« ПретходнаНастави »
Obviously the big States wanted representational vote; the small States wanted the one State, one vote rule. One State, one vote rule had been the rule prior to the Revolution and during the Revolution under the Articles of Confederation. They finally adopted what now, as we look back over these many decades, seems so simple, and that is, the great compromise, which saved the Constitutional Convention; it might have fallen flat except for this, which was the compromise that provided for the one State, one vote rule in the Senate and the representational vote in the House.
I do not take the time here to suggest the various ways in which voting can be weighed in the General Assembly in the United Nations, but obviously there are various ways in which this could be improved. There could be certain standards and certain things on which the one State, one vote rule applied and other ways in which there would have to be other ways weighted voting could be applied.
Finally, the Constitution was adopted in September of 1787 and then submitted to the 13 States—Incidentally, it is interesting to note too that only 12 States voted for the Constitution; Rhode Island did not even attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, again indicating the differences that existed between the States.
Senator PELL. If I may comment there, it is a habit of independence that we have long had. We did not ratify the Volstead amendment either.
And as long as I have interrupted—I cannot stay--but I would like to present my particular respects to Bucky Fuller; I have read this testimony, and I think it is fabulous.
Mr. BITKER. Coming from Milwaukee where you know what we make, I am glad to hear there is one State that voted against the Volstead amendment.
Senator HUMPHREY. May I say as an appendage to what has been said by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, it is still independent, and the Senator represents a sense of idealism and purity of purpose which we commend.
Mr. BITKER. I simply indicate that you did not have 13 members of a. happy family in the era of the Revolution, any more than you have 130 happy members of the world community today, although they are all members of the human family.
It is also interesting how the vote took place. When the Constitution was submitted to the State conventions for ratification, nine States were to ratify, and when nine States had ratified, the Constitution came into force. Well, many months after September 1787, the nine States had finally ratified, and New Hampshire was the ninth. But two important States had not, New York and Virginia.
Now this is particularly interesting because Virginia was almost the moving force in the Constitutional Convention, the famous Virginia Plan. And you could not have a United States, even though nine States had already ratified, you simply could not have a United States of America without New York and Virginia in it. They were just too important in the whole scheme of things in those years. Incidentally, the vote in New York-ratification carried by three votes. Just imagine how close this is. Even in Virginia and New Hampshire, the vote was carried by a majority of only 10 in the State conventions.
And I am sure Senator Pell is aware of the fact that, in Rhode Island, which did not ratify until a year after the Constitution was in force and the new Government was going entity, and then it ratified by the slim majority of two votes.
All of this, I point out, is of historic interest, but it also points out again and emphasizes that there were sharp differences. And when you say, oh, it is nothing to think about the 13 colonies being brought together in one entity, if you try to compare it with the world today, that simply was not true. There were these conflicts and these conflicts just came right out in all these State conventions.
CONGRESSMAN HUNGATE'S RESOLUTION ON CHARTER CHANGES
The hope that I would like to conclude with and express to this group here—there are two things I would like to do, incidentally.
One of the organizations with which I am affiliated is the Governor's Commission on the United Nations, which is an official agency of the State of Wisconsin and which recently adopted, on May 1, a resolution supporting the so-called House Concurrent Resolution 206, which was introduced by Congressman Hungate and a number of other Congressmen, supporting and emphasizing and directing and requesting the President to direct the State Department to submit to the Congress, both this committee and the appropriate House committee, its proposals for changes in the United Nations Charter and its procedure by June 30. Well, frankly, I have no hopes of the State Department doing that except in the most general of terms.
But I want to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, file this resolution.
