« ПретходнаНастави »
food. They feel we shouldn't raise the question of unlimited growth of population, but still expect us or somebody else to feed them. Those are utterly irreconcilable in my view and I think it is sufficiently valid. The case can be made if we are willing to make it. I don't think we ought to accept their view that they can go on with irresponsible expansion of population then we have the responsibility to feed them.
I don't believe we have. I am perfectly willing to cooperate with them if they will cooperate in taking measures that are reasonably calculated to reach an ultimate solution to it, but these things can all be decided by putting in a resolution and having a vote on it. You get beat. This is what I meant. The idea of consensus appeals to me, and is basically the concept of persuasion and, of course, the assumption being you have reason for your position. You can't expect to persuade them to an irrational position, but I believe this country has great powers of persuasion coupled with our economic and moral power. I say moral. I have hesitated to ever use that word until the war in Vietnam was over, now I think I can say it with better grace.
CONCEPT OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY Senator CLARK. Let me ask one last question which is on a somewhat philosophical level. The question has to do with your own view of whether or not we really are going to support the United Nations, not just this country, but people around the world. I think your statement says something about this, that history in the last 400 years has been primarily oriented toward the development of the nationstate; that this idea has been dominant in the Western World and in this century, all across the world. If we assume that national sovereignty is the highest goal, each secretary of state or minister of foreign relations pursues that goal, that if national sovereignty is so sanctified, what do we do to break down that kind of attitude in this country and around the world?
Do you have any hope that, after 400 years of development, this concept is suddenly going to be turned around?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I have no hope it is suddenly going to turn around. I emphasize these don't change suddenly. The development of many things other than reason-trade, interdependence of people, the communications/economically has grown to such an extent that it creates a network of interests which subject these nation-states to the necessity of accommodating others. What you usually find is a gradual development of interests going on at the same time the rhetoric continues. The rhetoric still continues about sovereignty and so on simultaneously with the development of multinational corporations with various kinds of trade and communication systems. The development of one of the best examples of this is the question of pollution, which cannot be confined within any national boundary. Something has to be done. So they are confronted with the necessity of doing something about a problem that is beyond their control. This is the way it develops. It develops slowly and there is no way of getting around it developing slowly. The human mind does not adapt quickly. It always is very slow to change. But in my opinion it will change and these pressures develop along the way.
This question of what to do about the sea, the oceans, confronts us now with new problems. Who is going to do the exploration? Of course, we are more capable of doing it than anybody and we can take advantage of it and maybe we will do it, but it is a good opportunity to use to persuade the country to have respect in regard to the U.N. There are other examples of this that I think will bring pressure to bear upon us to do this.
I always keep in the back of my mind the idea that all of these measures will work. What we have to do is to give them time to work by the most urgent necessities to prevent a nuclear war, in particular; to look to disarmament; to arms control; and to ways to prevent the outbreak of war. That is why the Middle East is so important and it would be a great boost to the prestige of the United Nations if a settlement in the Middle East was brought about under the auspices of the United Nations. Inasmuch as Israel was created as a result of a resolution of the Security Council, what more appropriate thing than to have the Security Council guarantee its security. It seems to me we have always said around here we have respect for precedents. It seems to me this is a perfect example of an historical development that would add tremendously to the prestige of the U.N. and in the process to the future security of this country. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Percy.
AMBASSADOR MOYNIHAN'S POSSIBLE DESIGNATION AS U.N. REPRESENTATIVE
Senator PERCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Fulbright, you commented on Ambassador Scali and the leadership of our delegation. Mr. Joseph Segel is here and we both served on the delegation with Ambassador Scali, who has been a journalist specializing in foreign affairs. I think Ambassador Scali's experience in the White House added a dimension to his background and experience that was invaluable at the U.N., and we found him to be a fine leader, a solid supporter of fighting for what we felt were the right positions, sometimes fighting for them inside the State Department. So my own personal experience with him was a very gratifying one.
I presume that you have read or heard of the article by Ambassador Moynihan in Commentary magazine and are aware of the news report that he may be designated by the President as our next permanent representative at the United Nations.
Would you care to comment on the article or the appointment because the position is a very important one?
Would you care to comment on the possibility of Ambassador Moynihan going and offer any advice if he is designated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, with respect to his attitude toward the United Nations as reported by the press ?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I realized when that question first came up that it is always invidious. I suppose maybe I shouldn't have said what I did about Mr. Scali. I have known Mr. Scali and I thought I made it very clear I meant no reflection. It is a fact of life he doesn't have a great political standing in this country. He has never been elected to anything, or held a high post. The post he held in the White House was of a relatively minor nature, if I am correctly informed. He wasn't comparable, say to Mr. Kissinger or to that type of position. My statement had nothing whatever to do with his personal qualities. I was speaking of his standing in the eyes of the world, and especially the prestige of the position and the way other countries would interpret this with regard to how we value the U.N. That is all I meant. I think that point is still valid, having nothing whatever to do with criticism of Mr. Scali.
Although I didn't particularly agree with his famous speech last December, I assume that speech was written in the State Department, I don't hold that against him either. That is the frustration of the Department which is reflected in more ways than one. I don't hold that against Mr. Scali at all. I don't mean any criticism of him.
Mr. Moynihan is an intellectual, has greater prestige, I would say, and has been an Ambassador. He is extremely articulate and received a great deal of notice in a period as the originator, or I guess the right word is innovator, of the family plan, what was it called ?
Senator Percy. Guaranteed minimum income or family assistance plan.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. He was supposed to have been one of the men who originated the family assistance plan.
He got a great deal of favorable publicity as a great liberal. This is, of course, in the realm of Republican politics and is not for me to say it is good or bad, but in any case he developed considerable prestige.
