Mr. MOYNIHAN. Senator, obviously I do not think so, and I could be wrong. I have been wrong about a lot of things in my life. But I would like to be very explicit on this. Which is that it seems to me that one of our problems in dealing with the new nations has been that we have never been able to distinguish between a principled statement of our views and a confrontation with them, a rejection of them. It suggests that we feel they are not somehow as politically mature as we, as politically equal as we think they are. They do not expect us always to agree with them. They assume we do not agree with them about some things. The posture of avoiding the statement, avoiding the justification of areas where we do not agree has not led to any general assumption by those nations that, well, there is in fact a larger area of agreement. It has tended to leave the impression there is no area of agreement. I have lived out in those parts of the world, I am an honorary fellow of the London School of Economics, I know that part of the world-not as well as 50 men you could name, but I am not unfamiliar with it-and I am saying to you that we should not be so polite as to be misunderstood. We should assume that other nations are serious in what they say, be serious in response and assume they will be serious about what we say and think. Far from confrontation, this is engagement, this is when you are seriously working together on issues, when you hope you will come up with some resolution, and you mean as much as possible to abide by what comes out. I use the parliamentary term opposition, and I spoke of a loyal opposition. I do not want to suggest that the General Assembly is a legislature. It is not. But I talk of finding ones self in the minority with respect to certain matters and vis-a-vis a majority, with which one shares an essentially political community.

I mean what do the gentlemen on your right do in the U.S. Senate? They are a minority. Do they give up? do they not come to hearings? do they go away? or do they not come in year after year, perhaps, state their position, offer alternatives, and in the end do they not end up sharing in the outcome? They do. They influence the outcome. That is what I meant by that, that is not confrontation.

Senator CLARK. I think others have questions and I have others that I will postpone until we go around again. But it seems to me the article goes somewhat beyond a statement of principle, as you have outlined it. I think the position that you have just stated is very defensible. But when you talk about "systematic attack," to take one of the terms you used in the Commentary piece, when you talk about paying tribute to Mr. Ben Bella, presumably still imprisoned in Algeria, as the Algerian President of the General Assembly takes office, it seems to me you go beyond a statement of principle and you would be received in an antagonistic way. That would make it more difficult for us to take a leadership role. It seems to me that is confrontation—not a statement of principle.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. It seems to me you are right. I wrote that article in India. I have not read it since I wrote it, so you have me at a little bit of a disadvantage.

I want to be very clear on this, sir. You may not agree, most people probably would not agree, but I believe the totalitarian powers are expansive. I think they are expansionist even if not in the territorial sense. Ideologically they still mean to rule in the world and ideologi

cally they may yet. The world is divided between the totalitarian powers with internal divisions there too, of course the West, and this large new majority of nations who inherit a political doctrine which in the main, in its ideal form is that of democratic socialism. Now this is an honorable and decent political tradition, one with which we can engage in a thoroughly satisfactorily political community. Our job is to see that the social democracies of Asia and Africa and Latin America succeed. The totalitarian job is to see that they fail. And part of the posture of bringing about that failure is the systematic assassination of the reputation of the American democracy.

You go to any of those countries and what do you find? Beyond anything that is just idiosyncratic or happenstance, there is a systematic effort to declare that ours is the worst society the world has known. It is drummed in and beaten into the minds of people all over the world by persons who know what they are doing. I say to you that the reputation of this democracy is not just important to us; it is important to these other countries also and we have got to recognize the systematic and sustained-it has been going on 50 years, it will be going on 50 years from now-effort to discredit us in the world. And we have to understand the ideological context in which it takes place.

I sometimes think we have been more innocent about ideology than we are tought to be. We have to recognize what is credible and what is not credible and to know that we are on the defensive in the world and to care about that. To an extraordinary degree I think the world does not perceive us as being particularly sensitive on these issues. I think the reputation of our democracy is the most important interest we have in the world.

