Senate Executive Report 107-2 - ANTI-TERRORISM CONVENTIONS

[Senate Executive Report 107-2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Exec. Rpt.
SENATE
1st Session 107-2

======================================================================

ANTI-TERRORISM CONVENTIONS

_______

November 27, 2001.--Ordered to be printed.

_______

Mr. Biden from the Committee on Foreign Relations
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany Treaty Docs. 106-6 and 106-49]

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred
the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings (Treaty Doc. 106-6) and the International Convention
for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (Treaty Doc.
106-49), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
with reservations, understandings, and conditions as indicated
in the resolutions of advice and consent, and recommends that
the Senate give its advice and consent to the ratification
thereof as set forth in this report and the accompanying
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.

CONTENTS

Page
I. Purpose..........................................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Conventions.....................2
IV. Implementing Legislation.........................................4
V. Entry Into Force and Denunciation................................5
VI. Committee Action.................................................5
VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments............................5
VIII.Text of Resolutions of Advice and Consent to Ratification........7

IX. Appendix--Hearing on International Convention for the Suppression
of Terrorist Bombings [Treaty Doc. 106-6]; and International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
[Treaty Doc. 106-49], October 23, 2001..........................11

I. Purpose

These two anti-terrorism conventions address two specific
aspects of terrorist conduct: terrorist bombings and the
financing of terrorism. Their objective is to require the
United States and other States Parties to criminalize such
activities and to cooperate with each other in extraditing or
prosecuting those suspected of such activities.

II. Background

The Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December
15, 1997; signed on behalf of the United States on January 12,
1998; and sent to the Senate for its advice and consent on
September 8, 1999. It has been ratified by more than the
requisite 22 states and entered into force on May 23, 2001. To
date, 58 states have signed the Convention; 45 are parties to
it. The Convention is the result of an initiative by the United
States following such incidents as the 1996 bombing attack on
U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia and bombing attacks by
HAMAS in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9,
1999; signed by the United States on January 10, 2000; and
transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on October
12, 2000. It has not yet been ratified by the requisite 22
states and, as a consequence, it is not in force. To date, 119
nations have signed the Convention; 14 nations have ratified
it. The Convention is the result of a French-led initiative by
the Group of Eight (G-8) that had substantial U.S. input and
support.
There is no one international treaty which addresses all
aspects of terrorism. Rather, over the last three decades the
international system has devised a series of multilateral
treaties focused on specific aspects of terrorist activity. For
example, there are international treaties addressing such acts
as hostage taking, hijacking of aircraft, and violence against
ships.¹ The United States is a party to these and
other treaties. The conventions pending before the Senate are
intended to supplement the existing panoply of treaties
concerning terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, TIAS
11081; Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of
Aircraft, 22 UST 1641, TIAS 7192; Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, S. Treaty Doc.
101-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These conventions generally apply a criminal law model to
the designated offenses, that is, they require the Parties to
the agreement to criminalize certain acts and to either submit
the case for prosecution or extradite alleged offenders to a
country that has jurisdiction to prosecute. The two conventions
before the Senate take the same approach.

III. Summary of Key Provisions of the Conventions

A detailed article-by-article discussion of the two
conventions may be found in the Letters of Submittal from the
Secretary of State to the President, which are reprinted in
full in the respective Senate Treaty Documents. A summary of
the key provisions of the two conventions, many of which are
similar or identical, is set forth below.

1. Definition of covered offenses

Bombing Convention. Defines covered offenses as (1) the
unlawful and intentional delivery, placement, discharge, or
detonation of an explosive or other lethal device in a place of
public use, a government facility, a public transportation
system, or an infrastructure facility, with the intent to cause
death or serious bodily injury or extensive destruction that
likely will result in major economic loss; (2) an attempt to
commit such an offense; and (3) organizing, directing,
participating as an accomplice, or otherwise contributing to
such an offense. (Article 2)
Financing Convention. Defines covered offenses as (1) the
provision or collection of funds ``by any means, directly or
indirectly,'' with the knowledge that they will be used to
carry out (a) a terrorist act within the scope of the treaties
listed in the annex, including the Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, or pertinent treaties that
are subsequently concluded, or (b) any other act intended to
cause harm to a civilian, or any other person not taking an
active part in an armed conflict with the intent of
intimidating a population or compelling a government or
international organization to do or to abstain from doing any
act; (2) an attempt to commit such an offense; and (3)
organizing, directing, participating as an accomplice, or
otherwise contributing to the commission of such an offense.
(Articles 2 and 23)

2. International nexus

Bombing Convention. Excludes from the coverage of the
Convention an offense described in Article 2 committed within a
single state where both the victim and the offender are
nationals of that state and the alleged offender is found in
the territory of that state. (Article 3)
Financing Convention. Excludes from the coverage of the
Convention an offense committed within a single state where the
alleged offender is a national of that state and is present in
the territory of that state, and no other state has the basis
for exercise of jurisdiction under the convention. (Article 3)

3. Criminalization

Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party to establish
the offenses set forth in Article 2 as criminal offenses under
its domestic laws and to impose ``appropriate penalties which
take into account the grave nature of those offences.''
(Article 4)
Financing Convention. Requires each State Party to
establish the offenses set forth in Article 2 as criminal
offenses under its domestic laws, to impose ``appropriate
penalties which take into account the grave nature of those
offences,'' and to ensure that a legal entity organized under
its laws may be held liable--criminally, civilly, or
administratively--when a person responsible for its management
or control has committed a covered offense. (Articles 4 and 5)

4. Jurisdiction

Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party to establish
its jurisdiction over these offenses when an offense is
committed (1) in its territory, (2) on board a vessel flying
its flag or an aircraft registered under its laws, or (3) by
one of its nationals, and when an alleged offender is present
in its territory and is not extradited.
Also permits each State Party to establish its jurisdiction
over these offenses if the offense is committed (1) against one
of its nationals, (2) against one of its facilities abroad, (3)
by a stateless person habitually resident in that State, (4) in
an attempt to coerce that State to do or abstain from doing any
act, or (5) on board an aircraft operated by its government.
(Article 6)
Financing Convention. Requires each State Party to
establish its jurisdiction over these offenses when an offense
is committed (1) in its territory, (2) on board a vessel flying
its flag or an aircraft registered under its laws, or (3) by
one of its nationals, and when an alleged offender is present
in its territory and is not extradited. (Article 7)
Also permits each State Party to establish its jurisdiction
over these offenses when an offense is directed toward or leads
to the commission of a terrorist act (1) in its territory, (2)
against one of its nationals, (3) against one of its facilities
abroad, (4) in an attempt to coerce that State to do or abstain
from doing any act, or when the offense is committed, (5) by a
stateless person habitually resident in that State, or (6) on
board an aircraft operated by its government. (Article 7)

5. Investigation and mutual legal assistance

Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party to
investigate whenever it receives information that an alleged
offender is present in its territory and to ``take the
appropriate measures'' to ensure that person's presence ``for
the purpose of prosecution or extradition.'' Also requires
States Parties to assist one another in any investigation,
including, if necessary, by transferring for purposes of giving
testimony a person already serving a sentence. (Articles 7, 10,
and 13)
Financing Convention. Requires each State Party to
investigate whenever it receives information that an alleged
offender is present in its territory and to ``take the
appropriate measures'' to ensure that person's presence ``for
the purpose of prosecution or extradition.'' Also requires
States Parties to assist one another in any investigation,
including, if necessary, by transferring for purposes of giving
testimony a person already serving a sentence, and provides
that they may not refuse a request for mutual legal assistance
on the ground of bank secrecy. (Articles 9, 12 and 16)

6. Prosecution or extradition

Bombing Convention. Requires each State Party either to
extradite an alleged offender to another State that has
jurisdiction or to prosecute, and to inform other interested
States of both the findings of its investigation and of its
decision whether to submit the case for prosecution or
extradite. (Articles 7 and 8)
Financing Convention. Requires each State Party either to
extradite an alleged offender to another State that has
jurisdiction or to prosecute, and to inform other interested
States of both the findings of its investigation and of its
decision whether to submit the case for prosecution or
extradite. (Article 9 and 10)

IV. Implementing Legislation

In submitting the Conventions, the Executive Branch
indicated that implementing legislation will be necessary in
order for the United States to fulfill its obligations under
the Conventions. The President submitted the proposed
legislation to the Senate on October 25, 2001. The legislation
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

V. Entry Into Force and Denunciation

The provisions on entry into force and denunciation in the
two conventions are identical. Each enters into force thirty
days following the date of the deposit of the twenty-second
instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
For each State ratifying a convention which has already entered
into force, the convention shall enter into force for that
party on the thirtieth day after deposit of the instrument of
ratification.
As stated above, the Convention on the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings has entered into force; the Convention on
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism has not. Thus, if
the United States ratifies the former convention, it will take
effect thirty days after it deposits the instrument of
ratification. If the United States ratifies the latter
convention in the near future, it will take effect thirty days
after twenty-two nations have ratified or approved it.
Any party may denounce the conventions by written
notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The denunciations take effect one year following the date on
which the notification is received by the Secretary-General.

VI. Committee Action

The Committee held a public hearing on the conventions on
October 23, 2001, taking testimony from representatives of the
Departments of State and Justice (a transcript and the
questions and answers for the record may be found in the
appendix to this report). On November 14, 2001, the Committee
considered the conventions and ordered them favorably reported
by voice vote, with the recommendation that the Senate give its
advice and consent to ratification of the conventions, subject
to the reservations, understandings, and conditions in the
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification.

VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments

The Committee recommends that the Senate advise and consent
to the ratification of the International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
The Committee believes that they will fill gaps in
international law by requiring nations to criminalize the acts
of terrorist bombing and financing of terrorism, and to
cooperate with each other in the prosecution of those suspected
of such crimes. In the wake of the barbaric terrorist attacks
on the United States on September 11, the United States is
engaged in a campaign against terrorism on many fronts. These
conventions will provide important tools on the legal and
financial fronts.
The Committee believes the Convention on the Suppression of
Financing of Terrorism is particularly important, because it
will provide a means of attack on the financial bases of the
international terrorist networks. The Convention is not yet in
effect, and to date 14 of the required 22 nations have ratified
it. The Committee urges the Executive Branch to engage in
active diplomacy to persuade other signatories to ratify the
Convention at the earliest possible date.
In presenting the conventions to the Senate, the Clinton
Administration proposed several reservations, understandings,
and declarations. During the Committee hearing, the Executive
Branch witnesses affirmed that the Bush Administration
supported these proposals made by the prior Administration.
With two exceptions, the Committee has included in the
resolutions of advice and consent to ratification the proposals
made by the Executive Branch, with minor modifications made
only for style or sake of clarity. The two exceptions are as
follows.
First, the Committee has not included the proposed
declaration regarding the Convention on the Suppression of
Financing of Terrorism Article 2(2) (relating to the Convention
on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings). Article 2(2) permits
a State Party to declare, when depositing its instrument of
ratification, that it is not a party to a treaty listed in the
annex. The Executive Branch proposed such a declaration with
regard to the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings, in that the United States is not yet a party to that
Convention. Inasmuch as the Committee recommends approval of
both the Convention on Suppression of Financing of Terrorism
and the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings at
this time, this proposed declaration is unnecessary.
Second, the Committee has modified one of the proposed
understandings regarding Article 19 of the Convention on the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The Executive Branch
proposed an understanding related to the second part of Article
19(2) which restated the pertinent text of the article almost
verbatim. The Committee believes it unnecessary, and unwise as
a matter of practice, to restate in an understanding the text
of the proposed treaty. Instead, the Committee has proposed, in
understanding (3), a broader statement regarding the
application of Article 19(2) and a related definition set forth
in Article 1(4). The Committee believes this proposed
understanding provides clarity about the understanding of the
United States of the scope of the Convention with regard to the
official activities of military forces, as well as civilians
supervising such forces, and civilians acting in support of
those forces who are in the formal command structure. As the
text of Article 19 implies, and as the Secretary of State's
letter of submittal indicates, the official activities of State
military forces are already comprehensively governed by other
bodies of international law, such as the laws of war and the
international law of state responsibility.
The Committee has added three conditions to the
resolutions.
The first condition sets forth important principles of
treaty interpretation, which the Senate has reaffirmed on
numerous occasions in the recent past. The condition has been
altered slightly from the text used in the 106th Congress, but
the intent is the same. The condition reaffirms condition (8)
of the ``CFE Flank Document,'' which the Senate approved in
1997. That condition relates to, and includes, the language of
condition (1) of the INF Treaty, approved by the Senate in
1988. The Committee explained the background to, and rationale
for, the original condition in its report on the INF Treaty,
see S. Exec. Rept. No. 15, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., at 87-108
(1988), and gave further elaboration on the meaning of the
condition in its report on the CFE Flank Document. See S. Exec.
Rept. No. 1, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., at 22-24 (1997). In brief,
the condition is designed to set forth elemental principles of
treaty interpretation under our constitutional system. These
principles apply whether the Senate chooses to say so during
consideration of a treaty.
The other two conditions have been approved by the Senate
several times in recent years in consideration of law
enforcement treaties. Condition (2) bars the extradition of any
person by the United States under these conventions to the
International Criminal Court unless the United States becomes a
party to the Court pursuant to the treaty power of the
Constitution. Condition (3) relates to the supremacy of the
U.S. Constitution.

VIII. Text of Resolutions of Advice and Consent to Ratification

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),

SECTION 1. ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST
BOMBINGS, SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION, UNDERSTANDINGS,
AND CONDITIONS.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 15, 1997, and signed on behalf of the United States of
America on January 12, 1998 (Treaty Document 106-6; in this
resolution referred to as the ``Convention''), subject to the
reservation in section 2, the understandings in section 3, and
the conditions in section 4.

SEC. 2. RESERVATION.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the reservation, which shall be included in the
United States instrument of ratification of the Convention,
that--
(a) pursuant to Article 20(2) of the Convention, the
United States of America declares that it does not
consider itself bound by Article 20(1) of the
Convention; and
(b) the United States of America reserves the right
specifically to agree in a particular case to follow
the procedure in Article 20(1) of the Convention or any
other procedure for arbitration.

SEC. 3. UNDERSTANDINGS.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following understandings, which shall be
included in the United States instrument of ratification of the
Convention:
(1) Exclusion from coverage of term ``armed
conflict''.--The United States of America understands
that the term ``armed conflict'' in Article 19(2) of
the Convention does not include internal disturbances
and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts
of violence, and other acts of a similar nature.
(2) Meaning of term ``international humanitarian
law''.--The United States of America understands that
the term ``international humanitarian law'' in Article
19 of the Convention has the same substantive meaning
as the law of war.
(3) Exclusion from coverage of activities by military
forces.--The United States understands that, under
Article 19 and Article 1(4), the Convention does not
apply to--
(A) the military forces of a state in the
exercise of their official duties;
(B) civilians who direct or organize the
official activities of military forces of a
state; or
(C) civilians acting in support of the
official activities of the military forces of a
state, if the civilians are under the formal
command, control, and responsibility of those
forces.

SEC. 4. CONDITIONS.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate reaffirms
condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of
November 19, 1990 (adopted at Vienna on May 31, 1996),
approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997 (relating to
condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988).
(2) Prohibition on extradition to the international
criminal court.--The United States shall not transfer
any person, or consent to the transfer of any person
extradited by the United States, to the International
Criminal Court established by the Statute adopted in
Rome, Italy, on July 17, 1998, unless the Rome Statute
has entered into force for the United States, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, as required
by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution.
(3) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the
Convention requires or authorizes the enactment of
legislation or the taking of any other action by the
United States that is prohibited by the Constitution of
the United States as interpreted by the United States.

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein),

SECTION 1. ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF
TERRORISM, SUBJECT TO A RESERVATION,
UNDERSTANDINGS, AND CONDITIONS.

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
December 9, 1999, and signed on behalf of the United States of
America on January 10, 2000 (Treaty Document 106-49; in this
resolution referred to as the ``Convention''), subject to the
reservation in section 2, the understandings in section 3, and
the conditions in section 4.

SEC. 2. RESERVATION.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the reservation, which shall be included in the
United States instrument of ratification of the Convention,
that--
(a) pursuant to Article 24(2) of the Convention, the
United States of America declares that it does not
consider itself bound by Article 24(1) of the
Convention; and
(b) the United States of America reserves the right
specifically to agree in a particular case to follow
the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24(1) of
the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration.

SEC. 3. UNDERSTANDINGS.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following understandings, which shall be
included in the United States instrument of ratification of the
Convention:
(1) Exclusion of legitimate activities against lawful
targets.--The United States of America understands that
nothing in the Convention precludes any State Party to
the Convention from conducting any legitimate activity
against any lawful target in accordance with the law of
armed conflict.
(2) Meaning of the term ``armed conflict''.--The
United States of America understands that the term
``armed conflict'' in Article 2(1)(b) of the Convention
does not include internal disturbances and tensions,
such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence,
and other acts of a similar nature.

SEC. 4. CONDITIONS.

