for use of and respect for 
     the new emblem are identical to those applicable to the 
     existing emblems. Article 2 also authorizes the medical and 
     religious personnel of armed forces of the parties to make 
     temporary use of any of the distinctive emblems (including 
     the Red Crystal) where such use may enhance protection. 
     Article 3 authorizes national societies of parties that 
     decide to use the new emblem to incorporate within it one or 
     more of the existing emblems or ``another emblem which has 
     been in effective use by a High Contracting Party and was the 
     subject of a communication to the other High Contracting 
     Parties and the International Committee of the Red Cross'' 
     prior to December 8, 2005. This Article also authorizes a 
     national society that incorporates within the new emblem one 
     of the existing emblems to ``use the designation of that 
     emblem and display it within its national territory.''
       Article 4 authorizes the International Committee of the Red 
     Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red 
     Crescent Societies and their duly authorized personnel to use 
     the new emblem ``in exceptional circumstances and to 
     facilitate their work.'' Article 5 authorizes the medical 
     services and religious personnel participating in operations 
     under the auspices of the United Nations to use one of the 
     distinctive emblems with the agreement of the participating 
     states. Article 6 extends to the new distinctive emblem 
     provisions of the Geneva Conventions and, where applicable, 
     Protocols I and II, regarding ``prevention and repression of 
     misuse'' of the existing distinctive emblems. Parties to 
     Geneva Protocol III are required to take measures ``necessary 
     for the prevention and repression, at all times, of any 
     misuse'' of each of the emblems. Article 6 also allows 
     parties to permit ``prior users'' of the new emblem, or of 
     ``any sign constituting an imitation thereof,'' to continue 
     using such emblem or signs, so long as

[[Page 19758]]

     the emblem or signs do not ``appear, in time of armed 
     conflict to confer protection'' of the Geneva Conventions 
     and, where applicable, Protocols I and II. Prior users, under 
     this provision, must have acquired the rights to use the 
     emblem or signs before December 8, 2005.

                      IV. Implementing Legislation

       The executive branch has submitted proposed legislation to 
     Congress that would provide protection for the new Red 
     Crystal emblem, as well as the existing Red Crescent emblem, 
     consistent with the Geneva Conventions and the Geneva 
     Protocol III. These protections correspond to existing 
     protections in U.S. law, set forth in Title 18 of the United 
     States Code, for the Red Cross emblem. This legislation was 
     referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                      V. Questions for the Record


RESPONSES OF HON. JOHN BELLINGER, III, THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF 
  STATE, TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RICHARD G. 
                                 LUGAR

