2. Two articles concerning the recent debate following Ambassador Scali's speech to the General Assembly in December 1974, written by representatives of United Methodist agencies at the U.N. 3. Booklet, "The Church Center for the United Nations on Its Tenth Anniversary," outlining the historic commitment of the United Methodist Church to the United Nations concept. If possible, we would like to have at least the official statements of the United Methodist Church placed in the printed record of the hearings currently being held on the role of the United Nations by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sincerely yours, HERMAN WILL, Associate General Secretary. OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH CONCERNING THE UNITED NATIONS (From the Social Principles, 1972) Believing that international justice requires the participation of all peoples, we endorse the United Nations and its related bodies as the best instrument now in existence to achieve a world of justice and law. We commend the efforts of all people in all countries who pursue world peace through law. We endorse international aid and cooperation on all matters of need and conflict. We urge acceptance for membership in the United Nations of all nations who wish such membership and who accept United Nations responsibility. We urge the United Nations to take a more aggressive role in the development of international arbitration of disputes and actual conflicts among nations by developing binding third-party arbitration. We reaffirm our historic concern for the world as our parish and seek for all persons and peoples full and equal membership in a truly world community. (From the Bishops' Call for Peace and the Self Development of Peoples) This movement from narrow nationalism to global loyalties requires both international law and international organization. The development of international law has included landmark treaties resulting from conferences at The Hague, Dumbarton Oaks, and the Geneva Conventions. Structures of international order have been anticipated by the ill-fated League of Nations and the United Nations. If peace with justice is to come, nation-states should utilize the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, as well as international trade, relief and scientific institutions, while seeking to perfect the instruments of international organization. (From the United Methodist Church and Peace, 1968) 5. The United Nations We commend the United Nations for its success in reconciling differences, promoting human rights, lifting the levels of health, education, and welfare, and advancing self-government among the nations. These accomplishments are in spite of a total U.N. budget that is currently less than 1 per cent of the United States military expenditures. It should become an increasingly useful instrument in the peaceful settlement of international disputes. We believe the United Nations and its agencies should be supported, strengthened and improved. Moreover, if these facilities are to become most effective, the United Nations, with membership open to all nations which seek to join and which subscribe to its Charter, must be given sufficient authority to enact, interpret and enforce world law against aggression and war. Meanwhile, the governments of all nations, and especially the great powers, should utilize to the fullest possible extent the avenues of the United Nations for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. All nations should give adequate financial support to the U.N. and its peacekeeping operations and its specialized agencies. We urge the early ratification by all nations of the fourteen conventions on human rights developed and approved by the United Nations or its specialized agencies. We believe in the principle expressed in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of a Child. "Mankind owes to the child the best that it has to give." We, therefore, commend the work of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) which has since 1947 served more than 200 million children in more than one hundred countries through material aid to programs of supplemental food, disease control, nutrition and maternal and child health. We support the greater use of the International Court of Justice and urge the nations to remove any restrictions they have adopted which impair the court's effective functioning. The economic and political turmoil within many developing nations provides a grave temptation to the great powers to intervene through subversive activity or military force. We condemn this new version of imperialism which often parades as responsibility and we urge the great powers to use their strength to support the United Nations and enable it to render multilateral judgments as to those internal disturbances which endanger the peace and require collective [From the Engage/Social Action magazine, February 1975] measures. ATTACKS ON THE UN (By Robert McClean) I am concerned about current reactions to the UN. I am concerned that US Ambassador Scali, speaking before the General Assembly on December 6, said a "tyranny of the majority" is passing outrageous, unenforceable, and irresponsible resolutions that weaken the UN. I am concerned that so many US newspapers editorially seconded that speech without checking the accuracy of its allegations. I am concerned that Scali may have been right when he suggested that many Americans are "deeply distressed at the trend of recent events." I am concerned because many of those “recent events" that he depreciates are the very acts that affirm the UN's success in areas of justice and equitable relations between peoples and states. The now famous Scali speech was undoubtedly directed at easing Israel's feelings of US compromise in Middle East negotiations. However, behind this public relations facade is the real issue of recent General Assembly resolutions concerning trade and tariffs, sovereignty over natural resources, producer's associations, prices of raw materials, and transnational corporations. These trade issues form the basis of UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) discussions and precipitated the most controversial negotiations at the Rome Food Conference. The US, joined by other western industrialized nations, won those battles. However, losses on two significant related General Assembly resolutions are the heart of Scali's real concern. In the spring of 1974 the Sixth Special General Assembly approved by concensus a resolution concerning a "New Economic Order." It contained paragraphs on each of the issues mentioned above. Immediately after its approval Scali strongly removed US support from it saying, "Concensus is not a steamroller." However, because of the importance of this document