« ПретходнаНастави »
Senator CASE. Now we are going to have a 200-mile economic zone which pretty much follows the lead of Ecuador. Maybe Ecuador is in the forefront of wise foresight in putting this thing out. You won't
if you were a California tuna fisherman. Mr. Yost. The point is we are going to be getting into more and more nasty controversy all over the world, all kinds of aspects of these maritime problems, unless we can reach some agreements.
MORALITY AT THE U.N.
Senator CASE. I don't mean to talk the U.N. down. I mean perhaps to change our concept about what we are doing. I think it does do good to have the rest of the world recognizing when the U.N. is being hypocritical.
Mr. LODGE. I applaud your desire, Senator Case, to get rid of some of the hypocrisy that is put out about morality and moral standards at the United Nations because due to the force of circumstances the United Nations has constantly been growing away from the moral standards that were in the charter to begin with and your contentions that that ought to be known and that the public shouldn't be under any illusions about it is I think a very sound thing.
I read an article by C. L. Sulzberger in the New York Times on November 16 last in connection with the suspension of South Africa, and it is very short, I would like to quote it. He said:
Right now, nevertheless, the black State of Uganda (which sits in the Assembly) is involved in one of the weirdest, most cruel patterns of government brutality. Chopping up opponents and feeding them to crocodiles is not a lesser sin than South African segregation. And Chad (which also voted) sometimes buries Christians alive in anthills.
When Stalin still ruled Russia, millions of its people were in prison camps or execution cellars. This was widely known even though Solzhenitsyn's “Gulag Archipelago" had yet to be written. But Russia remained a pillar of the U.N.
While thousands of Rumanians were dying along the fevered Danube-Black Sea Canal, no one talked of "suspension”. After Russia and its allies invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968—or Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt in 1956— they stayed in the U.N. without more than a tut-tut.
Portugal ran a full-scale, three-pronged colonial war; Haiti was bullied by murderous tontons macoutes of Papa Doc Duvalier; and Indonesians (in 1965– 66) slaughtered some 350,000 to 500,000 “Communists” (mostly Chinese minority), sometimes playing football with their heads. All stayed in the United Nations.
I am for the United Nations.
[From the New York Times, Nov. 16, 1974]
BENDING THE RULES OF THE U.N.
(By C. L. Sulzberger) PARIS.—Twice this week the United Nations bent its traditions, if not its rules, first by inviting the head of a political movement, Yasir Arafat, to address its General Assembly as if he represented a government; and second by suspending South Africa's participation in the current session.
The chiefs of the Algerian, Cypriote and Mozambique guerrilla movements never were received—or even aspired to that honor. Yet Mr. Arafat staged a triumphant entry. A careful reading of the U.N. Charter shows no clause specifically barring participation—when invited—of a nonmember or a nonstate, but it hasn't occurred before.
The case of South Africa is different although the two examples are implicitly related. Both stem from the preponderant fact of today's Assembly composition: a heavy majority of votes from the underdeveloped “third world,” actively endorsed (despite their own rivalry) by Russia and China.
Gone are the days when, as with Korea, a strong pro-U.S. bloc could swing the international organization behind it. United States diplomacy in the third world has been proven politically bankrupt.
American money helped put one after another former colony on its feet but American policy sought to compose so many contradictions and was often so ineptly expressed that its influence declined to virtually nil. Thus, for example, we are today in the position of being disliked in varying degree by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
There must be something wrong with our formulations if (while requesting more aid) so many nations oppose us. China, by contrast, has deliberately courted Afro-Asian favor and, with slight expenditure, has made great headway.
The United States opposition to Arafat's appearance at the U.N. came as no surprise because of our support for Israel, Washington also opposed the Assembly's suspension of South Africa.
In that action the U.N. ignored its constitution. Article Five stipulates that a suspension must be recommended by the Security Council. This was not done with South Africa. Moreover, one must review the roll of moral offenders during the U.N.'s history in order to judge this action.
I hasten to stress that, as anyone who has read my dispatches all these years must know, I have constantly opposed bigotry or racism in any form and specifically denounced Pretoria's policy of apartheid.
Right now, nevertheless, the black state of Uganda (which sits in the Assembly) is involved in one of the weirdest, most cruel patterns of government brutality. Chopping up opponents and feeding them to crocodiles is not a lesser sin than South African segregation. And Chad (which also voted) sometimes buries Christians alive in anthills.
