any of you would like to supplement your comments here. I think we all realize what we are leaving just as we are really getting started. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock when we have the final hearing on the U.N.

Mr. COUSINS. I thank you not for the privilege of coming here but the general principle of these open hearings and your leadership throughout.

Senator PERCY. I thank you and I would be happy to have any last comments any of you would like to make.

SELF-FINANCING PROPOSALS

Mr. TOFFLER. I have one last thought, just an idea for a way perhaps we might show some initiative and begin to shift our relationship advisory to the U.N. I am sure there have been many proposals before. I do not know what the history of this has been; I do not know what the U.S. position has been on this. But I wonder whether we might not take one step toward regaining our balance in the United Nations, so to speak, if we were to come forward with a set of concrete proposals for ways in which the U.N. system itself might become self-financing. There are many proposals available, many imaginative ideas. The proposals for a slight tax on international postal.

Mr. BROWN. Or shipping.

Mr. TOFFLER. If we took that position, I think that might give proof of the fact that we are not going into a blind isolationism, and that we, indeed, are serious about the problems of the planet.

Mr. COUSINS. The point Dr. Coffin makes about the seabed fits beautifully; you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars; this is why you have to stake the claim immediately. But on the point Mr. Toffler made, government is the basis of justice and you cannot have justice without it. The question is how do you make government responsible. I sense virtual anarchy in the present world situation between anarchy and government. You have no bridge. You have got, it seems to me, to create government and make it work. The problem of abuse of power in government has always been with us and will always be with us. The answer to that is not eliminate government but the answer is to apply history as much to consensus as you can to make government responsible.

Senator PERCY. Right of reply.

Mr. BROWN. Endorsement.

Mr. COFFIN. Thank you very much.

Senator PERCY. These hearings are now recessed.

[Whereupon at 1:03 p.m. the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., May 22, 1975, the following day.]

THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1975

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 4221, the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Charles Percy presiding. Present: Senators Percy, Pell, Clark, and Javits.

OPENING STATEMENT

Senator PERCY. Today's session will complete the hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the United States and the United Nations.

This morning we are very honored to have with us Ambassador Scali, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. The word "permanent" is an obvious exaggeration. In fact, Ambassador Scali is our sixth "permanent" representative since 1968-a span of years, which hardly seems to me to be a permanent status. It is clear that a seventh permanent representative is about to make his debut.

7

Ambassador Scali is here to give the committee the official U.S. Government position on the United Nations. I hope he will give us more than that, however. The law entitles him to give his personal views upon our request, and the request is now being made of him by the Chair.

As you know, Mr. Ambassador, we have heard from a number of your distinguished predecessors and other prominent Americans, and I hope you will feel free to comment on their testimony.

We welcome you and I would like to say, as I have on many occasions before, since returning from the United Nations, that it was a great honor to serve with Ambassador Scali as a member of the U.S. Delegation. In our staff meetings, he made all of us feel that we were a part of the operation.

Ambassador Scali is also a man who forthrightly expressed his views to the State Department with candor and honesty and tremendous integrity, although he faithfully adhered to the U.S. position once it was decided. Moreover, I was deeply impressed by the high regard in which he was held by the representatives of other nationssome of whom, such as Ambassador Baroodi of Saudi Arabia are much more permanent than the American representative. So many of his colleagues up there from all over the world have the highest regard for him. They enjoyed working with him.

(297)

I think the people of the United States can be very proud to have had Ambassador Scali as their representative at the United Nations during this period.

Senator Clark.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a brief opening statement.

I first want to join with you in adding a brief personal note about our witness this morning, John Scali, who as you rightly pointed out, has served in a most difficult period, one of the most difficult periods of American diplomacy. I think it is clear that he has served with great distinction. In the process, he has gained the highest respect not only of the members of this Government, but also of those at the United States Mission, and of his colleagues from around the worldespecially the delegates from many of the third world nations. I think that is a great measurement given the problems that we have had, and I want to join with you in complimenting John Scali on serving this Nation so well in such a difficult period.

Mr. Chairman, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has done the Congress and the country a service in holding hearings to discuss the United States and the United Nations.

CONCERNS OVER THE UNITED NATIONS

On this last day of hearings, I especially want to commend Senator Percy, who first urged that they be held. Their timing couldn't have been better. Never has the United Nations come under more sustained or more significant attack in the Congress than in recent months. But, at the same time, never has there been a greater need for a vital and active United Nations than there is today.

Earlier this month, a number of the bicameral, bipartisan Members of Congress for Peace Through Law went to New York for a series of briefings by U.N. officials and U.S. diplomats, including our distinguished Ambassador, John Scali, who, by even the standards of his harshest critics, has done an outstanding job.

I came away from those meetings, as I come away from these hearings, with a very deep concern that, in its 30th year, the United Nations will be confronted with issues so potentially divisive that they could put the United Nations in danger of extinction. And if that happensif the United Nations is allowed to disintegrate-it may well be due in part to American indecision and indifference.

