« ПретходнаНастави »
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 would. - 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.
. There can be no doubt about the meaning of the provision of the U.N. Charter. I have quoted. One does not have to be an international lawyer or jurist to interpret it.
The General Assembly is simply without the power to exclude a member from its deliberations unless the Security Council SO recommends. ;. dire ?
Senator CASE. Don't you think that applied to agencies of the U.N. also ? : Mr. GOLDBERG. I do. Yes; I would say that there are comparable provisions in the mandates of the specialized and, furthermore, there is an additional inhibition upon the specialized agencies to the U.N. They are not created to be the political body that the United Nations itself is; they are created, the World Health Organization, the World Food Organization, UNESCO, and others to function not in the political area but in specific areas for which they were created.
The United States, therefore, has every right to insist that a decision to deny Israel the privileges of members not be taken by a majority at the Assembly. Now, the United States and a few Western powers did vote against the exclusion of South Africa at last year's General Assembly deliberations. Personally, I hold no brief for South Africa. Its apartheid policy is utterly abhorrent to me, as I made clear during my tenure at the United Nations, often to South Africa's great displeasure. But South Africa, notwithstanding, like all member states, is entitled to constitutional due process and it was denied this.
ISRAEL'S EXCLUSION FROM GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
In any event, Israel does not practice apartheid. The Security Council furthermore has made no finding that Israel has not com(plied with Resolution 242, the bedrock of a Middle East settlement. Resolution 242 was adopted by the Security Council during my tenure. It represents a basic decision and determination by the Security Council of the framework of a future peace settlement in the Middle East. ..
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have a particular responsibility for that Resolution 242. While the British offered it, the resolution is largely the result of American efforts and diplomacy. No grounds, therefore, exist for Israel's exclusion from the General Assembly or the specialized agencies of the U.N. .
Therefore, I have a recommendation to make in this connection, an important one, and that is that the United States has a right to demand, and here I use the word advisedly-demand that the proposal to deny Israel its proper place in the Assembly or the specialized agencies be abandoned as unconstitutional. This is not a new concept of mine. When I was at the U.N. a majority of the General Assembly adopted a resolution dealing with important questions relating to war and peace. Under U.N. Charter important questions can only be decided by a two-thirds vote.
I stood on the rostrum of the U.N. General Assembly and said on behalf of our country, we would not comply or adhere to that resolution on the simple ground that it was unconstitutional. And I made it very clear, so there would be no misunderstanding, and I explained the reason why.
Now, to make a demand, a demand must be credible and cannot only consist of just a statement and I, therefore, believe the only way to make it credible and to abort this unconstitutional move is for our country to make it clear before this proposal to deny Israel its proper seat in the Assembly gains momentum, the United States will not only vote against this, as it did in the South Africa case, but if the Assembly persists that we will not participate in the Assembly deliberations.
Now, we ought not to follow the mistake of the Soviet Union, which walked out of the Security Council at the time of the Korean problem and, therefore, wasn't there to exercise a veto. We should keep our seat in the Security Council.
Now, I really believe that if we firmly declare to all capitals of the 138 nation states that this is the U.S. viewpoint, not by way of threat, by way simply a statement of intention, that this would suffice to bring home to all concerned that we are serious about observance of the Charter provisions about the rights of members, which goes to the very basis of the U.N. existence.
But I would even go as far that if such action by the United States does not appear likely to insure Charter compliance, we should also make it clear we are prepared to take the further step of freezing our prorated contribution to Assembly expenses if Israel is illegally denied its seat in the Assembly.
Now, I am not one who ordinarily subscribes to the view that our country ought to swing such a big stick, but the U.N. will not survive if its basic laws are violated by a majority in a matter of transcending importance such as the rights of members.
SECRETARY GENERAL SHOULD DECLARE AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF CHARTER
I think there is another thing we have a right to demand—the right to insist that the Secretary General forthrightly declare against this and other egregious violations of the Charter. The Secretary General is the principal executive officer of the United Nations. In a very realistic sense, he is its leader and, in a substantive sense, since he heads up the U.N.'s organization, he is the custodian of the Charter. A timely declaration by the Secretary General on occasion may offend the majority or the minority, depending upon the circumstances, but a Secretary General should not attempt to please the majority, or us, or anyone else where the integrity of the Charter is at issue.
It is far more likely that the U.N. will sustain irreparable harm from excessive caution on the part of the Secretary General than from insisting on compliance by all member states with the fundamental law of the organization.
This does not mean the Secretary General should declare himself about every problem of the U.N. and insist or urge that his viewpoint be accepted. I am talking about violations of the fundamental law of the Charter. I defended U Thant against vigorous protest by my colleagues in the State Department when he declared himself on Vietnam. It was not happily received in Washington but he had a right to declare himself as a world leader and as Secretary General. But this must be a two-way street. The Secretary General should not submit to a majority where it is plain that the Charter is being violated.
So I conclude by reiterating my thesis, American foreign policy
toward the U.N. should lower its sights about unrealistic objectives and raise them about essential demands. It is my conviction that both the U.N. and United States will be better served by such a policy on our part.
