which is used to bash in one's head. But financial contributions are minimal in proportion to our wealth or national budget, and the void will be filled by others, especially the oil-wealthy Arab States. Retreat could also take the form of reducing the amount and quality of diplomatic input, and by official denunciations of the Organization.

I would oppose such steps. It is precisely because the United Nations is used as a weapon that we must invest important diplomatic capital there. When certain States used the Assembly during the last Special Session to define world economic issues as a confrontation between the wealthy industrialized nations and the developing world, the possibility of a cooperative approach to very real and tragic problems is diminished. We must counter such tactics while explaining publicly and privately the reasons behind the American position. The P.L.O. issue was raised to block peace negotiations in Geneva and by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is imperative that we stand against such attacks against the peace and retain maximum flexibility of action. If it is our calculation that expulsion of South Africa will result in an even greater repression of blacks and contribute to the possibility of racial war in Africa, it is necessary to make those points while retaining the ability to use our influence constructively. On a less obvious level, some developing countries and especially Communist China are initiating issues and employing debating tactics in order to force the United States and the Soviet Union apart, thereby threatening the developing of détente .Only an alert and close attention to such maneuvers in the United Nations can frustrate these designs.

These are formidable tasks. As part of the new minority, we must attempt to prevent dangerous issues from being politicized in the United Nations. Inside and without the Organization we must exert our efforts to prevent adoption of resolutions which rigidify positions and create obstacles to negotiations. We must impress others with the dangers which flow from public polemics. It will be argued that the United States did not show this concern about abuse of the United Nations during the first twenty years of the Cold War. That charge was repeated again and again during the debate which followed Ambassador Scali's speech. This perception does not alter the necessity of acting in the manner I have described. It just makes the job that much more difficult.

Obviously, this government faces hard problems. We romanticized the role of the United Nations and majority rule, especially when the Organization implemented American foreign policy. It will be extraordinarily difficult now to rationalize continued involvement in an Organization which sponsors wars, passes one-sided or unenforceable resolutions, provides forums for international insult instead of diplomacy, and is guilty of the most outrageous examples of selective justice. Perhaps it will be impossible for the American people to overcome disillusion and they will demand withdrawal from the world body. Because such action is inimical to our interests and those of world peace, I urge you, Ambassador Daniel Moynihan, and other responsible officials to pubilicize honestly and soberly the reasons for our continued participation. By recognizing the United Nations as a dangerous weapon, you will be better able to discount its pernicious effects. You will be less discouraged in your support for quiet diplomacy, mediation, efforts to avert nuclear or environmental catastrophes, and contribute better to social and economic justice for the peoples of the world. Clearer perception of the World Organization will facilitate the search for appropriate means of accomplishing these ends, which reality and good sense demand, and which must be pursued in spite of the uses made of the United Nations.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Joseph Segel, former chairman of the Board of Governors, United Nations Association.

We are glad to have you with us.

[Mr. Segel's biography follows:]

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOSEPH M. SEGEL

Joseph M. Segel, founder of The Franklin Mint, retired as chairman of the corporation on December 31, 1973, and is now a consultant to the company. He is currently serving as Chairman of The Segel Foundation, a non-profit trust

engaged in research and education programs focused on the development of new approaches to international cooperation.

Mr. Segel was appointed by President Ford as a member of the United States delegation to the 29th General Assembly of the United Nations. During that session, which met from September, 1974, Mr. Segel was involved in reviewing and presenting the United States' position on six issues; peacekeeping guidelines, freedom of information, disaster relief, apartheid environmental modification and strengthening the role of the United Nations.

Mr. Segel also recently completed a two-year term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. He declined to accept renomination as Chairman at the biennial convention of the UNA-USA in April 1975, but will continue as a member of the association's Board of Governors for the period 1975-1977.

EARLY HISTORY

Mr. Segel was born in Philadelphia on January 9, 1931.

After graduation from the University of Pennsylvania in 1951, Mr. Segel joined the faculty of the University's Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. During this period of time, he established The Advertising Specialty Institute, which grew into the central information service of the specialty advertising industry. He left the university in 1953 to devote full time to that business.

In 1961, The Advertising Specialty Institute and its affiliated companies were acquired by National Business Services, Inc. Mr. Segel continued as Chairman of the Board of Directors of National Business Services, Inc., for three additional years.