Everyone has heard the political adage "when you've got the votes, call the roll." For more than 20 years since the creation of the U.N. this country had the votes. The United States emerged from World War II in a class by itself-a nuclear power. While industrial Europe lay in ruin, the United States alone accounted for more than half of the world's gross production. The U.N. quite naturally reflected that U.S. dominance; most of the original 51 members were U.S. allies and dependents. The United States had the votes, and we called the roll.

CHANGES AT THE UNITED NATIONS

Since then, the world has changed dramatically and the U.N. has changed with it. New economic powers, indeed, new economic systems, have risen to challenge American preeminence. Instead of one nuclear power, there are six with the immediate potential for many more.

Scores of new nations have entered the world community. Membership in the General Assembly has nearly tripled in just 30 years.

As a result, when the U.N. role is called today, the United States may find itself on the short end-sometimes it may even find itself alone. As Senator McGee said last year. "We have found that the world is not going to dance to a tune just because we snap our fingers." It is no longer the United States and its allies, but the world's "nonalined" countries, that have the majority in the General Assembly. And this new minority position for the United States in the U.N. has led an increasing number of Congressmen and Senators to begin turning away from the United Nations. It is becoming fashionable to be against the U.N.

But it is not wise.

In some respects, this country and its policies have been taking a beating at the U.N. lately at times with jurisdiction, at times because of the pique or parochialism of other nations. The question now is: What will our reaction be?

Are we to respond to these setbacks with a policy of increased confrontation with the nonalined bloc, as some have advocated? Will we continue to turn to the U.N. only in times of crisis and only then as a matter of form, after we already have taken unilateral action as was the case with the Mayaguez incident last week? Should U.S. reverses in the General Assembly lead us to curtail further our financial and diplomatic support for the U.N. and its many worthwhile programs? In my judgment, to follow such a course would amount to nothing less than the wholesale abandonment of everything this Nation can and should stand for in world affairs. If this country has suffered a decline in international prestige from the withdrawal from Indochina-and I doubt that we have-the blow to our world standing from a substantial withdrawal of support from the United Nations would be immeasurably greater and more harmful to the prospects for world peace.

TIME TO TALK OF U.N. ACHIEVEMENTS

That is why it is time for those who believe in the U.N. to talk about its accomplishments, about its promise-and yes, its problems. Numerous witnesses of vast experience have come before this committee over the past several weeks to outline the U.N.'s many achievements. Right now, U.N. forces are helping keep the peace on the Golan Heights and in the Sinai. In Cyprus, despite Secretary Kissinger's efforts, and those of the British, the only significant progress that has been made in the difficult negotiations there has come through the good offices of the U.N. Secretary-General, Kurt Waldheim.

These are but the most dramatic examples. It would take hours to touch on the many contributions of the U.N. in the areas of disaster relief, world health, economic development, international monetary cooperation, communications, aviation, international law, the peaceful uses of atomic energy, the exchange of educational, scientific, and cultural ideas. The list is almost endless. It is not by accident that the United Nations has become the focal point for action to combat hunger and malnutrition, overpopulation, environmental pollution, and income maldistribution. These are truly global problems, requiring global solutions. In seeking such solutions, as in the search for world

54-738-75—20

peace, the U.N. remains, as President Kennedy put it, "Our last, best hope."

But the longer the United States remains isolated and ineffective at the United Nations, the greater the danger of allowing this "last, best hope" to slip away. At the U.N., this country should be firm, decisive, and innovative-playing a role that emphasizes leadership and cooperation. This country's standing at the United Nations will not be enhanced by a U.S. Ambassador with a policy of storming into the General Assembly to "give 'em hell." There are a number of steps Congress and the administration can take that would have far more positive impact.

STEPS CONGRESS COULD TAKE

As a beginning, everyone must realize that the United States cannot speak with any real authority or persuasiveness about violations of the U.N. Charter until we ourselves are in compliance with the Charter. That requires repeal of the Byrd amendment. The U.N. economic sanctions against Rhodesia were adopted with U.S. support. It is time that we joined in their implementation. The House International Relations Committee will soon be taking up repeal legislation. The Senate passed it overwhelmingly last year, and we must do so again.

Further, Congress should appropriate, at the very least, the full $169 million requested by the administration for U.S. voluntary contributions to the United Nations for the next fiscal year. This year, Congress cut more than $25 million from the administration's requestour contribution was actually less than it had been the year before. U.S. support for the U.N. development program alone slipped more than $12 million in 1 year.

Our contributions to the multilateral activities of the development program, the Children's Fund, the Food and Agricultural Organization, and the relief and works agency are of far more value to the recipient nations and to U.S. foreign policy objectives-than bilateral aid. Increased financial support for these vital U.N. programs would be a modest price to pay for increased U.S. stature and effectiveness in the world community.

In addition to financial support, the administration needs the active backing of the Congress in dealing with three major issues coming before the United Nations this fall, each of which threatens to further damage the already weakened position of the United States at the United Nations.

One is the threatened expulsion of Israel from the U.N. General Assembly, a proposal which clearly is gaining momentum within the Third World bloc. The U.N. must be open to every nation under the terms of its Charter. If one country is excluded, the U.N. loses both its character as an international forum and its integrity. We are late converts to the concept of universality in the U.N., but we must assert that concept now before it is too late, for the benefit of every nation.