curity Council would be rotated among the larger states. A nation like Japan would always be a member of the Security Council.

The United States should be able to translate into political influence and power its status as a financial mainstay of the U.N. We should not show undue respect for the General Assembly, the decisions of which, after all, are purely hortatory, and do not have the force of law. A little of that treatment might be in order at the present time. Members should rededicate themselves and strengthen their determination actually to suppress aggression-which, after all, is what the United Nations is all about, and which so many have forgotten. Remember Churchill's words that peace is not promoted by throwing small nations to the wolves. I have no illusions about the difficulty of bringing about these changes, but I believe that an eloquent effort to do so is very much worth making.

Since 1945, it is said, there have been 14 international and 24 civil wars-all with substantial casualties. The world is still a dangerous place. We need the United Nations.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I remember when Justice Goldberg was appointed to the United Nations position. I suppose he is the only Justice of the Supreme Court who ever left for another appointment, but he did leave that job, and performed excellently in the United Nations.

Mr. Justice, we are glad to have you, sir.

[Justice Arthur J. Goldberg's biography follows:]

BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH OF ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG

Arthur J. Goldberg has served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador, and Secretary of Labor.

Justice Goldberg was born in Chicago, Illinois, on August 8, 1908, the son of Joseph and Rebecca Goldberg.

He received his elementary education in Chicago Public Schools and was graduated from Benjamin Harrison High School in 1924. Mr. Goldberg attended Crane Junior College, a branch of the City College of Chicago. He received the Bachelor of Science in Law degree in 1929 and Doctor of Jurispru dence in 1930 from Northwestern University. He was Editor in Chief of the Illinois Law Review.

In 1929, Mr. Goldberg was admitted to practice before the Illinois bar. He qualified for practice before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1937.

He was engaged in private practice in Chicago from 1929 until 1948 and was the senior partner of the firm of Goldberg, Devoe, Shador and Mikva, Chicago, 1945 to 1961. Mr. Goldberg also practiced law with Goldberg, Feller and Bredhoff, Washington, D.C., 1952-1961, as the senior partner of that firm.

Mr. Goldberg was General Counsel of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), 1948-1955, and United Steel Workers of America, 1948-1961. He was Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO, 1955-1961. He also was Legal Advisor to several international unions.

During World War II he served as Special Assistant with the rank of Captain and Major with the Office of Strategic Services.

He is author of articles in American legal publications and journals of opinion, and the author of several books, including "AFL-CIO: Labor United," "The Defenses of Freedom: The Public Papers of Arthur J. Goldberg," and "Equal Justice: The Warren Era of the Supreme Court."

Mr. Goldberg married Dorothy Kurgans, an artist, in 1931. They have two children, a daughter, Mrs. Barbara Cramer, a social worker in Chicago, and a son, Robert M. Goldberg, an Alaska lawyer.

Justice Goldberg is practicing law in Washington, D. C., and is also a University Professor of Law and Diplomacy at American University, Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF JUSTICE ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. GOLDBERG, Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Senator Percy, Senator Case.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to present my views on what is an important and paramount subject, and I commend the committee very much for addressing itself interestingly enough after a long lapse of time to the United States and the United Nations and their respective roles. I am particularly gratified to participate in this committee's hearings with friends and colleagues of long standing, Governor Stassen, Senator Lodge, and Ambassador Yost.

My views perhaps are somewhat different from theirs, but you invited various views and I shall express my own.

U.S. EXPECTS TOO MUCH, DEMANDS TOO LITTLE OF U.N.

It is my considered opinion that the United States in relation to the U.N. expects too much and demands too little. This dichotomy requires an explanation.

The people of this country expected the U.N. to fulfill its great goal to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. This concept of unity of nations to keep the peace and achieve universal economic justice was born out of the optimism of victory in World War II.

Senator Percy, since you were sitting in the gallery at the opera house in San Francisco as a member of the Armed Forces at the birth of the United Nations I think you can bear out that statement. It reflected a conception that the World War II partners of different political systems and widely divergent ideologies would submerge their differences in the interest of international peace, security and progress and would yield enough of their sovereignty to enable the world organization to take effective and collective action to these ends.