     Question: If the U.S. chooses to ratify this treaty, what 
         legislation is necessary to implement this Protocol?
       Answer: The Department of State has submitted draft 
     legislation to the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that would provide protections to the Third Protocol (red 
     crystal) distinctive emblem consistent with Article 6 of the 
     Geneva Protocol III. The draft legislation also provides 
     protections to the red crescent distinctive emblem consistent 
     with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Geneva Protocol III. 
     These protections correspond to protections set forth in 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 706 for the red cross.
       Question: How does the Geneva Protocol III serve U.S. 
     foreign policy interests?
       Answer: The Geneva Protocol III serves U.S. foreign policy 
     interests in several ways. First, it lifted an important 
     obstacle to the universality of the International Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent Movement, by adopting a neutral emblem that 
     could be used by any government or national society that face 
     challenges using the existing emblems or that believe that 
     this neutral emblem may offer enhanced protections in certain 
     situations. The adoption of the Protocol made it possible for 
     Israel's national society, Magen David Adom (MDA), to join 
     the Movement after more than fifty years of exclusion. The 
     United States looks to the Movement to deliver humanitarian 
     assistance in response to natural disasters or armed 
     conflict. MDA's exclusion from the Movement meant that the 
     Movement was falling short with respect to one of its 
     fundamental principles--universality--and did not have 
     national societies everywhere operating under its umbrella 
     delivering humanitarian services.
       Second, the new emblem created by the Protocol provides the 
     U.S. military medical and religious personnel and the 
     American Red Cross humanitarian workers with another option 
     in circumstances where we believe that the red cross may not 
     be perceived as a neutral emblem. For example, the U.S. 
     government or the American Red Cross may choose to use the 
     red crystal on an exceptional basis to avoid the appearance 
     of a religious affiliation in an armed conflict involving 
     countries or groups with strong religious ties.
       Third, U.S. ratification of the Protocol will advance the 
     longstanding and historic leadership of the United States in 
     the law of armed conflict, just as our role in urging its 
     adoption did. In addition, it will send an important message 
     of the strength of U.S. support for this issue if the United 
     States Government has ratified the Protocol before it enters 
     into force on January 14, 2007. U.S. ratification of the 
     Protocol emphasizes the commitment of the United States to 
     the humanitarian objectives of the International Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent Movement and the Movement's fundamental 
     principles of universality and neutrality.
       Finally, the adoption of the Protocol and MDA's subsequent 
     admission into the Movement made it possible for the American 
     Red Cross to end its policy of withholding its dues from the 
     International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent 
     Societies (the Federation) in protest of MDA's exclusion. In 
     2005, the American Red Cross entered into default status in 
     the Federation and lost its ability to run for Federation 
     offices as a result of not paying its dues since 2000. After 
     MDA was admitted to the Movement in June 2006, the American 
     Red Cross resumed its dues payments and regained its status 
     as a member in good standing, thus allowing it to play a very 
     constructive role to ensure that the Movement and the 
     Federation are achieving the policy and program goals that 
     serve the American public.
       Question: How do national societies around the world view 
     the adoption of the new emblem? What are their views on its 
     use and potential impact on their security?
       Answer: National societies have consistently supported 
     adoption of the Geneva Protocol III by passing unanimously 
     resolutions at the International Movement's Council of 
     Delegates meetings every two years in support of such a 
     Protocol. Moreover, at the 29th International Conference of 
     the Red Cross and Red Crescent held in June 2006, national 
     societies voted in favor of adopting changes to the 
     Movement's statutes authorizing national societies to use the 
     new emblem for purposes of membership, by a vote of 136 to 
     21, with six abstentions.
       The statements of representatives of national societies to 
     these bodies indicate that they believe having an additional 
     neutral emblem will enhance their ability to perform 
     humanitarian work. We understand that they believe that it 
     should offer their workers greater security in situations 
     where the red cross and red crescent are not seen as neutral 
