been avoided nor has security been assured universally. During nearly three decades, however, the General Assembly, the Security Council and/or the Secretary General of the United Nations have performed more than 120 tasks as a third party. These have been endeavors to contain or resolve potential or actual disputes, provide the good office of the Secretary General or supervise and assure peaceful self-determination and decolonization activities. Well know actions include the posting of U.N. observers following the first Middle East war in 1948, supervising the cease-fire in the India-Pakistan conflict of 1949 and again in 1966, deploying the first U.N. Emergency Force in 1956 following the Suez crisis, dispatching observers to Lebanon in 1958, using military assistance to maintain order in the Congo in 1960, employing a U.N. force in Cyprus in 1964 and more recently, authorizing the UNEF and the U.N. disengagement observer force now helping to keep peace in the Middle East. While some of these actions have been controversial, each has served a useful peacekeeping or peacemaking purpose and demonstrated the U.N.'s ability to act when serious confrontations between the major powers are not involved.

The other half of the U.N. peace and security role relates to arms control and disarmament which the General Assembly consistently emphasizes. The United Nations in 1961, endorsed and continues to support, the Geneva disarmament talks-Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD)—and is now advocating the convening of a World Disarmament Conference (WDC) to focus attention, not only upon disarmament itself, but also upon revision of mechanism to deal with the problem. While U.N efforts to reduce armaments have been unsuccessful due to adamant opposition of the major nuclear powers, several significant treaties aimed at limiting extension of armaments, have come into force under U.N. sponsorship. These include: the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water (1963); the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (1967); the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1970); and the Seabed Arms Control Treaty (1972).

While the United Nations has made important contributions in the area of peacekeeping, peacemaking and arms control, its overall performance in these areas is far less than desired. The United Nations has not found a way to prevent or resolve conflicts involving any degree of potential great power confrontation, the Non-Proliferation Treaty has not gained wide acceptance and efforts of the General Assembly to prod the superpowers towards arms reduction have been notably unsuccessful. Progress towards a World Disarmament Conference is strongly opposed by the United States and China. It is, therefore, unrealistic to say the United Nations is working well in the political area related to peace and security. Although the United Nations has only marginally performed this political role, the continuation and, hopefully expansion, of the role is essential to progress toward lifting the burden of heavy armaments from the backs of taxpayers, while advancing non-military procedures to deal with inevitable conflicts and controversies between nations.

The United Nations is now undertaking a third important function: focusing world attention upon pending global problems and sensitizing world opinion to cope with them. Periodic meetings of the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) have emphasized the importance of better trade mechanisms. The 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment initiated global action to protect and enhance the earth's environment. It also crystallized action in many nations to protect the biosphere and led to the establishment in Nairobi of the United Nations Environmental Programme. In 1974 both the World Population Conference in Burcharest and the World Food Conference in Rome emphasized the importance of resource/population balance. Population stabilization principles articulated in Bucharest are finding their way into the policies of many governments. The new World Food Council in Rome under the direction of John Hannah, former director of AID, focuses ongoing attention on world food supplies. Currently the resumed Third U.N. Cnference on the Law of the Seas is meeting in Geneva in an effort to reach accord on the complex and difficult problems of managing the oceans, man's common heritage. Resources were the concern at the Lima Conference of the United Nations Industrial Organization (UNIDO) and the Tokyo Conference sponsored by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Next year the United Nations will convene Habitat: A Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver to consider the mounting problems of urbanization. The complex and controversial issue of a more effective economic order was emphasized at the Sixth Special and the

29th Regular Session of the General Assembly and will be considered again at the forthcoming 7th Special Session. United Nations commissions such as the Group of Eminent Persons investigating multinational enterprises are studying special problems. Such U.N. initiatives compel even reluctant nations to face crucial issues. The United Nations is serving the world community well by alerting and educating it to mounting global problems and by providing an opportunity for traditional diplomacy to function in conference settings.

On balance, the United Nations performs its immediate role reasonably well; its weakest area is political action concerned with peace and security. Effective international organization is essential today. If the United Nations were suddenly eliminated, some alternative institution would have to be created quickly. If the United Nations were given stronger economic and political support and higher priority by the powerful nations of the world-particularly the Soviet Union and the United States-its near term contributions would be even more significant.

APPRAISAL LONGER RANGE ROLE

Evaluation of the longer range role of the United Nations-fostering a more adequate international political system--is less specific but on the whole, favorable for the following reasons:

1. Despite diversity and disunity among nation-states, the United Nations is now 30 years of age. It has outlived prior efforts to establish a universally accepted international body to facilitate the cooperation of nations. This continued existence demonstrates the need for it.

2. The General Assembly provides a forum where any nation, large or small, powerful or weak, can voice its aspirations, concerns and complaints. Even the superpowers are challenged to defend their positions. The United Nations debate brings a desirable and healthy openness to international affairs.

