fluence which Russia will continue to use to deny peaceful settlement until Russia is included as an equal partner in the peace finding process. Nothing short of direct and absolute American and Russian cooperation is required for MIDEAST and world peace. KOREA AND OTHER NON-DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS South Korea must be given free speech and free political process, with the wise understanding that several policy alternatives offering peace and mutual disarmament with North Korea will result. The Koreans do not want to be slaughtered by another Anti-Communist machine, which denies their rights to self-determination-as we denied the Vietnamese by refusal to honor the 1954 Geneva requirement for free elections. The U.S. treaty commitments to South Korea, Chile, the Phillipines, and to other non-democratic governments mean nothing when compared to the urgency, self-interest and global interests of cooperative policy with Russia and China. Self-determination of the nations must take precedence over the monetary and self-destructive habits of the cold war. Either the Third World nations are to be used as fodder for the U.S. Military Industrial machine which is served by the "Limited War strategy," or the third world is to be used as the proving ground for cooperative economic development. The dependency of the world upon American freedoms, democracy and economic power will ensure peace unto all the generations. Détente and cooperative policy with Russia and China demands an end to conflict with satellite or Third World nations. PLANNING Development strategies required to achieve global goals-to include plans and designs, incentives and disincentives-must be provided by global and national organizations. Planning must become an open public process. Consumption for the purpose of achieving global goals and improving the social, economic, and cultural environment-must replace consumption for the sake of consumption. New Institutions must be structured to achieve profits in the course of serving the public and environmental interests. For environmental and conservation purposes, high prices and fixed production limits must be set for automobile and for oil consumption, for example. Price controls and tax policy must be used to control consumption. Investments will be planned and implemented by SDR's allocations. Price controls, tax policy and production controls will be used to curtail or expand consumer consumption. Absolute control is required to orient the world toward achievement of global goals. Personal, community, metropolitan, and national incentives must be structured to spur progress toward those goals. The multinationals must be internationalized and given global control of markets and resources; and the global criteria for regulations must be structured through the UN. The MNC's must become the common apparatus of global economic management. The alternative is complete anarchy muscled by the constant growth in military power and absolute destruction. The only way the super powers can translate their military, political and economic power into a surviving power and influence for furthering world progress and unity is by the conversion of their influence via the MNC's, by democratizing the UN machinery and by expanding the economic planning and regulatory functions of the UN. The cooperation among the Super and Major powers must be complete enough to stop the global destructiveness of increasing militarization. Free and equal discussion among all nations will and must bring liberty and survival. THE CITIES OF AMERICA The critical problems of ghetto destitution and crime, the hopelessness of 40% unemployment for black teenagers-must be a central concern for an NIEO. The divisiveness of American society must be healed by the establishment of bold, challenging and inspiring global goals to uplift the spirit of people everywhere. Global peace is not a dream, but rather the necessity of survival. INFLATION Inflation must be allowed to suffer those who do not take positive steps to avoid the dying unecenomic, overpopulating, overconsuming and conflict-oriented society. Inflation may be considered the incentive or stimulant to establish a New Global Economy or an NIEO. Rebates from administered prices must be offered to only those who step into the New Global Economy. All citizens are invited to join or support the CNIEO, and to make the discus sions and plans for an NIEO-as their demands of politicians to build a worldwithout inflation, depression and conflict. The political will and planning for peace must precede the achievement of peace. WORLD FEDERALISTS, USA, CHICAGO REGION INC., Senator CHARLES H. PERCY, DEAR... [SENATOR] The hearings which your Subcommittee has been holding on "The United States and the United Nations" offer an exciting possibility of re-orienting our foreign policy toward the future world rather than seeking vainly to preserve the past. I ask you to include this letter, if possible, in the record of your hearings and among the views you have invited others of us to submit in writing. During the past ten years or so, because of my concern for the future of the human race, I have borne the responsibility of President of the Chicago Regional Council of World Federalists, USA. I am writing on behalf of world federalists in our area who share with me the goal of a self-government of humanity. Since the beginning of our time on earth mankind has fought wars, between tribes, between cities and nation-states, and more recently on a global scale. As long as there has been an exterior enemy, our armies and fleets have sought each other's destruction. This is no longer a possible way to live. There is no longer an exterior enemy. Humanity is one, the world is one, and the enemy is ourselves. We can continue to live on earth only if we become a civilized race able to control our suicidal urges. This is a tough thing to ask of the savages we still are. But if the history of our own nation proves anything, it is that larger communities of human beings are, in fact, becoming capable of government. The role of the United Nations is central to human survival. If it didn't exist, we would have to invent it. If it has obvious shortcomings, it is up to us, not to someone else, to improve the structure and powers under which the United Nations now operates. Many Americans do not yet see this. They think the old way of war, armaments, intrigue and forces is the "normal" process of foreign politics. A hallowed place in our history awaits the leader who grasps that strengthening the United Nations should be a main aim of United States foreign policy. Smaller nations have already discovered in the United Nations a source of unity and power. It takes vision