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG*
THE U.S. ROLE IN THE U.N.: VISION AND REALITY
I thank this distinguished Committee for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.
The United States in relation to the United Nations expects too much and demands too little. This dichotomy requires an explanation.
The people of this country expect the UN to fulfill its great goal-to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.
This great concept of the unity of nations to keep the peace and achiere universal economic justice was born out of the optimism of history in World War II. It reflected the conception that the World War II partners of different political systems and widely diversified ideologies would submerge their differences in the interests 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.
Regrettably, the optimism of the Charter turned out to be excessive.
American expectations also were founded on a lack of appreciation of what what was already under way when the victorious powers met in San Francisco to adopt the UN Charter--the end of colonialism and the emergence of more new nations than those assembled in the Opera House.
The majority of the nations which met in San Francisco to adopt the UN Charter were of the West; the Communist bloc was in the minority, and the third world was virtually non-existent. 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.
Although we had advance warning as a result of experiences with the Soviet Union during World War II, we did not anticipate the hostile attitude of the Soviets and their satellites at the UN; and we certainly did not foresee the intense resentment of the new nations to colonial powers and the fact that they regarded us to be one. After all, we were in the vanguard to free India from British rule and Indonesia from Dutch domination, and the same was true of some other countries.
I need not detail 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.
Life at the United Nations, therefore, has become increasingly difficult for the Representatives of the United States to the United Nations. All of them have smarted under attacks, some justified and some unjustified, against the United States. And all, I am sure, nostalgically recall the halcyon days when the United States and its allies were the UN majority.
Our response to this change is understandable, if not always wise. This response is the product of frustration. Why should the United States be singled out for attacks which, by our lights, the Soviets on many counts merit far more than we?
We, like all nations, are a proud country, and properly So; nations, like people, do not relish insults, even of a rhetorical kind. We may console ourselves by the old saying-sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you—but we do not like to be called bad names. Nations, like persons, are human after all.
Dr. Patrick Moynihan, who, according to press reports, will be our next Representative to the UN, has recently written an article for Community Magazine in which he says, in effect, that we have been delinquent in not facing up to
*Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, 1965–1968.
these attacks forthrightly, rebutting them and putting our policies in proper context. My friend and former colleague, Dr, Moynihan, is mistaken in this regard. Every American Representative to the UN from its beginnings has attempted to do this.
After reading Dr. Moynihan's article, I reviewed my own speech-made at the UN-a painful task in light of the number of the speeches I delivered during three 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 the problem extends beyond rhetorical exchanges. 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.
But the General Assembly and some of the specialized agencies of the UN, such as Unesco, recently have gone beyond words. They have been taking action in violation of the UN Charter and this, along with other shortcomings, and failures of the UN, warrants a 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 UN's capacities to make and keep the peace in this troubled world and ensure economic and social justice. We must accept the UN for what it is a useful instrument to implement a political consensus, by the super-powers in particular; a forum to ventilate grievances by the third world; and an agency to study and promote economic and social progress. The United Nations is not a world government, and, though important and at times helpful in keeping the peace and providing economic and social aid and assistance, its capacities, even in these areas, are limited.
But while moderating undue expectations, we must also insist upon observance by all nations of the fundamental provisions of the UN Charter when action is taken.
We must not demand too little of the UN and its specialized agencies, while recognizing the limitations of the United Nations.
Specifically, we have the right to demand that all member states refrain from unconstitutional action-action contrary to the explicit provisions of the Charters of the United Nations and its agencies.
Let me illustrate by a simple example: There is a movement under way to deny Israel its proper place in the General Assembly and in the specialized agencies.
Action of this character is plainly unconstitutional and contrary to the Charter. Under Chapter Two of the Charter, a member of the United Nations "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.” This is a very plain provision. One need not be an international lawyer or jurist to interpret it. The General Assembly is simply without power to exclude a member from its deliberations until and unless the Security Council so recommends.
The United States, therefore, has every right to insist that this provision not be annulled by majority at the Assembly. The United States and a few Western powers did vote against the exclusion of South Africa from last year's General Assembly deliberations. I hold no brief for South Africa ; its apartheid policy is utterly abhorent to me, as I made clear during my tenure at the UN. But South Africa, notwithstanding, like all member states, is entitled to constitutional due process, and it was denied.
In any event, Israel does not practice apartheid. The Security Council has made no finding that Israel has not complied with Resolution 242, the bedrock of a Middle East settlement. No ground, therefore, exists for Israel's exclusion from the General Assembly or the specialized agencies of the UN.
The United States, if it is faithful to the UN Charter, has the right, therefore, to demand that the proposal to deny Israel its proper place in the Assembly be abandoned as unconstitutional, And, to make this demand creditable, the United States should make it clear, before this proposal gains further momentum, that, if Israel is unlawfully denied its proper seat in the Assembly, the United States will not only vote against but, if the Assembly notwithstanding persists, will not participate in the Assembly deliberations. (It goes almost without saying that we should keep our Security Council seat, not repeating the great Soviet mistake at the time of the Korean tonflict.)