Syria's. This will be confirmed, I believe, by the people who participated in the negotiation, Secretary of State Kissinger and Under Secretary of State Sisco.

The same can be pointed out with respect to the 1956 war, and the participants in that episode, the U.S. negotiators, Canadian Foreign Minister, Lester Pearson, U.N. Under Secretary General, Andrew Cordier, all have testified that U.N. was an essential ingredient for peace.

When I was in the Department of State in the Kennedy administration I had some involvement in the Congo operation. From my own experience I would say categorically that had the U.N. not been available to go into the Congo in the situation that existed in the summer of 1960, there was a clear and present threat of direct Soviet involvement and possibly, American involvement, in the heart of Africa, with unforeseeable consequences.

So I do not myself see how from these historical or other experiences one could make the statement that on balance the UN is a cause of conflict rather than a solver of conflict.

The basic fallacy in the statements we have heard from Professor Yeselson is that he mistakes the symptoms for the reality. When he sees friction in the U.N. he says the U.N. is causing it. The U.N. is not causing it, the U.N. is reflecting some of the problems of the world. Its capacity to take executive action through forces of interposition or border patrol is a resource for damping down conflict and separating the contending parties.

It has been said the U.N. hasn't brought the great powers together. But what the U.N. has done is keep the great powers apart-separated to some extent, at least from conflicts in the Third World, and that surely is a major historical contribution.

Senator CLARK. I will ask another question-did you want to comment further?

Mr. YESELSON. No; I think we would get into an academic quarrel about who has the better perception of history, and so forth.

I think we might resolve it in a weekend together if we are put into a room.

IS U.N. PROPER FORUM FOR GLOBAL MANAGEMENT?

Senator CLARK. The last question, Professor Yeselson. As we said at the beginning, you are talking really more about the political aspects of the U.N.

What about the other aspects, what about the activities Mr. Segel and Max Stanley mention, the social and economic and humanitarian programs. You seem to share the view that some kind of global management is necessary in the world.

Do you feel that the U.N. is the right kind of forum for that and, if so, do you think that might contribute to reducing conflict in the world?

Mr. YESELSON. No; I do not think the U.N. is the correct forum. The problems are very real, as stated by all of us. Myself I have stated it the least because I have concentrated on the political. What happens I think is that by politicizing issues through the use of the U.N. there is a spillover into essentially the same approach into the so-called func

tional areas. Perhaps the most blatant would be in the area of human rights. We are now in the process of witnessing what for the U.N. might well be called the ultimate obscenity, that is to say, the Human Rights Commission will probably shortly condemn Israel for genocide and in the process of doing this one of the things they had to do or did do was rewrite history in order to eliminate references to historical genocide which, incidentally, outraged the Armenians because this eliminated references to their troubles following World War I in Turkey.

What happens when you have this kind of selective justice in the area of human rights, and it becomes impossible, really, for universal principles to be applied, except against particular targets, is that whatever moral restraint those principles had is destroyed. If you cannot condemn all states which violate human rights, whether it is Uganda, whether it is Sudanese treatment of blacks, whether it is Hutus against Tutsis in Burundi, whether it is the Ibos in Biafra, whether it is socialists in Chile, whether it is persons who oppose brainwashing in China, and so forth and so on. If you can only condemn particular targets then the principle of universal rights is very badly weakened.

In the economic area, you have participated in the last special session. I think if you think about it you will appreciate that this was a well-mounted attack by particular states about a particular approach to economic problems. Although Mexico was the principal sponsor, it was in Algeria that the strategy was devised, and it had to do essentially with the problem of the oil producers not wanting a particular forum with oil consumers but preferring this forum which was more satisfactory in terms of defining the economic interest in their favor.

POSITIVE PROPOSALS FOR GLOBAL MANAGEMENT

Senator CLARK. Let me interrupt to say my time is nearly up. What do you see of a positive nature by way of global management? What would you propose?

Mr. YESELSON. I would propose-again getting back to a point made by you originally-to the extent it is possible with global problemsreducing the nationalistic input, that is to say, where it is possible we emphasize the use of experts who do not have particular association with national causes in dealing with such things as pollution, population, economic problems.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Senator PERCY. Thank you.

Senator Clark and I would like to say we very much appreciate your participation in these hearings.

I would very much appreciate a sentence comment from each of you on two points.

DESIRABILITY OF SECRETARY OF STATE SPENDING MORE TIME AT SESSIONS

Senator Symington recommended that the Secretary of State spend more time in New York during the General Assembly session. I know from observation that the Secretary's participation was very much valued by foreign delegations as well as our own. I thought he put in quite a bit of time in New York.

Would you agree that the Secretary's participation is desirable? Mr. SEGEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARDNER. I would like to say yes and cite in this connection, Senator Percy, article 28, paragraph 2 of the Charter, which is a neglected but very important paragraph

The Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members if it so desires may be represented by a member of the government or by some other especially designated representative.

I would like to see this neglected article used to have Security Council meetings at the ministerial level, in which the Secretary of State and other foreign ministers could meet from time to time in closed session to discuss world problems.

Mr. YESELSON. I would support such a thing.

Mr. STANLEY. My answer is "Yes," provided it is backed by a higher priority, sincerely undertaken, to give greater emphasis to U.N.

matters.

Senator PERCY. He also suggested that the Secretary to the extent possible, remain in the United States during the session so that his presence here, his decisionmaking powers, could be brought to bear on important matters. I think it probably would be desirable whenever possible.

U.S. INITIATIVE TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES IN ECONOMIC CHARTER

QUESTIONED

I would like to ask each of you for your judgment on whether the United States should take the initiative now in attempting to resolve the remaining differences on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, or whether we should let sleeping dogs lie and do nothing further about the Charter now that we have voted against it?

