« ПретходнаНастави »
Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, I know, that is one place where they have some evidence. However, even in that instance, I still think it was hardly the best of government on the part of the Allende regime to suppress the press. I do not believe that you have to stand by and start making Allende look like an international hero. I was one of those who hoped we could cooperate, when he was elected. Other governments become repressive when opposition comes and they start cracking down. It was wrong for us to have a covert operation there, and we have exposed it, which is more than other countries do.
I do not want us to downgrade ourselves all the time. You are bright and intellectual, showing how wrong we are. We were wrong in many things but we also need to outline those things that are right. I have not seen any other countries being very concerned about refugees around the world. You cannot get a pittance, and there are countries that have billions and billions of dollars. When people are hungry and in trouble and sick they come to the United States.
I have to let you go. I will bet you are glad, too. Thank you very much,
[Whereupon, the committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PERCY AND ANSWERED BY PROFESSOR FALK
1. You have stated that many governments from the Third World which are most "progressive" on the international stage pursue contradictory policies toward their own people. Would you cite some examples of this?
2. Do you think delegates of the United States should point out these contradictions in the General Assembly?
3. What likelihood do you see that the developed and developing nations will be able to agree on programs increasing economie distribution to the poorer countries without causing serious economic dislocations in the richer countries?
4. Do you think the United States should modify its position of opposition to indexation, the price linkage between raw materials exported by the developing countries and manufactured goods imported by them from the developed countries?
5. I am puzzled, Professor Falk, by your reference in Footnote 4 in which you cite my speech on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties as, and I quote you, "an official attack”, unquote. I have reread my speech, which was given in the Second Committee on Dec. 6th, and I don't see how you could characterize it as an attack. The strongest language that I used in the speech was the following: “Many of the unagreed provisions. the view of my Government, are fundamental and unacceptable in their present form. To eite a few: the treatment of foreign investment in terms which do not take fully into account respect for agreements and international obligations; and the endorsement of concepts of producer cartels and indexation of priees. As a result. Mr. Chairman, we have before us a draft Charter which is unbalanced and which fails to achieve the purpose of encouraging harmonious economic relations and needed development. Moreover, the provisions of the Charter would discourage rather than encourage the capital flow which is vital for development.” I really don't see any attack in this language, which is a straightforward explanation of the American position. ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ME BY SENATOR CHARLES H. PERCY
1. The contradictions between foreign and domestic policy is not unique with the Third World. For instance, many critics of U.S. foreign policy would argue a reverse contradiction for the United States--that is, we are relatively progressive on domestic issues, but reactionary on many international questions. When it comees to identifying Third World countries which illustrate my proposition considerable analysis would be needed to justify a specific assertion. Let me take three examples of governments which champion Third World claims for a new international order, and yet fail, in my judgment, to embody even minimal principles of equity in their official domestie policies : Brazil, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There are, unfortunately, many other examples throughout the Third
World, but I chose countries which clearly had the capabilities to reconcile their domestic and international postures if they chose to do so.
2. No, it would serve only rhetorical purposes to point out these contradictions, and it would seem rather imprudent as the examples I have given are geopolitically allied with the United States in other settings. Beyond this, I do not believe, except for limited circumstances, that it is helpful to discuss domestic policy in the General Assembly. The two kinds of limited circumstances I have in mind are, first, where an overwhelming global consensus exists as to the domestic policy (e.g. apartheid in South Africa) and, second, where a gross horror is being committed (e.g. genocide in Burundi, torture of political opposition).
3. I believe that constructive cooperation between developed and developing countries can occur without dislocation in rich countries, but only if firm and enlightened national leadership emerges, especially in the United States. Programs need to be explained to the American public and adjustments made, especially by large corporate interests. I believe the well-being of the American people and the poorer nations of the world can be simultaneously served by bringing real regulatory energies to bear upon agribusiness and the large oil companies so as to avoid excess profits and to relate productive priorities more closely to human needs.
4. Yes, I believe that indexing would help stabilize the terms of trade in a manner that would defuse many of the international economic controversies now active in world affairs and avoid some of the unevenness associated with present movements of commodiay prices.
5. I agree that my reference to your UN speech as “an official attack” on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties was unwarranted and have modified the language in my text to read "an official explanation." I hope such a change meets your concern,
THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. John Sparkman (chairman), presiding.
Present: Senators Sparkman, Pell, Humphrey, Clark, Javits, and Percy.