     emblems, especially in mixed populations or where parties to 
     a conflict differ in religious affiliation. Statements by 
     representatives of national societies that were not in favor 
     of the statutes changes or the previous resolutions generally 
     did not focus on problems using the red crystal emblem per 
     se, but on opposition to the entry of Israel's national 
     society, Magen David Adom, into the International Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent Movement or opposition to the policies of 
     the Government of Israel.
       Question: Which countries have ratified Geneva Protocol 
     III? When does it enter into force? Although consensus was 
     not achieved in adopting Geneva Protocol III, what are the 
     expectations of support for its ratification?
       Answer: As of September 21, 2006, six countries (Bulgaria, 
     Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Philippines, and Switzerland) 
     have ratified the Geneva Protocol III. Article 11 of the 
     Protocol provides that it enters into force six months after 
     two instruments of ratification or accession have been 
     deposited. Accordingly, the Geneva Protocol III enters into 
     force on January 14, 2007, six months after the second 
     instrument of ratification was deposited. For each country 
     ratifying or acceding to the Protocol after the first two, 
     the Geneva Protocol III enters into force six months after 
     the deposit of its instrument of ratification or accession.
       We expect that there will be additional ratifications of 
     the Geneva Protocol III. Twenty-seven countries, including 
     the United States, signed the Protocol on the day of its 
     adoption (December 8, 2005). Since then, another forty-nine 
     countries have signed the Protocol, suggesting continuing 
     strong interest in the Protocol. We expect most countries 
     will follow up by depositing their instruments of 
     ratification after satisfying their domestic requirements for 
     ratification. In addition, we believe the International 
     Committee of the Red Cross will continue to urge countries to 
     become parties to the Geneva Protocol III.
       Question: Is it expected that any countries or their 
     national societies will choose to use the red crystal? Will 
     national societies use the option to incorporate another 
     symbol within the red crystal? Are there concerns that the 
     use of red crystal or the incorporation of other emblems or 
     symbols into the red crystal may create confusion about the 
     personnel, vehicles or facilities using the emblems? Does 
     either the International Committee of the Red Cross or the 
     Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies plan 
     to change to use of the red crystal as its primary emblem?
       Answer: We expect that a number of governments and national 
     societies will choose to use the red crystal on an 
     exceptional basis. In particular, governments and national 
     societies have said that in some current conflict zones, 
     where religion divides the conflicting parties, they may wish 
     to use the red crystal to convey that military medical units 
     and humanitarian workers are neutral and not parties to the 
     conflict. Beyond these circumstances, it is unlikely that 
     many governments or national societies will shift to using 
     the red crystal as their primary emblem. We are not aware of 
     any government currently planning to use the red crystal as 
     its emblem.
       Magen David Adorn has already declared that when it is 
     working outside of Israel, it will use the Red Shield of 
     David inside the red crystal. In certain circumstances, it 
     may choose to use the red crystal alone, if it believes that 
     it will enhance the security of its staff. The American Red 
     Cross has expressed that it would consider using the red 
     crystal overseas on a case-by-case basis, if desirable due to 
     security and operational circumstances.
       We do not believe that incorporating another emblem inside 
     the red crystal will create confusion about the personnel, 
     vehicles or facilities using those emblems. Over time, we 
     believe the public will become more familiar with the red 
     crystal as a symbol in its own right. Moreover, parties to 
     the Geneva Protocol III are required to disseminate the 
     Protocol as widely as possible in their countries so that 
     their armed forces and civilian populations become familiar 
     with the Protocol and the new emblem.
       Neither the ICRC nor the Federation plans at this time to 
     adopt the red crystal as its primary emblem, as noted in a 
     preambular paragraph of the Geneva Protocol III. According to 
     Article 4, they may, however, choose to use the red crystal 
     on an exceptional basis, where circumstances merit and where 
     it will facilitate their work, possibly in regions where the 
     red crystal emblem will underscore their neutrality to the 
     parties to the conflict.
       Question: How will the adoption of the emblem impact the 
     overall International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? Is 
     the

