    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1999, Book I)]
    [January 6, 1999]
    [Pages 13-14]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Message to the Senate Transmitting the Hague Convention for the
    Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
    January 6, 1999

    To the Senate of the United States:
        I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to
    ratification, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural
    Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (the Convention) and, for
    accession, the Hague Protocol, concluded on May 14, 1954, and entered
    into force on August 7, 1956. Also enclosed for the information of the
    Senate is the report of the Department of State on the Convention and
    the Hague Protocol.
        I also wish to take this opportunity to reiterate my support for the
    prompt approval of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of
    12 August 1949, concluded at Geneva on June 10, 1977 (Protocol II).
    Protocol II, which deals with noninternational armed conflicts, or civil
    wars, was transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to
    ratification in 1987 by President Reagan but
    has not been acted upon.

    The Hague Convention

        The Convention was signed by the United States on May 14, 1954, the
    same day it was concluded; however, it has not been submitted to the
    Senate for advice and consent to ratification until now.
        The Hague Convention, to which more than 80 countries are party,
    elaborates on obligations contained in earlier treaties. It also
    establishes a regime for special protection of a highly limited category
    of cultural property. It provides both for preparations in peacetime for
    safeguarding cultural property against foreseeable effects of armed
    conflicts and also for respecting such property in time of war or
    military occupation. In conformity with the customary practice of
    nations, the protection of cultural property is not absolute. If
    cultural property is used for military purposes, or in the event of
    imperative military necessity, the protection afforded by the Convention
    is waived, in accordance with the Convention's terms.
        Further, the primary responsibility for the protection of cultural
    property rests with the party controlling that property, to ensure that
    the property is properly identified and that it is not used for an
    unlawful purpose.
        The Hague Protocol, which was concluded on the same day as the
    Convention, but is a separate agreement, contains provisions intended to
    prevent the exportation of cultural property from occupied territory. It
    obligates an occupying power to prevent the exportation of cultural
    property from territory it occupies, requires each party to take into
    its custody cultural property exported contrary to the Protocol, and
    requires parties to return such cultural property at the close of
    hostilities. However, as described in the report of the Secretary of
    State, there are concerns about the acceptability of Section I of the
    Hague Protocol. I therefore recommend that at the time of accession, the
    United States exercise its right under Section III of the Hague Protocol
    to declare that it will not be bound by the provisions of Section I.
        The United States signed the Convention on May 14, 1954. Since that
    time, it has been subject to detailed interagency reviews. Based on
    these reviews, I have concluded that the United States should now become
    a party to the Convention and to the Hague Protocol, subject to the
    understandings and declaration contained in the report of the Department
    of State.
        United States military policy and the conduct of operations are
    entirely consistent with the Convention's provisions. In large measure,
    the practices required by the Convention to protect

    [[Page 14]]

    cultural property were based upon the practices of U.S. military forces
    during World War II. A number of concerns that resulted in the original
    decision not to submit the Convention for advice and consent have not
    materialized in the decades of experience with the Convention since its
    entry into force. The minor concerns that remain relate to ambiguities
    in language that should be addressed through appropriate understandings,
    as set forth in the report of the Department of State.
        I believe that ratification of the Convention and accession to the
    Protocol will underscore our long commitment, as well as our practice in
    combat, to protect the world's cultural resources.
        I am also mindful of the international process underway for review
    of the Convention. By becoming a party, we will be in a stronger
    position to shape any proposed amendments and help ensure that U.S.
    interests are preserved.
        I recommend, in light of these considerations, that the Senate give
    early and favorable consideration to the Convention and the Protocol and
    give its advice and consent to ratification and accession, subject to
    the understandings and declaration contained in the report of the
    Department of State.

    Protocol II Additional

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

                                                          William J. Clinton

    The White House,

    January 6, 1999.

    Note: An original was not available for verification of the content of
    this message.