When Stalin still ruled Russia, millions of its people were in prison camps or execution cellars. This was widely known even though Solzhenitsyn's “Gulag Archipelago” had yet to be written. But Russia remained a pillar of the U.N.
While thousands of Rumanians were dying along the feve ed Da e-Black Sea canal, no one talked of "suspension.” After Russia and its allies invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968—or Britain, France and Israel invaded Egypt in 1956– they stayed in the U.N. without more than a tut-tut.
Portugal ran a full-scale, three-pronge dcolonial war; Haiti was bullied by murderous tontons macoutes of Papa Doc Duvalier; and Indonesians (in 196566) slaughtered some 350,000 to 500,000 “Communists” (mostly Chinese minority), sometimes playing football with their heads. All stayed in the United Nations.
If an international organization intends to practice fair play-a basic objective of the U.N.-it should do so toward all. The dictates of a majority according to its prejudices one year should not automatically be embodied as a precedent for the future.
It might have been wiser to postpone Mr. Arafat's speech until he had formed a “government in exile." His global standing remains to be formalized and one may only pray (dubiously) that arguing his case before the Assembly may lessen the possibility of another Middle East war. If such proves true, it will seem unfortunate that similar appearances weren't encouraged for earlier de facto political leaders.
To "suspend” South Africa is unfair emotionalism and as segregationist on a world scale as the silly, cruel discrimination that country practices at home. Above all, it was not only illogical to oust the Pretoria Government at a moment when it is showing serious signs of reform but blatantly unjust in terms of all other transgressors, past and present, who have smilingly kept and still keep their seats in so-called respectability's greatest club.
Mr. Lodge. You have heard my testimony. I am for it as a practical utilitarian device which I believe can play a role and has plaved a very important role in preventing war, but you cannot say that the United Nations as it's presently constituted is run on the basis of a moral standard, and I think you are very right to bring that up.
Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes; that is precisely what I tried to say. We have too high expectations and I think Senator Case, perhaps that is why I made the concrete proposal I did, and I distinguish between actions that relate to the fundamental part of membership. That is why I made the proposal about Israel. It should have been made about South Africa, as much as I dislike the apartheid policy of its government.
Mr. Lodge. I think here I disagree with my colleague and friend Charles Yost, for whom I have the most enormous regard. When I said, for example, we ought to freeze our contribution I said freeze our contribution to General Assembly expenses if Israel, for example, were unconstitutionally excluded. That is different from the article 19 dispute. This involved a Russian decision that they didn't like a General Assembly budget which financed the Congo operation and, therefore, they weren't going to pay for that operation. One of the reasons I went to the U.N. was a great crisis as to whether it would fall apart.
RIGHTS OF MEMBERS IN RELATION TO CONTRIBUTIONS DISCUSSED
There is a concept in law which I think applies to the U.N. Charter like everything else. If there is a failure of consideration an aggrieved party is excused of performance of a contract. If a member of the U.N. is denied the right of membership there is a substantial failure of consideration relating to the rights of members. I merely said we should freeze our contribution to the expenses of a General Assembly which materially violates the Charter and its treaty commitments. This is a very narrow area.
When I had the function of putting to the U.N. the nonproliferation treaty to the General Assembly, I ran into a revolt by the third world. What was that revolt all about? The revolt was that we were putting inhibitions against them developing nuclear power. We fought it out. On a simple nonhypocritical principle, which I put to them. What is the great advantage of a developing country having nuclear military power? I sometimes doubt that our own security has been very much enhanced by it. But in any event I said developing countries simply cannot afford to develop nuclear weapons and what is the advantage in doing so. I said, will you feel more secure in the world if you do have it? We got some 91 nations finally to sign by this nonhypocritical approach. Space was the same way. We ran into objections by a lot of countries when we were trying to create a regime of law on space, on the ground that in some way we were depriving them of sovereignty over the Moon when we ourselves were ready to disclaim sovereignty over the Moon, as though there is anything on the Moon that could be commercially exploited.
Senator Case. This is a most unusual experience—to have the men we have got here in one room talking to us and to each other.
Mr. GOLDBERG. The African Development Bank has never gotten anywhere. Why? Because the Africans adopted a rule that they would not permit capital from other parts of the world to participate in the bank by capital contributions and participation. Therefore, it has no capital. The World Bank and other developing banks operate dif
ferently to the great advantage of the developing countries. It is better to say these things frankly and that is the type of thing I think that you have in mind.
Senator Case. Thank you very much.
