« ПретходнаНастави »
You are quite right. The basic concept of the universality of the U.N., if reduced to our concepts of votes is ridiculous, if we applied to that the same concept we applied to the Senate. That is what I mentioned. It is very important that we think of other ways to utilize that body. What you are suggesting is the significance of keeping them there.
t body. It is very imp. we applied mes is ridiculuniversality
What you aportant that we thine Senate. That is applied
SIGNIFICANCE OF SMALLER COUNTRIES U.N. MEMBERSHIP
Some people say it was ridiculous to have them there at all. They are not significant, these smaller countries. They ought to be there and they are there. It is now up to us to find ways to operate the machinery with them there and I think it can be done. We just haven't bothered to do it. We are impatient about procedures which other people not accustomed to our system have always engaged in.
I remember, if the Senator will allow me, during the war we had a monk from South Vietnam here to lunch. There were a number of Senators there, and we were discussing the fact that they didn't seem to appreciate our desire to give them self-determination, by which we meant elections. We asked, "Why aren't you more interested in elections?" He said, “The only elections they had to do with had all been rigged and they weren't interested in elections.” I said, “How do you resolve things? How do you make decisions ?” “We just get together," he said, “we just get together and talk about it." There are various groups, Buddhist monks, and they got together and did what Mr. Harlan Cleveland suggested. They arrived after a time at a consensus.
Many of these questions are so complex they can't be reduced to a simple yes or no proposal. All of you Senators, I am sure, have had my experience. When we vote on the Senate floor we rarely vote on something we are entirely in agreement with. We simply have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Much of that is because many of the problems do not lend themselves to being reduced to a simple proposition to which it is very easy to say yes, I am 100 percent for that. We can't make the U.N. work that way either. I think much can be done. We can be and are very persuasive if we allow ourselves to be. We should try to persuade rather than force people to do our will. When we try to force them, we become just as we have in Southeast Asia. I am not just referring to our physical resources, material resources. We have great prestige in the world that we have inherited from our history and from the nature of the society we have. This can be put to very good use if we do take the trouble and the time to use it. And it is worth doing it when we consider what the cost of the alternative is. We are just now recognizing the cost in Southeast Asia.
COMMENDATION OF SENATOR FULBRIGHT Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Committee for yielding to me. I have been in the Government 30 years next month and of all of the true prophets I have known since I have been here, I would say the No. 1 prophet has been the distinguished Senator froin Arkansas. If we had listened to him, we would be tens of billions of dollars better off from the standpoint of our financial position as à country, and what is more important, there would be tens of thousands of young Americans who would still be alive.
I thank the Senator.
WOULD LONGER SECRETARY OF STATE PRESENCE STRENGTH U.S./U.N.
Senator PERCY. Before you leave I wonder if I could put to the Chairman the question you raised in your excellent report on your experience at the United Nations and get his judgment on it?
Senator Symington took the position that the Secretary of State, whoever he might be, might well spend more time in New York during the General Assembly session to show a real U.S. interest and to assure that important decisions are made by him and not by some bureaucrat down the line. It would lend greater prestige to the U.S. Mission in dealing with 127 other nations.
Would you concur that the presence of the Secretary, to the extent that he can be in New York during the General Assembly session, would help to strengthen our relationship with the U.N.?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do concur with what I am confident is the thrust of his suggestion. The Secretary would be most useful there and it is of such importance that I think his presence would be warranted whenever he can. But to go one step further, and I don't mean any reflection upon Mr. Scali, but Mr. Scali was not a man with a great political basis of his own comparable, say, to people such as I have already mentioned. I mean no reflection on Mr. Scali but he has been a journalist and journalists have their role, but they have not been of the same prestige in the area in which this organization operates as people like Cabot Lodge or Justice Goldberg or Adlai Stevenson. These are men of great stature in their own right and would to a great extent fulfill the purpose that the Senator from Missouri is suggesting that the Secretary would do. Of course, the Secretary would be best but second best would be someone who approaches him in prestige as being capable of speaking for the Government of the United States, someone who would be considered to be very close to the President and to the power of the country.
That is what I mean by my earlier statement, and I certainly agree with what I believe to be the purpose of the Senator from Missouri's statement.
Senator PERCY. Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTERS ATTEND OPENING OF U.N. SESSIONS
The CHAIRMAN. Right along that same line, it is customary, isn't it, for foreign ministers from different countries to come to the opening of the United Nations and stay perhaps 2 or 3 days? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Then go back home? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct. But, of course, since we are the host country, there is a little difference in that it is here and, normally, in the old days Secretaries of State weren't always in the Middle East or somewhere else. They were usually here in the early days. They spent a great deal of time in the country and in Washington. It was no problem going back and forth to New York. I gather from reading Senator Symington's report, it is a part of what I am trying to say. We ought to upgrade the significance of the U.N. and not denigrate it and make it appear we don't care anything about it. I agree with you. The Secretary can't stay there all the time but I don't think that is what Senator Symington meant. I do think he ought to stay here and be present to indicate our interest in making it an effective organization.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVES INDEPENDENT OF STATE DEPARTMENT POSITION
The CHAIRMAN. I have heard this complaint though from some people who have represented us in the different meetings of the General Assembly, that every word they said had to be approved by officials in the State Department here in Washington, so generally they are “yes men.” I believe Senator Symington broke away from that when you were all there this past fall.
Senator PERCY. He did and I followed his precedent. Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think you were both right. I had that experience. The State Department can be extremely irritating in their concern about commas and words and distinctions without a difference. You have to be independent, and I think that is why Senators are put there. They are not dependent upon the State Department for their position. They have a right to say what they like and the State Department can't do anything about it. I am very glad you did.
