« ПретходнаНастави »
STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. STASSEN, MEMBER OF THE U.S. DELEGATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, SAN FRANCISCO, 1945
Mr. STASSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Responding to your invitation to testify at this hearing on the subject “The U.Š. Role in the United Nations: The Vision and the Reality,” may I first of all commend the committee for addressing itself to this subject at this critical hour in the conduct of our foreign relations.
The very serious adverse consequences in recent years, arising out of our foreign relations are, in my view, a direct result of an excess of unilateral, bilateral, and individualistic conduct of our foreign affairs.
These unfortunate results are causing some tendency to turn inward and to increase isolationist sentiments.
MULTILATERAL AND U.N. APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY URGED What we need urgently is a turn toward a greater use of open multilateral and United Nations' centering of the conduct of our foreign policy.
These latter methods may at first seem more difficult, but in the modern world they are the only sound road toward true progress.
The unilateral, bilateral, and individualistic methods may at first seem easier and more productive, but they nearly always lead to tragedy and disaster.
The United States should take the lead in making the United Nations more adequate, rather than bypassing and downgrading it. We should think now of the next 30 years. We need that kind of approach at this juncture.
U.N. SHOULD BE MODERNIZED AND STRENGTHENED When we drafted and signed the United Nations Charter in San Francisco 30 years ago, we anticipated that it would need modernizing and strengthening in the future. Such improvement is overdue.
My own views in this respect were expressed in a national broadcast on NBC on July 5, 1945, immediately after the conclusion of the Charter.
Sometimes there are references by others that we then thought we had solved everything. We did not think we solved everything
I said briefly, quoting from that address of July 5, 1945, which is in the printed volumes of my address : “Taken as a whole, the Charter is a human document. It is a realistic document. It is not perfect. It has weaknesses."
I said that it is important that the people of the world do not feel that they have automatically insured future peace, or that they have ipso facto solved the problems of war. I said further that even at its greatest significance, the Charter only establishes a framework, a machinery, a code. And then I said that is why our adherence to the
Charter is only one step in the whole field of our world policy for peace with justice and freedom..
The entire address, 30 years ago, was realistic in its analysis of the plusses and minuses, and the potential of where we were.
The late distinguished Senators Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg, both former chairmen of this committee, and both also signers of the United Nations Charter, had similar realistic views, and expressed them at the time.
Permit me as the youngest then, and the only survivor now, to pay a word of tribute to all of those men and women who worked at San Francisco to draft and then sign the Charter, on behalf of the United States.
OVERALL PERSPECTIVE Before proceeding to give my views on the needed improvement of the Charter, may I make a few concise points of overall perspective?
There will be a continuing need for the United States to be militarily very powerful and very alert.
The United Nations organization, as now established, is inadequate, but it nevertheless represents humanity's best hope for future world peace.
With the many far-reaching events of the past three decades, it is probable that if there had not been any United Nations organization, there would have been a catastrophic third world war before this date.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATING AND IMPROVING U.N. CHARTER
May I now give a summary of my recommendations for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the United Nations Charter for the decades ahead? A few years ago I drafted a complete proposed charter for study purposes. It has now been updated, and I will provide a copy to the committee for review by its staff.
[The material referred to is on file with the committee.]
The major recommended revisions from the present Charter in outline are as follows:
1. Change the concept of the organization to universal inclusion of all humanity, and toward that end, revise the preamble, and open the membership. We must, in our advocacy, get in line with the aspirations and hopes of all mankind. There is a national tendency to think that the relationship between the three super powers is the main key to the future. It is not. It is important, but the main key to the future are the hopes and aspirations of all the peoples on this Earth, and that is the alinement that should control U.S. policy.
2. Set up a new Central Council of Ministers with weighted voting to effectively reflect and act for the world situation, and to stand between the veto power in the Security Council and the one-state, onevote assembly. Weighted voting is very important for the future, in my judgment. It cannot be attacked by trying to change the Assembly to weighted vote. We must leave that as one vote, the town hall of the world. But by bringing, in effect, the sort of cabinet approach with the Secretary General, and introducing weighted voting in the functions of that new entity, we can achieve weighted voting in the future.
3. Create a new World Court of Equity, as an additional court, with
broader and special jurisdiction to add to the functioning of the judicial decision side of world affairs.
4. Add two additional organized methods for reaching settlements of international disputes, through the establishment of a World Board of Arbitration and a World Panel of Mediators, and provide for a notification of the Secretary General of all pending disputes.
5. Require the ratification of three-fourths of an expanded list of major permanent members to become effective. The expanded list includes Japan, India, Brazil, and the two German governments, as well as France, the United Kingdom, China, the U.S.S.R., and the United States of America.
6. Formally take sovereignty over those areas of the sea bed, and of outer space which are outside of national sovereign jurisdiction. Unless there is a movement in this direction, there is a great danger of a clash and confrontation in the decades ahead.
7. Initiate affirmative objectives and methods for the safeguarding of the environment against pollution, and for the fuller enjoyment of life by all humanity of all races.
8. Establish a new substantial regular method of financing the organization through a 1-percent duty on all international movement of tangible goods, materials, and machinery. Other methods may be suggested, but the great flow of goods depends upon a viable United Nations, if that is just taxed 1 percent, one-half to the seller and onehalf to the buyer, you would have an adequate financing for the longterm future.
9. Provide for a United Nations peace force which is distinct, wellprepared, elite, and not composed of national units.
It will, of course, take several years to make such changes in the Charter, but even the beginning of the process will have a constructive effect.