Then, in 1964, at age 33, he embarked on a new career in the numismatic field. He founded The National Commemorative Society, which introduced many new concepts to collectors of medallic art. In the same year he founded The Franklin Mint, which has since become the world's largest private minting organization— with operations in eleven countries, more than 2,000 employees and annual volume exceeding $150 million.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES-1975

Chairman, Board of Trustees, The Segel Foundation, Philadelphia; President, Le Mirador, S.A., Mont Pelerin, Switzerland; Board of Governors, United Nations Association of the United States of America; Board of Directors, World Affairs Council of Philadelphia; National Commission for the Observance of World Population Year, Department of State, Washington; Fine Arts Committee, Department of State, Washington; Founder Member, International Peace Academy, New York; Fellow, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia.

PAST ACTIVITIES

Chairman, Board of Governors, United Nations Association of the U.S.A., 1973-1975; Delegate (Alternate United States Representative) to the 29th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1974; Chairman, Board of Trustees, The Franklin Foundation, 1969-1974; Chairman, Board of Directors, Franklin Mint Corporation, 1972-1973; President, The Franklin Mint, 1964–1971; Chairman, Board of Directors, National Business Services, Inc., 1962-1964; Chairman, Board of Trustees, Customer Relations Research Foundation, 1963-1964; President, Jordan Edwards Co., 1962-1964; Editor & Publisher, The Counselor Magazine, 1954-1963; President, The Advertising Specialty Institute, 1951-1962; Founder and Secretary Emeritus, Advertising Specialty Guild of America (Now Specialty Advertising Association), 1957-1960.

1974

AWARDS AND HONORS

Medal of Merit Award-American Numismatic Association; 1974Super Achiever Award-Juvenile Diabetes Foundation; 1973-Man of the YearGreat Eastern Numismatic Association; 1973-Marketing Man of the Year Award-Direct Mail Advertising Association; 1972-William Hunt Eisman Award-Philadelphia Chapter of the American Society of Metals; 1971-Humanitarian Award-The Chapel of Four Chaplains; 1970-Industrial Progress Award-Delaware County Chamber of Commerce; 1969-Howard G. Ford Award-Sales and Marketing Executives of Philadelphia.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. SEGEL, FORMER CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION; U.S. ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 29TH U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. SEGEL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I thank you very much for this invitation to appear before the committee and I will address myself directly to your question, "Is the U.N. working?" I would have to answer yes, when its member nations allow it to work.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the U.N. It has no sovereignty. It has virtually no authority. It is simply a place where the representatives of 138 sovereign nations can either work together, or make trouble, as their governments so direct.

Fortunately, they work together more often than they make trouble. Unfortunately, the public does not know this. It is the trouble that makes the front

pages.

SPECIALIZED AGENCIES, VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS DO CONSTRUCTIVE

WORK

The constructive work of the U.N. is done mostly in the specialized agencies and voluntary organizations. There are about two dozen of them that are integral parts of the U.N. system-such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Universal Postal Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Environment Program, the Fund for Population Activities, UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), etc. It is in these groups that men and women of good will, from all parts of the world, are allowed to work together with a minimum of interference from their national governments, and thus things get done.

This is the real U.N.-nations united, and people united, in cooperative work for the common good. It is a U.N. that very few people know about. But the economic, social and humanitarian organs of the U.N. actually are the areas in which about 80 to 90 percent of the U.N. budget is expended.

It is through these specialized agencies and voluntary organizations that many things have been accomplished, which we take for granted. Such as the elimination of vaccinations for smallpox, thanks to a U.N. program that has wiped out that dreaded disease in all but four countries. Being able to mail a letter with U.S. postage and have it delivered anywhere in the world. Expediting relief to victims of major earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. Flying and landing safely in any country because a U.N. agency made English the common language for all commercial pilots and control towers around the world. Training farmers in developing countries to increase their agricultural production. Providing population control education where it is most needed. Coordinating worldwide research findings on cancer. And so forth.

This is indeed just a small sampling of what goes on at the U.N. The U.N. environment program alone, which is only about 3 years old, has 150 different projects underway. And many of these projects are vital to the future protection of the air and the seas we share with

the other nations of the world. International cooperation stifled by shortsighted attitudes of national governments.