Mr. STASSEN. If I could make a one-sentence comment on Senator Case's point. That is, for the United Nations in future decades to move on these kinds of problems of the seabed and things like that I think we must introduce weighted voting, and that is why as I thought it through the only way to do it is in a new entity, a sort of central council of ministers, with weighted voting, between the Assembly and Security Council for this economic program, and then in that group be very forthright and not hypocritical and don't expect that we are immune from criticism either and try to really take the lead, which we ought to be able to take on the economic development of the world.
Mr. LODGE. Would you yield?
We have weighted voting now in the United Nations development program.
Mr. STASSEN. That should be expanded on the whole economic field.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Percy, before you start let me say that these hearings will be continued in the morning at 10 o'clock. The panel will be headed by our distinguished former chairman of the committee, Senator Fulbright. I hope that as many of you as can will attend.
Senator PERCY. I will be staying on—if the witnesses can—until 1 o'clock. If Senator Javits has to leave I will be happy to yield to him and then Senator Clark.
Senator JAVITs. Five minutes and I will appreciate it. I have just two points I want to pursue. They were put in mind by the incidents given here.
HARLAN CLEVELAND'S NONVOTING DOCTRINE, CAUCUS OF INDUSTRIAL
The interesting thing about the third world is that it is very capable of cutting off its nose to spite its face. That is true in relations with the Arab States. It is true in the world economic development, it is true of multinational corporations, it is true of the African Development Bank, and for all I know it is true of a dozen other things. Under those circumstances, and because, of the unlikelihood that any basic change can be made in the constitutional organization of the United Nations, even perhaps the interjection of some new level, like Harold Stassen suggests, shouldn't we be thinking in different terms? I also join Senator Case in the great satisfaction that you have greatly distinguished yourselves as public servants. And so I would like to put two propositions to the panel :
One, what do you think of the nonvoting doctrine put forward by Harlan Cleveland ? I think in the same vein that Senator Lodge referred to a little while ago; just trying to develop an actual consensus in the debate and then the nations that are part of the consensus going ahead and doing what that consensus determines?
And the corollary of the same question, should there be some caucus of the industrial nations like, for example, in the OECD—Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—which would in a considered and organized way say we are going to depend on the United Nations for the following things. We are not going to depend on the United Nations for the following other things. We are giving the third world fair notice. No use in our pretending that the United Nations is what it isn't. We need it, and we want it, but we realize that under existing circumstances its jurisdiction must be limited to the following area : peacekeeping forces, a very desirable activity, or any other item along the same line.
In other words, starting from where we are, what do we do? So two questions: One, the doctrine of consensus rather than trying to vote, which just seems to frustrate itself, in the General Assembly, and two the idea of some caucus of the industrialized nations of the world who are being outvoted but nothing happens.
Can we start with my former colleague, Senator Lodge ? Mr. LODGE. In your processing in the General Assembly, at least when I was there, the more stress you put on wording the less you accomplished and the further you got away from harmonizing the actions of nations. In a world organization you have frightful language problems anyway and the tendency to quibble and to split hairs is magnified by trying to run the thing as though it was the lower house of some State legislature because it isn't that at all. So I am very sympathetic with Mr. Cleveland's idea, which I read, stressing the importance of trying to get consensus, and during the 7 years I was there the U.S. delegation tried very often to get consensus. I believe that is the best way for that organization to move ahead.
Now on the second point, to limit the jurisdiction of the U.N., I would certainly favor taking the position that you don't think the U.N. ought to make moral judgments. When you remember reading about the meeting of the Cabinet where Theodore Roosevelt reported how he had fomented the revolution in the northern provinces of Columbia and then given them recognition and had the U.S. Navy appear in the harbor at the right time and created the Republic of Panama and then the Panama Canal Zone. He asked all of the different members of the Cabinet to comment and finally he came to the Attorney General Pilander C. Knox, and he said I would like to hear the opinion of the Attorney General on the legal phases of the question, and Knox said, "Mr. President, if I were you I would have no taint of legality about it."
Well, I think that applies in this case that you have raised, for the U.N. to make moral judgments is really a rather gruesome farce and I would be very happy to see the U.S. representative say at some appropriate time that he didn't think it was any of the job of the U.N. to make moral judgments.
U.N. SHOULD DEBATE MORAL VALUES
Mr. STASSEN. I have to disagree with my distinguished associate on that matter. I think inevitably and in fact for the lifting of any kind of outlook for the peoples of the world the moral values do have to be debated and considered. If you do not want hypocritical moral judgments, you have to come to grips with the facts in that process. Bringing these issues forward I think is a very important part of the