3. Alternative approaches to world problems are repeatedly offered by the U. N. system: multilateral action, non-military initiative and third party intervention. These are important alternatives to the traditional exercise of unlimited national sovereignty, divisive power balances and ultimate resort to armed force. 4. The United Nations, with its family of specialized agencies, promotes and in the final analysis, tests methods of cooperation among nation-states. By providing a wide range of experience, successful as well as frustrating, it demonstrates the weaknesses of the United Nations and points the way to needed reforms and improvements. The result has been an ongoing evolutionary process of study and improvement of organizational procedures within the United Nations.

5. Finally, the United Nations serves as a vehicle for member states to rise Occasionally above narrow national interest and act in the common long-term interests of the world community.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the United Nations should be credited with performing both its immediate and longer range roles tolerably well and I have answered your question with a qualified but definite, yes.

MAKING THE UNITED NATIONS WORK BETTER

Before I close, however, I want to emphasize the importance of making the United Nations work better, and urge the United States to do more to make it work better.

Many citizens of the United States, including some in official positions, are disenchanted with the United Nations. We no longer commend, for our proposals to the General Assembly, the strong voting majority we marshalled in its early years. The enlarged United Nations now reflects world opinion: no nation or group can dominate. The "tyranny of the majority" became irresponsible in the 29th General Assembly when South Africa was deprived of a vote, Palestinian leader, Yassir Arafat was accorded Head of State honors and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States was adopted by an overwhelming vote despite protests and negative votes or abstention of many developed nations. Such events quite properly alarm and annoy most Americans.

But each of these explosive and widely publicized events was the result of a smoldering unresolved problem: degrading apartheid in South Africa, the festering Palestinian refugee situation and the futile and rebuffed efforts of the developing world to gain greater stake and voice in international economic affairs. Have we overlooked the fact that these events, however embarrassing, allowed Ambassador John Scali to set the stage for frank and fruitful debate regarding the United Nations in the closing days of the General Assembly?

54-738-75-8

Such experiences demonstrate again the importance of cooperation rather than confrontation if global problems are to be dealt with effectively. The United States and other developed nations cannot achieve desired objectives if they ignore, dismiss or neglect the major concerns of the developing world: development, the remnant of colonialism-Rhodesia and Namibia, for instance-and apartheid in South Africa. The United States and other industrial nations need the resources, the markets and the political support of the less developed nations. Nor can the developing nations gain greater benefits and participation in the world economic order if they disregard or scoff at such problems as resource/ population balance, environmental protection and enhancement, terrorism and peace and security. They need the monetary and technological assistance of the developed countries. Without cooperation and compromise, verbal confrontation will rule the General Assembly and essential U. N. programs will stagnate. Unfortunately, the last several administrations of the United States government, obsessively burdened by our tragic intervention in Vietnam, assigned a dangerously low priority to the United Nations. We flouted U. N. sanctions against Rhodesia by continued importation of chrome. We are reducing our funding of specialized agencies despite an implied commitment to them as our assessed contribution to the U. N. general budget was lowered from 31.2 to 25 percent. We thwart U. N. efforts to limit or reduce armaments by such actions as opposition to the World Disarmament Conference and lukewarm reaction to nuclear free zones. But we maintain, in company with the Soviet Union, a massive arms race that convinces the world of our complete disinterest in disarmament. Presidents, including Gerald Ford, make major foreign policy adresses with little or no mention of the United Nations. Our State Department has a studied practice of bypassing the United Nations as it implements our foreign policy. Exceptions occur only when all else seems to fail. Examples include the current U. N. Emergency Force in the Middle East and recent proposals to channel humanitarian aid to Vietnam through the United Nations.

Despite our leadership in the U. N. Law of the Seas Conference and World Population Conference, our posture at other recent U. N. conferences touching upon aspects of the world's economic order, has been one of blunt confrontation. Unfortunately, both the low priority assigned to the U. N. and this recent hard line, are creating a neo-isolationist image and one that appears to oppose the legitimate efforts of the developing world to upgrade itself.

Certainly U.S. economic interests must be protected. But this will not be accomplished by denying or disregarding political, economic and social changes in the world, including change in the very nature of power. It is time to recognize that even as a most powerful nation, we cannot control or dominate the world's economic and political developments. We can, however, greatly influence change by active participation and constructive cooperation.

In conclusion, the United Nations is working tolerably well considering that it is not a perfect institution, but rather an institution of 138 imperfect nations. The United Nations is what the nation-states made it and we should remember that the United States had a major role in writing the U.N. Charter. The United Nations as the only global organization we have today, must be allowed and helped to better perform its roles. To do this, it must be used and strengthened. Along with a vast constituency across the country, I express the hope that the Congress and the Administration will cooperatively provide strong leadership to the United Nations by deed as well as word. The priority given the United Nations should be raised and procedures within our government to deal with U.N. matters should be improved. Do not underestimate the interest and the support that would surface if our government would give the United Nations the higher priority in foreign affairs that it deserves. Now is the time to press forward to achieve a United Nations that can better serve mankind. Now is the time to respond to the heritage that inspired us to play the leading role in creating the United Nations. Until we do this, there is little hope for a sane, sound world order capable of enhancing peace with freedom, justice and progress adequate to cope with the many threatening global problems.

Senator PERCY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Stanley. I think this is a very fitting closing comment.