the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church has now established a committee to study this "new economic order" to determine its relationship to United Methodist position statements. At the recently conducted 29th General Assembly a "Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States" was approved, not by concensus, but by vote: 120 for, 6 against, 10 abstentions. The US voted with the minority. It was this issue that was foremost in Scali's concern when he spoke six days earlier. These two resolutions boldly state the aspirations of those notions that are not members of the world's economic or industrial clubs. The new Charter of Economic Rights and Duties is a resolution of the General Assembly and as such will only have power (other than moral persuasion) as industrialized states observe its rules. Without that, support-in Scali's words— "cannot be implemented." However, each should judge if it is "one-sided" or "unrealistic." The text covers thirty-four articles plus an introduction. Most articles were acceptable to all. Rather than evaluate acceptable points, here is a summation of three the US found most unacceptable and attempted in committee to have deleted, but failed. Many states feel former colonial rulers and today's transnational corporations have removed raw materials from their territory without adequate repayment. 54-738 - 75 - 31 One of the charter's "principles" governing relations between states calls for "remedying of injustices which have been brought about by force and which deprive a nation of the natural means necessary for its normal development." This principle parallels that of reparations heard in the US Civil Rights movement. Article 5 deals with "producer's associations.” “All states have the right to associate in organizations of primary commodity producers in order to develop their national economies to achieve stable financing for their development. . . ." The association of oil exporting countries (OPEC) is such a group. Banana growers or Bauxite miners might use this principle. Fear of industrialized states is based in the understanding that is most profitable to form such associations if their primary product is consumed by financially able states that do not themselves have the capability of such production. States supporting this concept feel these raw materials have in the past been controlled, to their detriment, by outside states or corporations, e.g., iron ore in Swaziland, petroleum and coffee wherever it is found. Article 28 concerns "indexing" prices of raw materials to make them equitable with finished products. "All states have the duty to cooperate in achieving adjustments in the prices of exports of developing countries in relation to prices of their imports so as to promote just and equitable terms of trade for them, in a manner which is remunerative for producers and equitable for producers and consumers." Because manufacturing takes place in industrialized countries, those countries that produce raw materials for export develop trade deficits when buying back finished products. They feel this situation is unfair and feel "indexing" would help remedy inequities. Scali said, "Many Americans are questioning their belief in the United Nations. They are deeply disturbed." I would like for many Americans to let their government know they are deeply disturbed-disturbed because they do understand and affirm the aspirations of the developing nations; because they want the future to be different from the past; and because they want the UN to grow in strength as it attempts to bring the desires of all states into equity. If you would like to register your feelings, we would be glad to forward your response to Ambassador John Scali at the United States Mission to the UN. If you write directly, we would appreciate a copy. [Remaining enclosures are on file with the committee.] STATEMENT OF ELEANORE SCHNURR, UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES USA, NATIONAL MINISTRIES As the United Nations Representative for the American Baptist Churches, USA, National Ministries, I would like to request that the following statement be included in the records of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearings on the United Nations: For over a period of more than 30 years American Baptists have stated, through Resolutions made at their annual National Conventions, their conviction that in today's rapidly shrinking world of nuclear and electronic war power, the only sane philosophy of international relations, the only sensible theory of national security is one which recognizes the necessity of increasing multilateral cooperation. This applies to trade, to technical assistance and economic aid, to ecological matters as well as to disarmament, and to continuous support of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While we, as American Baptists, support those efforts in which United States foreign policy makers have endeavored to seek peaceful solutions to crisis situations, we feel that there should have been more use made of the various multilateral channels which are available through the United Nations system. A foreign policy approach which only involves big power diplomacy and which fails to take into consideration issues of concern to the members of the global family is too narrow, creates gulfs, and widens the gap between divergent interests of nations. The longer we allow such a state of affairs to continue, the more dangerous becomes the illusion that we can safely ignore the needs and interests of the majority of the members of the global community. Recognizing that we are now truly living in an interdependent world, we feel that the negative votes cast by our Government, concerning issues related to the new economic order, were votes cast in haste and not in contemplation of the long-range interests of the people of the United States or of the world at large. We feel that the United States Government would much rather be placed in a position where there is knowledge and understanding on its part of the fact that the Third World definitely exists and that new relationships will develop. As a nation it is not in our best interest to be singled out by other nations as a reactionary country supporting only the status-quo when there is opportunity to make allowance for the aspirations of the underprivileged majority of humanity. In this respect, it was the United States unwillingness to recognize the repeated demands of the majority of the United Nations membership, during the last session of the General Assembly (29th), calling for an ending of the old economic order, which led to the passage of many United Nations Resolutions which could be interpreted as "anti-U.S.". In reality, these Resolutions were calling for a new and more equitable