Yet, during this same period the United Nations played an indispensable role in limiting and eventually halting dangerous wars in the Middle East and on Cyprus. It convened successful world conferences on two of the most critical issues of our time, those of food and population. In just the past few weeks it has moved swiftly to seek to bring relief to the war victims in Indochina.

Unpalatable and arbitrary as some recent United Nations decisions are, we must face the possibility that there may be worse in store. Unless we move with care and understanding, our confrontation with the Third World will worsen. If we, as a government, stand immovable in a rapidly changing world, we may wind up standing alone. If, on the other hand, we choose to lead the way, we can still lead the United Nations into an era of historic achievement.

No one can predict with any certainty which of these paths the United Nations will take. I do believe, however, that the decisive turning point will be reached sooner rather than later.

SOURCES OF TENSIONS AT THE U.N.

It is not hard to pinpoint the present sources of tension at the United Nations. There are three-the Arab-Israeli dispute, the battle for racial justice in Southern Africa and the growing gap in living standards between developed and developing nations. These three issues dominate all United Nations deliberations for a good reason: These are the problems that most of the world's people feel most keenly. For most member nations a United Nations which cannot promote progress on these issues is not worth having.

On December 6, I spoke to the General Assembly about the unfair. unrealistic, one-sided and even illegal actions which the Third World majority was forcing on the United Nations in pursuing these goals. I warned of the damage these decisions were doing to the United Nations and to the real interests of all its members.

These remarks set off one of the most comprehensive and, in my opinion, most constructive debates in the Assembly's recent history. Representative after representative frankly laid out his country's policies, fears, and hopes about the fundamental problems now faced by us all. This debate was helpful, but it did not resolve our differences. It did, however, create a more hopeful atmosphere and gave us a better idea of the deep-seated emotions that exist on both sides.

We and the nations of the Third World are divided on issues of major importance. We differ on how to achieve peace in the Middle East, how to bring social justice to Southern Africa and how to insure a more equitable sharing of the world's wealth. We are not divided on goals, however, and we are not fundamentally divided on the role which the United Nations can play.

There is no single surefire formula which can reform the United Nations and reverse the trend toward confrontation there. The tone in which we conduct our dialog can soothe, or it can inflame our current differences. Our language, our posture, can enhance or set back the prospects of compromise. But only sincere negotiation on the problems. of critical importance to the Third World can halt the continued deterioration in our relations with these nations.

If. because of choice or neglect, the world community fails to make the United Nations work, the alternative is not cooperation elsewhere

in some other more promising forum, but inevitably a fundamental breakdown of the main path to international cooperation. The dream of an open and cooperative world order to which mankind committed itself 30 years ago will wither and die. In its place there certainly will arise a world divided into exclusive, selfish, and rival camps, where each nation's gain is another's loss.

FULFILLING U.N.'S POTENTIAL

I see a different future, however. I see a United Nations capable at last of fulfilling the mandate of its founders. I see a United Nations serving as the international community's principal forum for peacemaking and peacekeeping. I see the United Nations being used by its members as the court of first resort to settle differences, rather than as the court of last resort for their conflicts. I see a world in which 150 nations live at harmony and in peace-their security_preserved collectively and their prosperity pursued cooperatively. I see a world in which nations will frankly recognize that there may be deep differences on fundamental issues but continue to work at narrowing these differences and at the same time move ahead in areas where they are able to agree. And there are such areas where patient diplomacy can make the difference.

This is no dream. It is a realistic alternative. It requires only that we and other nations begin to use the United Nations to its capacity to help it fulfill its potential. In the Middle East and in Cyprus, the United Nations is showing that it can keep the peace. In crisis after crisis the United Nations is demonstrating that when called upon in time, it can respond effectively to the task at hand. At conference after conference, the United Nations is proving that 100 and more countries can be brought to meaningful agreement even on the most complex and controversial issues when they have the will to do so. The United Nations need not be the sole institution for negotiating and managing the complex problems of interdependence. But it should have a central role in that process as the single universal organization that expresses in broadest terms the collective hopes and needs of all who inhabit this planet.

U.S. ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS

The fate of the United Nations rests with all of its members, but it rests most heavily with those in a position to help resolve the issues confronting it. The United States cannot singlehandedly bring peace to the Middle East, majority rule to Southern Africa, or economic justice to the world.

We can, however, continue to support these goals and we can seek to lead-not as the sole headquarters of justice and wisdom, but as one who recognizes that new and exciting doors can be opened by many countries in an increasingly interdependent world.

The record of our country as a champion of freedom, social justice, and economic opportunity is one in which every American can take pride. No nation, however, can expect to be judged on its past. To the peoples of the Third World, we can show that we are still the same Nation which issued the Declaration of Independence, promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation, advanced the principle of self

determination of peoples, created the concept of international development and pressured its closest allies to free their vast colonial empires. In Southern Africa we can do more than decry racism-we can disassociate ourselves from it entirely. In the Middle East, we can commit ourselves unequivocably to the pursuit of a just settlement which recognizes the rights and national aspiration of all the people of that area. In our relations with the developing nations, we can move once more into the forefront of those seeking to close the gap between rich and poor.

If the United States follows this course steadfastly, I believe we can realistically require that others meet their responsibilities to move with us on the course of cooperation.

If we listen as well as lead, I am convinced that the current trend toward confrontation will be reversed, and that this will open a new era of achievement at the United Nations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much, Ambassador Scali. I think that is a wonderful beginning for our conversation this morning. Now, I am going to limit my questioning to 5 minutes and then turn to Senator Clark and yield to him whatever time he needs to finish his questions and then I will come back and complete my own.

