too, like we can be wrong and rich. And we are not that rich. One of the reasons we are not, we have given a lot of it away. You mentioned China. I was on the other side of the China issue, not at first but I changed; namely, I thought that we had to recognize mainland China. I think there are certain facts of life you have to face. ROLE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN THE UNITED STATES Why was the U.S. policy what it was? Two reasons: Leadership on the one hand, and public opinion on the other hand. We do have the problem of public opinion in America. We have a President who says he knows what to do about the oil problem-that is to put on some tariffs. In some countries he would have gotten by with it. Here we said, "wait a minute, back up." we have public opinion here-we have Congressmen and Senators who do not agree with the President. We would get a lot of things done in this country if we did not have public opinion. Other countries do not have to worry much about public opinion. We are going to debate our defense policy here shortly. I am sure you have not heard much public debate in the Soviet Union about defense policy, or Eastern Germany. I went to see the Ambassador, from East Germany. Well, and good, I am glad we now have those relationships. We do not have much debate about public policy in some parts of the world; therefore. our Government is in a sense moved by what seems to be at least a prevailing public opinion. I have lost some elections on this. Mr. FALK. I agree that American public opinion is a relevant factor when we deal with these questions, with all respect Senator Humphrey, I think on some of these issues the public opinion is itself a product of national leadership. Senator HUMPHREY. I think that is true. Mr. FALK. I think the China issue could have been handled quite differently by American leaders and with quite positive results. Another thing that I think disturbs people like myself is the hypocrisy of so much of the rhetoric ostensibly concerned with the promotion of liberal democratic values abroad. We managed to live perfectly happily with Portuguese facism for 50 years. Senator HUMPHREY. I do not agree with that. A lot of us were highly critical. It was accepted because of the fact it was there. Just like the Soviet Union and China were there, so was the Salazar dictatorship. It was there and so, therefore, we dealt with it. Mr. FALK. When it was collapsed and was succeeded by what was in comparison a democratic movement rather than welcoming that change in Portugal, Vice President Rockefeller and others called it the most tragic development in recent international history. Senator HUMPHREY. The people have choices in the election. You get what you buy. That goes for a lot of things and for all of us in public life. People have to know that. There are basic policy decisions that are made. I agree with you that the top leadership of a country has a great deal to do with formulating public opinion. A public political leader has to be an educator on the one hand and he has to be a person sensitive to what the public thinks on the other hand. He has to be an educator to help bring facts and information to the public. There are people who have been on this committee for years. Some of us have fought against Portuguese colonialism for years. Some of s have been substantial voices in the country and have expressed ourselves time and time in opposition to Rhodesian policy. I lead the fight in the Senate to repeal the Byrd amendment. It did not get through the other body. They were elected by the people in all these congressional districts. Not enough people in this country are really interested as yet or not yet sufficiently aware of the interdependence of this world hat we live in. DIFFICULTIES OF GOVERNMENT What you basically had to say I find refreshing and enlightening. There are times I feel people outside of government-and I have been in and out-do not understand the difficulties that there are in government. You sometimes have to work with what there is. I was mayor of my city. There were certain elements in the city, let us say for example, even in the labor movement, that I personally did not like, but I had to work with them until there was a change made. And I worked with certain elements in the business community until changes could be made. And I think that is what happens sometimes in government. The same people who are critical of America for trying to meddle in everything military are the very same people who would like to have us meddle in everything political, only on the other side. I think we have a real problem here today with our representation in the United Nations. How much do we really meddle? How much force do we really bring to bear? What would you think if the United States was overt, not covert, in the backing of certain liberation movements in countries which provoked revolution, which in turn projected disorder, which then resulted in war, and which finally got some of our people involved and got them killed again. This is a problem. I happen to sympathize with Angola's desire for independence. I happen to be bitterly opposed to the regime that is in Rhodesia. I happen to believe that what President Kaunda in Zambia is trying to do is the right thing. I do not like apartheid, and said so, and said so even at the Organization of African unity during the time I was Vice President. My point though, is how many students have you educated like that at the university? What are they doing around the country about it? We are like lonely sheep around here. I do not find anybody getting very excited about it. Would you help me a little bit? How do public opinion around to make a more constructive policy? U.S. RIGHT TO SPEAK UP IN ITS OWN DEFENSE you get Might I say quickly I was in Rome; and the reason we were there is because I promoted it, to be immodest; and it is a fact. I helped get that World Food Conference and to get our Government to sponsor the resolution at the U.N., but I listened to speakers from other countries, the Third World countries, who were sheer demagoges. They were not doing much about the food problems of their own people; they were buying airplanes and equipping armies and refusing to do anything about