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Treaty interpretation.--The Senate reaffirms
condition (8) of the resolution of ratification of the
Document Agreed Among the States Parties to the Treaty
on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of
November 19, 1990 (adopted at Vienna on May 31, 1996),
approved by the Senate on May 14, 1997 (relating to
condition (1) of the resolution of ratification of the
INF Treaty, approved by the Senate on May 27, 1988).
(2) Prohibition on extradition to the international
criminal court.--The United States shall not transfer
any person, or consent to the transfer of any person
extradited by the United States, to the International
Criminal Court established by the Statute adopted in
Rome, Italy, on July 17, 1998 unless the Rome Statute
has entered into force for the United States, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, as required
by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States
Constitution.
(3) Supremacy of the constitution.--Nothing in the
Convention requires or authorizes the enactment of
legislation or the taking of any other action by the
United States that is prohibited by the Constitution of
the United States as interpreted by the United States.
IX. Appendix

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST BOMBINGS
[TREATY DOC. 106-6]; AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION
OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM [TREATY DOC. 106-49]

----------

C O N T E N T S

Page

Chertoff, Hon. Michael, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC............... 24
Prepared statement............................................ 25
Kellman, Barry, professor and director, International Weapons
Control Center, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago,
Illinois, statement submitted for the record.................. 43
Taft, Hon. William H., IV, Legal Adviser, Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................ 18
Prepared statement............................................ 21
Taylor, Hon. Francis X., Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
Department of State, Washington, DC........................... 14
Prepared statement............................................ 16

Responses from the Department of State to additional questions for
the record.................................................... 45

____________________________________________________

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in
room S-116, the Capitol, Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Biden, Sarbanes, Kerry, Wellstone, Boxer,
Helms, Lugar, Chafee, Allen, and Brownback.
The Chairman. The hearing will come to order.
I apologize to everyone for the warmth in here.
Everyone is welcome to take off their jackets if they want.
Obviously, I have. We appreciate the witnesses taking the time
to come up today. I will have a brief opening statement and
turn to Senator Helms and then we will get under way.
Today the Foreign Relations Committee considers two
multilateral treaties: the International Convention on the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International
Convention on the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism. After
the barbaric attacks on the United States on September 11, the
United States and the international community have fully
awakened to the threat that terrorism poses to the civilized
world. The world is coming together like never before to
support a broad campaign, led by the United States, against
this threat. The President and Congress have joined to support
a campaign that will be waged on many fronts--diplomatically,
financially, militarily, and law enforcement.
The two Conventions we consider today will provide
important tools on the legal and financial fronts. The
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings, conceived by the United States in the wake of the
bombing attack on U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia in
1996, requires parties to criminalize the act of terrorist
bombing aimed at public or governmental facilities or public
transportation or infrastructure facilities. The International
Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism
requires nations to criminalize the act of collecting or
providing funds with the intention that they will be used to
support acts of international terrorism.
We must make every effort to deprive the terrorists
networks of their financial bases. I caution that we should not
overstate the importance of these treaties. They are unlikely
to provide immediate assistance in the anti-terrorism effort.
Indeed, one of them is not yet in force. Rather, they are
weapons for the long term. They give the President and the
Secretary of State additional tools to hold all nations to
international standards, standards which we will expect them to
embrace and to enforce.
Although the treaties were submitted by President Clinton,
they are fully endorsed by President Bush. The United States
will, I hope, do its part in approving them and do it swiftly
in the coming weeks.
Let me now turn to Senator Helms for any comments he may
have.
Senator Helms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In 1941--and I may be one of the few people in this room
who remembers this--the accepted and effective policy of the
United States was to identify and, if and when necessary,
destroy forces resorting to violence against the American
people. That is how and why the United States and our allies
won World War II. That type of resolve will soon help us defeat
this new enemy, global terrorism.
On September 12, I mentioned that I will do everything in
my power to encourage and supplement the revival of the policy
that once protected innocent Americans, and that is why I asked
the distinguished chairman to schedule this meeting. So members
of the committee, the question for us today is simple: Will
these United Nations treaties today help us find and, when
necessary, defeat the new enemy? Overall, I think the answer is
yes. A worldwide effort is needed to stop the conduct covered
by these treaties, and if the United Nations can help put that
worldwide effort together, then the United States obviously
should not withhold our support.
The Bush administration has expressed great interest in
these two treaties, but the treaties are not without their
flaws and I feel that I must acknowledge that. Neither of them
removes barriers to extradition of terrorist murderers. Neither
of these treaties addresses the obvious fact that many nations
have not even specified that terrorism is a crime, let alone
the financing of terrorism or terrorist bombing itself.
So I am supporting these treaties, but I will ensure in the
resolution of ratification that the treaties do not establish
links to the so-called International Criminal Court established
by the Rome Statute, and that they will not impede U.S. law
enforcement or our national security efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I will end on a note of caution with regard
to U.N. efforts to negotiate further international terrorism
treaties and agreements. Incredibly, there are significant
disagreements within the United Nations as to what constitutes
terrorism. This should cause all of us to pause and consider
whether the more than 180 countries comprising the United
Nations may be incapable of ever agreeing on a suitable
definition.
We should not waste time negotiating a lowest common
denominator in terms of a definition of terrorism for the sake
of universal agreement, because such an effort would instead
undermine the President's campaign to eliminate the global
terrorists organizations.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
It is usually not the practice for opening statements for
everyone, but I see my colleagues that are gathered here. Do
any of you have any comment you would like to make at the
outset of this?
Senator Allen. We just want to learn.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Today we are pleased to hear from three distinguished
public servants. Ambassador Francis Taylor is the State
Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Prior to joining
the State Department, Ambassador Taylor served in the United
States Air Force for three decades, rising to the rank of
brigadier general. General, it is a delight to have you here.
Ambassador Will Taft, not unknown to this committee and
always a welcome witness, is the State Department's Legal
Adviser. Ambassador Taft has served in many important legal and
policy positions in the Federal Government over the past three
decades, including Ambassador to NATO and Deputy Secretary of
Defense.
Michael--I have got to put my glasses on here--Michael
Chertoff--is that correct?
Mr. Chertoff. Correct.
The Chairman [continuing]. Is the Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division, Department of Justice. Mr.
Chertoff previously served as a partner in Latham and Watkins
in New Jersey and was United States Attorney for New Jersey in
the early 1990's.
We are pleased to have all of you here and, General Taylor,
I invite you to begin.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS X. TAYLOR, COORDINATOR FOR
COUNTERTERRORISM, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Foreign
Relations Committee. I want to thank you for scheduling this
hearing so quickly on the two pending counterterrorism
treaties. I have a more detailed statement. With your
permission, I would like to submit that for the record and I
will summarize my comments here.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be entered in the
record.
Mr. Taylor. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
and stress the importance of these treaties on two levels: one,
their role in law enforcement efforts against terrorists; and
two, their place in the multilateral counterterrorism strategy
we are implementing in concert with our traditional NATO, EU,
G-7, and other key foreign governments.
I want to begin by expressing the condolences of the
Department to the families of the thousands of Americans and
citizens of over 80 countries who were killed, injured, or
terrorized by these cruel acts of terror on the 11th of
September. I want to express my admiration and appreciation for
the courageous airline passengers and the thousands of law
enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency service, and
medical personnel, and many others who were involved as they
responded magnificently to save lives and to avert an even
greater tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, the horrific events of September 11 have
reinforced the need for a far-reaching, coordinated approach to
deal with the threat of international terrorism. Military
activities and the television footage may attract the most
attention, but the military operations are but a part of our
campaign against terrorism. The nature of terrorism has been
evolving and so have the efforts of terrorists to conceal their
activities. Therefore, we must use a variety of tools, such as
diplomacy, foreign assistance, multilateral law enforcement,
intelligence cooperation, as well as military action where
appropriate.
These tools, however, must be constantly refined and
coordinated in order to expose terrorists networks, supporters,
whenever and wherever possible, to detect and disrupt their
activities.
These two treaties before you are key elements in this
broad framework of international counterterrorism structure for
the 21st century. The treaties are part of a comprehensive
framework of agreements that obligate nations to criminalize
terrorist conduct. The terrorist bombing and similar attacks
have been a particular scourge in recent years. The United
States has unfortunately been a frequent victim.
In addition to the tragic events of September 11, the 1993
World Trade Center attack, the 1996 attack on the U.S. barracks
at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attack on our
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 2000 attack on
the USS Cole triggered both international condemnation and
multinational cooperation in bringing the perpetrators to
justice.
The earlier attacks against the United States and other
targets prompted the development of the Terrorist Bombings
Convention. The Convention for the Suppression of Financing of
Terrorism is a part of the effort to starve terrorist groups of
their lifeblood, their financial support. The Convention
criminalizes financial support for the terrorist activities of
groups such as al-Qaida. It supplements our existing network of
laws, executive orders, U.N. Security Council resolutions, and
other international efforts to deprive terrorists of the assets
they need to pursue their deadly work.
Ratification of the two Conventions before the Senate is
important to our overall counterterrorism strategy and the
President's campaign against terrorism that has taken shape
since the attacks on the United States on the 11th of
September. We are urging countries to ratify and implement all
12 of the International Terrorism Conventions if they have not
done so already.
Our latest count is that 58 countries have signed and 29
countries have become parties to the Terrorist Bombings
Convention and 58 countries have signed and 4 have become
parties to the Terrorism Financing Convention. Our government
will be better positioned to provide leadership in this regard
once the United States itself ratifies the two Conventions
before the committee today.
We are also encouraging countries all over the world to re-
examine their own laws and strengthen and implement
multilateral and bilateral law enforcement, financial, trade,
and political sanctions against those that finance and
otherwise support terrorists. For example, we and like-minded
countries obtained passage on September 28 of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1373, which requires all U.N. member states
to take steps against financing of terrorist acts and to freeze
all terrorist-linked assets.
Terrorist groups largely raise funds through contributions
via charitable groups, through front companies, and through
criminal activities. The funding also is essential for groups
that operate schools, medical clinics, and other facilities in
order to develop broader support and help attract terrorist
recruits. Some groups, such as Hamas, assure potential suicide
bombers that their families will later receive financial
support.
It is important that people throughout the world understand
that contributions to organizations that have ties to terrorist
groups, even if the organization conducts some charitable
activities, also contribute to the cold-blooded murder
committed by terrorists.
Mr. Chairman, the international conventions and the broader
counterterrorism effort of which they are part underscore the
point that acts of terrorism--terrorist bombings, hijackings of
aircraft, taking of hostages--are crimes regardless of the
motivation. These acts are not acceptable in the civilized
world. They should not be rationalized nor glamorized. They
should be punished. Approval of these two Convention before you
today will help ensure that the perpetrators of these heinous
acts are brought to justice.
There is no single solution to the problem of international
terrorism. We are certain, however, that these legal
instruments before the committee will strengthen our ability to
fight international terrorism. They are powerful new tools that
will complement those already in use domestically and
internationally. Given the serious threat we face, early
ratification is clearly needed.
We very much appreciate the committee's decision to
consider these important treaties and recommend that they
receive advice and consent to ratification at the earliest
date.
If I may, sir, I would like to turn to Mr. Taft, the State
Department Legal Adviser, who will provide additional comments
about the Conventions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Taylor follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ambassador Francis X. Taylor

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for scheduling
in such a timely manner this hearing on the two pending
counterterrorism treaties, the International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify, as I would like to stress
the importance of these treaties on two levels: their role in the law
enforcement efforts against terrorists and their place in the
multilateral counterterrorism strategy we are now implementing in
concert with our traditional NATO, EU and G-7 partners, and other key
foreign governments. With me today is the Department's Legal Adviser,
William H. Taft, IV. Following my statement, Mr. Taft will provide
additional background on the Conventions.
I want to begin by expressing condolences to the families of the
thousands of Americans and citizens of 80 countries who, exactly six
weeks ago, were killed, injured or terrorized by these cruel acts
against humanity. I also want to express my admiration and appreciation
for the courageous airline passengers and the thousands of law
enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency service and medical
personnel and many others who responded so magnificently to save lives
and avert an even greater tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, the horrific events of September 11 have reinforced
the need for a far reaching, coordinated approach to deal with the
threat of international terrorism. Although military activities attract
the most attention, they are a small part of the campaign. Because of
the evolving nature of terrorism and the efforts of terrorists to
conceal their activities, we must use a variety of tools such as
diplomacy, foreign assistance, multilateral law enforcement
cooperation, as well as military actions as appropriate. We will
continue to refine and use these tools in a coordinated manner to
expose terrorists' networks and supporters, wherever and whenever
possible to detect and disrupt their activities.
role of treaties
The two treaties before you, and the other 10 major
counterterrorism conventions, to which the United States is a party,
are key elements in this broad framework of the international
counterterrorism structure for the 21st century.
These treaties are a major component of our international strategy
to develop a comprehensive framework of agreements that obligate
nations to criminalize terrorist conduct, to assist one another in the
investigation and prosecution of these crimes, and to extradite alleged
offenders to another country with jurisdiction or submit the case for
prosecution.
The Terrorist Bombings Convention, which is already in force for
many other countries, is part of the web of 12 treaties already in
place designed to track down and punish those who perpetrate these
heinous violent acts that threaten civilized society.
Terrorist bombings and similar attacks have been a particular
scourge in recent years. The United States has unfortunately been a
frequent victim. In addition to the tragic events of September 11, the
1993 World Trade Center attack, the 1996 attacks on the U.S. Khobar
Towers facility in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 attacks on our embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole,
triggered both international condemnation and multinational cooperation
in bringing perpetrators to justice. The earlier attacks against U.S.
and other targets prompted the development of the Terrorist Bombing
Convention.
the terrorism financing convention
The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
also was developed against a background of our experience with
terrorism. It is part of the effort to starve terrorist groups of their
lifeblood, financial support.
The Convention criminalizes financial support for the terrorist
activities of groups such as al-Qaida and requires parties to the
Convention to cooperate in investigations and prosecutions of such
financing. It will thereby supplement our existing network of laws,
executive orders, UN Security Council resolutions and other
international efforts to deprive terrorists of the assets they need to
pursue their deadly work.
Ratification of the two Conventions before the Senate is important
to our overall counterterrorism strategy and the President's Campaign
against Terrorism that has taken shape since the attacks on the United
States on September 11.
A key part of our diplomatic effort in the campaign is urging
countries to ratify and implement all 12 of the major international
terrorism conventions if they have not done so already. Our latest
information from the United Nations is that 58 countries have signed
and 29 have become parties to the Terrorist Bombings Convention and 58
countries have signed and four have become parties to the Terrorism
Financing Convention. The Bombings Convention has been in force among
other countries since May 2001, and the Financing Convention will enter
into force once 22 countries deposit their instruments of ratification.
Our government will be better positioned to provide leadership in
this regard once the United States itself ratifies these two
Conventions before the Committee today. Every day since September 11,
we see reporting of new interest and actions by other counties on the
treaties.
We also are encouraging countries all over the world to reexamine
their own laws and strengthen them and implement bilateral law
enforcement, financial, trade, and political sanctions against those
that finance or otherwise support terrorists. Great Britain and Greece,
for example, passed tighter counterterrorism laws even before the
September 11 attacks. Other countries are considering doing the same.
These efforts have been very encouraging.
other steps
In the multilateral arena, early ratification of the pending
treaties will also demonstrate the importance both branches of
government attach to the collective international steps against
terrorism.
We are working hard, both with our major western and G-7 allies as
well with the broader world community, to support coordinated and
multilateral efforts. For example, with other countries, we obtained
passage on September 28 of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1373, which
requires all UN Member States to prevent and suppress the financing of
terrorist acts and to freeze all terrorist-linked assets. Even prior to
the passage of UNSCR 1373 we have seen rapid, favorable responses to
our bilateral calls to implement UNSCR 1333 of December 2000, which,
among other things, requires Member States to freeze bin Laden/al-Qaida
assets.
We also propose to utilize the money laundering expertise of
existing entities such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and
the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units and the anti-organized
crime capabilities of the Lyons Group. The G-7 Financial Ministers also
agreed to counterterrorism cooperation at their meeting in Washington
earlier this month.
At the same time, the U.S. has been taking important unilateral
terrorist financing initiatives. President Bush's Executive Order
published on September 24 froze the assets here of 27 terrorist groups
and their supporters associated with al-Qaida. On October 12, 39 more
groups and individuals were added to the Executive Order's annex. The
Administration, meanwhile, has established an interagency task force to
work on these and related financial matters.
Earlier key steps aimed at curbing terrorism fund raising include
the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996,
which you, Mr. Chairman, wearing your Judiciary Committee hat, helped
steer through Congress. This important law makes it a criminal offense
for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to knowingly contribute funds
or other material support to any groups that the Secretary of State
designates as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). On October 5, the
Secretary redesignated 26 FTO's whose two-year designations were due to
expire on October 8. The State Department's Antiterrorism Assistance
(ATA) program, developed a new course to help train foreign officials
in the practical aspects of spotting and curbing terrorism money flows.
These above steps were prompted by the emergence in recent years of
groups that do not depend on state support, but largely raise funds
themselves, through contributions via charitable groups, through front
companies, and through criminal activities. These funds are important
to the terrorist groups in many ways, and not only for directly
financing terrorist attacks. The funding also is essential for groups
that operate schools, medical clinics and other facilities in order to
develop broader support and help attract recruits. Some groups such as
HAMAS assure potential suicide bombers that their families will later
receive financial support.
It is important that people throughout the world understand that
contributions to organizations that have ties to terrorist groups--even
if the organizations conduct some charitable activities--also
contribute to the cold-blooded murder committed by terrorists. I would
like to quote from Section 301 of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.
``(F)oreign terrorist organizations that engage in terrorist activity
are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such
an organization facilitates that conduct.''
early ratification
Mr. Chairman, the international conventions and the broader
counterterrorism efforts of which they are a part, underscore the point
that acts of terrorism--terrorist bombings, hijacking of aircraft,
taking of hostages--are crimes whatever the motivation. These acts are
not acceptable to the civilized world. They should not be rationalized
or glamorized. They should be punished. Approval of the two Conventions
before you today will help ensure that perpetrators of these heinous
acts are brought to justice.
There is no single solution to the problem of international
terrorism. We are certain, however, that these legal instruments before
the Committee will strengthen our ability to fight international
terrorism. They add powerful new tools that will complement those
already in use domestically and internationally. Given the serious
threat we face, early ratification is clearly needed.
We very much appreciate the Committee's decision to consider these
important treaties, and recommend that they receive advice and consent
to ratification at an early date. If I may, I will now turn to Mr.
Taft, the State Department's Legal Adviser, who will provide additional
information about these two Conventions.