[[Page 19759]]

      emblem likely to be accepted as a symbol of protection and 
     reduce the risk of targeted attack on aid workers?
       Answer: The adoption of the Geneva Protocol III and the 
     establishment of a new emblem significantly impacts the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement by helping 
     it fulfill one of its seven fundamental principles--
     universality. The Movement has been unable to achieve this 
     goal for more than fifty years due to the exclusion of 
     Israel's national society, Magen David Adorn (MDA). MDA's 
     membership in the Movement now improves the ability of the 
     Movement to respond to humanitarian crises in the Middle 
     East, with national societies cooperating on an equal basis.
       Parties to the Geneva Protocol III are required to 
     disseminate the Protocol as widely as possible so that their 
     armed forces and civilian populations become familiar with 
     the Protocol and the new emblem. As a result, we believe that 
     over time parties to a conflict and the public at large will 
     become more familiar with the red crystal. However, the 
     larger phenomenon of targeted attacks on aid workers has 
     diverse causes, many of which will not be addressed by the 
     use of a more neutral emblem. Those who wish to disrupt the 
     provision of humanitarian assistance for political or 
     military goals do not respect the neutrality of humanitarian 
     workers, regardless of whether the humanitarian workers are 
     perceived as neutral or politically or religiously 
     affiliated.
       Ouestion: Will the new emblem increase the protection of 
     aid workers who appear increasingly to come under fire as 
     soft targets, not because of confusion over symbols, but 
     because of perceptions about their political alliance?
       Answer: The new emblem gives the International Red Cross 
     and Red Crescent Movement an important tool that may help it 
     operate in exceptional circumstances. While the red cross is 
     not a religious symbol (but the inversion of the Swiss flag), 
     it has been perceived as a symbol of Christianity in some 
     circumstances. Where the Movement is working with populations 
     of different religions, especially if they are in conflict, 
     the red crystal may be a less divisive symbol that better 
     conveys the neutrality of the Movement. Therefore, we expect 
     that the red crystal will enhance the protection of the 
     Movement's humanitarian workers.
       However, the larger phenomenon of targeted attacks on aid 
     workers has diverse causes, many of which will not be 
     addressed by the use of a more neutral emblem. Those who wish 
     to disrupt the provision of humanitarian assistance for 
     political or military goals do not respect the neutrality of 
     humanitarian workers, regardless of whether the humanitarian 
     workers are perceived as neutral or politically or 
     religiously affiliated.
       Question: The adoption of the Geneva Protocol III and the 
     changes to the Statutes of the International Movement of the 
     Red Cross and Red Crescent were not accomplished by 
     consensus. Was the International Movement damaged in any way 
     because consensus was not achieved?
       Answer: While the negotiations over the Geneva Protocol III 
     and the changes to the International Movement's Statutes were 
     challenging, we believe that the Movement was not damaged by 
     the lack of consensus. In the final session of the 
     International Conference of the International Red Cross and 
     Red Crescent Movement, several delegations acknowledged that, 
     while they might have preferred a modified outcome, this 
     issue had reached closure and the Movement should now move 
     forward with other aspects of its humanitarian work. 
     Moreover, when the components of the Movement met immediately 
     after the International Conference to consider admitting the 
     Magen David Adom and the Palestine Red Crescent Society, they 
     admitted them by unanimous acclamation, without having to 
     submit the issue to a vote. We believe this illustrates that 
     the Movement is united behind the outcome of the 
     International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.


RESPONSES OF HON. JOHN BELLINGER, III, THE LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT OF 
   STATE, TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOSEPH R. 
                               BIDEN, JR.