Senator CLARK. Well, I certainly could not disagree with anything you say, other than that it seems to me that for us to systematically attack them in the same way would not necessarily restore our reputation, that we would not necessarily gain a greater position of leadership. Mr. MOYNIHAN. How could I disagree?

Senator CLARK. Senator Biden.

Senator BIDEN. No questions.

Senator CLARK. Senator Case.

Senator CASE. I think, Mr. Chairman, you have put your finger on the precise thing that is the most interesting about Mr. Moynihan's appearance this morning and the job he is going to take on and his general thoughts.

I do not see why we ought to let up attacking the kind of conduct in foreign countries which is contrary to our view of the dignity and sanctity of the individual. In the specific instances you referred to, Mr. Chairman, I think I would rather disagree that it is wrong to bring this out constantly; the man languishing in prison and being tortured by a foreign dictator: this is an appropriate place in which to attack the dictator, to bring it out because I think this is the essence of the difference between the East and the West using those terms very loosely. This is something we ought not to gloss over. That is all.

Senator CLARK. Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. I think I have had my turn.

Senator BAKER. I had no questions previously and I still have no questions. As I listened to the dialog between the chairman and this

witness I came to have even greater admiration for his clarity of thought and perception of issues of extraordinary scope and importance. I underscore my previous accolade. I have one question, however, I would like to pursue a little.

IMPORTANCE OF IAEA SAFEGUARD PROGRAM

You mentioned the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. I quite agree with you that nonproliferation and possession in irresponsible hands of the world's growing supply of plutonium may be the millennium size question that confronts civilization.

It also occurs to me that the IAEA is unique and unused as an international asset. IAEA is the only forum I know of in which the United States, Soviet Union, and most of the superpowers of the world are members, but there is no veto. It seems to me that considerable effort ought to be made in trying to expand and extend the authority of IAEA and bring it greater public visibility to make clear that there are nations which, while they are members of the IAEA, do not subscribe to the inspection requirement of IAEA-our good friend from Israel, for instance.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is correct.

Senator BAKER. As a case in point, they operate two reactors, neither of which are subject to inspection by the IAEA. I think they should be. As we see the prospect of other reactors developing in Brazil, throughout Europe and Asia, there is not only a growing concern on my part for the national security arrangements over plutonium but for the non-national security arrangements-that is, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that our greatest concern may be from non-national threats, from terrorists, for instance.

We ought to consider very carefully in the United Nations, that not only do 14 nations or 13 nations profess the ability to produce plutonium or enriched uranium out of which an explosive device could be built, but there are also probably 50 corporations, or aggregations of industrial complexes, that could do it, too.

There is no doubt that the gaseous fission technique, gaseous centrifuge, are fully within the competence of the talent and capital resources of non-national entities to go forward.

I urge you to consider the possibility of using the IAEA in facing up to this millennium type problem.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank you, Senator. You have said something profoundly serious.

Senator BAKER. It may be there is no way to deal with it. I very much hope there is a way and I believe there is a way. There is pitiful little thought being given to the question that it is very late in the game to start and we have to start.

Senator JAVITS. I would like to join with the Senator in the idea he has expressed. I hope he will not confine it to Israel alone. I agree with him. But to many others where the same danger is, and danger which originates not only with the U.S. supply of atomic materials, but Canada and the Soviet Union and many other suppliers, and the fact that they are not reachable by the United Nations should not make any difference in this world forum.

Senator BAKER. Obviously there are other countries, for instance, India, from which the Ambassador just returned. The reactor there is not subject to inspection either. The plutonium yield is easily calculated from the Indian reactor and the Demona reactor in Israel. We know with great precision how much fissionable material of weapon grade they have.

Senator JAVITS. One other thing I would like to call to the witness' attention. While we are dealing with this problem of what is available as capability for the United Nations, there is a treaty on Antartica, which is an extraordinary grant of supernational authority, including world authority, again in which the Soviet Union has joined, in short, to call attention to the great opportunities which already exist, which are pressing and which can be applied to many other problems.