The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order, please.
We are very glad Senator Percy is here, because these hearings were initiated at his request. We have had very good hearings on the United Nations and we are glad to continue this morning.
Today we are hearing from distinguished private citizens who, for the most part, do not have a close identification with the United Nations. We started off with people who are directly connected with or indirectly concerned about the United Nations, but today, we have asked people who do not have a close identification with the United Nations. We have asked them to turn a nonprofessional eye on the United Nations and to share with us their version of what they would like to see that organization become. As I introduce them, I will ask them to take a seat at the witness table.
First is the distinguished architect, R. Buckminster Fuller, who hardly needs an introduction. He is best remembered perhaps by Americans for the U.S. Pavilion at Expo '67 in Montreal, Canada. Mr. Fuller, will you come around and take a seat at the table.
Next, we have Richard Scammon, director of the Elections Research Center, best known, probably, for his coauthorship of “This U.S.A.: The Real Majority.” I have had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Scammon on different occasions discuss Democratic successes, and maybe sometimes Republican successes, but we are glad to have him
Next will come Mr. Bruno V. Bitker, who is Chairman of the Wisconsin's Governor's Committee on the United Nations, and a member of the Wisconsin Revolution Bicentennial Commission.
And then we will hear from Mrs. Robbins, better known to us as Pauline Frederick Pauline, I did know that was your name. Mrs. Robbins is an astute observer of the United Nations for NBC. She
( 181 )
made her observations from nongovernmental forum. I knew Pauline Frederick way back in the days
of the U.N. You are a graduate of American University, are you not?
Miss FREDERICK. That is right.
We are very glad to have all of you and we will start off with Mr. Fuller.
Senator Percy, you have a comment.
Senator PERCY. I just wanted to join with you, Mr. Chairman in welcoming four very distinguished and knowledgeable witnesses who have illuminated American life, each in his or her own field, and have made important contributions to American society.
I think it very appropriate for Mr. Buckminster Fuller to start off the hearing this morning. His thought processes are as wide as the world at 80 years young, and he still thinks new thoughts and is uninhibited by tradition. Dr. Fuller I believe you are here partly by courtesy of Southern Illinois University also.
We certainly welcome all of you.
Mr. Fuller, we are very glad to hear from you. We have your paper that will be printed in full in the record. You may deliver as much of it as you see fit.
[Mr. R. Buckminster Fuller's prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. BUCKMINSTER FULLER
PREPARING FOR A SMALL ONE TOWN WORLD
In my lifetime of 80 years I have seen a great deal of change. I grew up in an era when 99% of humanity travelled only very locally on foot, horse, and bicycle and averaged 1100 miles per year of local linear motion plus 300 miles per year of riding on horses or in vehicles.
Figure 1. shows the pre-airplane and radio world with 88% of humamiy consisting of Asia's 52%, Europe's 26%, Africa's 10% all very remote from the Americans' 12%. Seventy years ago, it took three months to get to India. My last trip to India, 1974, was quicker than either my first trip from Boston to New York as a child, or my first trip after World War I from New York City to Chicago on the then blue ribbon New York Central Railway's “Twentieth Century Limited". Now I reach India by telephone in a couple of minutes. I find present world affairs inherently integrated despite the hindering persistence of the 150 national sovereignties as our conditioned reflex heritage from all of the previous milleniums of inherent separation of interests. In 1961, three jet planes out-performed the Queen Mary in one third the time for one half the price. The oceans became obsoleté as a means of getting humans from here to there. The era of water surface travel stopped without people realizing what had happened. We have been hurled by evolution into a one small world town within which average humans are travelling 11,000 miles annually
ten times their coverage of pre-World War I and many millions of worldians such as I cover 150,000 miles per year, and astronauts travel 3,000,000 miles per year.
The standard Mercator projection (Figure 2) was developed for the world oriented to the ocean communication. All the transoceanic nations were connected only by ship. The "Roaring South Forties" latitudes Antarctic winds and waters' west-to-east whirl-around, swiftly interconnecting the Pacific, Atlantir; and Indian oceans sonth of Good Hope, the Horn, and New Zealand's South Ísland, and the ocean's trade winds altogether formed a pattern of most advantageous voyaging of which the world-around trading shins took advantage. The masters of the seas were those who controlled the Antarctic interocean whirl-around by maintaining naval bases at the Southern tips of Africa, Aus