The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Taft.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. TAFT IV, LEGAL ADVISER, DEPARTMENT
OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. Taft. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to
appear before you, Senator Helms and the other members of the
committee to testify in support with Ambassador Taylor of
Senate advice and consent to ratification of the International
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism. I have a prepared statement which, if you agree,
I would like to submit for the record and I will summarize.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be placed in the
record.
Mr. Taft. As Ambassador Taylor described in his testimony,
the United States is advancing a broad counterterrorism
strategy that includes several significant multilateral
initiatives. These Conventions on which my office and
Ambassador Taylor's office have worked closely together are
very important components of that counterterrorism strategy.
These two instruments follow the general models of prior
terrorism Conventions that the Senate has considered and
approved in the past and to which the United States is already
a party. The U.N. General Assembly adopted the International
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, commonly
called the Terrorist Bombings Convention, on the 15th of
December, 1997. The United States signed it on January 12,
1998, which was the first day that it was open for signature.
The Convention entered into force in May 2001 when the required
number of parties had ratified it.
The United States initiated the negotiation of this
Convention in July 1996 in the aftermath of the June 1996
bombing attack on U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers
in Dahran, Saudi Arabia, in which 17 U.S. Air Force personnel
were killed. The Convention fills an important gap in
international law by expanding the legal framework for
international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and
extradition of persons who engage in such bombings and similar
attacks.
More specifically, the Convention will create a regime of
universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of
explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against
various defined public places with the intent to kill or cause
serious bodily injury or with the intent to cause extensive
destruction of the public place.
An explosive or lethal device is defined broadly in the
Convention, so that in addition to criminalizing the unlawful
use of bombs and similar explosive devices, the Convention
addresses, for example, the intentional and unlawful release of
chemical and biological devices.
Like earlier Conventions, the new Convention requires
parties to criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses
set forth in the Convention if they have an international
nexus, to extradite or submit for prosecution persons accused
of committing or aiding in the commission of such offenses,
again if they have an international nexus, and to provide one
another assistance in connection with investigations or
criminal or extradition proceedings relating to those offenses.
We recommend that ratification of the Convention be subject
to two proposed understandings and one proposed reservation,
which would be deposited by the United States along with its
instrument of ratification. The two understandings relate to
the exemptions from coverage in article 19 of the Convention
for armed forces during an armed conflict and for military
forces of states at any time.
The first understanding will provide the definitions that
the United States will employ for the terms ``armed conflict''
and ``international humanitarian law,'' which are two phrases
used in article 19 that are not defined in the Convention. So
we think it is a proper caution to define them in our
understanding.
With this understanding, the United States would make
clear: first, that, consistent with the law of armed conflict,
isolated acts of violence, for example by insurgent groups,
that include the elements of the offenses set forth in the
Convention would be encompassed in the scope of the Convention
despite the armed conflict exemption; and second, that for
purposes of this Convention the phrase ``international
humanitarian law'' has the same substantive meaning as the
``law of war.''
The second understanding will constitute a statement by the
United States noting that the Convention does not apply to the
activities of military forces of states. While such an
exclusion might be thought to be implicit in the context of the
Convention, The Convention's negotiators thought it best to
articulate the exclusion in article 19 in light of the
relatively broad nature of the conduct that is described in
article 2, where it is describing the offenses, and the fact
that this conduct overlaps with common and accepted activities
of state military forces.
We recommend that the United States include an
understanding to this effect in its instrument of ratification.
In the reservation, the United States will exercise its
right not to be bound by the binding dispute settlement
provisions of article 21, which is our customary reservation in
our treatment of conventions and which is explicitly provided
for in this Convention if we want to take that reservation.
Now, turning to the International Convention for the
Suppression of Financing of Terrorism, the U.N. General
Assembly adopted this Convention, which is commonly known as
the Terrorism Financing Convention, on December 9, 1999. The
United States signed the Convention on the first day that it
was open for signature, January 10, 2000. The Convention will
enter in force once 22 states deposit their instruments of
ratification. As Ambassador Taylor indicated, just four have
deposited their instruments as of this time.
France initiated the negotiation of this Convention in the
fall of 1998, with strong support and input from the United
States as part of the G-8 initiative to combat terrorist
financing. The Convention fills another important gap in
international law in the same way as the Terrorist Bombings
Convention, by expanding the legal framework for international
cooperation in the investigation, prosecution, and extradition
of persons who engage in financing terrorism.
The Convention provides for states parties to exercise
criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and willful provision
or collection of funds with the intention that they be used or
in the knowledge that they are to be used in order to carry out
certain terrorist acts which are set forth in the Convention.
It requires parties to criminalize, under their domestic laws,
the offenses that are set forth in the Convention if they have
an international nexus, to extradite or submit for prosecution
persons accused of committing or aiding in the commission of
those offenses, again if there is an international nexus, and
to provide assistance to one another in connection with
investigations or criminal or extradition proceedings regarding
such offenses.
The Terrorism Financing Convention is aimed specifically at
cutting off the resources that fuel international terrorism.
Once in force, it will obligate the states parties to it to
criminalize conduct relating to the raising of money and other
assets that support terrorist activities.
As stated in article 2, a person commits an offense under
this Convention if that person ``by any means, directly or
indirectly, unlawfully and willfully provides or collects funds
with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge
that they are to be used to carry out terrorist acts.''
The first category of terrorist acts consists of any act
that constitutes an offense within the scope of one of the nine
counterterrorism conventions previously adopted and listed in
the Convention. The second category includes any other acts
intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian
or to any other person, for example to an off-duty military
officer or enlisted man, not taking an active part in
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the act has
a terrorist purpose.
An act has a terrorist purpose under the Convention when by
its nature or context it is intended to intimidate the
population or to compel a government or international
organization to do something or to not do something. The
offense includes attempts, accomplices, and anyone who
organizes or directs or contributes to the commission of an
offense.
We recommend that ratification of the Terrorism Financing
Convention be subject to a proposed understanding and a
proposed reservation. If for any reason the United States has
not become a party to the Terrorism Bombings Convention before
or simultaneously with the ratification of the Terrorism
Financing Convention, we also recommend a declaration.
The understanding addresses two issues: First, it makes
clear the understanding of the United States that nothing in
the Convention precludes states parties from conducting
legitimate activities against all lawful targets in accordance
with the law of armed conflict. Second, it provides the
definition the United States will employ for the term ``armed
conflict'' as it is used in article 2.1(b), but that term is
not defined in the Convention. This is similar to the point
that we were reflecting in our understanding on the Terrorist
Bombings Convention.
In the reservation the United States shall exercise its
right under article 24.2 not to be bound by the binding dispute
settlement resolutions of article 24.1, just as in the other
convention.
The possible declaration would exercise the right of the
United States not to have the Terrorism Financing Convention's
scope encompass the financing of offenses under the Terrorist
Bombings Convention until we become a party to that Convention,
just to tie the two together.
As noted in the transmittal of these Conventions to the
Senate, implementing legislation will be required before the
United States can become a party. This legislation is being
prepared and will be transmitted to the Congress as soon as
possible.
Mr. Chairman, I reiterate Ambassador Taylor's
recommendation that these important treaties receive the advice
and consent of the Senate to ratification at an early date. I
will be happy to take questions that any of the members of the
committee or you may have, and Assistant Attorney General
Chertoff I think has a statement as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taft follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. William H. Taft IV

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to appear
before you today, following Ambassador Taylor, as the second State
Department witness in support of Senate advice and consent to
ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression
of the Financing of Terrorism.
Sadly, nothing can replace the lives that were lost as a result of
the dreadful events that occurred on September 11. However, instruments
that make our work with other countries more effective can assist in
preventing such tragedies in the future.
As Ambassador Taylor described in his testimony, the United States
is advancing a broad counterterrorism strategy that includes several
significant multilateral initiatives. These Conventions, on which my
office and Ambassador Taylor's office have worked closely together, are
very important components of that counterterrorism strategy.
These two instruments follow the general models of prior terrorism
conventions that the Senate has considered and approved in the past and
to which the United States is already a party, such as the 1970
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the
1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety
of Civil Aviation, the 1979 Convention Against the Taking of Hostages,
and the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings
The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for
the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, commonly called the ``Terrorist
Bombings Convention,'' on December 15, 1997. The United States signed
the Convention on January 12, 1998, the first day it was open for
signature. The Convention entered into force in May 2001.
The United States initiated the negotiation of the Terrorist
Bombings Convention in July 1996 in the aftermath of the June 1996
bombing attack on U.S. military personnel at the Khobar Towers in
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in which seventeen U.S. Air Force personnel were
killed. That attack followed other terrorist attacks in 1995-96
including poison gas attacks in Tokyo's subways; bombing attacks by
HAMAS in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; and a bombing attack by the IRA in
Manchester, England. The Convention fills an important gap in
international law by expanding the legal framework for international
cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of
persons who engage in such bombings and similar attacks.
More specifically, the Convention will create a regime for the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use
of explosives and other lethal devices in, into or against various
defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily
injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public
place. An explosive or other lethal device is defined broadly in
Article 1 as ``(a) an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is
designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury
or substantial material damage; or (b) a weapon or device that is
designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury
or substantial material damage through the release, dissemination or
impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins or similar
substances or radiation or radioactive material.'' Thus, in addition to
criminalizing the unlawful use of bombs and similar explosive devices,
the Convention addresses, for example, the intentional and unlawful
release of chemical and biological devices.
Like earlier similar conventions, the new Convention requires
Parties to criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses set forth
in the Convention, if they have an international nexus; to extradite or
submit for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the
commission of such offenses, if they have an international nexus; and
to provide one another assistance in connection with investigations or
criminal or extradition proceedings in relation to such offenses.
We recommend that ratification of the Convention be subject to two
proposed understandings and one proposed reservation, which would be
deposited by the United States along with its instrument of
ratification of the Convention. The two understandings relate to the
exemptions from coverage in Article 19 of the Convention for armed
forces during an armed conflict and for military forces of states at
any time. The first Understanding will provide the definitions the
United States will employ for the terms ``armed conflict'' and
``international humanitarian law,'' two phrases used in Article 19 that
are not defined in the Convention. With this Understanding, the United
States would make clear, first, that, consistent with the law of armed
conflict, isolated acts of violence, for example by insurgent groups,
that include the elements of the offenses set forth in the Convention
would be encompassed in the scope of the Convention despite the
Convention's ``armed conflict'' exemption and, second, that for
purposes of this Convention the phrase ``international humanitarian
law'' has the same substantive meaning as the law of war. The second
Understanding will constitute a statement by the United States noting
that the Convention does not apply to the activities of military forces
of states. While such an exclusion might be thought to be implicit in
the context of the Convention, the Convention's negotiators thought it
best to articulate the exclusion in Article 19 in light of the
relatively broad nature of the conduct described in Article 2 and the
fact that this conduct overlaps with common and accepted activities of
State military forces. We recommend that the United States include an
Understanding to this effect in its instrument of ratification. In the
Reservation, the United States will exercise its right not to be bound
by the binding dispute settlement provisions of Article 20(1).
international convention for the suppression of the financing of
terrorism
The UN General Assembly adopted a new counterterrorism convention
entitled the International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism, commonly known as the ``Terrorism Financing
Convention,'' on December 9, 1999. The United States signed the
Convention on January 10, 2000, the first day it was open for
signature. The Convention will enter into force once twenty-two states
deposit their instruments of ratification.
France initiated the negotiation of this convention in the Fall of
1998, with strong support and input from the United States, as part of
the Group of Eight Industrialized Nations initiative to combat
terrorist financing. The Convention fills an important gap in
international law by expanding the legal framework for international
cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of
persons who engage in financing terrorism.
The Convention provides for States Parties to exercise criminal
jurisdiction over the unlawful and willful provision or collection of
funds with the intention that they be used or in the knowledge that
they are to be used in order to carry out certain terrorist acts set
forth in the Convention. This new Convention requires Parties to
criminalize under their domestic laws the offenses set forth in the
Convention, if they have an international nexus; to extradite or submit
for prosecution persons accused of committing or aiding in the
commission of such offenses, if they have an international nexus; and
to provide one another assistance in connection with investigations or
criminal or extradition proceedings in relation to such offenses.
The Terrorism Financing Convention is aimed specifically at cutting
off the resources that fuel international terrorism. Once in force, the
Convention will obligate States to criminalize conduct related to the
raising of money and other assets to support terrorist activities.
As stated in Article 2, a person commits an offense ``if that
person, by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully,
provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used
or in the knowledge that they are to be used'' to carry out terrorist
acts. The first category of terrorist acts consists of any act that
constitutes an offense within the scope of one of the nine counter-
terrorism conventions previously adopted and listed in the Annex. The
second category includes any other act intended to cause death or
serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person (e.g., off-
duty military personnel) not taking an active part in hostilities in a
situation of armed conflict, when the act has a terrorist purpose. An
act has a terrorist purpose when, by its nature or context, it is
intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or
international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. The
offense includes ``attempts,'' ``accomplices,'' and anyone who
``organizes or directs,'' or ``contributes'' to the commission of an
offense.
We recommend that ratification of the Terrorism Financing
Convention be subject to a proposed Understanding and a proposed
Reservation. If for any reason the U.S. has not become a party to the
Terrorist Bombings Convention before or simultaneously with the
ratification of the Terrorism Financing Convention, we also recommend a
Declaration. The Understanding addresses two issues. First, it makes
clear the understanding of the United States that nothing in the
Convention precludes States Parties from conducting legitimate
activities against all lawful targets in accordance with the law of
armed conflict. Second, it provides the definition the United States
will employ for the term ``armed conflict'' which is used in Article
2.1(b), but is not defined in the Convention. The Understanding
achieves essentially the same objectives as the two proposed
Understandings regarding the Terrorist Bombings Convention. In the
Reservation, the United States will exercise its right under Article
24.2 not to be bound by the binding dispute settlement provisions of
Article 24.1. The possible Declaration would exercise the right of the
United States under Article 2.2(a) not to have the Terrorism Financing
Convention's scope encompass the financing of offenses under the
Terrorist Bombings Convention until the United States becomes a Party
to the Terrorist Bombings Convention.
As noted in the transmittal of these Conventions to the Senate,
implementing legislation will be required before the United States can
become a party. That legislation is being prepared and will be
transmitted to the Congress as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I reiterate Ambassador Taylor's recommendation that
these important treaties receive advice and consent to ratification at
an early date. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee
may have.

The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chertoff.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ACCOMPANIED BY: MARY
ELLEN WARLOW, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. Chertoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I am going to be brief and, with the permission of
the chairman, I would request that my fuller remarks be made
part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, they will be.
Mr. Chertoff. I am pleased to appear before the committee
and to join my colleagues at the Department of State in urging
that the Senate provide its advice and consent to these two
important anti-terrorism treaties. As the events of September
11th have illustrated gruesomely and dramatically, we are now
confronted with a battle against international terrorism.
Unfolding in our investigation is a complex web of terrorist
cells here, in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, supported by
flows of money around the globe.
In sum, we see a terrorist network that is international in
all respects: in its membership, its financing, its logistics
its intelligence and training, and in its leadership.
This episode also demonstrates the critical importance of
international cooperation in law enforcement, and in this case
I am happy to report that in general we are seeing
unprecedented levels of cooperation from our law enforcement
partners overseas.
The Department of Justice strongly supports these treaties
for a very practical reason: They will strengthen our capacity
to secure cooperation in our investigations and prosecutions,
whether in providing the foundation for the return of fugitives
or in creating international obligations to furnish evidence.
The Bombings Convention reaches the most horrific of
terrorist acts, bombings and uses of weapons of mass
destruction in public places and against infrastructure and
transportation systems. The Financing Convention recognizes
that providing money and materiel to terrorists is in itself a
serious crime and one that all nations must address. Those who
knowingly fund organizations which wreak murder and mayhem must
be held accountable and we must have the tools to disrupt and
block terrorist funding that so easily moves around the globe.
The bombing and financing conventions will significantly
strengthen the network of anti-terrorism treaties built over
the last 30 years. The United States has used these instruments
and used them successfully in concrete cases, sometimes as part
of an arsenal of formal legal tools and sometimes as important
diplomatic and political leverage, but always with the same
aim--getting the evidence and bringing terrorists to justice.
For these reasons, the Department of Justice joins the
Department of State in strongly supporting prompt approval by
the Senate of these two new anti-terrorism treaties. I would be
happy to respond to any questions the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chertoff follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Chertoff