TERM "BENIGN NEGLECT" APPLIED TO U.N. Senator PERCY. He is also identified with the term “benign neglect," which some people feel is our attitude toward the U.N.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right. I don't really know the article. It was just called to my attention yesterday. I read it very sketchily. It had a great deal to do, what little I read, about the sad and very unfortunate effects of the spread of Fabian socialism all round the world and that a very large number of these new nations in the U.N. are the heirs of British socialism, which has proven to be very effective as far as productivity is concerned. It is creating a real problem for all those countries and for us, and some kind of reform has got to be brought about on the special brand of socialism as has been spawned by Great Britain; is that not what he says?
Senator PERCY. Something like that. Mr. FULBRIGIT. You know him better than I do, I expect. I think the British are very aware of their shortcomings. They are having economic difficulties. They are a very old and resilient country, and I have an idea after it reaches a certain level of decay that they will bring about some reforms and correct their position. It is very sad. I understand, at the moment.
Senatory PERCY. I think Ambassador Moynihan would probably appreciate your personal observation directly.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Well, you know, it isn't my responsibility anymore, unless you question me here. I don't feel like interjecting my views into your deliberations unless I am asked about it. He hasn't asked me for anything. I sometimes find it difficult to restrain myself from saying things. [Laughter.]
SEEK CONSENSUS REGARDING EXPROPRIATION OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Senator PERCY. Senator Fulbright, you have mentioned the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties which was an agenda item voted on by the General Assembly last year, a Mexican initiative. The United States cast a negative vote, and 16 essentially developed countries voted negatively or abstained, so we had a great separation between the developed and developing worlds on that issue.
Section 34 of that charter provides for it to be brought up again at the 30th General Assembly for revision, and modification, if necessary, and it is the U.S. position that with a few changes we could have concurrence.
Do you think it would be worthwhile for the United States to take a leadership position in trying to bring the two worlds together; or just let sleeping dogs lie and let it drop and be another resolution adopted by the U.N. which will not be given much attention?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I would recommend, in accordance with what I have already said, that we go to great trouble to try to bring about a consensus on this and see if we cannot get them to adopt principles dealing with this subject that we could live with. It is a very difficult subject. Again it is self-defeating to these countries who feel that they can expropriate foreign investment. Of course, the immediate effect may be slightly beneficial, but if they were experienced enough, they would realize they are killing, as they say, the goose that lays the golden egg. Many of these things are highly beneficial to the country over the years. We ourselves benefited tremendously from foreign investment. We are a good example of that. There are many good examples.
Senator Percy. Our country was built in part by foreign investment. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Our railroads in the West originally were built primarily, I believe, with foreign capital. We didn't expropriate and it continues to be good. Of course, generalizations are always subject to qualification, but this is a good illustration of what I meant. It is an opportunity for some educational work. It is boring, tiring, time consuming, and difficult. I still think it is worthwhile, because anytime you do that or take any other measure it tends to enhance the prestige of the U.N. The ultimate success of this, just like the ultimate success of the principle of détente, depends upon the confidence of the people in it that they will get fair treatment, that it is a fair and just operation. It would contribute something to each one of these.
Every time the U.N. successfully deals with anything it contributes to the prestige of that agency. It is worthwhile if you believe that the basic principle of the U.N. is a valid one and one which we seek to make effective. Of course, if you don't believe in it, or think it is all a mistake, these things fall to the ground. Your own report certainly evidences that you believe it is a sound concept that ought to be developed. That being so then every effort such as this is to its advantage.
U.N. UNIVERSITY SUPPORT AS WORTHWHILE INITIATIVE URGED
I felt that way. I referred, in my statement, at the last minute to the U.N. University. I don't wish to exaggerate that situation. It is
obviously not a tremendously significant thing, but it was approved by the U.N. and the Japanese have taken it up as their project. They have pledged $100 million payable over 5 years. There has been appointed an American, Mr. Hester, as the director or the president and the vice rector is a Japanese, who was the former president of the Tokyo University.
I have found this has become a matter of considerable pride on the part of the Japanese. It is extremely important to us for other reasons that we continue good relations with the Japanese. It is a very small thing for us to make a gesture of support and approval of that particular project if for no other reason than to please the Japanese. There are other reasons, and I think it is too bad that we have done nothing about it—absolutely nothing—and it was one of these little ideas that I think would be worthwhile. It won't remake the world. It would entail relatively small amounts of money but could have great influence upon the attitude of one of the most important communities in the world to us, and that is the Japanese nation.
Senator PERCY. Carl Marcy was here testifying for a $50 million grant over a period of years. He would take that small fraction of the $722 million requested for military aid to Vietnam, that we did not authorize, and provide it for the U.N. University.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I don't care from where you take it but it certainly is something worthwhile to be considered.
CONSUMER NATIONS SHOULD HAVE SAME RIGHTS AS PRODUCER CARTELS
Senator Percy. One last question, because I would like to yield to Senator Biden.
The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties provided in effect that producer cartels would be encouraged in all types of commodities but that consumer organizations would be discouraged and would be looked upon almost as an unfriendly act.
Is it realistic to feel that it is all right for producers to get together and fix prices but not all right for consumers to get together, because in oil, for example, the consumers are the only ones trying to exercise a little restraint on consumption which serves the interests of the producers by extending their reserves longer?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I don't think it is reasonable at all. I agree with you. They can't have it both ways. It is clear to me they can't expect that to be true. The consumers ought to get that same right.
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.
ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION DENYING ISRAEL SEAT Senator Fulbright, it is always a pleasure to listen to you and I sincerely regret not having had the opportunity to serve on this committee when you were its chairman. I always found you make a good deal of sense.
I just have a couple of specific questions. I know my senior colleagues would like to get back to some of the broader philosophical questions you have raised in your paper. Then I will yield.