the feeding of their own people as they were standing there and pointing their fingers at us and saying: "Look at you capitalists, you are not helping us." I remember Secretary Butz was shocked when he heard this. I said Mr. Secretary, you have not been at enough international conferences We are going to have 3 days of abuse and then people are going to settle down and talk it out rationally, which is exactly what happened I have listened to the most vitriolic speeches about the United State from representatives of countries that refuse to do anything abou family planning, refuse to do anything about agricultural develop ment, refuse to feed their own people. Now that does not make u poor, but I am not about ready to roll over and play dead and say you are a nice fellow. I think we ought to stand up to them and say hey buddy, before you start telling us how to run it why don't you clear your stables. I think we have a right as Americans to argue our own stuff. I d not believe that I ought to stand up and, just to prove that I am a nic lovable human being filled with understanding, let somebody com up and hit me across the head with a two by four, and accuse me o discrimination and bigotry, and intolerance, and misinformation. What is your response? Mr. FALK. I am awed. Senator HUMPHREY. After you have been through about 25 of thes international conferences, I would like to know what you have to say about them. I have had to stay there and listen to this. FORMULATING PUBLIC OPINION Mr. FALK. I think that there are several separate questions that w are trying to deal with. One is how to get an American public opinion that supports more enlightened positions. And my contention, which I think is borne out by the most recent polls, is that on many issue the public would support positions far in advance of the Govern ment's own "liberal" positions sufficiently popular that a nationa leadership could easily pursue them if it chose to do so. In other words I am saying that sometimes public opinion is used as an excuse for pur suing a rather selfish interest that does not necessarily have a publi mandate. Senator HUMPHREY. I agree with that. Mr. FALK. One has to look at the particular issue, see how the public feels about it, and then determining whether these feelings ar based on a proper understanding of the real U.S. policy choices and their respective consequences. Now as far as the hypocrisy of some Third World and other gov ernments is concerned, I think that that certainly is a fact of international life. However, I do not think that it behooves the United States to try to set that right. At this point we do not ourselves have such credibility, moral or political to tell other societies how they should run their own society. And we will surely not enhance our own legitimacy by attacking foreign societies and making them a target of abuse. Senator HUMPHREY. But I do not want them to tell us how to run ourselves all the time. Mr. FALK. But that is not a question of parity. We have just been involved for a decade in a war that killed an awful lot of people. Senator HUMPHREY. We were involved for two decades before that in efforts that saved the lives of millions of people. I am not going to forget the Marshall plan, our AID program, our food program. We drew down on our food reserves in this country in 1947 to less than 1 day's supply and gave it away, depending on God Almighty and weather to give us a good crop. I was involved in that. I come from the Midwest. We had 80 million tons of wheat left, which was not enough to feed chickens. We took a chance. I think we ought to get credit for some of the good things we have done. We get kicked around. I have been a sharp critic of this Government-I do not mean this administration-I mean of this Government. I do believe that our Government does not play a proper role in the U.N. I do believe that we underestimate its potentials and I think we have helped weaken it. I must say again I get a little weary hearing just criticism. Might I also add, if you keep telling the American people all the time that we have always been wrong, we have done nothing right, they are not going to respond. They need to be told once in a while not only did we take lives, make a tragic mistake, but we have done some good things. Mr. FALK. I think that is fine to tell the American people. That is not my point. Senator HUMPHREY. And the world, too, needs to remember it. Mr. FALK. I am trying to make a rather simple practical point, namely, that in my judgment at this stage in international relations the U.S. cannot effectively present itself to the world as a force for good independently of doing concrete things, and to lecture foreign governments or to point to the abuses that exist elsewhere in the world will be viewed as a diversionary maneuver. The most this approach can do is to give a warm feeling domestically. In my view this is the reason that Ambassador Moynihan's way of thinking about these issues has attracted a large following, but it is a very shortsighted attitude toward how to constructively and effectively participate in international institutions. Senator HUMPHREY. You made a very valuable point. I think it is a matter of how it is done, more than the fact that it is done. DEFENDING THE U.S. SYSTEM I do think you are right-it does not do us much good to lecture them but I am in politics. If someone makes a false charge at me and repeats it and repeats it, I do not consider it abrasive if I say to him, you do not speak the truth; here are the things are are true, if you can refute them, well and good. I am not trying to tell some country over there how they should run their government. I think that is another matter. We need a sense of idealism. But idealism still includes free speech, freedom of press, the right of trial by jury. We still believe in these things, and I think we ought to say so. If other countries do not have them, we should not lecture but tell them we believe in them and practice them well. Mr. FALK. Could I interrupt you for a second on that point? If you were to tell that to Chileans, what they would say is, "We would like to see you dismantle the covert operation's capability of the CIA, then tell us about your commitment to civil liberties." |