May 25, 1971

Mr. George H. Aldrich
Deputy Legal Adviser
Department of State
Washington, D.C, 20520

Dear Mr. Aldrich,

Thank you for your letter of May 21, concerning my coaunents
on the Genocide Convention,

I note your remark that “our intent in planning a deterrent
strategy is not genocidal", Of course, I concur with that view and
with that intent, However, I find it difficult to follow the
argument that "assured destruction" falls short of the "destruction
of a national group as such within the meaning of the Genocide
Convention", Unless one invokes the inherent right of self-defense
as an exception, I do not see how there can be a legal escape from
the characterization of a deterrent strategy as a conspiracy to
commit genocide, To be sure it is a contingent strategy, and one to
which I can see no better alternative as a basic element in our
defense policy. However, it is only the exception for self-defense
that can exclude it from the definition of conspiracy. Consider, for
example, thet some other group within the country had organized a
conspiracy for the assassination of a public figure, had developed
very detailed plans for the realization of that aim, and had organized
the means necessary for the implementation of those plans. The fact that
the group had also agreed to make their action contingent on some
specific action of that public official, even an illegal one, would
not mitigate the charge of conepiracy. :

Of course, I understand that the Convention is not intended to
be an arms control measure and I know very well the kind of evil to'
whichift is overtly directed, But its formal adoption as a treaty will
be adding a body of organic law for which there are not many precedente.
I fear that our own courts will then become the arena of contentious
arguments that we would do well to anticipate and avoid, In the long run,
I am sure the courts would sustain the legality of our traditional policies.
But the very process will have its own costs, particularly if there should
be some confusing judicial decision at an intermediate level. For example,
we have sufficient problems vis-avtée government supported research on
our campuses at the present time without giving substance to charges that
work related to our defensive strategies is part of an overtly illegal
conspiracy.

over

pe

 

 

 
Mr. George H. Aldrdéch -2- §/25/71

The closing remarks of your letter suggest a reasonable way
out of this délémma: an explicit reference to the “inherent right
of self-defense" and the clear cut articulation of our understanding
that this is not impaired by the Convention,

I am quite sympathetic to the arguments for U.S, ratification
and hope we can find prudent ways to minimize these impedements.

Sincerely yours,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics

JL/rr