Senator Clark, I would be happy to divide the remaining time equally with you and suggest that you start right off. Senator CLARK. That is very generous of you.

I will take not more than 5 minutes.

Senator PERCY. Go right ahead.

COMMENDATION OF WITNESS

Senator CLARK. You said at the outset, Senator Percy, that three of these gentlemen were friends, and uniquely enough, I know three of the gentlemen as well and have had occasion to work with them recently. Since we have shared the same prejudices, I suspect, I was particularly happy with the statements that you made, and I thought they were most perceptive. I am particularly proud, of course, that Maxwell Stanley is from our State, and proud of the commitment, both financially and personally, that he has made to this cause.

I was also very happy to hear Professor Yeselson because it seems to me that one of the great problems in congressional hearings is that we tend to have only those people that we agree with. I was delighted that he made a statement which was different from the others, and which I thought provoked a good deal of thought.

As I understand the thesis, it is that the United Nations all too often has been a forum for conflict rather than for peace, that we ought to have a more realistic view of this institution and that we won't be as disappointed if we do.

I would like to take my brief time to ask Professor Yeselson two or three questions with regard to that thesis.

HAVE PEACEKEEPING ASPECTS BEEN CONFLICT PRODUCING RATHER THAN CONFLICT AVOIDING?

You addressed yourself, as I understood your statement, primarily to political issues-the peacemaking issues-rather than to other aspects. But, do you really feel that the peacekeeping aspects of the United Nations-I refer to the peacekeeping forces in the Middle East now, in Cyprus, the Congo, and Kashmir-do you really feel those have been conflict producing rather than conflict avoiding?

I don't mean by that that they were peacemaking. I don't think they created any peace at all; that wasn't their function.

But don't you think they did help to maintain the peace from time to time?

Mr. YESELSON. No.

Let me elaborate just a little on that.

For example, there is the widespread feeling that the United Nations since its separating Egyptian-Israeli and Syrian-Israeli forces, is making a positive contribution to peace. I think this is unrealistic. When the war ended the Israeli's were clearly in a winning position. The Arab side then was willing to negotiate the end of the

war.

You will recall, of course, that you could not even get a meeting of the Security Council on a cease-fire prior to the change on the battlefield. Now, the Israelis opposed having a United Nations troop separating force but they were not sufficiently strong in their negotiating position to have a different force. Now, consider what happens when it is a United Nations force against the wishes of one of the parties in conflict. We have the force in being, not a force which is the result of agreement by both sides, whose composition, duration, and functions are the result of that kind of agreement, but the force which essentially reflected the ability of one side to get its kind of force there. There would have been a force in any case.

Now, that force, because it is a U.N. force, is subject to the authority of the Security Council. Its first period of duration was 6 months. You approach the 6-month period and tensions began to build, for one reason alone, only one side can use the U.N. as a weapon in this conflict. That is to say, when, as, and if Syria and/or Egypt decide that it is in their interest to remove the force, they can do so simply by having the veto, which is always available to them, apply and remove the force. The force has now been extended for 3 more months. We are now into the 3-month period. In both, actually, Sinai and Golan, we are now into the 3-month period. Again the tensions are going to build. Both sides will arm toward the 3-month period. They will prepare toward the 3-month period. Only the Arab side can say whether or not the force will be continued.

In other words, this is not a peacemaking force, it is an instrument of conflict for one side.

Senator CLARK. But it seems to me

Mr. YESELSON. Although you do not have fighting, it was quite clear that once the United States and the Soviet Union decided in effect that this fighting had to stop, the fighting was going to stop. To stop it in this way was not the most constructive way of doing so, and I think I could apply a similar kind of analysis in other cases. In other words, the existence of U.N. forces is often given credit for peace when in fact world political conditions required that certain action be taken.

After the 1956 war, for example, clearly Israel could not stay in the canal. If there had been a treaty between Israel and Egypt and not the U.N. Emergency Force which prevented really any discourse between the two parties.

Senator CLARK. A treaty would have occurred otherwise?

Mr. YESELSON. Something had to happen at that point. In other words, the Israelis might well have been willing at that point to sacrifice their territorial gains for what they continued to seek in their relations with Egypt-let us say the neutralization of Sinai which they didn't get. What they got was a force, and Mr. Hammarskjold did his best to interpret his mandate so that the force could not be removable simply upon the instruction of one side.

DISAGREEMENT REGARDING EFFECT OF PEACEKEEPING ASPECTS

Senator CLARK. I am going to cut down to one more question. I appreciate that, that is exactly the kind of opinion I wanted.

I wanted to ask Mr. Gardner if he agrees with Professor Yeselson on this point.

Mr. GARDNER. No; I don't agree and I think the statements we have just heard are manifestly contrary to historical fact.

The fact is that when Secretary of State Kissinger undertook his extraordinary bilateral diplomacy in the wake of the 1973 war, he found out that there was literally no way of getting a disengagement of opposing forces without the interposition of the U.N. forces; and when the negotiations took place on the U.N. Disengagement Observer Force in Syria, it was Israel that wanted a more numerous force with a stronger mandate and the final arrangements for that force ended up reflecting Israel's point of view much more than