[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.