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN,
RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE GOVERNOR'S COMMIS
SION ON THE UNITED NATIONS, HELD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE, Wis., MAY 1, 1975
Whereas all human beings share the fragile environment of a “Spaceship Earth” where survival depends on the cooperation of all; and
Whereas the Charter of the United Nations has proven inadequate for its purpose “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war"; and
Whereas global problems such as hunger, pollution, overpopulation, resource depletion, ocean management, and arms control demand global solutions; and
Whereas the General Assembly of the U.N. on December 17, 1974 (over the opposition of the United States and the Soviet bloc) voted 82–15 to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and invited governments and the Secretary-General to submit their observations and views; and
Whereas Congressman Hungate of Missouri has proposed in House Concurrent Resolution 206 (04.08) that the State Department be asked to formulate proposals for the more effective functioning of the U.N. Charter and submit them to the appropriate House and Senate committees by June 30, 1975; and be it
Resolved, that the Governor's Commission on the United Nations of the State of Wisconsin, meeting in Milwaukee May 1, 1975: Believes that the United States should seriously consider suggestions for review of the United Nations Charter; and
Commends Congressman Hungate on his timely and forward looking resolution; and
Urges prompt action by the Congress and the executive departments to authorize and submit proposals for strengthening the Charter of the United Nations. Mr. BITKER. I take it that House Concurrent Resolution 206 is already a matter of record here. But if it is not, I would like to file it with you so that it may be part of the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be done. [The material referred to follows:]
[H. Con. Res. 206, 94th Cong., 1st sess.) CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Whereas the United Nations General Assembly voted on
December 17, 1974, “to establish an ad hoc committee on the Charter of the United Nations, consisting of forty-two members to be appointed by the President of the General Assembly, and therein "invites governments to submit or bring up to date their observations" on United Nations Charter review "If possible before May 31, 1975," and said committee has been directed to report its work to the thirtieth United Nations General Assembly (opening September 16, 1975): Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that
(1) The United States should continue in its historic role of providing world leadership in working for modernization and reform of the United Nations, and toward the establishment and preservation of a civilized family of nations in accordance with the highest aspirations of mankind.
(2) The President is hereby requested to direct the Department of State to formulate constructive and forward-looking United States proposals for the more effective functioning of the United Nations, through (a) changes in the Charter of the United Nations, and/or (b) procedural changes that may not require charter amendment, in order to promote a just and lasting peace through the development of the rule of law, including protection of
individual rights and liberties as well as the field of war prevention. The President is further requested to report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives before June 30, 1975, on the position of the United States and the proposals submitted or to be submitted in this regard.
STUDY OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION URGED
Mr. BITKER. I would like to conclude with this statement, Mr. Chairman. I want to again express the hope that this committee will produce a study in depth that would serve as a meaningful observance of the Bicentennial of the American Revolution and also as a contribution toward world peace with justice.
If the attempts to halt the killing conflicts in the world today through a strengthened United Nations appear visionary, it must be remembered that to many thoughtful and knowledgeable citizens of the 13 sovereign Colonies, the idea of a strong central government under a constitution, appeared wholly unrealistic. Can the United States make any greater contribution in its observance of its own Bicentennial than to help the world to abolish war, mankind's most fearful illness?
May the United States be to the world what Virginia was to the 13 States in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to make a correction in what I said about the Genocide Treaty. I said that it was reported out with the understanding that it would not be taken up in the Senate until implementing legislation was enacted. That provision actually says the U.S. Government declares “that it will not deposit its instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in article 5 has been enacted."
Nr. Bitker, have you read the recent book on George Washington, I believe written by Mr. Flexner?
Mr. BITKER. I did not finish reading it until after I drew up my statement, or I would have incorporated it. It is just a fascinating story, and may I say that what I was saying here today about the conflicts between these States, it just runs right through the whole of the problems that George Washington had in those days. What a remarkable man he was.
The CHAIRMAN. I was very much impressed with the story on New York and Virginia. I thought you were also going to refer to the conflict between Massachusetts and Virginia over the proposition of Alexander Hamilton that the Federal Government would assume the States' indebtedness. That pleased Massachusetts greatly because it had a tremendous amount of bonds and securities, but Virginia did not want it, and finally they worked out a compromise. Virginia would accept it, but place the Capital of the United States where Virginia wanted it. That is how it happened to be where it is.