for a larger nation to foresee that the supreme opportunity which the United Nations offers is imperative to the nations of the earth which are already great and powerful. Such great nations as the United States have the most to gain, or to lose, by the success or failure of world political institutions. The United States, at the celebration of our second century of nationhood, is uniquely fitted for leadership in the development of a self-government of mankind. Our history points in a straight line to this destiny. The newer and smaller nations need and want what is best in this kind of Americanism. The United States should support a conference to review the Charter of the United Nations. Our enlightened self-interest will ask that we support a strengthening of the functions of the United Nations, and will urge, for instance, that among measures to this end we seek a more realistic system of representation of great and small nations in the General Assembly-a necessary step, from our point of view, in order to make the United Nations a more workable world forum. This will have, to you, a familiar ring of political bargaining. This it will be, and to the common good. It is a matter of pride to us that Chicago world federalists have taken a leading role in producing proposals for strengthening the United Nations. Our members have conducted studies summarized in the report Freedom in a Federal World which includes a practical formula for fairer representation in the General Assembly. We have led an international committee in developing a set of 15 Proposals for United Nations Reform, worthy of immediate consideration by a review conference, available in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, German and Dutch texts. Under separate cover I am sending you copies of these two documents, which you may find useful as resources in your present study. My plea for American leadership toward a self-government of the human community is not just the idealism of a liberal. It is a demand of modern circumstances which does not depend on utopianism. It is a case of grinding necessity. An age of terrorism and military insecurity, a period in which we are poisoning the seas and the soil and the atmosphere, an era in which the depletion of our resources is leading to an international energy crisis, cries for the creation of institutions to govern the global problems which nations cannot govern for themselves. The life of influential segments of our population in this country has become so comfortable, and our influence so overriding, that our sin is complacency and our temptation is to hope if we do nothing our problems will go away. One thing is certain. If we do nothing our problems will get worse. The difficulty which Congress is experiencing in the construction of an effective energy program for the United States indicates something of issues which an international parliament will encounter. It will no doubt prove necessary to establish international regulatory agencies with a considerable degree of autonomy. But it is even more imperative that international agencies be responsible to the world's people. Issues which affect human life and death are today joined in your Subcommittee. We hope you and your colleagues will find the statesmanship necessary for this task. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Please find enclosed the testimony prepared for the record of your United Nations hearings. I commend you and Senator Percy for focusing attention on the United Nations and the role the United States should play in the UN. We look forward to continued contact with you and the committee regarding ways to reform the UN. The United States and the world are again entering a rare cusp-a special time for advancing world peace, prosperity and justice. On December 17, 1974, the United Nations General Assembly decided to invite suggestions for ways to strengthen the U.N., including charter changes. The World Federalists of New Jersey are providing the national leadership for U.N. Reform among the U.S. Federalist organizations. We urge the Congress and the Executive to propose strong reforms for the U.N. and undertake imaginative leadership. The old turtle's responses of pulling back into its shell and letting the shell of military force and bilateral alliances protect the U.S. will only serve to increase the danger for the American people and other people throughout the world. The recent United Nations actions are not the first attempt to provide a forum for positive suggestions on reforming the United Nations. There have been other, more modest attempts. On December 11, 1970, the small nations in the United Nations-led by the dynamic Carlos Romulo of the Philippines-succeeded in passing a motion (by a vote of 82-11) which placed on the agenda of the General Assembly for the Fall of 1972 the question of the need to consider the revision of the Charter of the United Nations. As a part of that motion, the General Assembly requested the Secretary General to invite Member Nations to communicate to him their views and suggestions on Charter Review. In response to that invitation, in April of 1971, Congressman William Hungate of Missouri introduced House Concurrent Resolution 258 which called for the United States to support a United Nations Charter Review Conference. An identical resolution was introduced in the Senate by Senator Alan Cranston of California. There were 132 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives of the Hungate-Cranston resolution and no less than 69 co-sponsors in the Senate. They include the Democratic presidential nominee and most of the Democratic presidential hopefuls of that year-Senators McGovern, Humphrey, and Muskie and Congresswoman Chisholm. They included such conservative stalwarts as Senator Buckley of New York. Although the resolutions were not reported out of Committee in time for a vote on the floor of Congress in that session, Charter Revision and Reform of the U.N. nevertheless remained an agenda item for discussion by the United Nations General Assembly in the Fall of 1974. On December 17, 1974, the General Assembly by a vote of 82-15 created a special Ad Hoc Commitee to study suggestions for strengthening the U.N. including changing the U.N. Charter. That Committee will meet later this summer and will report to the General Assembly in the Fall. The U.S. was one of the 15 countries voting against this review. Whether the U.S. continues to avoid playing a leading role in suggesting both necessary and constructive changes for the United Nations will primarily determine not only the future effectiveness of the U.N. but also U.S. foreign policy. The U.N., not unlike the Articles of Confederation of the 13 colonies, has proven to be too