In the light of this, the Commission rushes to submit that nothing in this approach would justify the United States taking a substantive position with regard to the merits of the underlying dispute in Northern Ireland.

The United States is properly concerned primarily with the apparent disregard on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom as one of its closest friends in international affairs and a beneficiary of its deepest traditions of fair play and the Rule of Law.

The Rules of Law are not made for moments of peace when there is no need for them, but precisely for the moments of stress.

If the rules of due process create an obstacle to order or peace in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom should be asked to face the fact of that failure and try to re-evaluate its own behavior in the light of that failure.

The assumption that order cannot be restored without violating the fundamental concepts of government fair play is so damning to British Rule in. Northern Ireland that to focus on the issue is to encourage a re-examination by the United Kingdom of just what values it thinks it is protecting in Northern Ireland. If this were done, perhaps a way to a peaceful solution might be found.

This approach, the Commission submits, has special advantages in dealing with the government of the United Kingdom since it is no intermixture in the internal affairs of that country to register interest in how it handles "accused" "suspect" terrorists under its own laws.

Since The United States shares a vital concern with the United Kingdom in the cognate forms of law applied to crimes with a political motivation, indeed, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution are direct evidence of that concern based upon real experience with unsuccessful· attempts to suppress political unrest.

APPROPRIATE U.S. INTEREST

It is the Commission's view that it would be appropriate for the United States government to express an interest in this matter. In expressing such interest it would be important that no political stand be taken as to the merits of any argument current and historically relevant in Ireland or England.

The purpose of encouraging the rule of law as a safeguard for human dignity can be served regardless of such concerns. Indeed, taking a position on the merits of the quarrels in Ireland might well tarnish the silver lance that the United States wields.

In a lighter note, the Commission does not advocate the solution to the Irish question once proposed by George Bernard Shaw in his work, "How to Settle the Irish Question" (1917) wherein he noted:

"As a Protestant myself (and a little to spare), I am highly susceptible to the spirit in these war cries express; and though I know that King William is as dead as Bloody Mary, and that if it should turn out rather unexpectedly that the old Ulster brimestone hell actually exists, all the thoroughgoing Protestants of Ulster will most assuredly spend eternity in it for usurping the divine judgment seat, yet if it comes to a fight between the north and south, I will back Ulster to at least deadlock any military force that Catholic Ireland can bring against her. "Ireland's imagination is still in the eighteenth century when it is not in the seventeenth.

". . . it will justify the Scottish officer who said to me impatiently the other day, 'Oh, let us give the wretched place (Ireland) its independence, and make it a foreign Power. Then we can conquer it and treat it as a conquered country and have no more nonsense about it.' That Scot was a man after my own heart.. A great deal of confusion exists about the trouble in Northern Ireland and it is one of the faults of the news media to present the news as one of contest between Catholic and Protestant. That summary has the virtue of conciseness and the vice of being inaccurate.

Historically and psychologically the Irish deserve a future that breaks away from the hatreds and miseries of their past.

It should be apparent, therefore, that the Commission espouses recourse to the rules of fair play to be demonstrated in domestic and international law which grows with the majesty of due process of law. A positive rule of law can overcome political and ideological differences to achieve the cohesion of responsible social order which is the end goal of all civilized governments.

In placing political considerations to the side, the Commission does not place itself in a position of being unaware that a resolution to the problem at hand

entails the question of authority. Rule of Law requires the acceptance of author ity as long as that authority acts to protect the rights of all subjects which have granted said authority its right to govern.

A CRISIS OF AUTHORITY

Most assuredly the Irish problem is a crisis of authority. Crises of authority are nothing new to the Northern Irish. Crises have been present in Ulster for a thousand years or more. The protests and killings, arrest and detentions remind us that the crisis goes on still. Certain of the persons of Ulster have disputed the very existence of the State since its foundation a half-century ago in the midst of turmoil and civil war. Because Northern Ireland has so long been a land without political consensus, its people have had many opportunities to learn how to live with political conflict. The Unionist government, struggling to maintain itself, faces challenges as difficult as those of the Irish Republicans, determined to overthrow it.

Modestly stated, the Commission suggests that an answer within the framework of due process of law is necessary and paramount-regardless of the political ramifications extraneously related to the circumstances.

The Commission suggests that any beginnings toward a resolution of the Irish question requires a consideration of the rights and responsibilities of all parties concerned. Specifically, it would seem that there is a chance for a consensus of the people regarding the political authority, if the United Kingdom and the government of Northern Ireland return to enforcement and implementation of the judicial procedures of due process of law which are admittedly within their own most dear traditions. At such a time the peoples of Northern Ireland should have one less cause to protest deprivations of their fundamental Human Rights.