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
today to endorse the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate to the
ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression
of the Financing of Terrorism. In the view of the Department of
Justice, both instruments are critical to the efforts of the United
States to prevent, deter and combat terrorist acts. As the
investigation of the tragic events of September 11th has so graphically
demonstrated, it is imperative to effectively penetrate and thwart the
global reach and network of terrorist activity. These Conventions serve
our vital law enforcement and national security interests by
establishing important mechanisms to secure the cooperation of our
international partners in the fight against terrorism.
Both the Convention on Terrorist Bombings and Convention on
Terrorism Financing have unique features representing important
advances on the international front to address the complex and
difficult issue of terrorism. As a general matter, these instruments
serve to strengthen the international norm against terrorism and
reinforce the international community's intolerance for, and
condemnation of, terrorist acts and their financing. Each Convention
explicitly recognizes that there is no justification, no rationale that
will excuse the commission of terrorist acts or the financing or
support of such acts.
A primary objective of both Conventions is to close the
jurisdictional net around offenders by effectively denying them safe
haven. Both Conventions require that States Parties establish
jurisdiction over persons found in their territory who have engaged in
the prohibited activities, where those activities have an international
nexus, and either to extradite the offender to a State that has
jurisdiction or, if they do not do so, to submit the case for
prosecution, regardless of whether the State Party otherwise has any
connection to the offense or offender.
Such ``extradite or prosecute'' provisions are historically
reserved for acts universally condemned. These provisions represent the
core obligation of States Parties to the Terrorist Bombings and
Terrorism Financing Conventions. In establishing such regimes, the
Conventions seek to bring to justice those who commit terrorist
bombings or finance or provide support for terrorist acts, wherever
they are found.
From a law enforcement perspective, the nature and breadth of the
offenses covered by these instruments are of particular note.
Importantly, the offenses, as well as the jurisdictional and the
extradite or prosecute obligations of these instruments, encompass not
only those who commit the prohibited acts, but those who attempt or
conspire to commit such acts, or participate as accomplices in those
acts.
In addition, the type of offenses addressed by these Conventions
are core terrorism offenses. The Terrorism Financing Convention
addresses a common element of every terrorist act--financing and other
support. The Terrorist Bombings Convention addresses the most utilized
form of terrorism, the bombing of public places, state or government
facilities, public transportation systems or infrastructure facilities,
with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury. The United
States and its citizens have repeatedly been victims of such attacks,
most recently, of course, in the horrific attacks of September 11th,
where the hijacked planes were employed as explosive and incendiary
devices against places utilized by members of the government and the
public and with the intent to cause death. As such, events such as the
September 11th attacks fall within the coverage of the Terrorist
Bombings Convention, as would the 1998 bombings of our embassies in
Tanzania and Kenya. Although the domestic regimes of most States,
including the United States, have long-established penal provisions to
address attacks by conventional means, the Terrorist Bombings
Convention breaks important ground in forging an international
framework for cooperation in preventing, detecting and bringing to
justice those who plan or participate in such bombings.
Moreover, the framework of cooperation established by the Terrorist
Bombings Convention applies to a wide range of terrorist offenses. Any
person commits an offense within the meaning of the Convention if that
person delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other
lethal device in, into or against government facilities or public
places. The public places covered by the Convention are defined broadly
and include public transportation systems and infrastructure
facilities.
The Terrorist Bombings Convention also fills important gaps in the
existing international regime relating to non-conventional weapons. The
Convention encompasses attacks committed with biological weapons, and
hence supplements the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; the
instrument also covers attacks in public places when chemical weapons
are utilized, and thus supplements the regime established by the 1997
Chemical Weapons Convention. Finally, the Terrorist Bombings Convention
addresses radiological devices, as well as nuclear devices, and thereby
effectively supplements the 1987 Convention on the Physical Protection
of Nuclear Materials. In light of increasing information and
intelligence relating to terrorist interest in the development of non-
conventional weapons of mass destruction, the coverage of the Terrorist
Bombings Convention as it pertains to biological, chemical and
radiological weapons is particularly important.
The nature of the offenses covered by the Terrorism Financing
Convention also bears special mention. The Department of Justice has
committed significant efforts to combating the financing and support of
terrorist acts. We have worked within the law enforcement community
domestically, as well as within such international fora as the Group of
Eight, the Financial Action Task Force, the Organization of American
States and others, to establish investigative and financial mechanisms
to aid in the detection and rooting out of financial crime, including
improvements to bank regulations and record-retention that will
facilitate international efforts to eliminate terrorist financing and
support. We are gratified that, through the Terrorism Financing
Convention, the international community at large recognizes the vital
importance of choking the financial lifeline of terrorists. This
instrument also embodies the important recognition that the financiers
of terrorist acts, including those who provide assets of any kind, are
as reprehensible as those who commit the terrorist acts themselves, and
treats them as seriously.
The Terrorist Financing Convention requires States Parties to
implement penal legislation to address terrorist financing and other
support. Such domestic laws do not currently exist in many countries.
The definition of the offenses covered by Article 2 is formulated
expansively to capture both the direct and indirect collection and
provision of financing and other support. The offenses include
financing that is provided in full or in part for terrorist acts. In
addition, the Convention includes a broad definition relating to the
meaning of financing and embraces ``assets of every kind, whether
tangible or intangible'' and ``legal documents or instruments in any
form.'' Considering the many ways to provide financial support to
terrorists, and the misuse of charitable institutions in particular in
such financing, these provisions have particular importance.
The offense provision of the Terrorism Financing Convention applies
to the financing of terrorist acts addressed through existing terrorism
treaties, arguably covered previously by the accessory provisions in at
least some of those instruments, but now explicitly addressed in this
new instrument. In addition, the offense provision covers the financing
of any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a
civilian, or to a military member outside of active participation in
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the circumstances
indicate that the act was undertaken for a terrorist purpose. In this
way, the Terrorism Financing Convention broadly addresses the financing
of acts of terrorism.
There are provisions common to both Conventions that represent
advances in establishing international cooperative measures in the
terrorism area. For example, the Terrorist Bombings Convention is the
first terrorism treaty expressly to preclude States Parties or
individuals from resisting an extradition or mutual legal assistance
request by claiming that the offense was connected with a political
offence or inspired by political motives. Considering the political
rationales that are often claimed as the motivation for terrorist acts,
this provision represents an important recognition on the part of the
international community that no justification exists for such heinous
acts as the bombing of public places. This important provision is
carried through in the Terrorism Financing Convention.
Both instruments include additional provisions designed to enhance
the extradition regime applicable to these offenses. These provisions
effectively amend existing extradition treaties to add as extraditable
offenses the terrorist bombing and financing offenses covered by the
Conventions. They also require States to undertake to include those
offenses as extraditable offenses in every extradition treaty
subsequently concluded by them. In addition, if a State Party's
domestic law allows, it may extradite for the covered offenses even
where a bilateral treaty is not in place with the State seeking
extradition. These are just a few of the provisions included in these
Conventions that serve to establish an effective international
framework of cooperation to counter terrorist acts and their financing.
The Terrorism Financing Convention also includes several unique and
important provisions designed to address the complexities inherent in
investigations and prosecutions relating to terrorist financing.
Article 5, for example, addresses corporate liability. It requires
States Parties to take necessary measures to enable a legal entity
located in its territory or organized under its laws to be held liable
(through criminal, civil or administrative measures) when a person
responsible for the management or control of that legal entity has, in
that capacity, committed the offense of terrorism financing. This
provision recognizes that corporate entities, particularly financial
and charitable institutions, are often knowingly exploited to finance
or aid in the financing of terrorist groups.
Article 13 is intended to break down barriers encountered in the
past when States have shielded individuals or information on the
grounds that the offense was fiscal in nature. Article 13 precludes
States Parties from invoking such a claim to resist a request for
extradition or mutual legal assistance.
Article 12, paragraph 2, is an equally vital provision aimed at
enhancing the ability to obtain information from other States Parties
necessary to the effective investigation and prosecution of terrorist
financing. As we have seen most recently in the wake of the September
11 attacks, the trail of terrorist financing, particularly in this
technological age, quickly crosses State borders and often winds and
twists, sometimes electronically, through several national systems.
Historically, some States have hid behind the cloak of bank secrecy in
refusing to yield information relating to terrorist financing. This
provision precludes States Parties from invoking bank secrecy to refuse
a request for mutual legal assistance. As such, it is an extremely
useful provision in the investigation of terrorist financing offenses.
Article 18 seeks to address a systemic problem inherent in
detecting and tracing transactions involved in supporting terrorist
acts or groups. These tasks are currently immeasurably more difficult,
because many States do not have domestic financial regulations in place
which alert law enforcement authorities to suspicious financial
transactions and trends. Even if such States were otherwise willing to
cooperate in the effort to stop such financial flows into and through
their financial institutions, they do not always have the
infrastructure in place to meaningfully provide such cooperation.
Article 18 seeks to push States to adopt such measures and
infrastructure. That Article encourages States Parties, among other
things, to implement measures to identify customers of financial
institutions, to prohibit the opening of accounts by unidentified or
unidentifiable holders or beneficiaries, and to identify and report to
competent authorities unusual or suspicious transactions or financial
patterns. Other helpful measures in this Article relate to cooperation
among States Parties in financial investigations in the rapid exchange
of relevant information. Combined, the provisions precluding claims of
fiscal offense and bank secrecy, and the affirmative obligations
relating to cooperation generally and the expeditious sharing of
financial information in particular, are all designed to bring down
existing barriers to effectively detecting, preventing and
investigating terrorist financing.
The Terrorist Bombings Convention and Terrorism Financing
Convention are critical instruments in our efforts to effectively
detect, prevent and bring to justice those who commit and support
terrorist acts. The Department of Justice strongly recommends that
these Conventions receive the Senate's advice and consent to
ratification.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
be happy to respond to any questions that you may have.