weak and poor to manage the serious problems it was designed to manage. Indeed the most destructive short run problem, nuclear weaponry, was not even envisioned when the U.N. Charter was drafted. One year ago in May, India set off a nuclear device. Scientists tell us that 15 to 30 additional countries are likely to possess nuclear weapons by the late 1980's. At a recent meeting in New York, a person from India now practising medicine in the U.S. participated in discussion on what types of positive proposals the U.S. should advocate at the U.N. for U.N. Reform. During discussion of nuclear weapon proliferation he emphasized that the nuclearization of India and other Third World countries was different, very different than Western First World countries obtaining nuclear weapons. The difference he saw was that India and others would use them! He was not talking about accident or terrorist political coup. He was talking about the deep problems of poverty, starvation, political instability and historical animosity which so many Third World countries face. "We are not like you. . . ." "You can not assume. ." he indicated. Americans have painfully been learning that "We are not like you. . . ." If this man is correct, the most painful and tragic lessons might be ahead. How the U.S. responds to the current review of ways to strengthen the UN might decide not only the future role of the U.S. in the UN but the more important question of whether present and future global problems can be resolved through global machinery set up to deal with them, or whether they will determine their own costly solutions. The present U.S. response to UN Reform is a turtle response-pulling in its head and immobily hoping its shell will protect it. The State Department response to the UN request for suggestions on strengthening the UN indicates that the U.S. would consider specific suggestions made by others, but does not want a broad review of the UN or a UN Charter Conference. But the U.S. does not spell out its specific ideas for strengthening the UN. If we have suggestions, even if we have made them in the past, now is the time to bring them forward as a demonstration of our good faith in the need for reforming the UN. One wonders what would have happened to the 13 colonies if Va. had said that she thought there were troubles with the Articles of Confederation, but a Constitutional Convention was much broader than the needed approach-instead States should suggest specific remedies of both a procedural and substantive nature. What would have happened if Va. had then said that Virginians were always interested in specific ideas for improving the Articles-and/or government, but offer no specific suggestions for reform other than to refer those interested to suggestions they had made in the past? Some varieties of turtles were once very plentiful. The terrapin was the object of colonial protection with an early ordinance proscribing the feeding of terrapins to slaves more than three times a week. A number of these plentiful turtles now face extinction because the shell of the turtle could not protect it from newer, different threats. The world has undergone light years of change since the UN was first formed. Whether we take population, numbers of nations, gross world product, communications changes, weapon changes, etc. we see the types of changes which, when compared to the changes between the formation of the Articles of Confederation and the awareness that they had to be reformed, make the American Founding Fathers look like sages or radicals or both. The United Nations Charter was written thirty years ago. The basic assumption underlying the Charter-big power unity to keep the peace-was quickly shattered. The advent of nuclear power with its potential proliferation placed the world on a powder keg from which it has never recovered. The illustrious draftsmen and draftswomen of the Charter recognized that changes would and should be made in the Charter to reflect changing world conditions. They specifically provided in Article 109 for the calling of a general Charter Review Conference after ten years. They also provided that the calling of such a conference would not be subject to the Big Power Veto-requiring instead a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and the vote of any nine members of the fifteen member Security Council. To understand the importance of UN Reform and the need to strengthen the UN it is helpful to remember some of the initial hopes and aspirations for the United Nations. In April of 1945, President Harry Truman said in an address in Kansas City: When Kansas and Colorado have a quarrel over the water in the Arkansas River, they don't call out the National Guard in each State and go to war over it. They bring suit in the Supreme Court of the United States and abide by the decision. There isn't a reason in the world why we cannot do that internationally. Thirty years later, it is obvious that that dream has not come true. No one brought the Viet Nam War, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the civil war in Northern Ireland, or the India-Pakistan dispute to the World Court. The United Nations has stood by helpless in the face of such armed conflicts. The Indian-Pakistani dispute of a few years ago is a classic case in point. After the war broke out on December 3rd, 1971, the Security Council met. Two resolutions received a majority vote but were vetoed by the Soviet Union. The Security Council, unable to act because of the veto, referred the matter to the General Assembly. The General Assembly did adopt a resolution calling upon both sides to agree to a cease-fire and to withdraw their troops behind their respective borders. Pakistan, which by then was losing the war agreed. India, which by then was winning the war, stalled for time. "Time" magazine summed up the whole situation by writing: "There wasn't a thing the United Nations could do to enforce its resolution." The essential fact about world politics today is that the United Nations, as presently constituted, is too weak to accomplish one of the tasks it was given at San Francisco, namely "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." The U.N. is too weak to preserve world peace because it is bogged down by the veto in the Security Council; too weak because it has no permanent peacekeeping force; too weak because it has no independent revenue-raising authority to support such a peace force if it had one; too weak because it has no authority to compel quarreling parties to submit their legal disputes to the International Court of Justice; too weak because it has no specific procedure for binding arbitration; and too weak because it cannot legislate step-by-step universal-not unilateral-disarmament. |