REACTIONS TO AMBASSADOR SCALI'S DECEMBER SPEECH

Probably one of the most memorable things you have done at the U.N. was the speech you gave last December, which received both accolades and brickbats from different sides.

I wonder if you could just give us the background for that speech, how it came about, how much of it was John Scali's feeling that something had to be said, and how reflective it was of the official position of the U.S. Government. Could you also give us a capsule of the reactions that you received from American citizens, from journalists across the country, and the editorial positions of newspapers and other news media. Certainly it was the most discussed speech, probably, of the 29th General Assembly. It almost rivaled in public attention the attention that Arafat received when he arrived, although the attention was somewhat different.

Ambassador SCALI. Senator Percy, I will seek to be as responsive as I can to your question. Let us begin with the reaction to it. Of all speeches that I gave during my time at the United Nations, this received by far the most acclaim. I think that the count at last look was something like 99 to 1 in favor of what I said. If you recall, on December 6, I warned that American support for the United Nations was eroding because of a series of one-sided unrealistic and unenforceable resolutions which the Assembly had overwhelmingly passed despite the vigorous opposition of the United States and many of the developed countries. I spoke then as I do now as a friend of the United Nations who was speaking more in sadness than with indignation. I was seeking to warn those who were beginning to use the U.N. as a political weapon that to continue to pervert the charter, to continue to take illegal actions for short-term political gain,

would destroy the very structure that was put in place so many years ago as a principal device for keeping the peace.

As a result of my talk, some 50 representatives engaged in what then turned out to be a great debate. The rejoinders started out fairly indignantly blaming the United States for its share of confrontation and recalling that perhaps we were guilty of a short memory in that the majority now was doing what the United States and its allies did early in the history of the U.N. As these answers continued, however, they took on a less heated and more constructive tone, and the last 25 or so, which included the representatives of some of the most influential countries, agreed that something more had to be done to prevent the very problem which I had sought to warn against. They acknowledged there had to be a greater emphasis on a conciliation and accommodation rather than seeking one-sided votes which approved resolutions that could not be carried out and which represented paper triumphs for the third world and nothing more.

In the months that have followed this increased desire to avoid confrontation has, I think, become evident in private discussions even though on many public occasions the rhetoric is still hard and still sounds uncompromising.

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS EVINCE DESIRE TO CONCILIATION

In the preliminary discussions which are underway in assorted forums, prior to the special session which begins September 1, we have found that even the most militant of the third world leaders are saying that they want to compromise, they want conciliation and they do not want a repeat of the situation that occurred last fall. We are seeking to meet them and seeking to concentrate on what we hope will be a positive U.S. position which, as I said in my text, listens as well as leads and which seeks to compromise the differences.

I am not sure at this stage Senator Percy, whether all of these preliminary discussions will lead us to softer rhetoric and more accomplishment this fall. I am hopeful that this is so.

I am encouraged by the more moderate tone and indeed even the more moderate proposals that are being discussed as a possible agenda but the final outcome of this will depend on a series of developments including political developments.

If, for example, there is progress toward peace in the Middle East, if there is additional acceptable progress on the problem of South Africa, Rhodesia, and Namibia, many of the third world countries will moderate other demands. So all of these are inextricably linked and my only hope is that we recognize that the problems that the third world is bringing up are not just idealistic and retaliatory visions which they wish to force the industrialized world to accept, but that they reflect genuine fears, deep worry, for example, that the gap between rich and the poor countries is increasing at a time of recession, at a time of energy crisis, and at a time when food remains one of the great uncertainties of our time. And I think that we in the West who possess so much wealth and a good deal of wisdom, too, should recognize that some of the economic reforms that are being asked are not

that radical if we just recognize what the international facts of life today really are.

SUFFICIENT EFFORT BEHIND INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S YEAR

Senator PERCY. Another question relates to International Women's Year.

We had a tremendous U.N. effort for the population conference and also for the food conference. Do you think a comparable effort is being made for International Women's Year? Are we in the United States making enough of a contribution to it? And what do you think is the principal purpose of it? Also, do you think enough effort is being put into the special session? You are aware that Gale McGee and Senator Clark have written a letter to the Secretary asking for heavy emphasis to go into the planning for the special session so we can take the leadership and initiative and not just find ourselves in a confrontation. Do you think enough effort is going into that? After your response I will yield to Senator Clark.

Ambassador SCALI. On your first question, I suspect very strongly that the United States will be represented at a very high level in Mexico City at the International Women's Year Conference. I have urged it and I also believe that the suggestion perhaps will be adopted.

I am more encouraged in the past few weeks about the kind of preparations that we are making for this Conference because I think it is one of the most important that the United Nations has undertaken recently. I suspect that 5,000 American women who will show up there will remind us very clearly if we have not prepared properly and if the results do not meet with their expectations.

So I would hope that those of the administration who have the task of making sure that there are adequate preparations, adequate programs and adequate followthrough, would keep in mind that many of the American women leaders in this area are expecting that Mexico City is going to be more than just a carnival of women getting together to discuss some of the overdue achievements and goals which are rightfully theirs.

PREPARATIONS FOR SPECIAL SESSION

On the preparation for the special session, I have been somewhat disturbed that we have not moved as quickly as we might have within the Government in creating an all-Government position. The State Department has created a special task force to formulate assorted proposals. The U.S. mission has come up with what I believe are some very important suggestions which have been cranked into this, but there continues to be some evidence, I must say frankly, that all segments of our Government are not in agreement at this stage.

Now we still have time and we are dealing and discussing highly complex problems such as whether there should be commodity agreements, for example, whether there should be even consideration of an indexing price system, and whether or not there should be a reform, for example, of the voting rights of the International Bank and Monetary Fund.

You are talking about some very important and very fundamental changes of a kind that have an impact in the field of international eco