U.S. LEADERSHIP ROLE IN STRENGTHENING, UPDATING U.N. URGED
It is urged, respectfully, that this committee take a leading role in bringing about a new U.S. leadership toward strengthening and modernizing the United Nations, and toward a larger use of multilateral methods and principles in the conduct of the foreign policy and foreign relations of the United States.
This committee, at other times in history, has taken a lead toward such a change and approach in American foreign policy.
May I also suggest that there should not be too deep a feeling of gloom about the present situation. In a very real sense, our country is continuing to suffer from the traumatic consequences of the tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Such an event has a penetrating and pervasive effect upon our country. We will come through this period, but it takes time and understanding.
Our founding principles of individual freedom and of the worth and dignity of each person, are as valid today as they were two centuries ago, and their application with intelligence and integrity to all humanity on this Earth, under God, continues to be the best road to world peace with justice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next, I will ask Senator Lodge for his statement.'
BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF HENRY CABOT LODGE Henry Cabot Lodge, former U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative to U.N., Ambassador (Vietnam, Germany, at large), reserve Major General, Harvard overseer, and Republican nominee for Vice President (1960). Member, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1947–1953. Served in U.S. Army in World War II. Managed campaign in 1951 and 1952 to win Republican nomination for General Eisenhower. Awarded Thayer Medal, West Point; 20 hon. degrees; military and foreign decorations. Author (1973, The Storm Has Many Eyes, W. W. Norton); lecturer; since 1970 special envoy to visit the Vatican from time to time.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the honor of appearing before this distinguished committee which plays such a vital role in the foreign policy of our country.
One self-evident fact about the world is that its most difficult and dangerous problems—be they of health, or economics, or energy, or pollution, or, of course, of war and peace-can only be solved on an international basis. Individual nation-states-even as big as the United States and the Soviet Union cannot successfully cope with these problems alone.
U.S. PUBLIC OPINION WARY OF U.N. EFFECTIVENESS Yet, one self-evident paradox about the world is that the United Nations—the international organization created precisely for the purpose of finding international solutions-often receives a massive vote of no confidence in various American opinion polls, even though a majority does not want to abandon it.
Consider these figures: In 1951, only 43 percent of the American people, according to the Gallup poll, were satisfied with the progress of the United Nations. In 1959, the Gallup poll showed that an alltime high of 87 percent thought the United Nations was doing a good job. But in 1971, this had fallen to a low of 35 percent.
Ambassador Scali, in 1973, spoke of a poll indicating that only 34 percent of the American people thought the United Nations was doing an effective job. At United Nations headquarters in New York, the number of visitors fell from 1,116,000 in 1967 to 765,000 in 1972—à record low. And in 1973, the number was 13 percent lower.
A recent poll of the new 94th Congress by the United Nations Association shows that only 15 percent of our Congressmen thought that the United Nations was helpful to our international relations.
Senator CASE. Does that include Members of the Senate?
This critical attitude of people in the world's biggest and most powerful country is a deadly serious threat to the United Nationsand to our hope for peace. And it amply justifies the sagacious decision of your committee to conduct this investigation.
It is, therefore, pertinent to consider the successes, failures, and future prospects of the United Nations.
S; and creating 73, which wsts time in 17 or it can
: FAVORABLE ASPECTS OF U.N.
. . . ., Herewith my list of the United Nations plusses and minuses: ..!
In the past 25 years, the United Nations has given important help in these situations: the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Iran in 1947; the communist withdrawal from Greece in 1949; resisting the aggression in Korea in 1950; the cease-fires and withdrawals in the Middle East in 1949, 1956, and 1957, and again in 1973; cease-fire or truces in Indonesia in 1949, Kashmir in 1965, and Cyprus; ending outside interference in Lebanon's internal affairs in 1958; preventing the Congo from becoming a cause of confrontation between the great powers in 1960; ushering the erstwhile colonies of Africa into the family of nations; and creating a new United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) on October 25, 1973, which was followed on October 27, by Egyptian-Israeli meetings for the first time in 17 years. The new UNÈF differs from the one created in 1956 in that it can only be removed by a vote of the Security Council and that Poland, a communist power, is to be a member. These are improvements, even though the road is still full of boulders I add four major U.N. conferences in 1972–75, each of which made a start on four major world problems: environment, law of the sea, population, and food.
Now for another big plus: The first priority at the United Nations is peace and security. The second, far ahead of any other, should be economic and social development. Along these lines, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), by preinvestment surveys and technical education, has advanced the fundamentals of a good life: food, shelter, health, and education. Because it is done "multilaterally”_many nations working together-rather than “bilaterally”the United States working with one country alone-$1 of input by the United States generates more than $6 worth of actual development work. Thus, our proportion gets smaller and the recipient nations' proportion gets greater because the United Nations Development Program—which includes such worthwhile specialized agencies” as the World Health Organization and the Children's Fundgets more and more people "into the act."
Much, but not all, of our own bilateral AID program for economic and social development abroad could, I believe, be channelled through the United Nations agencies, with advantage to us and to the recipient · nation..
That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my summary of the plusses. And I ask how many of these plusses would have happened without the United Nations? And these are all things which have made the world a better place.
How many of these "plusses” would have happened without the U.N.?
UNFAVORABLE ASPECTS OF U.N.
Here are some undeniable minuses:
With the advantage of hindsight, one can now say that much trouble would have been avoided if, before the French left Indochina, we had used the United Nations in the early 1950's, somewhat as the United Nations acted in the Congo in 1960-as an international pres