The Commission for International Due Process of Law suggests that the role of the government of the United States is therefore a matter of calling attention to the fact of the derogation by the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland in the matter of Human Rights deprivations and of its obligations as Signatory to the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the various Covenants and Protocols relating to governmental obligations to protect and implement the Human Rights of its subject citizens.

As John F. Kennedy once stated when President of the United States, "What, after all, is peace but a matter of Human Rights."

THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In a major respect the international human rights lawyer has an advantage over the domestic civil liberties lawyer. The human rights clauses of the Charter are now illuminated by four documents of remarkable scope, almost without precedent in domestic law-that constitute the International Bill of Human Rights. They are:

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

3. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

4. The Optional Protocol.

What must be stressed is that no lawyer of integrity and competence should dare pronounce on the effect of the Charter's human rights obligations until he has measured the impact of the International Bill of Human Rights on those obligations.

The prescriptive clauses of the International Bill of Human Rights are: "No one shall be subjected to . . . cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."-Art. 5 of the Declaration; Art. 7 of the C & P Covenant.

"Everyone is entitled . . . to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of . any criminal charge against

him."-Art. 10 of the Declaration; Art. 14 of the C & P Covenant.

"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”—Art. 6 of the C & P Covenant.

"All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."—Art. 10(1) of the C & P Covenant.

As with words of the International Bill of Human Rights the words of all those documents-approved as they have been by the nations assembled-again and again will usually tell us more about violations of "human rights and funda

mental freedoms" than will legal experts whose immediate assignment, ad hoc, too often is to defend one government or attack another.

In sum, the human rights obligations of the United Nations Charter have been codified at great length. Bold and conscientious lawyers now must utilize those codifications.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much.

Congressman Ottinger, I am sorry you had to wait so long.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK

Mr. OTTINGER. I want to thank you you very much for the opportunity to testify, Mr. Chairman.

I appear here as a private citizen, and a former member of this body. For 6 years, I was very much concerned with the problems of violation of the freedom of Irish people at that time and the author of several resolutions directed to this question.

I want to congratulate you warmly on holding these hearings on the long and shameful neglect of the American Government to make its influence felt to correct the horrendous travesty of justice, decency, respect to humanity and self-determination perpetrated by the British Government on the Catholics of Ireland.

Self-determination, non-discrimination and equality and fairness of justice since the formation of our Government have been fundamental precepts of our domestic and foreign policies.

As Congressman Hays has pointed out, while we have by no means perfected our observance of these policies, they have been the fundamental constitutional precepts for which we have striven and on which we have based our foreign policy.

It is nothing short of an outrage that we should have sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans and spent billions of dollars to promote a very illusory self-determination in Southeast Asia, and not lifted a finger in protest against the systematic subjugation by Britain of a large segment of the people of Ireland.

There can be no question that very basic violations of fundamental human rights have been perpetrated by the British Army and by Stormont government in Northern Ireland, and that these violations are responsible for provoking the violent responses we have been witnessing by the Irish Republican Army.

INTERNMENT WITHOUT TRIAL

The basic civil rights of northern Catholics were suspended years ago by the Special Powers Act which recently has been applied with tyranny. More than 1,200 Catholics have been interned without trial. There have been indiscriminate killings by British soldiers and a rein of terror by the Ulster Defense Force and the Ulster Special Constabulary.

All aspects of elemental justice in terms of arraignment, fair trial and humane treatment have been suspended. And these excesses were all going on well before the IRA's violent reaction to them. Indeed. had the United States made its influence felt earlier, the IRA acts of desperation might well have been avoided.

The British are our long-time friends and proven allies. Certainly expressions of severe concern by us could influence their actions. And we have the power to bring considerable international pressure to bear upon Britain in the United Nations and through our relations with other friendly countries.

It is a sad chapter in our history that we haven't so much as raised our voice on this grave and fundamental issue of justice and freedom.

Unlike the situation in Vietnam, this is not a case where we have been called upon to intervene militarily or even supply money or military assistance. What is called for is simply that we use our good offices and influence to correct horrendous injustices and promote self-determination for the people of Ireland.

If the Administration will not act, certainly Congress should. I therefore, warmly support H. Res. 653 introduced by Congressmen Carey, Biaggi and many others.

INDEPENDENCE AND UNITY

It seems clear at this point that for justice to be done in Northern Ireland and peace restored, the British must be prevailed upon to do more than just dissolve the local Ulster Parliament at Stormont, restore basic civil rights and provide long-promised reforms to the people.