Mr. SEGEL. Absolutely, we should take the leadership in that and all other matters where constructive leadership can bring about resolution through negotiation.

As you Senator Percy, have demonstrated during the last session of the General Assembly, many points of contention can be negotiated away. It is true that the few that remained were points that the third world felt very, very strongly about and our Government did also, but I think that those points too can be resolved. I think that there are possibilities of compromise between the present positions of our side and theirs, and it would very much be worth the effort to take an innovative approach to try to resolve the few remaining points so that we and the third world can work together to eliminate injustices and build a better world.

Mr. GARDNER. I would make the effort, Senator, but to be very frank, my experience in the last 5 weeks in this negotiating group at the U.N. does not encourage me to think that we will break through the ideological hangups, if I may put it that way, about the right to take foreign investment without regard to international commitments and the right to set up export cartels while denying us the right to have import associations. I do not see those ideological hangups giving way sufficiently in the months ahead to permit a resolution of this along the lines you and. I could accept. What is essential is that we go into this seventh special session with specific proposals on the really important practical questions that matter, not the ideological issues

but practical questions like what do we do to stabilize commodity prices, what do we do to transfer more resources to the fourth world, the under-$200-per-capita LDC's-less-developed countries-who suffer from food and energy costs, things like that-that is what is going to make a difference.

EXPROPRIATION OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT

Senator PERCY. Couldn't it be said, though, that 70 percent of all development funds in Latin America have been from the private sector? Won't it frighten such capital away when we adopt a charter which discourages investment in the countries that voted for it? Diplomats from OPEC countries said privately to me, "Throw it in the wastebasket, pay no attention to it, we would never think of investing if that is the attitude these countries are going to adopt. We are going to put our money where it is reasonably secure and get a little return on our investment, not where it can be seized and expropriated and nationalized and get nothing back for it, without regard for international law or for just compensation."

So in the light of that, isn't it really in the best interest of these countries that they not adopt principles which can discourage the very flow of technology, experience, and capital that they need?

Mr. GARDNER. It is in their best interests but the political pressures operating on their leadership are such that I do not see a renunciation of this dogma in the foreseeable future. Therefore, let's concentrate on making country-by-country and case-by-case accommodations to secure our private investors and the resource access we need around the world.

Mr. YESELSON. Yes, sir, I thank both of you for agreeing with me the Assembly was used for conflict purposes on this economic issue and that while we should at the U.N. attempt to avoid confrontations and support the cooperation, probably the best chance we have of accomplishing that is outside of that forum and in other forums and in other ways. I thank you both.

Mr. STANLEY. I would say that a reasonable effort should be made to reach acceptable compromise on those most obnoxious provisions of the charter. I would agree with Dick Gardner that more is required. At the same time let us take positive action to do those things needed to assure a world economic order more adequate to cope with the problems that it faces.

DIFFICULTIES AND REMEDIES CONFRONTING THE U.N. OUTLINED

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much. I have just a few questions remaining.

Dr. Gardner, you have consistently written excellent articles on the problems confronting the U.N.

In a February 1975 article, you observed that resolving the difficulties of the U.N. will require a good deal of skill and hard work, the use of a scalpel and not a meat ax.

Can you identify a few of these difficulties as you see them and what remedies you would suggest?

Dr. GARDNER. Yes, sir, Senator, I will try to be brief.

First, I think we must come forward, as I said earlier, on some very specific economic issues. I would put at the top of the list commodity terms of trade. It really is an anomaly in the world today, to allow these tremendous fluctuations in commodity prices, harmful both to the producers and to the consumers. I think the time has come to think of buffer stocks with agreed floor and ceiling prices under international management for at least a number of key commodities. Let's try to negotiate that. If it fails we will have at least made a good faith try and we will get some credit for it.

Similarly, the opening up of a "Third Window" in the International Bank, using petrodollars in large quantities with the help of an interest-subsidy along the lines proposed recently by the Trilateral Commission.

As to the U.N. forum itself, there are some specific procedural reforms, some of which are under negotiation at this moment in the group of experts that I mentioned, which would promote conciliation rather than voting of disagreed resolutions.

A greater commitment on our part is also needed to put forward candidates of top quality for U.N. positions. The standards of excellence in the U.N. Secretariat are being compromised and we as well as the Russians and others bear some of the blame for it.

We should attempt to submit to third party settlement, whether in the World Court or through more informal fact-finding and conciliation procedures, some of our disputes with other countries. Senator PERCY. Very good.

"VERBAL COMBAT" VALUABLE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Professor Yeselson, you have indicated in your testimony that you see the United Nations as an arena for combat.

As I observed the combat, the most intensive combat this fall I saw was between China and the Soviet Union. They took every opportunity to whack at each other. I thought it was fairly healthy, and it was a tremendous educational experience for those who have maintained for 25 years that Communism is monolithic. I felt it was very valuable not only for hardliners in the State Department and Pentagon but also for the American people.

Would you concur with that?

Mr. YESELSON. Yes, sir, I would. The cause of international understanding was aided for those who did not know how deep the conflict was between China and the Soviet Union but let me just suggest on a different level how this debate, this conflict between these two Communist countries can be dangerous.

The Chinese Communists, and I have observed them at the U.N., use the organization to identify American and Soviet foreign policy as a kind of dual hegemony against the third world. By so doing they constantly force the Soviet Union into defending their position, as I see it. The objective of the Chinese Communists, whom I regard as extremely skilled diplomats, is to weaken the détente between the United States and the Soviet Union.

During the Arafat debate, for example, they charged the Russians with supplying Israel's manpower, not giving the Arabs enough guns and charging them too much money. They called them merchants of