The Chairman. Thank you very much, General and colleagues.
We appreciate your testimony. It is straight and to the point.
The staff has asked me to inform my colleagues here that,
for the information of the members, tomorrow there will be
another hearing in this room at 10:30 a.m. We will hear several
African ambassadorial nominees. That hearing will be presided
over by Senator Feingold.
Also, the committee will have a coffee meeting for British
Foreign Minister Jack Straw tomorrow at 4:15 in this room. We
are trying to work out and trying to work it with everyone's
schedules, a meeting with Shimon Peres, who is in town. We were
going to--to make a long story short, the President has
contacted the ranking member, myself, and others I suspect, as
well as Shimon Peres, to set up meetings with each of us and
him separately, which has knocked off our whole schedule.
So we are trying very hard to see if we can rearrange a
coffee, a meeting with Peres here in this room. We are looking
at 5:15, but that is not settled. We will just keep you all
informed.
Senator Brownback. Is that 5:15 tomorrow?
The Chairman. No, 5:15 today.
Senator Brownback. Is that on, Joe?
The Chairman. That is not on yet. In other words, we are
juggling schedules because the President has asked Peres to
change his schedule slightly and has called some of the
committee members down as well today, which messed the whole
arrangement up. We are trying to reconfigure the schedule. I
just wanted everybody to know.
Senator Allen. So in effect it is off?
The Chairman. No. It is off at the--we were going to have
it at 2 o'clock. He, Shimon Peres, cannot do it at 2 o'clock.
He was able to do it at 3:30, but the President asked me and
the ranking member to come down to the White House at 3:30, so
we could not do it at 3:30. Now we are shooting for 5:15 today.
We are waiting to hear back from Mr. Peres to determine whether
he is able to do it at 5:15. If he is able to, we will notify
all the members.
I just wanted to give you a little alert. I probably
confused you more than I helped you, and I apologize.
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, could you repeat the times for
tomorrow?
The Chairman. The times for tomorrow are 10:30 for the
African ambassadorial hearings and for the British Foreign
Minister, 4:15 in this room.
Senator Lugar. Tomorrow?
The Chairman. Tomorrow. Both those are tomorrow. The only
other thing that may occur today is Shimon Peres if we can work
it out, and we are looking at 5:15 right now.
Let me get a couple of housekeeping things out of the way
if I may, General. When the Clinton administration submitted
these Conventions, it recommended that the Senate approve a
handful of reservations and understandings. I think Will has
spoken to those. I want to make sure we are talking about one
and the same reservations. What you testified to, Will, related
to the reservations and understandings in the resolution of
ratification. Are they one and the same with the ones that the
Clinton administration had put forward?
Mr. Taft. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they are the same
understandings and the same reservation and declaration.
The Chairman. I just do not want to------
Mr. Taft. They were in the letter in the submission to the
Senate.
The Chairman. Yes, I was quite sure that was the case, but
I just do not want to------
Mr. Taft. Yes, they relate to the exact same subject.
The Chairman. The exact same subject.
Now, another quick housekeeping question. A few years ago,
a State Department witness sat where you all are sitting and
urged us to adopt a particular reservation which applied to the
Defense Department in the treaty, and after the hearing we
learned that the Defense Department no longer supported that
reservation and the State Department had not bothered to check
with the Defense Department.
So again, I do not want to be assuming anything. Has your
testimony and the position you have taken, the three of you, on
the proposed reservations and understandings been coordinated
with other affected government agencies, including the
Department of Defense?
Mr. Taft. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my testimony related to that
has been cleared. It is the administration's position.
The Chairman. Knowing you, I was sure. I apologize for
being so protective, but I wanted to make sure.
Mr. Taft. I think it is important.
The Chairman. Now, Ambassador Taft, last month the U.N.
Security Council approved Resolution 1373, a broad-ranging
resolution, that, among other things, required nations to
suppress financing of terrorism by criminalizing the provision
of funds to terrorists and by freezing any funds of terrorists.
The language of that resolution is similar to the language in
the Financing Convention.
The Council acted under its chapter VII powers, thereby
making the resolution binding on states under international
law. What is the legal relationship between the Financing
Convention and the Security Council resolution that was passed?
Does the Security Council resolution impose the same
obligations as the Convention, if you know?
Mr. Taft. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is considerable overlap
in the subject matter addressed by the U.N. Security Council
resolution and the Financing Convention. The terms of the
resolution are rather more general and not defined as precisely
as we find them in the Convention, and the duties of the states
specifically are not exactly lined up. But the subject matter
is the financing of terrorist activities and of course, as you
noted and very importantly, the U.N. Security Council
resolution is binding, because taken under chapter 7, on member
states and the Convention of course is only binding as between
the parties to it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
General, Mr. Ambassador--once a general, always a general.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. General, there are two Conventions before us.
One has the requisite number of states that have ratified and
the other, on financing, has only four. Is there a reason to
the best of your knowledge why the Financing Convention has
gone more slowly, unrelated to us, in terms of the number of
states that have ratified?
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is a
specific reason that we know of, except that perhaps it has not
had the emphasis that it has needed. It has been or will be a
centerpiece of our bilateral and multilateral diplomatic
strategy in encouraging our partners around the world to speed
up the implementation. Indeed, since September 11 we have had
significant movement on getting it signed and ratified.
Mr. Taft. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think it also started
later, about a year later.
The Chairman. About a year later. Thank you.
Mr. Chertoff, I understand that the administration is still
developing legislation which is necessary to implement the
treaties; is that correct?
Mr. Chertoff. That is correct.
The Chairman. And the United States already criminalizes
some of this behavior, but I understand that additional
legislation is needed. The legislation as I understand it would
amend the Federal Criminal Code, that is Title 18, and it means
it would probably not go through this committee, but would go
through the Judiciary Committee, on which I sit.
Can you give us, if you are able, a snapshot of what this
legislation will entail, the nature of it?
Mr. Chertoff. I think I can give you a snapshot, maybe not
a full picture. But this is obviously still being considered
and developed and I hope shortly that we will be able to submit
something.
I do not think it makes huge changes. What it is designed
to do is fill gaps in the existing law that would enable us to
prosecute instances in which, for example, people bomb public
places where there is an international nexus even if we did not
have what we currently use as our jurisdictional basis, which
is for example the presence of American employees abroad or
things of that sort.
It might be the case, for example, that civilians killed
overseas in a bombing can be reached through the legislation we
would be proposing under this treaty, whereas we might not be
able to reach those deaths directly under existing law. So I do
not think it is a dramatic change, but it will fill some gaps
we have currently that deal with our prosecution of these
cases.
The Chairman. Do you know whether you intend to go beyond
what is required in the treaty and submit a larger portfolio of
changes in the criminal code? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Chertoff. I do not think this implementing legislation
is designed to go beyond what we need to do for this.
The Chairman. My unsolicited advice would be as honed as
you can get it to work with this, so we do not generate a whole
new--although I suspect like you, have been pushing since 1994
for some other changes in Title 18. But my unsolicited advice
would be to keep it as close to this as you can and move it as
quick as you can, if you could.
I yield to my colleague from North Carolina.
Senator Helms. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I proceed, let me recommend to the chairman and the
other members that we consider having this whole proceeding
printed so that every Senator will have a copy of what was said
here and what is proposed and the reservations and so forth.
Otherwise, we are going to be answering technical questions
that cannot be done easily on the Senate floor.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good idea. I
would recommend that. If I had known that I would have been
more careful of how I have spoken so far. But I think that is a
very good idea.
Senator Helms. The Senator can amend his remarks if he
wants to.
Mr. Chertoff, you referred in your statement to the misuse
of charitable institutions to finance terrorism. Now, will the
Financing Convention provide new authority to the United States
law enforcement agencies to stop such activities in the United
States?
Mr. Chertoff. Senator, I believe it will, because it will
require members of the Convention to make sure that their own
laws address financing of terrorist acts as defined either with
reference to other conventions or with reference to acts that
result in the death or serious injury to individuals based on
terrorist motives.
We currently, obviously, have laws that we can use in this
country. What we need to do, given the global way in which
terrorist financing operates, is make sure that other countries
have comparable laws and that we can mesh them with ours and
that we can get extraditions. So I think it is going to be an
indispensable tool.
Senator Helms. Mr. Taft, we have had a Taft in the Senate
since I have been here. Are you in that Taft family?
Mr. Taft. That was my uncle.
Senator Helms. Your uncle?
Mr. Taft. Yes.
Senator Helms. Well, it is good to have a Taft with us
again.
The Chairman. There are a lot of Tafts.
Senator Helms. If the Rome Statute to create a so-called
International Criminal Court enters into force, will that court
assert jurisdiction over the offenses created by these two
treaties?
Mr. Taft Mr. Chairman, I think that the answer to that is
no. The jurisdiction of that court does not include terrorist
acts. It is limited to, as I understand it, to war crimes, to
genocide, and to crimes against humanity. The terrorist acts
are criminal offenses, but as I understand it not subject to
the jurisdiction of that court in theory. Of course, that court
is not with us at this moment and it does not apply to anything
until it comes into existence.
The Chairman. As long as this man is with us, I do not
think that will be----
Senator Helms. If you have any further thoughts about that,
would you let me know, please, sir.
Mr. Taft. I will do that, sir.
Senator Helms. Will the United States--how to put it--end
up competing with the court for jurisdiction over terrorists
trying to avoid the death penalty or life imprisonment in the
United States?
Mr. Taft. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, there will be a
competition with the court because, as I mentioned, the
terrorist activities are not actually subject to the court's
jurisdiction. They would be subject to our jurisdiction and in
fact to universal jurisdiction under these treaties, and we
will have our own penalties in place for these offenses under
our criminal law passed pursuant to the treaties.
Senator Helms. If you have any further thoughts on that, I
wish you would let me know, because it is a matter of some
importance to a lot of us, certainly to me.
Are there negotiations under way now to outlaw forms of
terrorism not covered by existing multilateral anti-terrorism
conventions?
Mr. Taft. Mr. Chairman, there are in fact negotiations
under way in New York, at this time on a general terrorism
convention. They are not concluded or expected to conclude
immediately. I have noted the remarks that you made about the
difficulties of defining terrorism, and these are vexing those
negotiations. We are concerned about them, and we are
participating in them, but I do not know when they will reach a
conclusion.
Senator Helms. That is another one if you have further
thoughts I wish you would let me know before the debate begins
on this.
Mr. Taft. I think the session discussing those will
conclude next week, or maybe it is even the end of this week,
and perhaps I will be able to let you know how it goes.
Senator Helms. OK. Well, one of the examples that comes to
mind: Is sending lethal substances through the mail outlawed by
an international agreement with appropriate penalties? I
address that to each of you. Is sending lethal substances
through the mail, is that outlawed by any international
agreement with appropriate penalties that you know of?
Mr. Taft. I am not aware of any, of an international
agreement on that, but I believe that we have our own laws.
Mr. Chertoff. I do think that the Terrorist Bombings
Convention we are talking about as I understand it would cover
devices that are used to disseminate bacteriological entities.
Now, I do not know whether that requires an explosion of some
kind as opposed to I think what is on everybody's mind now,
which is opening a letter. I cannot speak to the other
international agreements, but I am sure it is something that is
now present in everybody's mind.
Senator Helms. You nodded. Are you telling him he did good?
Ms. Warlow. He did very good.
Mr. Chertoff. That is always good to hear.
Senator Helms. I know these are technical questions.
Senator Allen. That is a very important question, though.
Senator Helms. Excuse me?
Senator Allen. That is a very important question.
Senator Helms. These treaties do not remove barriers to
extradition such as nationality, do they? Any one of you.
Mr. Taft. There is a requirement to extradite in certain
cases, but not if the country which is asked to extradite
submits the matter for prosecution in its own courts. That is
the basis on which an extradition would be declined.
Mr. Chertoff. Let me add. My understanding is, although it
piggybacks on existing extradition treaties, it does remove the
political defense to extradition in these cases, which it will
be self-evident that when you are dealing with terrorism if you
have a political defense it eviscerates the ability to
extradite.
Of course, it continues to allow us to use what we might
call informal means to acquire people for prosecution.
The Chairman. What does that mean, if I may ask?
Mr. Chertoff. Occasionally we get a deportation or other
kinds of assistance in getting people.
The Chairman. That is what I thought.
Senator Helms. One final question. Given the awful thing
that happened in New York on September 11, will foreign states
continue to use nationality or sentencing issues as excuses to
deny the United States their extradition requests?
Mr. Taft. I believe that under the Convention those who
become parties to these Conventions will be obliged to
extradite people under the terms where they have violated them
unless, as I say, they prosecute them, submit them for
prosecution in their own courts.
Senator Helms. Especially extradition requests related to
the attack, is that right?
Mr. Taft. That would be, yes.
Senator Helms. I do not want to delay things. I have three
or four more questions. Going ahead.
The Chairman. One more scheduling issue the staff just gave
me. On Thursday of this week, at 2 p.m. Secretary Powell will
be testifying. If the Dirksen Building has re-opened by then,
it will be in the large hearing room. But if not, we will have
the hearing in this room. That is 2 o'clock on Thursday.
I yield to Senator Sarbanes, but before I do I would like
to just say that this Financing Convention that we are about to
ratify is important and good work, but I want to compliment the
Senator from Maryland for his work dealing with a related
issue, that he put through the terrorism bill--the bill that is
before the House now, that I understand he has worked out an
agreement on, on dealing with the same issue in terms of the
banking industry as well. So I just want to thank him for his
work there.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, I appreciate that very much. We had
a great deal of help from the Assistant Attorney General in
that regard.
Have you recommended to the Congress language on the
resolutions, reservations, and understandings?
Mr. Taft. Yes, Senator. The language is actually included
in the transmittal package that sent the treaties up.
Senator Sarbanes. Are we ready to go on that? Does the
language need any modification?
Mr. Taft. Not modification from us, but we will be glad to
work with the committee on any modifications it would make.
Senator Sarbanes. That is a very diplomatic answer.
How far along on the implementing language are you?
Mr. Chertoff. I cannot give you a specific prediction. I
hope it is close. I know that there are some tweaks that are
being worked out in terms of language. But I would hope within
a matter of a few weeks we can get this ready, a couple weeks.
Senator Sarbanes. Is moving the Conventions related to the
implementing language?
Mr. Chertoff. My understanding is--and I am going to defer
to the Legal Adviser on this, but my understanding is that we
need the implementing legislation ultimately in order to make
this effective.
Mr. Taft. Yes. We would not ratify the treaty until after
the implementing legislation has been passed. You may give
advice and consent if you wish before then.
The Chairman. It is not ratified until the President signs
it.
Senator Sarbanes. All right. I understand that the
Convention on the Financing of Terrorism was sent to us about a
year ago; is that right?
Mr. Taft. October 2000.
Senator Sarbanes. It has not yet been ratified by the
requisite number of states, correct?
Mr. Taft. That is right, Senator Sarbanes. I think four
states have ratified and 22 are required.
Senator Sarbanes. Who has ratified it?
Mr. Taft. I do know that. Sri Lanka, the U.K., Uzbekistan,
and Botswana.
Senator Sarbanes. Not the French. It was a French-led
initiative, as I understand it.
Mr. Taft. France has not yet ratified. They signed on the
10th of January, the first day that it was open for signature,
as did we.
Senator Sarbanes. Is there a push to get these
ratifications?
Mr. Taft. Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor. Across the world, it is one of our major
foreign policy bilateral issues with all of our countries
around the world to get this moving very quickly. We have seen
very positive results coming back from that effort.
Senator Sarbanes. Obviously our ratification would give a
boost to that effort.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir.
Senator Sarbanes. It would certainly support our efforts to
get others to ratify this convention.
I do not have anything else.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. General, what has been the effect of all of
the treaties with regard to terrorism thus far? Have we been
able to determine if these treaties have made any difference or
is the thought that essentially we are trying to piece together
a network of treaties that might be helpful in the future?
Mr. Taylor. I think they have been useful to us and I think
these two will add to that web of treaties that we will need in
our campaign to ask countries to join us in fighting terrorism.
So I think they are very, very important ingredients in that,
in addition to the other things that we are doing in terms of
law enforcement, intelligence cooperation, and those things
that are ongoing. So I would tell you, Senator Lugar, that we
believe they are very essential to our campaign, will serve us
well in the future, and as these get implemented will add more
tools to our tool kit that we will need to take on these
individuals.
Senator Lugar. But they are prospective treaties. In other
words, people have not yet been prosecuted, convicted, or
incarcerated under these treaties?
Mr. Taylor. Sir, I am not--if I could take that question, I
will get back to you on whether any one has ever been used in
the past.
[The informations can be found in additional questions for
the record on page 51.]
Senator Lugar. My impression is that the answer is probably
negative, although I would be delighted to find out it is
affirmative.
The second part of this is, following on Senator Helms'
logic, you were talking in terms, Mr. Taft, about a general
treaty, which is a good idea because even with the list that
the staff has given us of I think eight or nine treaties to
date plus these two, people keep thinking of other forms of
terrorism. In fact, we are not inventive enough to think of
ahead of time all the treaties that might cover whatever else
somebody might do. So that the need for the general treaty
would seem to be of the essence.
What is the resistance to this, or is it simply the
definitional problem that has been discussed?
Mr. Taylor. I think the definitional problem is one issue
and the scope of the Convention. When you have that number of
countries negotiating, they have their interests. But certainly
it is our hope to get a more comprehensive convention that
would allow us to include what we know and anticipate our
adversaries will do using terrorism.
Mr. Taft. I would say that this is desirable if we can do
it. The pattern of developing a convention to deal with the
last terrorist event is a very sad one and that is why we have
nine or ten of these. I think each one of them, one of the ones
today, is a reaction, not an anticipation. So the hope is that
we would do better, have a broader framework.
But there is a very significant controversy about the
definition of terrorism and how it interacts with national
liberation movements, so-called, and with the activities of
armed forces. We have some points that we absolutely have to
have straight on that and we are not going to go with a
convention that does not address them.
Senator Lugar. Let me ask your view on the current
situation, that is Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants in al-
Qaida. It has become popular to ask: In the event that Osama
bin Laden should be caught today, should he be tried in the
United States or where should he be tried if not the United
States? Who has jurisdiction under all of these treaties?
My response has been the United States is at war and we are
defending ourselves and that that takes precedence since bin
Laden has been indicted in the 1993 World Trade attack. But
then you read very thoughtful comments by attorneys who say
what if you got your wish, what problems would surface in
presenting evidence in our courts that might reveal sources and
methods of intelligence while we are still prosecuting a war
against terrorists.
I am trying to get to the practical effects of these
treaties. Even after you construct a web of treaties that show
our general intent, our cooperation with the world, we are at
war, at war with terrorists, and in the event we capture them
and bring them here for trial, what are the problems of
prosecution presented by these treaties, or what conflicts may
arise with our laws.
Mr. Taylor. I am going to defer to the prosecutor.
Mr. Chertoff. That is obviously, Senator, a very
complicated and important question. I think what I can say--and
clearly people are thinking about this from a practical as well
as a legal standpoint. I think what I can say is that I do not
know that these remedies are mutually exclusive. There are a
wide range of options that we have.
Certainly when we deal with the issue of a terrorist who is
apprehended in a third party country, let us say France, we
have to have some legal mechanism to deal with that. Now, it
might turn out that that person ultimately would be tried in
France for crimes in France or tried in another country. I
think what we are hoping to do is have the broadest range of
tools that we can use in the tool kit. But deciding which tool
to use is a complicated issue with a lot of practical
ramifications.
Senator Lugar. On that one, does it make a difference if
you capture him in Afghanistan as opposed to France, to which
he might have fled?
Mr. Chertoff. I think it makes a difference whether--I
think the way I put the question is it makes a difference
whether we capture him or some third party captures him. I
think that raises a different set of concerns.
Senator Lugar. If we capture him in France he is ours, the
French notwithstanding?
Mr. Chertoff. I cannot envision the situation where we
would be capturing people in France. But I think, for example,
if we captured someone in the field, that is a different legal
issue.
Senator Lugar. But I raise that because at some point Osama
bin Laden may flee after his cover in Afghanistan is gone and
land in another country. Now, what is relevant, the laws of
that particular place? If he winds up in Somalia as opposed to
France, does that make a difference?
Mr. Chertoff. Well, this is a huge question because there
are a lot of variables. It clearly makes a difference to where
somebody flees. It makes a difference whether it is a country
that we have friendly relations with, that is party to all
these agreements. It makes a difference whether we have the
ability to get access, physical access to the person, either
through formal means or informal means.
I do not know that--one thing lawyers always learn is not
to speculate far in advance of the event. But I do agree that--
and we are clearly looking at these issues and developing a
menu of options.
The Chairman. My guess is France would send him with love,
but Somalia might not.
Senator Lugar. Just one more question. Why have not the
treaties come up before now? Is it simply because of the war
effort and you took a look around the cupboard and said, we
have not done very much on these items? Do you have any thought
about that?
Mr. Taylor. Well, Senator, I think that they have--at least
the Bombings Convention has been up for some time, the
Financing Convention not as long. But I think we need to get
the implementing legislation ready.
Senator Lugar. It is partly our fault. One of them has been
here and the administration now asks the committee to act.
Mr. Taylor. I think it is the right time to do it now.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
The Chairman. If I can help clarify that. We had contact, I
had contact with the cooperation of the chairman, with the
State Department asking them what were their priorities on
treaties that they would want us to move on and suggesting this
may be one of them because, although it was here before, we did
not have the opportunity to move on it. Now we have. It was a
mutual initiative. We asked and they said this is the top of
the list, and that is how it came about.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Kerry.
Senator Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Thanks for being here. These two Conventions
are here to supplement the ten or so conventions that are
already in effect with respect to aircraft, civil aviation,
hostages, and so forth. I wonder, can you tell the committee
sort of how effective and successful the implementation of
those ten conventions has been?
Mr. Taylor. Sir, as I mentioned earlier to an earlier
question, I will take that to go back and find out who has
actually been prosecuted under one of the conventions that we
have had. But what it does provide for us is truly a spider web
of capability to use in the international arena, to ask
countries to assist us in our investigations and, more
importantly, as we get to the 1998-1999 campaign, more
effectively assist us.
Senator Kerry. It depends, however, entirely on the laws
that are specifically passed by each country or state.
Mr. Taylor. Indeed, yes, sir.
Senator Kerry. And those laws are not required necessarily
to conform precisely to our laws with respect to intent or
other criminal components. They simply have to pass a law,
correct?
Mr. Taft. On the question of the precise laws that people
enact pursuant to the Conventions, there are provisions that
must be included in each Convention.
Senator Kerry. Right, excuses, jurisdiction, optional, et
cetera.
Mr. Taft. And the definition of the offense, and so forth.
Senator Kerry. But is there a requirement about the precise
language to adopt or the procedures within each of those?
Mr. Taft. No. There are details and variations that would
be left, as long as they conform to the language in the treaty
to each state.
Senator Kerry. If it conforms in that regard, is that
sufficient to eliminate haggling and sort of the kind of, well,
we interpret it this way, you interpret it that way, issues
that arise so frequently? Will there be a conformity that is
adequate?
Mr. Taft. I should think so. We will never be able to
anticipate all the friction and misunderstandings, but would
certainly be a lot better off than we are now.
Senator Kerry. Well, the financing component of this has
not yet been ratified by the requisite 22 states. How many
states have ratified?
Mr. Taft. Just four.
Senator Kerry. And only those four--but 58 have signed it.
Mr. Taft. Right.
Senator Kerry. Do we know where we stand--which four have
signed it, have ratified it?
Mr. Taft. Let us see. Sri Lanka, Botswana, Uzbekistan, and
the U.K.
Senator Kerry. So we are a long way from any kind of--this
is the same sort of resistance we have met in Senator Sarbanes'
efforts to try to get us down the money-laundering road here
recently.
Mr. Taylor. Actually, sir--go ahead.
Mr. Taft. I do not think that this is really unusual in the
time that has been taken. There is a necessity before
ratification can be deposited to enact implementing
legislation, as we ourselves have. The Convention was open for
signature on the 10th of January 2000 and I think that it is
perhaps not a credit to the international community, but taking
2 years to get up to the number would not be unusual at all.
These are matters that the countries take seriously and of
course they should.
Senator Kerry. Have any of the countries that have been
involved in the Islamic charities to the degree that those
charities have been specifically known to have been involved in
transferring funds to terrorist activities, have any of those
nations signed?
Has Saudi Arabia signed?
Mr. Taylor. That is the one I was looking for. No, sir,
Saudi Arabia has not signed, Sudan has signed.
Senator Kerry. Would any changes have to be made in our
money-laundering laws to be in conformity with this?
Mr. Taft. I believe there are some changes that we have
included in the implementing, the draft implementing
legislation.
Senator Kerry. Has our staff, I wonder, have we------
Mr. Taft. We have not submitted it yet.
Senator Kerry. You have not submitted it. Has there been a
cross-tab of that relative to the legislation we have just
passed in the Senate and the House?
Mr. Chertoff. I cannot tell you. I know we are in the
process of finalizing a package of implementing legislation. I
do not know that anyone--I presume, but I cannot say as a fact,
that someone has specifically looked to see whether there is
something in the implementing legislation that is also carried
in the money-laundering piece. I suspect not because I think
the financing piece is a little more narrowly focused than the
money-laundering legislation.
Senator Kerry. But I understand we are required--what I
want to make certain is that there are no requirements here
that are going to put us out of compliance conceivably and-or
that are going to diminish what we are doing.
Mr. Chertoff. The answer is no. We will have to probably
adjust and fill in some gaps in our law, but it will not
prevent us.
Senator Kerry. What has happened is I think the money-
laundering piece is new enough here that it probably has not
been fully vetted in this context.
Senator Sarbanes. No, no, no, I do not want to do that.
Senator Kerry. No, I am not talking about opening it up.
Senator Sarbanes. I do not want to do that. The money-
laundering piece has been settled.
Senator Kerry. That is what I am saying.
Senator Sarbanes. It just needs enactment.
Senator Kerry. Senator Sarbanes, that is exactly what I am
saying. What I am saying is, whatever they are coming in with I
want to make sure is in conformity with what we have just
passed.
Mr. Chertoff. What I can say is this. There is nothing, as
I understand it, about the implementing legislation or the
treaty that in any way, shape, or form restricts the full scope
of what is being contemplated.
Senator Kerry. That is just what I want to make sure.
Mr. Chertoff. I think in general, as I understand the
treaty, it is a minimum. Everybody has got to be up to that
level. It does not forbid countries, including our own, from
going beyond, and I think in fact we are probably already
beyond the treaty requirements in some respects.
Senator Kerry. Thank you. I do not have any further
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen. What is the timetable we are looking
for on this implementing legislation?
Mr. Taft. Senator Chafee, the implementing legislation is
in draft form. It will be submitted as soon as possible. As I
mentioned, you can consider these treaties and give your advice
and consent at any time, but they would not be ratified until
the implementing legislation is actually enacted. I think that
we should be able to get that legislation up here soon enough
so that you will have it in connection with your consideration
of the treaty itself, which is probably the best way to do it.
Senator Chafee. What does that mean, a couple weeks?
Mr. Taft. Yes, that would be reasonable.
Senator Chafee. And did you say we have a copy of your
proposed reservations and understandings?
Mr. Taft. Yes, you do. They were in the original
transmittal packages when the treaties came up.
Senator Chafee. I see, and that mostly has to do with the
definition of armed conflict?
Mr. Taft. That is right. They both do. We need to make a
distinction between the acts of terrorists and acts that occur
in a conflict that armed forces normally conduct. Those are not
terrorist acts. They are the acts of state military forces, and
we want to be sure they are not covered as terrorist acts, and
likewise, on the contrary, that the terrorist acts are included
even though they might look like the acts of an armed force,
but if they are committed by terrorists, isolated acts and so
forth, then they are covered.
Senator Chafee. Is there some unanimity on that on the
various countries as to a definition of armed conflict, or is
that difficult to define?
Mr. Taft. It is not defined in the treaty, which is why we
have put in our understanding what the definition of armed
conflict is. I would say that that is not controversial. In the
course of the negotiations this was accepted, so I think our
understanding is a case of having a belt and suspenders, but a
proper one.
Senator Chafee. How hard would it be just to spell it out
in outline right here, and we can go into the details if we
have it in the submittal? But where do you make that
delineation?
Mr. Taft. The law of armed conflict would apply in a case
where there are hostilities between regular armed forces, the
military forces of the state. Terrorist acts are conducted by
irregular groups, not recognized armed forces that conduct
themselves in accordance with the law of war. So they are the
ones that are subject to terrorism laws and conventions, not to
the law of armed conflict.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The distinguished Senator from California.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of the questions I had have been covered, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I beg your pardon?
Senator Boxer. I said, some of the questions I had have
been covered, Mr. Chairman, but I do have two quick questions
if I might. One of them, on September 28 we put forward a
resolution at the U.N. and it deals with Security Council
Resolution 1373 and it requires all U.N. member states to
prevent the financing of terrorist acts and to freeze all
terrorist-linked assets. So we have that and that passed.
What is the legal relationship with that Security Council
resolution and the U.N. Convention on Suppression of Terrorism?
How do those mesh?
The Chairman. Senator, they have already spoken to that for
the record.
Senator Boxer. They have? Then it is not necessary to
answer.
The Chairman. But you might give the Senator a short answer
on that.
Senator Boxer. No, that is OK. I will get briefed on it
afterwards. I have another question. Tell me if this one was
spoken to.
The Chairman. I apologize for that, but the general has to
leave at 11:40.
Senator Boxer. Yes, that is fine. I can get the answer
later.
I have this other question. Tell me if this was covered.
There are a number of conventions that we are a party to and
other countries are parties to that deal with terrorism, such
as Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of
Aircraft. Has anyone raised that yet today?
Mr. Taft. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. Another one is the Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil
Aviation. That is another one, and there is at least ten of
these conventions, Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials,
Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence in Airports. It goes
on. I will not take the committee's time.
I hope you could you get back to me and perhaps other
members of the committee who might be interested in the
following question. It seems to me if a lot of countries of the
world are party to these conventions dealing with unlawful
seizure of aircraft, unlawful acts against the safety of civil
aviation, and they are not cooperating with us now, we may have
some action against them. Off the top of your head without
having a chance to review this, do you know how many countries
are not a party to these other conventions?
Mr. Taft. I do not know the answer to that, but I think
Ambassador Taylor could tell you that we have gotten a lot of
cooperation from a lot of countries at this time. Perhaps we
should provide information for the record.
Senator Boxer. Well, a lot of cooperation from a lot of
countries is really good. My specific question is: are there
any countries who are party to these conventions dealing with
unlawful seizure of aircraft, unlawful acts against the safety
of civil aviation, who are not cooperating with us in terms of
this investment on the World Trade Center bombing?
Mr. Taylor. I think the more general answer to your
question is we have gotten excellent cooperation from across
the world from all countries that we have asked for
cooperation, with the exception of Iraq that has been defiant.
I can give you, Senator, or for the staff a matrix of all
countries that have passed or ratified each of these
conventions.
Senator Boxer. I would like that. Now, has Iraq, do you
know, ratified those?
Mr. Taylor. They have signed two and passed--they have
signed three and passed three of the 12.
Senator Boxer. OK. But you do not know about unlawful
seizure of aircraft or unlawful acts against the safety of
civil aviation?
The reason I am asking this question, Mr. Chairman, is if
Iraq is a party to those conventions and they are not
cooperating, we may have some very interesting avenues open to
us on the international stage.
So would you get back to me specifically on that? Also, I
really appreciate knowing who signed onto all of these
conventions, because clearly we have been able to get a broad
omnibus convention against terrorism and these two important
treaties that we are looking at today just fit into the pattern
of taking each thing, each little issue one at a time, which is
fine. But I think if we could find out if Iraq was involved in
those and they are not cooperating, I think that is some good
information.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Senator, if I may, one of our major diplomatic
goals in this campaign is to get all nations to ratify all
treaties. Both bilateral and multilaterally, we are working
that, and we have seen excellent results since the 11th of
September from nations around the world to do that. But
specifically on Iraq, I will get back to you with the answer to
that question.
[The information can be found in additional questions for
the record on page 53.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. General Taylor, do you have to leave, because
Senator Allen will direct his question to you.
Mr. Taylor. I am OK, thank you.
Senator Allen. Ambassador-general, I incorporate by
reference all the questions and comments as far as
reservations, particularly protecting military personnel and
our interests in that regard.
Since September 11, how many countries have at least
started moving, as we are, to either sign or to actually ratify
either of these Conventions?
Mr. Taylor. I cannot give you a specific number, Senator. I
can only tell you that in our bilateral working with more than
100 countries we have seen tremendous movement. I would have to
go back and compile each one individually, but certainly the
U.N. Conventions are a key part of our overall international
strategy and many countries have in a sense leaned forward to
move this through their legislatures to passage. Again, I can
get more information for you on that.
[The information can be found in additional questions for
the record on page 52.]
Senator Allen. Let me ask two followups, then. Now, as a
practical matter how would these treaties affect our efforts to
intercept financing of terrorist organizations. If certain
countries--and I do not need to be mentioning the names of the
countries or islands--that are fairly well known as places for
havens for people to have banking transactions which are not
very transparent, in the event, let us say you have the United
States and France and Germany and Japan and Korea, they all
sign onto it, but there are certain countries that are in
Europe or certain island states, so to speak, if they do not do
it, what practical impact is this going to have on our trying
to thwart the financing of terrorist organizations?
Mr. Taylor. Well, certainly it presents a challenge,
because it presents a seam that we need to close. Through our
bilateral relations with those countries, we intend to put
great pressure on them not to have that sanctuary that would
allow people to use that country as another conduit that is not
available to the world.
My sense is we will be very successful in pressuring those
countries, to do that. At least that is our goal.
Senator Allen. Now, the final question, Mr. Chairman. These
treaties or conventions about bombings and financing, we are
all focused on what happened to the United States. Now, to the
extent that the rest of the world is signing onto these and
hopefully ratifying them with various reservations, as we will
have, what would be the impact on, say, what could be defined
as a terrorist bombing in Israel or Ireland or Spain or
Colombia?
Many movements that are motivated by independence or self-
determination end up being wars. In Quebec, theirs is being
done in a very civil process. In this country our secessions
have not been civil, but they were at least legislative
approaches being taken and then the battle. But when you think
of some of the activities and bombings in Israel and Ireland,
in Spain, Colombia and other countries, how would this
definition of terrorist bombings affect some of those
activities in those countries?
Mr. Taft. Most of those bombings would be covered, the ones
that I am familiar with. Obviously, we would have to look at
each particular one, and the authorities, the Israelis or the
authorities in Northern Ireland or whatever, would look at
them. The principal benefit of the Convention would then be
that, at least among the parties to it, there would be enhanced
cooperation in law enforcement in the investigation and
provision of evidence and in extradition.
Senator Allen. Would that affect also the financing? This
follows up on Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry's questions on
the financing organizations for some of these other areas.
Mr. Taft. The same is true of the Financing Convention. It
has all of those cooperation in law enforcement features.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the three
gentlemen for your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, do you have any other questions?
Senator Helms. No.
The Chairman. With your permission, I have a few questions
to submit for the record. There is no urgency in responding as
long as they are in before we get the implementing legislation.
Unless anyone has any further questions for our witnesses,
we thank you very, very much, and we hope that we can move
expeditiously on this, and we thank you very much for your
consideration. Thanks.
[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m, the committee was recessed
subject to the call of the Chair.]