The CHAIRMAN. When were you there?
The CHAIRMAN. I was there in 1950. I will say this. My experience was that while we had advice from the State Department, they never supplied me with a speech. I had quite a free hand. I was serving on the Economic Committee and I don't believe I ever had a word from them as to what I should or should not say, but I have heard that complaint made.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes, sir. I don't think this is peculiar to our State Department. I think all governments tend to do that.
The CHAIRMAN. I can remember when some government representative had to postpone a speech because he hadn't heard from home. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. There are lots of questions I could ask, but I know the other members want to ask questions. _By the way, I mentioned some of the things awhile ago that Senator Fulbright is renowned for, but I didn't mention that he was an outstanding football player in college. [Laughter.] A Rhodes Scholar, and later, I believe, you taught law, didn't you? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Then became president of the university and got into a fight with the Governor. Did he fire you? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you had the pleasure of defeating him for the Senate? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. So, you have had quite a career. I believe you hold one record of service in the Senate. You had the longest period of being a junior Senator that we have ever had.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. We certainly enjoyed your service with us. As I said, I served on both committees with him through the years.
Senator Clark, do you have any questions?
BYRD AMENDMENT VIOLATION OF U.N. CHARTER
Senator CLARK. Just two or three questions. You referred to violation of the Charter. Do you consider the Byrd amendment a violation of the United Nations Charter ?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes, I think our actions in not abiding by the decision in that case is a violation. We refused to abide by the rules, which I think is our undertaking when we join the U.N. I voted against it and opposed that, as you know.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VIOLATIONS Senator CLARK. Yes, I do remember that. How do you make a distinction, or how do we as a nation make a distinction between violation of the Charter with regard to the Byrd amendment on the one hand, and the recent suspension of South Africa or the steps taken against Israel? Would you try to make a distinction?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think we opposed the exclusion of South Africa, didn't we?
Senator CLARK. Yes. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is a violation, I think, of the Charter. It is in the same fashion.
Senator CLARK. Same magnitude ?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I also indicated I think the Uniting for Peace Resolution was a very dubious procedure which we adopted when we had the automatic majority back in the old days. I mentioned that only to show that when the shoe gets on the other foot we take a different view. As in our own Constitution, it is a very delicate line one can draw between strict constitutional and liberal constitutional in the Charter of the U.N. We can be as strict a constructionist as reason will allow, but this a subjective judgment in each case. I think you are right. We are inconsistent ourselves in violating it or refusing to abide by the decision of the U.N.
ACCEPTANCE OF POSITIVE U.S. PROPOSALS BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAJORITY
Senator CLARK. Senator Fulbright, you talked toward the end of your testimony about the United States making positive proposals or taking positive actions in the U.N. Is it possible for us, do you think, as we go into the next special session of the General Assembly, to come up with proposals with regard to the new world economic order, to make positive proposals with regard to Southern Africa, that could find acceptance with the majority? Is it feasible to think that we can come forward with proposals from this Government in resolution form
that will really be of a positive nature and could gain majority support in the General Assembly, or are we such an established nation, such a conservative nation, that we don't have any progressive ideas to offer?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. This is a very long process. It is a very difficult process. It will not be done in one or two sessions. This has been going on now nearly 30 years. As I have tried to outline, the way it has shifted and the nature of it, we find ourselves this last session very much isolated. I think the war in Vietnam was the greatest burden this country has had to bear since the Civil War and it prejudiced our influence in every other way, and especially in the U.N.
I myself always felt under restraint in spite of the fact I expressed my disapproval of the war rather early and vigorously. Still in trying to persuade people to what I would call more enlightened views, they were always in a position to respond concerning what we were doing in Vietnam, which I couldn't defend. I think we are in the process of being relieved of that. It is going to give us a posture from which we will be able to advocate a number of things with much greater persuasiveness than we could have heretofore regardless of the rhetoric of our leaders. I don't wish to quarrel about that. I think the world as we are now recognizes that we made a very serious political judgment. What we did in Vietnam was a serious mistake. I know lots of people reject that, but I think history will prove, that is true, and there is nothing to be particularly humiliated about. Everybody makes mistakes.
In Japan I could, very recently, say very truly you made a terrible mistake, but you recovered completely. You are now a very respected country and undertaking to show that a great country can be a great country without an enormous military machine. The Germans made a great mistake. They made a terrible mistake in their judgment of the situation and the world in 1914. They have recovered now and they are a very respected member of, the community of nations. Why shouldn't we make a mistake. We have not after all, as far as I know, been given infallability by the Lord. We have assumed sometimes that we were. We are made up of people from Germany and many other countries who are just as fallable as we are. But now we start anew. I think it is a great opportunity. It is what I said in the beginning. I think it is very fortunate Senator Percy asked for this review because I believe it is possible to do what you say, not immediately and not next session, but by the virtue of persuasion and patience upon these countries. They have to be educated, many of them, as to where their interests lie. It is not in their interest to destroy the economy of this country. I think many of the countries are gradually beginning to see that now. It is not in the interest of the OPEC nations to destroy the international monetary system. It is a question of who is going to persuade them.
Nobody can be more persuasive in that than we can if we are willing to take the trouble and talk to them and reason with them and to demonstrate. There is a mutuality of interest in maintaining a viable international monetary system or a viable system of international trade. It is not going to do them any good to disrupt everything. Also, this business about food-it just is not reasonable that some of these countries have taken the position that population has no relation to