The common ingredient in all of these activities is international cooperation. It flourishes in its natural habitat-the U.N. Yet all too often it is stifled by the shortsighted attitudes of national governments. Take the International Court of Justice for example. It is hardly ever mentioned these days. I hope it is still in existence. Last time I heard of it, it was a body of exceptionally distinguished jurists who certainly could be depended upon to render a fair and impartial decision in any international dispute. The problem is that very few national leaders want a fair and impartial decision. They just want to win. And they have the power to do as they please.

And then we have the General Assembly. The General Assembly, which so many people refer to as "the U.N." When you read about the U.N. in the newspapers from September through December, it is really mostly the General Assembly that is being referred to. The General Assembly has become a big headache for the United States. We created the concept of one nation-one vote, and now it is coming back to haunt us. We made the most of the majority we virtually controlled during the early years of the U.N., often forcing the Soviet Union to cast a veto in the Security Council to protect its interests, and now the tables are turned. But, it is not really the Soviet bloc that is giving us our problems in the General Assembly. It is now the third world, in its various incarnations, treating us like a Gulliver rendered helpless by dozens of Lilliputians.

NEGOTIATION, CONCILIATION SUGGESTED AS PRACTICAL ANSWER

TO PROBLEMS

So what shall we do? Walk away from the General Assembly as some suggest? Continue participating in the debate, but voluntarily suspend our voting? Or should we come out fighting and try to change the world with a new brand of fiery rhetoric?

I respectfully submit that none of these proposed solutions is a practical answer. Leaving the General Assembly or voluntarily suspending our voting would surely be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would further isolate us in the world and do great damage to our relations with many countries. Moreover, although the General Assembly is still primarily an advisory body, there are many resolutions which we would want to support because they are harmonious with our interests and reflect positions and principles which are important to our society.

In fact, if you look at our votes in the last General Assembly, where Senator Percy and Senator Symington very ably served on the delegation representing the United States, it is interesting to note that we joined in adopting 125 resolutions (90 by consensus), while voting against only 17 resolutions and abstaining on 32 others. So, we were not always on the losing side. But the resolutions we voted against received the lion's share of the publicity. Most of the constructive actions we supported received virtually no attention from the press and thus are not known to the public.

Sure, we took some brickbats at that session, but it was nothing compared to what was experienced by the Soviets and China as a result

of their mutual vituperative attacks on each other. We conducted ourselves with restraint and actually succeeded in stimulating constructive debate on several issues.

In the case of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, for example, it is not very well known but Senator Percy spent an enormous amount of time behind the scenes trying to negotiate a common resolution, and he was successful in narrowing down the differences to just a few key points. When the vote was called on individual paragraphs in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, as a result of Senator Percy's efforts particularly, we were able to vote yes on almost every point.

There were about 60 points, and it was only a handful that we did not vote yes on. But generally it is thought of we voted against all points of the charter, which is not so.

There is an important value to negotiations and conciliation behind the scene, and this is what we should do more of.

Those who continually resorted to fiery rhetoric in the last session, for example Cuba, embarrassed their allies and hardened the positions of their adversaries.

No, the solution is not more confrontations. The only useful solution is conciliation. We have much to offer the rest of the world, and they have much to offer us. There is no need to belabor the concept of interdependence. It is now well understood by most national leaders. The time has come to sit down and seriously negotiate away our differences.

PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

This brings me to the Security Council.

The Security Council is working, and working well.

Yes, we have to cast a veto sometimes, but that underscores the fact that nothing gets done by the Security Council unless we approve. And of course, the same applies to the other four permanent members. Thus our minority interest is more than adequately protected. This is a good system, because it forces compromise when something has to be done.

If nothing else is ever accomplished through the U.N., the value of the peacekeeping actions established by the Security Council have been worth the whole world's total investment in the U.N. for the past 30 years and perhaps for the next 100 years. That is just about what the war in Vietnam cost us, to say nothing about the tragic loss of life and other consequences. Imagine that-the monetary cost to the United States for the war in Vietnam would approximately equal the total cost, for all countries the whole world over, of supporting all parts of the U.N. system for about 130 years.

In both Cyprus and the Middle East, the alternatives to U.N. peacekeening could easily have led to the ultimate tragedy, a nuclear conflict.

U.S. LEADERSHIP TO ACCOMPLISH U.N. PRINCIPLE

Of course, peacekeeping is not the same as peacemaking. Peacemaking is primarily what the U.N. was established for-preventing conflicts before they start. And when that can't be done, stopping the breach of peace by means of an internationally supervised peace force.