Additional Statement Submitted for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Prof. Barry Kellman, Director, International
Weapons Control Center, DePaul University College of Law, Chicago,
Illinois

The two conventions currently under consideration re-affirm that
terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the entire
civilized world. Accordingly, the effort to defeat terrorism must be
multilateral to have any chance of success. These conventions more
accurately define conduct that contributes to and constitutes
terrorism, and they impose rigorous legal assistance and cooperation
obligations on States Parties. Moreover, these two conventions
symbolize the coalescence of international efforts to fight terrorism.
The following brief comments do not address the broad and manifold
policy justifications for their ratification. Instead, these comments
highlight a few provisions that, perhaps, have not received sufficient
attention. These comments also suggest reasons why, despite their
positive attributes and the need for their ratification, these
conventions fall far short of establishing the foundation for the
international effort that is necessary to defeat terrorism.
convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism
This Convention reaches into the vital core of terrorist
operations: its necessary financial infrastructure. The Convention is
tightly drafted, and it should be ratified.
Special note should be taken of:

Article 12, para. 2--``States Parties may not refuse a
request for mutual legal assistance on the ground of bank
secrecy.''

This provision is extremely important because the primary
impediment to tracing financial support for terrorism is the assertion
of bank secrecy. This provision not only prohibits that assertion, it
means that a refusal of a request for assistance on these grounds is a
breach of the Convention. Moreover, it suggests that the assertion of
bank secrecy is a step toward establishing that the State Party in
question is implicitly a supporter of terrorist activity.

Article 18, para. 4--``States Parties may exchange
information through Interpol.''

Article 18 sets forth obligatory ``practicable measures'' to
prevent terrorist financing, including modalities of legal cooperation.
The somewhat buried reference to Interpol in para. 4 is perhaps the
most important of these measures. To combat terrorist financing (and
terrorism generally), there is a need not only for legal cooperation
among States but also for the direct involvement of international
institutions, beginning with Interpol, that can centralize operations
and monitor compliance. This provision is unique among anti-terrorism
conventions in explicitly calling upon States Parties to use Interpol
to perform necessary functions.
However, it should be noted that Interpol is an under-staffed,
under-financed organization. If Interpol is to have the law enforcement
and anti-terrorist financing role that is truly effective, a treaty
provision is inadequate by itself. Accordingly, this provision should
be a spur to increase Interpol's capabilities.

The Annex: No reference to the Biological or Chemical
Weapons Conventions

Under Article 2, para. 1(a), prohibited offenses are defined (in
part) as providing or collecting funds in order to carry out an offence
within the scope of the treaties listed in the annex. However, the
annex does not include either the BWC nor the CWC which prohibit the
use or possession of prohibited weapons by persons as well as by
States. This is an inexplicable oversight and should be remedied.
convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings
This Convention criminalizes behavior that is, at least arguably,
already illegal. It serves to clarify the illegal status of terrorist
bombings, to deprive perpetrators of any claim to the ``political
offense'' exception, and to specify legal assistance and cooperation
obligations. In comparison to the Financing Convention, it is less
tightly drafted and has a few problems. Nevertheless, it should be
ratified.

Article 1, para. 3(b)--`` `Explosive or other lethal device'
means: A weapon or device that is designed, or has the
capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or
substantial material damage through the release, dissemination
or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins . .
.'' (emphasis added)

This definition is very problematic for the Department of Defense
which is developing biological agents that can cause substantial
material damage without harming humans, animals, or plants. Indeed,
microbes are currently used to consume oil spills; the DOD's efforts
are based on similar principles.

Article 2, para. 1--``Any person commits an offence within
the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and
intentionally . . .'' (emphasis added) The word ``unlawfully''
either has no meaning and is superfluous in the paragraph, or
it means that it is not an offence if the person acts
``lawfully'', i.e. pursuant to the authority of a legitimate
State government. Hypothetically, if an authorized Iraqi agent
detonates an explosive in Manhattan, it is not clear the
Convention would apply to that activity. This Convention should
not leave doubt on that issue.

Article 15--``States Parties shall cooperate . . .''

This Article is noteworthy for what it does not say. In contrast to
the Financing Terrorism Convention, there is no mention of Interpol or
any other reference to making use of an international law enforcement
institution (the IAEA, OPCW, to name a few) in order ``to prevent and
counter preparations'' (para. (a)). Yet, it defies reality to expect
that many nations, especially those nations where terrorists tend to
operate, will be able to prevent preparations for terrorist bombings on
their own.
general comments
Despite all the good reasons to ratify these two conventions, they
are inadequate to achieve the objective of security against
international terror violence.
A more comprehensive international effort against terrorism should
overcome two problems which these treaties do not address: (1) the need
to prohibit development of illegal capabilities without having to wait
for those capabilities to actually be used; and (2) the need to
strengthen the direct law enforcement system in addition to the
indirect law enforcement system.
Prohibiting Development of Terrorist Capabilities
The effects of modern terrorism are too cataclysmic to delay law
enforcement until the deed is done. The purpose of criminalization,
therefore, is to facilitate pre-use interdiction of terrorist
capabilities. The bad news here is that there is no primary prohibition
against acquisition of violent capabilities, including chemical or
biological or nuclear weapons, by sub-national groups (SNGs). Thus,
international law enforcement capabilities are marginalized, at least
until those capabilities become catastrophic.
A more effective international agreement should criminalize
preparations toward development of dangerous capabilities, including
construction of relevant production facilities as well as assistance to
other groups that develop those capabilities. The prohibition should
extend to all SNGs universally, without regard to whether the State
with jurisdiction over that group has joined a relevant treaty, and all
States Parties should extend adjudicative jurisdiction (under either
the universal theory or the passive personality theory) to anyone,
irrespective of nationality. Moreover, prohibited conduct should be
defined according to criteria that is not based on the actor's intent.
Because relevant capabilities are typically dual-use--they could be
employed for legitimate purposes--there should be multilateral
regulatory obligations that enable legitimate activities to escape
suspicion through a licensing system. Accordingly, receiving,
supplying, or smuggling weapons precursors, critical materials, or
critical equipment would be illegal unless that activity is declared
and subject to appropriate national and international regulation. If
those activities are kept secret and unregulated, the presumption must
be that the objective (of the receiver, supplier, or smuggler) is
criminal. Stated simply: as to terrorism capabilities, SNG acquisition
or possession without compliance with relevant regulatory obligations
should be an international crime.
Need for Direct Law Enforcement Through International Institutions
More important is the need to develop the direct law enforcement
system. International criminal law enforcement is, for the most part,
an indirect system based on the idea that States must enforce, under
national law, international legal prohibitions. The indirect
enforcement system depends on national criminal justice systems to
investigate, apprehend, prosecute, and adjudicate accused persons
within their jurisdictions and to punish those found guilty. It also
depends on the cooperation of States to extradite and to provide legal
assistance to other States investigating cases or seeking to apprehend
persons accused or found guilty of international crimes.
The problem with the indirect law enforcement system is that many
of the nations of greatest concern lack capabilities to undertake their
responsibilities. Therefore, prohibitions against development of
terrorist capabilities should be supported, not only by legal
assistance and cooperation obligations, but by enhancing the direct law
enforcement capabilities of relevant international institutions,
notably policing institutions and those which oversee the international
traffic in goods.
As already mentioned, Interpol (and Europol) should be strengthened
both in terms of legal authority as well as technical and financial
capabilities. The World Customs Organization, the World Health
Organization, and various UN agencies should, along with the OPCW and
IAEA, be integrated into an anti-terrorism network capable of obtaining
and analyzing information and of investigating suspicious activities.
Regional organizations, especially in regions where terrorism has
concentrated, should also be included in this network.
Upcoming Opportunities
The most important near-term opportunity for the international
community to develop mechanisms that can make a positive contribution
to defeating terrorism is the Review Conference for the Biological
Weapons Convention. Unfortunately, biological weapons have become a
weapon of choice for terrorists. Yet, the BWC is entirely inadequate to
counter this horrifying threat. Efforts to produce a verification
Protocol ended by producing a system that would have put significant
burdens on legitimate enterprise without markedly improving
capabilities to prevent, detect, or interdict bioterrorism.
The Administration's rejection of that Protocol earlier this year,
although justified on the merits, has been viewed as yet another
example of American unilateralism. It is incumbent, therefore, that
U.S. representatives to the upcoming Review Conference offer meaningful
anti-terrorism and international law enforcement proposals. This forum
and whatever final document it produces could have a far more decisive
impact on the campaign to defeat terrorism than either of the two
conventions currently under consideration.
----------

Responses to Additional Questions for the Record

Responses From the Department of State to Additional Questions
Submitted for the Record by Senator Biden

i. questions with regard to both treaties
A. Authoritative Nature of Executive Branch Testimony
Question. When Executive Branch witnesses testify on the treaties
before the Senate, can the Committee assume that the testimony is
contributing to the ``shared understanding'' between the Executive and
the Senate as to the meaning of the treaties and the way the United
States will interpret it?