Well, regrettably, the optimism of the Charter turned out to be excessive, despite the warnings by Governor Stassen and others that there would be problems that had to be coped with.

American expectations about the U.N. also were founded on a lack of appreciation of what was already underway when the victorious powers met at San Francisco to adopt the U.N. Charter-the end of colonialism and the emergence of more new nations than those assembled in the opera house.

If I remember correctly, there were then some 50 countries. Now there are 138 members.

The majority of the nations which met in San Francisco to adopt the Charter were of the West. The Communist Bloc was in the minority, and the third world was virtually nonexistent. In fact, that term was never employed at that time. It is of much more recent origin. Thus, in the early days of the United Nations it is not too much to say that we and our Western allies ran the show. Now, we had advanced warning as a result of experience with the Soviet Union, even during World War II, that things were not going to be so easy, but nevertheless, we did not fully anticipate the hostile attitude of the Soviets and their satellites at the U.N., and we certainly did not foresee the intense resentment of the new nations to colonial powers, and

we never conceived the fact they would regard us to be one. After all, we were in the vanguard to free India from British rule, Indonesia from Dutch domination, and the same was true of our role with respect to other colonial powers and other colonial countries.,

DECLINING INFLUENCE OF UNITED STATES IN UNITED NATIONS

Now, I need not detail what has been adverted to and what is a matter of record, the declining influence of the United States in the United Nations as a result of these developments. We lost our majority in the General Assembly to the third world and to the Communist Bloc, which has all too often exploited the grievances, justified or without warrant, of the new nations newly freed from colonialism.

As my colleagues who served at the U.N. can bear witness, and as I experienced, life at the U.N., therefore, has become increasingly difficult for the representatives of the United States to the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, those Members of Congress who have contributed so much to the success of U.N. delegations, these also can bear witness to the same fact.

Anyone who represents the United States in an Ambassadorial capacity smarts under attack, whether justified or unjustified. And U.S. representatives at the U.N. are no different. All our representatives, the ambassadors, the congressional delegates, I am sure nostalgically recall the halcyon days when the United States and their allies were the U.N. majority. The result of this change is undertandable if not always wise, it invites responses to attacks if only out of a sense of frustration.

I recall that during my 3 years of tenure at the U.N. the members of my mission and Members of Congress, repeatedly returning after heated exchanges in the General Assembly and saying why should the United States be singled out for attacks which by our lights the Soviets on many counts deserved far more than we do?

Now, we like all nations are a proud country, and properly so; nations, like people, do not relish insults, even of a rhetorical kind.

Now we may console ourselves by the old saying, sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you-but we do not like to be called bad names. Nations, like persons, are human after all.

MOYNIHAN ARTICLE IN COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ON U.N. REBUTTED

Dr. Patrick Moynihan, who I see will appear before you, and who, according to press reports, will be our next representative to the U.N., has recently written a very provocative article for Commentary Magazine, in which he says, in effect, we have been delinquent in not facing up to these attacks forthrightly, rebutting them and putting our policies in proper context.

Dr. Moynihan was my Executive Assistant at the Department of Labor. He is also the editor of one of my books and I, therefore, make my comment about his statement with the greatest friendship. He is simply mistaken. Every American representative to the U.N. from its beginning has attempted to do precisely what Dr. Moynihan recommends in his article. Indeed the latest illustration was Ambassador Scali's speech at the U.N. which forthrightly addressed itself to the

Third World in relation to matters where our country conceived that the Third World took positions that were not warranted.

Senator PERCY. I am happy to say, Justice Goldberg, that Dr. Moynihan will be before us soon and we will put the question to him. Mr. GOLDBERG. I am sure you will, and it will be helpful and you will receive some very enlightening answers. He is a very able and gifted man.

But to review my own reactions to attacks during my 3 years as American representative, I re-read my own speechmaking at the U.N. I found it a painful task in light of the number of speeches I delivered during 3 years of tenure.