Provision must be made for the people of all of Ireland to express themselves democratically as to their desire for independent government. To deny the possibility for the Irish people to choose an independent united Ireland, is to deny Irish freedom and the basic democratic rights for which we have stood historically and which we claim to be defending in Southeast Asia.

I, therefore, urge further that this subcommittee support Congress man Biaggi's H. Res. 195 and other parallel resolutions.

I further call upon the administration to use all of its resources to press upon Britain the holding of free elections for all of Ireland. If we have an interest in freedom, democracy and justice, if we have an interest in preventing further tragic bloodshed in Ireland, we can do no less.

Mr. Chairman, because this has reference to the question under discussion, I would like to include with my remarks a background report written by William A. Murphy, B.A., M.A., Ph. D. candidate, Fordham one of our prominent young leaders in Westchester who has been active on the Irish question."

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Dermot G. Foley, chairman, American Committee for Ulster Justice.

Mr. Foley, are you going to submit Paul O'Dwyer's statement? Mr. FOLEY. Yes, sir. Paul O'Dwyer's statement will be submitted. I have a short one of my own to make.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. Without objection, Mr. O'Dwyer's statement and supporting documentation will be included in the record at this point.

10 See p. 523 for Mr. Murphy's article.

STATEMENT OF PAUL O'DWYER, AMERICAN COMMITTEE FOR ULSTER JUSTICE, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am here to speak on behalf of his resolution. I believe that if it is reported out of Committee and passed by the House of Representatives, it will constitute a new and refreshing change in our national approach to the problems of the little people of the world. The 500,000 Catholics in Northern Ireland have no spokesman in the United Nations because they are not a recognized legal entity, and the best one can hope for is a recognition of their plight by the Commission on Human Rights, which is without power of redress. Their spokesmen in the House of Commons-that bastion of liberty— are not permitted to speak even when their constituents are murdered in cold blood by the Army of the Crown. In Stormont their representatives have experienced insult and frustration. Stormont has given and continues to give dishonor to the concept of British justice, and has made a mockery of the Great Charter. And the Tory government, to its everlasting shame has abandoned its pretense at devotion to democracy, and has, in cowardly fashion, given full approval to arrest without charge, punishment without trial and torture administered by British agents expert in their craft and collected from the remnants of the Empire. The Tory government has applauded while its Belfast satellite has twice used its rigged courts to convict Bernadette Devlin, Mid-Ulster representative to the House of Commons.

STORMONT NO GOVERNMENT

By its official acts of discrimination against its own minority for the past half century, Stormont has forfeited its right to be called a government in any sense of the word. After long endurance the representatives of the Catholic minority to the Belfast body have withdrawn from it and neither threat nor bribery will cause them to return. The people for their part, having suffered the utmost degradation for now more than two generations, are painfully aware that a government which should have served them has been both actually and psychologically oppressive. The people have made the simple determination that such a government must fall and their hopes and ambition lie in United Ireland free from British interference.

It is in this context that a resolution from your body is altogether proper. For Secretary of State Rogers to say, as he has so recently said to Irish Foreign Minister Patrick Hillery, that the presence of 15,000 British soldiers on Irish soil, murdering Irish men, women and children, is an internal affair of Great Britain, is as stupid as it is illogical, and it parallels the myopia of the Tory representatives whose policies our State Department blindly follows. It is this kind of senseless rhetoric which makes our nation suspect among the peoples of the earth.

It should be made clear that there are literally millions of Englishmen who are ashamed of their government's behavior in Northern Ireland even as there are millions of us here who equally resent our disgraceful performance in IndoChina. By far, the great majority of Englishmen have signified their wish that their troops be brought back home.

A NEW INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIP

Our House of Representatives has an obligation to pass this resolution. In doing so, we shall have made common cause with millions of our English and Irish brethren, but more important we shall have embarked on a new type of international relationship with truth at its base. We shall have lost nothing but discredited language and diplomatic hypocrisy.

The argument has been made by some Senators and even candidates for the Presidency, that the rule prohibiting us from even passing moral judgment on our neighbors' behavior keeps them from looking over the fence or even into our domain. It might be very salutary if our friends or even those not so friendly, could look, say, into our Southland and even to our Northland with their built-in patterns of discrimination and segregation. It would be a most happy thought if strangers and friends could freely criticize us and point to our misconduct. We may indeed find that while we have become callous and indifferent to condemnation at home, our neighbors' criticism might help to remind us of our constitutional and traditional commitments. We should welcome such a development. In short, if you pass this resolution, you will have raised the signal that this body is assuming its proper role as the conscience of our country. You will have