Answer. Yes. Testimony by Executive Branch witnesses on treaties
before the Senate is intended to contribute to the ``shared
understanding'' between the Executive and the Senate on the meaning of
the treaties and the way such treaties will be interpreted by the
United States.

Question. Does the Executive Branch believe that it is necessary
for the Committee to question Executive Branch witnesses with respect
to each clause of the treaties in order to firmly establish the
``shared understanding'' of the meaning of the treaties?

Answer. No. It is not necessary for the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to question Executive Branch witnesses with respect to each
clause of treaties pending before the Committee in order to establish
the ``shared understanding'' of the meaning of the treaties. For
purposes of U.S. law, the formal transmittal documents submitted by the
President, the accompanying report of the Department of State, the
testimony of Executive Branch witnesses and responses to the
Committee's questions contribute to the ``shared understanding'' of the
meaning of such treaties with respect to the issues covered therein.

Question. In order for the Senate to establish its expectation--and
to establish law--that the Executive Branch will interpret the treaties
as they have been presented to the Senate (including in the formal
submittal and in testimony), do you regard it as necessary for the
Senate to take each provision of the treaties which it regards as
significant, to commit the interpretation to writing, and to convert
that interpretation into a formal condition of Senate consent? Or can
the Senate act on the assumption that it can rely on the Executive
Branch and act in accord with its presentation of the treaties to the
Senate without going through such a ritual?

Answer. In order for the Senate to establish its expectation with
respect to Executive Branch interpretation of treaties, it would be
unnecessary and impractical for the Senate to take each significant
provision of the treaties, commit the interpretation to writing, and
attach that interpretation as a formal condition of Senate consent. For
purposes of U.S. law, the formal transmittal documents submitted by the
President, the accompanying report of the Department of State, the
testimony of Executive Branch witnesses and responses to the
Committee's questions provide the context for interpreting such
treaties with respect to the issues covered therein.

Question. Does the Executive Branch regard it as necessary for the
Senate to examine the entire negotiating record of the treaties in
order to establish that there is nothing in that record inconsistent
with the terms in the text of the treaties and the Executive Branch
interpretation of those terms?

Answer. No. The Senate does not need to examine the entire
negotiating record of such treaties in order to establish that the
record is consistent with the treaty text and the Executive Branch's
interpretation of the treaty terms. The Executive Branch takes into
account relevant points in the negotiating record when it presents a
treaty to the Senate.

Question. To summarize, if the text of the treaties and the
Executive Branch's presentations of the treaties' meaning are clear and
mutually consistent, then can we expect the Executive Branch to act in
accordance with that interpretation, even if the Senate does not
explicitly state in the resolution of advice and consent to
ratification that it is relying upon the Executive Branch to do so?

Answer. Yes. If the treaty text and the Executive Branch's
presentation of its meaning are clear and mutually consistent, the
Committee can expect the Executive Branch to act in accordance with
that interpretation with respect to the issues covered therein.

B. General Questions
Question. The Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
has entered into force, but the Convention on the Suppression of
Financing Terrorism has not yet entered into force.
Does the Administration intend to engage in active diplomacy to
encourage states to sign and ratify these treaties? Have any diplomatic
measures been undertaken in this regard?

Answer. The Administration is engaging in active international
diplomacy to encourage states to become parties to the treaties before
the Committee, as well as the ten previous counterterrorism treaties
that have been agreed upon at the United Nations and its specialized
agencies. We have made such efforts both in bilateral diplomatic
contacts with other parties and as a part of the Group of Eight
Industrialized countries, which for many years has made adherence to
the counterterrorism conventions a very high diplomatic priority. As of
October 31, 2001, 58 countries had signed the Terrorist Bombings
Convention and 29 had ratified. As of the same date, 69 countries had
signed the Terrorism Financing Convention and 5 had ratified. We
believe that U.S. ratification of these two conventions will bolster
our efforts to encourage other countries to become party to these
Conventions if they have not already done so.

Question. Article 23 of Convention on the Suppression of Financing
Terrorism provides a means for amending the annex of the Convention.
Neither Convention provides a means for amending the text of the
treaties.
Does the Executive Branch intend to submit any amendments,
including amendments to the annex of the Convention of the Suppression
of Financing Terrorism, to the Senate for advice and consent to
ratification?

Answer. Consistent with the October 3, 2000, Letter of Submittal
accompaning the Terrorism Financing Convention, if a new
counterterrorism treaty enters into force for the United States, after
the Senate has given its advice and consent, and that treaty has been
added to the Annex through the amendment process set out in Article 23,
then the United States expects to deposit an instrument of acceptance
of the amendment adding that treaty to the Annex. Such an instrument of
Acceptance would not require future advice and consent because the
Senate would already have approved the treaty in question. Any other
amendment to the Terrorism Financing Convention or its Annex, or to the
Terrorist Bombings Convention, would be submitted to the Senate for its
advice and consent.

Question. Article 9 of the Convention on the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings and Article 11 of the Convention on the Suppression
of Terrorist Financing provide that State Parties may, in cases where
it receives a request for extradition from another State Party with
which it has no extradition treaty, consider the conventions as a legal
basis for extradition in respect of the offenses in the respective
conventions.
Is it the intention of the Executive Branch to consider the
conventions as a legal basis or bases for extradition in cases where
the United States has no extradition treaty with the other State Party?

Answer. The United States would not use these Conventions as an
independent legal basis for extradition from the United States in cases
where the United States has no extradition treaty with another State
Party seeking extradition. We will continue our practice of extraditing
persons under the authority of bilateral extradition treaties, in
conjunction with multilateral counterterrorism conventions, as
applicable.

Question. Both Conventions, in the key articles defining offenses
under the Conventions, include in the definition the concept of a
person acting ``unlawfully''. That is, Article 2 of the Convention of
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism provides that any person
commits an offense under the Convention if that person ``by any means,
directly or indirectly, unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects
funds. . . .'' Similarly, Article 2 of the Convention on the
Suppression of Terrorist Bombings provides that any person commits an
offense if that person ``unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places,
discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device. . . .''
The letter of submittal provided by the Secretary of State to the
President in connection with the Conventions does not provide any
analysis of the meaning of the term ``unlawfully.'' One possible
reading of this term is that the Conventions do not cover activity
authorized by governments. That is, under this construction of the
term, if a foreign government authorized an activity described, then it
would be ``lawful'' and not covered by the Conventions. I presume that
is not the intention.
Am I correct in my understanding that the term ``unlawfully'' is
not meant to exempt state-sponsored terrorism? What then, is the
meaning of the term?

Answer. The word ``unlawfully'' in Article 2 of each of these
Conventions is not meant to exempt state-sponsored terrorism. It is a
term used in many international conventions, including the prior
counterterrorism conventions, to make clear that States are not
required to criminalize conduct which under common principles of
criminal law is not considered unlawful (e.g., properly authorized use
of force by its own police forces or conduct permitted as self-
defense), even if those actions are otherwise described in the offense.

Question. Both Conventions contain exclusions for military
activity. Article 19 of the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist
Bombings states that ``activities of armed forces during an armed
conflict, as those terms are understood under international
humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by
this Convention.'' The Convention on the Suppression of the Financing
of Terrorism addresses the issue in a different manner. Article 2(1)(b)
defines a category of acts which are illegal under the Convention, and
excludes from the definition persons ``taking an active part in the
hostilities in a situation of armed conflict.'' With regard to both
Conventions, the Executive Branch has recommended that the Senate
approve an understanding which would state that the term ``armed
conflict'' does not include ``internal disturbances and tensions, such
as riots, isolated or sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a
similar nature.''
Does the definition of ``armed conflict'' include subnational
groups?
In the current military action in Afghanistan, we are presumably
providing financial support to the Northern Alliance and to other anti-
Taliban groups. Am I right in understanding that the Financing
Convention would not bar that kind of financial support by the United
States--because the situation is an ``armed conflict''?

Answer. Article 2 of the Terrorism Financing Convention states in
relevant part that ``[a]ny person commits an offence within the meaning
of the Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly,
unlawfully and willfully, provides or collects funds with the intention
that they should be used or in the knowledge that that they are to be
used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: [a]n act which
constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the
treaties listed in the annex; or [an] act intended to cause death or
serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking
an active part in the hostilities in a situation or armed conflict,''
when such act is accompanied by a ``terrorist purpose,'' as set forth
in the Convention. (``Armed conflict'' can include conflicts where sub-
national groups are combatants.) U.S. Government assistance mentioned
in the question would not be covered by the Convention, since the
groups identified in the question are not engaged in these activities.

Question. Does the Executive Branch regard it as necessary for the
Senate to include a condition in the resolutions of advice and consent
regarding the International Criminal Court?

Answer. It is not necessary for the Senate to include a condition
in the resolutions of advice and consent regarding the International
Criminal Court. The ICC will not be a party to these Conventions, and
our assistance to other parties to the Conventions would be for their
proceedings, not those of the ICC. Should we deem it necessary, the
United States could limit or condition its assistance to other parties
to ensure that U.S. assistance is not subsequently transferred to the
International Criminal Court.

Question. The treaties state that the texts of Arabic, Chinese,
English, French, Russian and Spanish are equally authentic. Are there
any material ambiguities in the translations? If so, what are they?

Answer. To our knowledge there are no material ambiguities among
the various authentic language texts.
ii. questions with regard to international convention for suppression
of financing terrorism

Question. On September 28, 2001, the UN Security Council approved
Resolution 1373. Among other things, the resolution requires all States
to ``prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts,'' (para.
1(a)) and to ``[c]riminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any
means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their
territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the
knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist
acts.'' (para. 1(b)). The language in paragraph 1(b) is similar to
Article 2(1) of the Convention.
What is the relationship between the Convention and the provisions
of Resolution 1373 as they relate to the suppression of financing of
terrorism? Are the legal obligations on states to suppress the
financing of terrorism under Resolution 1373 and under the Convention
(for states that ratify the Convention) identical? If they differ, how
do they differ? If they differ, will the implementing legislation need
to also address obligations under Resolution 1373?
The United States sponsored Resolution 1373. Was it drafted by the
United States? Was Resolution 1373 drafted in coordination with the
U.S. government departments which were involved in the negotiation of
the Convention?

Answer. The Convention and UNSCR 1373 complement one another and
improve our overall ability to combat the financing of terrorism.
Resolution 1373 imposes on all U.N. Member States broad obligations to
take steps immediately to combat the financing of terrorism. The
resolution requires Member States, inter alia, to prevent and suppress
the financing of terrorist acts, to criminalize the willful provision
or collection of funds with the intent or knowledge that the funds will
be used to carry out terrorist acts, to freeze the funds and other
financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or
attempt to commit, such acts or are affiliated with such persons, and
to prohibit their nationals or others within their territories from
making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial
or other related services available for the benefit of those who commit
or attempt to commit terrorist acts. The resolution also requires
Member States to refrain from providing support to terrorists and
terrorist groups, and to deny safe haven to those who finance, plan,
support or commit terrorist acts.
The Financing Convention will provide the specificity and
international legal mechanisms that are needed to combat terrorist
financing. The Convention defines with more specificity than UNSCR 1373
what conduct must be criminalized under domestic law and, provided
there is an international nexus, requires States Parties to establish
jurisdiction when the offense is committed in its territory, on board
its ships or aircraft, or by its nationals. (The Convention allows
States Parties to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in certain other
prescribed circumstances.) Although UNSCR 1373 requires Member States
to ensure that persons who finance terrorism are brought to justice,
the Convention requires parties to extradite alleged offenders or
submit them for prosecution and amends existing extradition treaties by
incorporating the Convention's offenses as extraditable offenses under
such treaties.
Once the Financing Convention is in force, we anticipate that these
instruments will complement and support each other. UNSCR 1373 will
provide a basis for challenging any States that have not become party
to the Convention to refrain from providing support to terrorists and
to take steps to prevent terrorist financing in their territories. In
addition, the committee established by the resolution will monitor
implementation and promote and facilitate international cooperation in
combating terrorist financing. Finally, the Convention, once it enters
into force, will establish specific mechanisms for detecting,
investigating and prosecuting individuals who finance terrorist acts.
UNSCR 1373 can be fully implemented under existing law and the
implementing legislation for the two conventions need not address the
United States' obligations under Resolution 1373.
The initial draft of the Security Council resolution was prepared
by the United States. The final text was the product of negotiations
among the members of the Security Council. Yes, Resolution 1373 was
drafted in coordination with the U.S. government departments that were
involved in the negotiation of the Convention, including State, Justice
and Treasury.

Question. Article 2(1)(b) requires states to criminalize acts
``intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to
any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a
situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its
nature or context, is to intimidate a population. . . .''
Does the negotiating history reflect an understanding of the term
``population'' as used in this Article?

Answer. The negotiating history does not provide any guidance
concerning the meaning of the term ``population.'' The Administration
interprets ``population'' as used in Article 2(1)(b) to mean ``civilian
population.'' This interpretation is consistent with U.S. law, for
example 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331(1)(B)(i) (``to intimidate or coerce a
civilian population''), as well as the law of armed conflict.

Question. In Article 1(1), does the term ``funds'' include non-
financial assets such as personal or real property?

Answer. Yes. As defined in Article 1(1) of the treaty, the term
``funds'' includes ``assets of every kind, whether tangible or
intangible, movable or immovable . . . .'' As noted in the State
Department's report in the transmittal package (p. VI), all delegations
understood the definition to include ``property.'' The Administration's
proposed implementing legislation defines ``funds'' as ``assets of
every kind, whether tangible or intangible, movable or immovable,
however acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form,
including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or interest in,
such assets, including but not limited to, coin, currency, bank
credits, travelers checks, bank checks, money orders, shares,
securities, bonds, drafts, and letters of credit.'' (Section 202,
adding new section 2339C(e)(1) to title 18)

Question. Does the term ``State'' (as used in Article 1(2)) include
political subdivisions of a State?

Answer. Yes, the term ``State'' (as used in Article 1(2)) includes
political subdivisions of a State.

Question. What is the meaning of the term ``fiscal offense'' as
used in Article 13?

Answer. Some countries refuse international cooperation in cases
involving crimes that they consider ``fiscal offenses.'' There is no
generally accepted definition of what constitutes a ``fiscal offense,''
and indeed, several countries, including the United States, do not use
this concept to limit international assistance in criminal matters. In
our experience, when the concept is used, it will generally encompass
tax offenses, but a given country might extend it to other crimes such
as banking or currency controls, money laundering crimes, customs
offenses, or financial regulatory offenses. Thus, because the term is
not clearly defined, and could potentially include a broad range of
offenses involving financial flows and financial instruments, a
particular country might apply it to the very offenses which are the
subject of the Convention. Accordingly, Article 13 prohibits a State
from using a ``fiscal offense'' exception to international cooperation
which might exist in its law, irrespective of how expansively the term
might be defined in its law, to circumvent its obligations under the
Convention. A similar provision was included in the 1988 UN Drug
Convention, to assure that a ``fiscal offense'' exception did not
defeat its provisions regarding money laundering.

Question. On page VIII of the Senate print of the Convention
(T.Doc. 106-49) there is discussion of Paragraph 5 of Article 2. There
appears to be an erroneous internal reference in this section. The
erroneous sentence reads ``These ancillary offenses in paragraph 3 are
more comprehensive than those included in the earlier counterterrorism
conventions to which the United States is a party--"
Is not the reference in italics to ``paragraph 3'' an error? Should
it not be a reference to ``paragraph 5?"

Answer. The reference to paragraph 3 is incorrect. The proper
reference should be to paragraph 5.

iii. questions with regard to international convention for suppression
of terrorist bombings
Question. The Executive Branch proposes an understanding regarding
Article 19 which reads:
The United States of America understand that, pursuant to Article
19, the Convention does not apply in any respect to the activities
undertaken by military forces of States in the exercise of their
official duties.
Article 19 of the Convention reads in pertinent part that ``the
activities undertaken by military forces of a State in the exercise of
their official duties, inasmuch as they are governed by other rules of
international law, are not governed by this Convention.'' The proposed
understanding and the language of Article 19 are virtually identical in
their operative words.
a. Why is this understanding necessary?
b. What is meant by the phrase ``inasmuch as they are governed by
other rules of international law.'' To which rules of international law
does this phrase refer?
c. Was there negotiating history on this point which was agreed to
by the other participants in the negotiations?