Upon re-reading this record, I found that it is replete with the exercise by me of my right to reply-replies addressed not only to the Communist bloc but to a great many of the Third World nations as well.

But if the problem were just rhetorical exchange in the General Assembly, as Ambassador Lodge pointed out, these, however distasteful, can be lived with, particularly since the General Assembly constitutionally can only recommend. It is the Security Council which decides, and there we have a veto. And, of course, in all fairness some of the attacks that were made against us were justified and we frankly must concede that.

U.S. ATTITUDE TOWARD U.N.

But what concerns me, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the moment in addition to the concerns expressed by Governor Stassen and Senator Lodge, is that the General Assembly and some of the specialized agencies of the U.N., such as UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization-recently have gone beyond words. They have been taking actions in violation of the U.N. Charter, and this along with other failures of the U.N., as well as its substantial achievements-Ambassador Lodge and Governor Stassen correctly detailed some of these achievements-warrants reassessment by us of American attitudes toward the world organization.

I have come to the conclusion, expressed in my opening sentence, that we must moderate our expectations as to the U.N.'s capacity to make and keep the peace in this troubled world, and insure economic and social justice.

I think the polls show the declining support by the American people for the U.N. are based on or are the product of undue expectations.

We must accept the U.N. for what it is, a useful instrument to implement a political concensus by the superpowers in particular.

I would add to the achievements already mentioned, the final approval of the nonproliferation treaty and the guarantees that were made, by the Security Council relating thereto, and the consummation under U.N. auspices of the Space Treaty which was done under the general umbrella of the United Nations Committee on Outer Space.

The U.N. also is important as a forum to ventilate grievances by the Third World. In a great sense we get an expression of world opinion at the U.N. that we do not get in Washington. Washington Ambassadors of the Third World and other countries are here to promote friendly

relations. They understandably like to stand in well with the Secretary of State and the President, and while I do not say that they do not express the views of their country, they do not express it with the same vigor, intensity and candor as the delegates to the U.N. of the same countries.

And perhaps the expressions at the U.N., we thoughtfully must consider, are more reflective of the sentiments of those countries than expressions in Washington.

And, of course, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, the U.N. is an increasingly important agency to study and promote economic and social progress. What we continuously must bear in mind is that the United Nations is not a world government and the United States, for example, would not yield its sovereignty to make it a world government. I doubt that any nation today world.

And though the U.N. is helpful in keeping the peace and providing economic and social aid and assistance, its capacity even in these areas is limited. Congress has never been willing, and I think with considerable warrant, to transfer all of its aid to other countries to the U.N.

EXPANDING AID THROUGH MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATION

I am generally for expanding aid through multilateral organizations. I think we have perhaps reached the limit of the effectiveness of aid unilaterally supplied; but the people of this country, I think. understandably take the position that we cannot be the only giver and other countries have not responded in equal measure to the great generosity of the United States even with respect to the U.N.

Until recently we contributed through the budget contribution and through voluntary contributions 50 percent of U.N. expenditures. This led to reaction, and Congress responded to that reaction by reducing our contributions.

OBSERVANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL PROVISIONS OF CHARTER

Now, while moderating undue expectations, it seems to me we must also insist upon observance by all nations of the fundamental provisions of the U.N. Charter. We must not demand too little in this respect of the U.N. and its specialized agencies. Specifically, I have in mind that we have the right to demand that all member states refrain from unconstitutional action, action contrary to fundamental provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and its agencies.

Let me illustrate. There is a movement underway to deny Israel its proper place in the General Assembly. Action of this kind is clearly and plainly unconstitutional and contrary to the Charter. The Charter is very specific on this point. Under chapter 2 of the Charter, a member of the United Nations may, and I quote, "may be expelled from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly [only] upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

That was written in very advisedly. Clearly the majority is not empowered to deny to any member state the most basic right of membership. Similar to the protection we accord to the basic rights of the citizen of a democracy to exercise the franchise.