Senator HUMPHREY. That was a bad deal.
COMMENDATION OF WITNESSES
The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have Pauline Frederick with us. I think of her as being an authority on the United Nations.
We have listened to you many times. We welcome you here this morning.
Senator Javits. Mr. Chairman, if I may—I have known Miss Frederick a long time. I am delighted to see her and I see our State singly honored to have you here. In the time I have, I hope to hear as much of your wisdom as I can. I would also like to greet the whole panel.
Like Claiborne Pell, Bucky Fuller is a friend, and a man I admire a great deal. And Dick Scammon. What a wonderful panel, Mr. Chairman.
Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with this praise for the panel. Let me also make note of the fact that Mr. Scammon is originally a Minnesotan, and we are very proud of him. He has made many distinctive contributions to the American political scene.
And I regret, Dick, that I was not here to hear your testimony, but one of my aides came up here for a few moments and whispered in my ear some of the things that you had emphasized.
I want to say that for one who has admired Buckminster Fuller over the years, it is very good to have a chance to see him again personally.
And Mr. Bitker, we welcome you and thank you for your leadership in the Midwest. I am sure you know my good friend, York Langton from Minnesota.
Mr. BITKER. I remember when we referred to you as our Senator.
Senator HUMPHREY. And Miss Frederick. We recognize you in the Midwest too. I remember when I was teaching while I was sent home to pasture for awhile by my miscalculations in 1968, that I would hear you on the radio. You have been a voice of the United Nations, both objective and inspiring. And we thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. I may say in connection with Miss Frederick, some young ladies in my office who have been with me for a long long
time, do not like me to tell how long they have been there and are afraid it is an indication of their age. I hope Miss Frederick will not mind my saying that I first knew her 25 years ago at the United Nations, and we are glad to have you. STATEMENT OF MISS PAULINE FREDERICK, FORMER U.N.
CORRESPONDENT FOR NBC, WESTPORT, CONN. Miss FREDERICK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Javits, and Senator Humphrey.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you today. When I attended the American University here in Washington quite a few years ago and subsequently covered the State Department as a journalist, I felt rather close to the processes by which our foreign policy was made and implemented.
ALIENATION BETWEEN U.N. AND WASHINGTON
In the nearly 30 years since, during which I have been reporting on the United Nations in New York, an invitation to an official Washington function connected with the U.N. has seemed like a bid to enter a foreign land. There have been only three such occasions including this one today. The first was for a so-called U.N. dinner at the Pan American Union where, according to the dictates of protocol, the members of the Washington diplomatic corps outranked the United Nations ambassadors. The second was to attend a dinner at the White House for the United Nations Secretary-General who soon thereafter became less than welcome in the mansion because of his pleas against the bombing of Asians, of which he was one.
The reverse traffic has not eased this sense of alienation. In recent years, particularly, when the President and Secretary of State have gone to the United Nations, one could have the impression the purpose was mainly ritualistic-a public relations bow to what some in this city, I fear, regard as an anachronism. These visitations have aroused little belief that the United States was reaffirming the full commitment it made in 1945 in San Francisco to the treaty known as the United Nations Charter.
U.S. OFFICIAL CALLS TO THE U.N.
When the President comes to the U.N. these days, there are the usual courtesy calls on the Secretary-General and the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly. There is a more or less pro forma speech about peace, sometimes including criticism of U.N. members adjudged less high-minded than the United States. This is followed by a handshake with delegates, excluding representatives of governments not recognized by Washington, and lunch hosted by the Secretary-General. Then the Chief Executive flies back to the White House.
If the official call is timed for the opening of the General Assembly, which it usually is, the Secretary of State is left behind in New York to pursue a routine inaugurated by one of his predecessors. He moves across the street to the United States Mission, and down the street to the Waldorf Towers, followed by the State Department press corps.