Senator BAKER. I apologize for making statements instead of asking questions.

You will be our representative and this may be the last effective opportunity we have to speak to you in this way, because of our respective demand for time and scheduling. I do not think it is an oversimplification to say that the greatest challenge that confronts the super powers-namely, the United States, Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China and the others, the nuclear powers-may be in the next year or so, to derive a way to monitor, control, and secure against the proliferation of fissionable material. I think that we have the structure at the United Nations and IAEA but we have not yet marshalled the will to harness it. I would hope a major multinational initiative, by the United States and the Soviet Union, for instance, may be mounted soon to see if we can find a way to attend to the problems you and I have just discussed. If we do, the existence of the United Nations would be fully justified for that alone.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. In my last unofficial statement, if it turns out that way, I would like to agree with you. And if I may I would add one thing.

Senator Javits mentioned Canada. I think that there are few nations which we could better emulate than Canada. They take these matters very seriously, they are thoroughly responsible about them, and admirably so, and they could teach us a lot.

Senator BAKER. I might add, in response to Senator Javits' remark, in using the Demona reactor I did not mean to single out the Israeli situation as a particular threat, but only as an example of the problem. There are many others.

ROLE OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Senator CLARK. Mr. Moynihan, I have only three or four additional questions. One more on the Commentary article and then I promise to leave it. It is a little unfair, it seems to me, to keep quoting you on an article that you wrote two or three months ago but I cannot resist it. Since you have not looked at it since, let me quote from page 41. You say, "the truth is that international liberalism and its processes have enormous recent achievements to their credit. It is time for the United States to start saying so. One example is the multinational corporation which, combining modern management with liberal trade policies, is arguably the most creative international institution of the 20th century."

This committee has had a number of witnesses at hearings in the last several weeks that seem to me to call that statement into question. One of them was the Gulf Oil Co. president, who sat in the same seat you are sitting in and told us of the millions of dollars that that particular corporation turned over to the Korean Government, in the form of illegal campaign contributions. I specifically asked whether he thought these activities were unique among multinational corporations, and he said he certainly hoped they were but he seriously doubted it. Yesterday, in a closed meeting in preparation for a hearing to be held next Monday, a good deal of information was revealed about another major multinational corporation, its very questionable activities in many other parts of the world. I am inclined to believe a pattern is developing that is not exactly consonant with your position on multinational corporations.

Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, which is to say that I was speaking of the peculiar success with which these institutions they go back to the turn of the century, the Dutch and British helped commence themhave been able to organize capital and management and materials for productive purposes and they are very productive. They make a lot of things people use, and they get around the rigidities which earlier companies faced and they are very adaptable.

I gather from what you say that they are also adaptable to the political mores of lots of places where they happen to be doing business. Well, I suppose they are and if any of them are let them face the consequences. Did I say they were without sin?

Senator CLARK. I have not read the whole article either.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am an Irish-Catholic, Senator. I believe none of us is without sin. If there are such people I have not met them yet. Senator CLARK. I think we reap the harvest of the multinational corporations activities.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. We still must be appalled by some of those practices although we have seen some of them take place elsewhere-not in Iowa, I am sure, but in New York, I think they take place in New York.

Senator CASE. Even in the United States.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Even in the United States.

ATTEMPT TO KEEP AMERICAN BUSINESS OUT OF THIRD WORLD

May I make a point on the multinational corporation here. I hope I do not expand beyond my knowledge.

For two years in India I found myself going into seeing ministers of one kind or another and saying, "Minister, do you remember the XYZ company that come out to India and worked 4 years with you negotiating an agreement to build a fertilizer plant or to look for oil or to dig some coal. Finally they broke their pick and they left and nothing happened?" Yes, he remembers it very well. Next I would say: "Do you know where they have opened up business? Not far away from you. They are in Siberia now. And did you ever stop to think that maybe the people who were touting you off them in 1960 were waiting to get them themselves in 1970?" If you go around the world you will see, I do not want to use the word systematic, that