       Question: As of this date, according to the information 
     available on the Internet site of the International Committee 
     of the Red Cross, there are five states that have ratified 
     the protocol. Why is it important for the Senate to act on 
     this treaty prior to the end of the 109th Congress? Is it 
     expected that the instrument of ratification will be 
     deposited prior to congressional action on the implementing 
     legislation?
       Answer: It is important for the Senate to act on the Geneva 
     Protocol III prior to the end of the 109th Congress to 
     underscore its importance and the high priority the United 
     States Government places on it. Urgent ratification of the 
     Protocol will also advance the longstanding and historic 
     leadership of the United States in the law of armed conflict. 
     The Protocol will enter into force on January 14, 2007. It 
     will send an important message of the strength of U.S. 
     support for this issue if the United States Government has 
     ratified the Protocol before it enters into force. In 
     addition, ratification this year emphasizes the commitment of 
     the United States to the humanitarian objectives of the 
     International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It will 
     also emphasize the U.S. commitment to the Movement's 
     fundamental principles of universality and neutrality.
       We do not expect that the instrument of ratification will 
     be deposited prior to congressional action on the 
     implementing legislation because at this time we are working 
     with the relevant committees and we expect that Congress will 
     take up the implementing legislation in a timely fashion and 
     at the same time as the Senate is considering the Protocol, 
     consistent with the broad public and congressional support 
     for the Geneva Protocol III.
       Question: In ratifying the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the 
     United States entered a reservation to the provisions in the 
     First Geneva Convention with regard to the obligation to make 
     unlawful within the United States the use of the Red Cross 
     emblem, in order to protect certain commercial use in this 
     country.
       a. Is there any prior commercial use of the new emblem in 
     the United States of which the Executive Branch is aware?
       b. Does Article 6(2) provide the United States sufficient 
     latitude to permit such prior use of the new emblem? Please 
     elaborate.
       c. Please provide information from the Patent and Trademark 
     Office about whether there are any trademarks currently 
     registered that are similar to the new emblem (the Red 
     Crystal).
       Answer: The Executive Branch is not aware of any prior 
     commercial use of the new emblem, the red crystal in the 
     United States. Nonetheless, the Geneva Protocol III provides 
     sufficient latitude for the continuation of legitimate prior 
     uses of the new emblem to the extent that they may exist. The 
     International Committee of the Red Cross has registered the 
     red crystal emblem as a trademark (U.S. Registration No. 
     2676576) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office 
     (USPTO). The USPTO has found no other registered trademarks 
     that are confusingly similar to the new emblem.
       Question: In addition to the enforcement powers under the 
     proposed implementing legislation vested in the Attorney 
     General, are there other existing federal statutes relevant 
     to the protection of the Red Cross or the new emblem (the Red 
     Crystal), such as the trademark laws administered by the 
     Patent and Trademark Office or the unfair trade laws 
     administered by the Federal Trade Commission? Please 
     elaborate.
       Answer: While the red cross has specific protections in 
     U.S. law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 706), the red crystal does not have 
     similar specific protections in U.S. law. The proposed 
     legislation would provide specific protections for the red 
     crystal and the red crescent. In certain circumstances, U.S. 
     unfair competition law could provide some possible protection 
     for the Geneva Convention distinctive emblems, including the 
     U.S. Trademark Act contained in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1051 et seq. 
     For example, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052(a) provides a basis for the 
     U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to refuse trademark 
     applications on the grounds that the mark falsely suggests a 
     connection with institutions, beliefs or national symbols. 15 
     U.S. Sec. 1125 provides a civil action against any person who 
     uses a word or symbol in commerce that is likely to deceive 
     as to an affiliation with the commercial activities of 
     another. We believe the proposed legislation submitted to the 
     Congress by the Department of State will adequately prohibit, 
     at all times, use of the red crystal and red crescent that is 
     inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions and its Protocol 
     III.
       Question: Is there a common understanding among the 
     signatories of the term ``in exceptional circumstances and to 
     facilitate their work'' as used in Article 3(3) and Article 
     4?
       Answer: The term ``in exceptional circumstances and to 
     facilitate their work'', as used in Article 3(3) and Article 
     4 of the Geneva Protocol III, was not discussed or debated in 
     detail during the December 2005 diplomatic conference which 
     adopted the Protocol.
       Question: The United States is not a party to the 1977 
     Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I 
     and II). Protocol III includes several references to those 
     Protocols. By ratifying Protocol III, would the United States 
     assume any obligations under the 1977 Protocols?
       Answer: No, by ratifying the Geneva Protocol III, the 
     United States would not undertake any new obligations under 
     Protocols I and II. The references in the Geneva Protocol III 
     to provisions of Protocols I and II include the language 
     ``where applicable''. Thus, a provision of Protocol I or II 
     must be ``applicable'' to a party to the Geneva Protocol III 
     in order to confer an obligation on that party. As noted 
     above, the United States is not a party to Protocol I or II.
       Question: Article 6(1) bars the ``perfidious use'' of the 
     distinctive emblems mentioned in Articles 1 and 2. Is there a 
     common understanding among the signatories of the meaning of 
     this term? Please elaborate.
       Answer: The term ``perfidious use'' in Article 6(1) was not 
     discussed or debated in detail during the December 2005 
     diplomatic conference which adopted the Geneva Protocol III. 
     Nonetheless, perfidy is generally understood to mean an act 
     inviting the confidence

[[Page 19760]]

     of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled 
     to, or obliged to accord protection, under the law of armed 
     conflict, with the intent to betray that confidence.
       Question: Did the U.S. delegation to the negotiating 
     conference make any public statements that relate to the 
     meaning or interpretation of any treaty terms?
       Answer: No, the U.S. delegation did not make any public 
     statements that relate to the meaning or interpretation of 
     any treaty terms during the December 2005 diplomatic 
     conference which adopted the Geneva Protocol III.

                          ____________________