Answer. The exclusion of the official activities of military forces
of states from the scope of this Convention was an important
negotiating objective that was achieved by the United States during the
development of this Convention and is a key to the Convention's success
internationally. We recommend that an Understanding be included in the
U.S. instrument of ratification in order to underscore the importance
of this provision in the interpretation of the Convention. In addition,
we recommend the Understanding because of the way Article 19(2)
combines in its text two different exceptions to the Convention's
coverage for ``armed forces'' (which are only excepted during ``armed
conflict,'' as those terms are understood under international
humanitarian law, which are governed by that law) and for ``military
forces of a state'' (which are excepted under all circumstances in the
exercise of their official duties). Because these different concepts
are combined in a lengthy single sentence with numerous clauses, and
because of our strong interest in noting our understanding of the
wording, we believe it is helpful to note in an Understanding that the
exception for military forces of a state is absolute.
The reference in Article 19(2) to ``other rules of international
law'' includes the international instruments relating to the law of war
(including the 1949 Geneva Conventions) and the international law of
state responsibility. There is no formal negotiating history on this
subject, but these bodies of law were referred to by the negotiators as
the justification and explanation of the ``military forces of a state''
exception in that article.
______

Responses From the Department of State to Additional Questions
Submitted for the Record by Senator Helms

charitable organizations
Question. Will the financing convention provide new authority to
U.S. law enforcement agencies to stop the financing of terrorism by
charitable organizations in the United States?

Answer. The administration has developed and transmitted to the
Congress draft implementing legislation for the Terrorism Financing
Convention that would create a new legal basis for U.S. law enforcement
authorities to investigate and prosecute the financing of terrorism. In
addition, the Convention itself will provide a legal basis for the
United States to seek assistance from other countries in our
investigations and prosecutions of those believed to have engaged in
the financing of terrorism.
other priorities
Question. Have events since September 11th indicated other
international law enforcement priorities that could be addressed by
treaties already pending on the Foreign Relations Committee calendar,
or which are being negotiated now? What are these priorities?

Answer. The Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
and the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
are the two completed law enforcement conventions of greatest general
concern relating to the efforts to address international terrorism.
Several additional important multilateral law enforcement instruments
are likely to be before the Committee in the near future. In December
2000, the United States signed the UN Convention Against Transnational
Organized Crime and two accompanying protocols. The United States and
other countries recently completed the negotiations of the Council of
Europe Cyber-Crime Convention. Finally, the Committee has pending
before it the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives,
and other Related Materials.
Apart from these multilateral conventions, the United States has
signed or is in the final stages of negotiating approximately eight
bilateral extradition or mutual legal assistance treaties and will be
submitting those to the Committee for its consideration in the near
future.
additional anti-terrorism conventions
Question. Are there negotiations underway now to outlaw forms of
terrorism not covered by existing multilateral anti-terrorism
conventions? For example, is sending lethal substances through the mail
outlawed by an international agreement with appropriate penalties? Can
you provide details or a timetable?

Answer. Negotiations are underway at the United Nations General
Assembly Sixth Committee on a new comprehensive convention on
international terrorism. Also, pending before the Sixth Committee is a
draft nuclear terrorism convention. Those negotiations are not yet
completed and we are not yet in a position to assess whether we will
recommend that the United States become a party to the new instruments.
With respect to the delivery of lethal substances, Article 2(1) of
the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings provides:
``Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this
Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers,
places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in,
into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility,
a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility:
``(a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
``(b) With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a
place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is
likely to result in major economic loss.''
Under Article 1(3), an ``explosive or other lethal device'' means:
``(a) An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed,
or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or
substantial material damage; or
``(b) A weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability,
to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage
through the release, dissemination or impact of toxic chemicals,
biological agents or toxins or similar substances or radiation or
radioactive material.''
Thus, the Terrorist Bombings Convention would cover the act of
sending a lethal substance through the mail with the intent to cause
death or serious bodily injury, provided the offense has an
international nexus as required in Article 3 of the Convention (e.g., a
foreign perpetrator).
______

Response From the Department of State to an Additional Question
Submitted for the Record by Senator Lugar

Question. What has been the effect of all of the treaties with
regard to terrorism thus far? Have people been prosecuted, convicted,
incarcerated under these treaties, the whole collection?

Answer. The following are examples of prosecutions undertaken by
the United States under U.S. law implementing the prior
counterterrorism conventions:
Montreal Convention (Aircraft Sabotage)
United States v. Yousef, 1999 WL 714103 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (defendant
convicted of conspiring to bomb U.S. passenger airlines in violation of
18 U.S.C. Sec. 32, the implementing statute of the Montreal
Convention) [For list of charges, see United States v. Yousef, 925 F.
Supp. 1063 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)]
United States v. Rashed, 234 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (ongoing
prosecution of defendant under Montreal Convention for placing a bomb
on a passenger flight)
United States v. Munoz-Mosquera, unreported case, E.D.N.Y. 1995,
aff'd in part and vacated and modified in part in unpublished opinion
referred to at 101 F.3d 683, 1996 WL 281591 (2d Cir. 1996) (member of
Medellin drug cartel convicted of offenses relating to the November
1989 bombing of an Avianca aircraft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.
32).
Hague Convention (Hijacking)
United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (affirming
defendant's conviction for aircraft piracy in violation of 49 U.S.C.
Sec. 46501, the implementing legislation of the Hague Convention)
United States v. Mena, 933 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1991) (same) [This
case provisionally upheld the conviction; the conviction was affirmed
fully in 946 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1991)]
United States v. Pablo-Lugones, 725 F.2d 624 (11th Cir. 1984)
(affirming defendant's conviction for aircraft piracy in violation of
49 U.S.C. Sec. 46501) [then 49 U.S.C. App. 1472]
United States v. Castaneda-Reyes, 703 F.2d 522 (11th Cir. 1983)
(same)
United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329 (6th Cir. 1979) (same)
United States v. Busic, 592 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1978) (same)
Hostages Convention
United States v. Lue, 134 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (affirming
hostage-taking conviction/plea under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1203, the
implementing legislation for the Hostages Convention)
United States v. Lin, 101 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (affirming
hostage-taking conviction under 18 U.S.C. sec. 1203)
United States v. Lopez-Flores, 63 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1995) (same)
United States v. Carrion-Caliz, 944 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991) (same)
United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (same; also
hijacking)
Internationally Protected Persons Convention
United States v. Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman, et al., S.D.N.Y.
(prosecution against ten defendants for conspiracy to bomb the U.N.,
the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, and
various U.S. government buildings and military installations, as well
as conspiracy to murder Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the latter
offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1116 and 1117; all
defendants convicted on all counts; unreported trial court decision
posttrial, aff'd in part, remanded in part, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999),
cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1094 (2000))
United States v. Usama Bin Laden, et al., S.D.N.Y. (prosecution
against four defendants in custody for the bombings of U.S. embassies
in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and for conspiracy to
kill U.S. military personnel serving in Somalia and Saudi Arabia;
numerous other defendants remain fugitives; in June 2001, all four
defendants convicted of, among other charges, conspiracy to kill
internationally protected persons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.
1116 and 1117; no reported post-trial decision or appeal)
United States v. Shirosaki, unreported case, D.D.C. 1998, aff'd
without opinion, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
1081 (2000) (member of Japanese Red Army convicted of attempted murder
of internationally protected persons in connection with May 1986 mortar
attack on U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1116, one of the implementing statutes for the Internationally
Protected Persons Convention)
United States v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1989) (affirming
conviction for threatening Pope in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 112,
one of the implementing statutes for the Internationally Protected
Persons Convention)
United States v. Gan, 636 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1980) (affirming
defendants' convictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 112(a))
______

Response From the Department of State to an Additional Question
Submitted for the Record by Senator Allen

Question. Since September 11, how many countries have at least
started moving to sign or to ratify either of these Conventions?

Answer. The following countries have either signed or deposited
instruments of ratification with respect to either the International
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings or the
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism since September 11, 2001:
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
Ratifications deposited:

Belarus--October 1, 2001
Costa Rica--September 20, 2001
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
Signed:

Australia--October 15, 2001
Austria--September 24, 2001
Azerbaijan--October 4, 2001
Bahamas--October 2, 2001
Belgium--September 27, 2001
Colombia--October 30, 2001
Cuba--October 19, 2001
Denmark--September 25, 2001
Guatemala--October 23, 2001
Iceland--October 1, 2001
Indonesia--September 24, 2001
Ireland--October 15, 2001
Jordan--September 24, 2001
Liechtenstein--October 2, 2001
Luxembourg--September 20, 2001
Madagascar--October 1, 2001
Morocco--October 12, 2001
Nicaragua--October 17, 2001
Norway--October 1, 2001
Paraguay--October 12, 2001
Poland--October 4, 2001
Republic of Korea--October 9, 2001
Sweden--October 15, 2001
Tajikistan--November 6, 2001
Tunisia--November 2, 2001
Turkey--September 27, 2001
Uruguay--October 25, 2001
Ratifications deposited:
Azerbaijan--October 26, 2001
(Information available as of November 8, 2001)
______

Response From the Department of State to an Additional Question
Submitted for the Record by Senator Boxer

Question. What countries have signed or are parties to the
antiterrorism Conventions?

Answer. Please see attached chart indicating those countries that
have signed each counterterrorism convention and those that have become
parties, as of November 8, 2001.

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM CONVENTIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 1988 Protocol
Protocol for for the
1991 1988 the Suppression 1973 Convention 1971
1999 Convention Convention Suppression of Unlawful 1979 on the Montreal 1970 Hague 1963 Tokyo
Convention 1998 on the on the of Unlawful Acts of 1979 Convention Prevention and Convention Convention Convention
for the Convention Making of Suppression Acts Against Violence at Convention on the Punishment of for the for the on Offenses
Suppression for the Plastic of Unlawful the Safety Airports Against the Physical Crimes Against Suppression Suppression and Certain
of the Suppression Explosives Acts Against of Fixed Serving Taking of Protection Internationally of Unlawful of Unlawful Other Acts
Financing of of Terrorist for the the Safety Platforms International Hostages of Nuclear Protected Acts Against Seizure of Committed on
Terrorism \1\ Bombings \2\ Purpose of of Maritime Located on Aviation Material Persons the Safety Aircraft Board
Detection Navagation the Civil of Civil Aircraft
Continental Aviation Aviation
Shelf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................................................ S P P P
Albania.................................................... P P P
Algeria.................................................... S S P P P P P P P P
Andorra....................................................
Angola..................................................... P P P
Antigua & Barbuda.......................................... P P P P P P
Argentina.................................................. S S P P S P P P P P P P
Armenia.................................................... P P
Australia.................................................. S P P P P P P P P P
Austria.................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P P
Azerbaijan................................................. P P P P P P P P
Bahamas.................................................... S S S P P P P P
Bahrain.................................................... P P P P P
Bangladesh................................................. P P P
Barbados................................................... P P P P P P P
Belarus.................................................... P S S S P P P P P P P
Belgium.................................................... S S S S S P P P P P P
Belize..................................................... S P P P P
Benin...................................................... P
Bhutan..................................................... P P P P P
Bolivia.................................................... S S P P P
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... P P P P P P P
Botswana................................................... P P P P P P P P P P P P
Brazil..................................................... S P S S P P P P P P P
Brunei..................................................... S S P P P P P P
Bulgaria................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Burkina Faso............................................... P P P P
Burma...................................................... P P P P
Burundi.................................................... S P P S P
Cambodia................................................... P P P P
Cameroon................................................... P S P P P P P
Canada..................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Cape Verde................................................. P P P
Central African Republic................................... P P P P
Chad....................................................... P P P
Chile...................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
China...................................................... \3\ P P \3\ \3\ \4\ P \3\ \3\ \4\ \4\ \3\ \4\
Colombia................................................... S S P P P P
Comoros.................................................... S S P P P
Congo (ROC,................................................ S P P
Brazzaville).............................................
Congo (DROC,............................................... S S P P P P
Kinshasa)................................................
Costa Rica................................................. S P S S S S P P P P
Cote d'Ivoire.............................................. S S S P P P P
Croatia.................................................... P P P P P P
Cuba....................................................... S P P P
Cyprus..................................................... S P P P P P P P P P
Czech Republic............................................. S P P S S P P P P P P P
Denmark.................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P P
Djibouti................................................... P P P
Dominica................................................... P P
Dominican Republic......................................... S S P P P P
Ecuador.................................................... S P S S P P P P P P
Egypt...................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P
El Salvador................................................ P P P P P P P P P
Equatorial Guinea.......................................... P P P
Eritrea.................................................... P
Estonia.................................................... S S P P P P P P P
Ethiopia................................................... P P P P
Fiji....................................................... P P P P
Finland.................................................... S S S P P P P P P P P P
France..................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Gabon...................................................... S S S S P P P P
Gambia..................................................... P P P P P P
Georgia.................................................... S P P P P P
Germany.................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Ghana...................................................... P P P P P P P
Greece..................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Grenada.................................................... P P P P
Guatemala.................................................. S P P P P P P P P
Guinea..................................................... P S P P P P
Guinea-Bissau.............................................. S P P
Guyana..................................................... P P P
Haiti...................................................... P S P P P P
Holy See................................................... S
Honduras................................................... S P P P P
Hungary.................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Iceland.................................................... S S P P P P P P
India...................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Indonesia.................................................. S S P P P P
Iran....................................................... P P P P
Iraq....................................................... S S P S P P P P
Ireland.................................................... S S P P P P P
Israel..................................................... S S S S S P S S P P P P
Italy...................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P
Jamaica.................................................... S S P P P P
Japan...................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Jordan..................................................... S P S S P P P P P P
Kazakhstan................................................. P P P P P P P
Kenya...................................................... P P P P P
Kiribati...................................................
Korea (DPRK)............................................... P P P P P
Korea (ROK)................................................ S S S P P P P P P P
Kuwait..................................................... P P P P P P P
Kyrgyzstan................................................. P P P P P P
Laos....................................................... P P P
Latvia..................................................... P P P P P P
Lebanon.................................................... P P P P P P P P P P
Lesotho.................................................... S P P P P
Liberia.................................................... P P S S P P P S
Libya...................................................... P P P P P P P P
Liechtenstein.............................................. S P P P P P P P
Lithuania.................................................. S P P P P P P P
Luxembourg................................................. S S S P P P P P
Macedonia,................................................. S S P P P P P P P P
FYROM....................................................
Madagascar................................................. S S S P P P P
Malawi..................................................... S P P P P P
Malaysia................................................... S P P P
Maldives................................................... P P P P P P P
Mali....................................................... P P P P P P
Malta...................................................... S P P P P P
Marshall Islands........................................... P P P P P P
Mauritania................................................. P P P P P
Mauritius.................................................. S P P P P P P
Mexico..................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Micronesia,................................................
FSO.....................................................
Moldova.................................................... P P P P P P P
Monaco..................................................... P P P P P P P P
Mongolia................................................... P P P P P P P P P
Morocco.................................................... S P S S S S P P P
Mozambique.................................................
Namibia....................................................
Nauru...................................................... P P P
Nepal...................................................... S P P P P P
Netherlands................................................ S S P P P P P P P P P P
New Zealand................................................ S P P P P P P P P
Nicaragua.................................................. S S P P P P
Niger...................................................... S S P P P P
Nigeria.................................................... S S S P P P
Norway..................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P P
Oman....................................................... P P P P P P P P
Pakistan................................................... S P P P P P P P P P
Palau...................................................... P P P P
Panama..................................................... P P P P P P P P P
Papua New Guinea........................................... P P P
Paraguay................................................... S P P P P P
Peru....................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Philippines................................................ S S S S P P P P P P
Poland..................................................... S S P P S P P P P P P
Portugal................................................... S S P P S P P P P P P
Qatar...................................................... P P P P P
Romania.................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Russian Federation......................................... S P S P P P P P P P P P
Rwanda..................................................... P P P P
Saint Kitts and Nevis...................................... P
Saint Lucia................................................ P P P P
Saint Vincent.............................................. P P P P P P
and the Gr...............................................
Samoa...................................................... P P P P P
San Marino................................................. S
Sao Tome...................................................
and Principe.............................................
Saudi Arabia............................................... P S S P P P P P
Senegal.................................................... S S P P P P
Seychelles................................................. P P P P P P
Sierra Leone............................................... P P P
Singapore.................................................. P P P P
Slovak Republic............................................ S P P P P P P P P P P P
Slovenia................................................... S P P P P P P P P
Solomon Islands............................................ P
Somalia....................................................
South Africa............................................... S P P S P P P
Spain...................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P P
Sri Lanka.................................................. P P P P P P P P P P
Sudan...................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P P
Suriname................................................... P P P P
Swaziland.................................................. P P P
Sweden..................................................... S P S P P P P P P P P P
Switzerland................................................ S P P P P P P P P P P
Syria...................................................... P P P P
Taiwan\5\..................................................
Tajikistan................................................. S P P P P P P
Tanzania................................................... P P P
Thailand................................................... P P P P
Togo....................................................... S S P P P P P P
Tonga...................................................... P P
Trinidad & Tobago.......................................... P P P P P P P P P P P
Tunisia.................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
Turkey..................................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Turkmenistan............................................... P P P P P P P P P
Tuvalu.....................................................
Uganda..................................................... S P S P P P
Ukraine.................................................... S P P P P P P P P P P
United Arab Emirates....................................... P P P P P
United Kingdom............................................. P P P P P P P P P P P P
United States of America................................... S S P P P P P P P P P P
Uruguay.................................................... S S P P P P P P P P
Uzbekistan................................................. P P P P P P P P P P P P
Vanuatu.................................................... P P P P P
Venezuela.................................................. S S P P P P
Vietnam.................................................... P P P P
Yemen...................................................... P P P P P P P
Yugoslavia................................................. P P P P P P
(FRY)....................................................
Zambia..................................................... P P P P
Zimbabwe................................................... P P P
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not in force. P reflects a Party once in force.
\2\ Not in force for U.S.
\3\ Applicable to Hong Kong.
\4\ Applicable to Macau.
\5\ Taiwan committed to implement all anti-terrorism UN conventions.