economic order on which to begin to build a more stable global partnership. We commend the United States initiative, during the 25th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (1974), in calling for the convening of an international conference in 1975 to celebrate International Women's Year. The United States has much to contribute to this Conference and we urge our Delegation to assume a leadership role, focusing its energies on issues pertinent to the Conference's subject matter. We, as American Baptists, still believe and affirm that the United Nations represents, to date, the best international organization through which nations can work for a lessening of world tensions and a strengthening of mutual understanding and cooperation for world peace with justice. STATEMENT BY CAMPAIGN FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT, INC. Consent of the governed, yes. Rightly a fundamental principle in human relations. Why, then, do we keep it confined within the boundaries of nations? Hunger, security, population, pollution, freedom of the seas and canals, equitable access to goods and natural resources: these urgent problems are global, but is the machinery for solving them global? Unfortunately, in spite of my best organized and personal efforts as an accredited observer to the funding conference of the United Nations in 1945, the United Nations is an association of sovereign States. This is anarchy, not a practical way to peace. What is most flagrantly missing in the United Nations is the two-way street familiar in the U.S.A. and other federations leading through elected representatives, to a legislative body capable of resolving problems of general concern because powers to deal with them have been delegated to it. In the other direction, the governing body can enforce its laws directly on individual citizens without the interference of member states. The building of such a two-way street, from the people to the world organization, and from the world organization to the people directly is the challenge presently before humanity. To accomplish this the United Nations needs: 1. Powers granted to it to deal with world-wide problems, provided. 2. Popular control is maintained through a fair system of elected representatives to one or more legislative branches. 3. Independent enforcement agencies (the smaller the unit needing coercion—that is, the individual citizen, the easier and more peaceful and civilian the enforcement). 4. Independent sources of revenue. Someone will surely raise the cry; what about national sovereignty? That is a bugaboo standing in the way of a peaceful world order. Where does sovereignty reside? According to the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The people have every right to re-allocate their reserved powers the better to serve their needs, the purpose of government. The granting of such powers and responsibilities to the United Nations would be a reallocation of sovereignty. This would restrain nations, but wouldn't that be a blessing? It would not diminish the rights of individuals. Quite the contrary. Popular sovereignty would be augmented because the individual gains a say in what happens to him/her, and within this area of citizenship, gains security from wars and threats of wars. How does the individual benefit from the retention of a national sovereignty which denies citizens any franchise in world affairs and leaves these decisions in the hands of a nation's executive, and the use of military force virtually unrestrained? What kind of protection is this? Food, peace and security, with justice in close company, these are the primary needs of people all over the world. The kind of political machinery to secure these needs has succeeded in this country for almost two hundred years. Who can say it is impossible to create such machinery at the world level? We have put men on the moon! Of course, it is possible. Let us proceed now to create the world political machinery necessary to guarantee in all human beings everywhere the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness! That is the goal worthy of our great heritage. Respectfully submitted by, Senator JOHN SPARKMAN, GEORGIA LLOYD, Executive Secretary. MR. AND MRS. FRANCIS M. RANDALL, DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Enclosed is an article from today's front page of The B'ham News entitled, "Sparkman leading deep probe of U.N.," which I have read and which probe I hope you will pursue with vigor. Also enclosed is a letter that I sent to you 10 years ago urging you to, among other things, get us out of the UN and the UN out of the U.S. I apologize for the two garbled lines, they were garbled on 4-15-1965, and at that time I had no idea that I would ever be remailing that letter. I am not sending copies of that letter to Senator Allen and all Alabama U.S. Representatives because I have sent them similar letters over the past 10 years. I here ask all of these gentlemen to help you and support that probe into the U.N. I believe that the testimony of former U.N. Ambassadors such as Mr. Lodge and Mr. Goldberg is biased-their job was to promote the U.N. and they still are. They have a vested interest in the error of our participating in the U.N. and neither has the courage to say I made a mistake. Reform won't work-the structure was built on sand-the U.N. was conceived, created and is now OBVIOUSLY controlled by the communists. Enclosed is Mr. Brooks cartoon of 11-4-74 Re: U.N.-and we've had worse abuses by that so called, "peace," organization. The communist nations of the U.N. are saying nothing about the sickening blood baths and atrocities that are going on in Vietnam and Cambodia. Our President probably hasn't even told Congress about them, Senator Sparkman, but they ARE going on! (See Scott Report of 4-23-75.) I request that this letter be submitted to the probe on my behalf as I cannot afford to go to Washington to testify, but if your committee wants irrefutable evidence that we need to be Out of the U.N., Mr. Reid Benson of The John Birch Society in Washington can probably convince you all of this need and in short order. Having Mr. Lodge and Mr. Goldberg give evidence on the effectiveness of the U.N. is like asking the crows to guard the cornfield or the fox to guard the chickenhouse. Congratulations to President Ford (5-15-75) on getting our ship and crew back. That action and the freedom to own gold and the rescue of some of the South Vietnamese civilians and soldiers are the only significant 3 actions of President Ford that I approve of. Today I am very proud of President Ford-hope he will continue to just do what is right and expletive deleted with what the rest of the world thinks of U.S. Sincerely yours, [Enclosures are on file with the committee.] FRANCIS M. RANDALL, |