« ПретходнаНастави »
tural changes in the United Nations system. We are in the final stages of writing our report. We hope to complete it next week.
One of the central issues we are addressing is this very question of decisionmaking; and it would not be appropriate for me at this moment to state in a public forum what our conclusions will be, but I believe when the Senate of the United States has an opportunity to see the proposals we are making in this field, it will find they represent progress toward a more rational system of making decisions in the United Nations with emphasis on conciliation among the countries principally concerned, rather than on sterile debate in plenary forums of 138 countries.
ECONOMIC ISSUES OBSERVATIONS Now, the question was raised by Senator Percy about the special session, the economic charter, and other economic issues. I would like to make an observation on that score.
One of our principal problems in the United Nations is the increasing isolation of the United States, and one reason for the increasing isolation of the United States from the majority of members of the world community is our failure to show a sufficient concern with the priorities of the developing nations.
Senator Percy, in his report on the last General Assembly session, very eloquently emphasized the need to try to strike a bargain with these countries. I would urge that we do a job of preparation for this special session, not merely, Senator Percy, to try to work out the difficulties on that economic charter, and I agree we should try to work those out; but large rhetorical statements are not going to solve our problems in the world. What we have to do is go beyond this economic charter and look at specific issues where we are divided from the developing countries—issues like commodity trade, issues like development assistance, issues like reform of the international monetary system, issues like the control of transnational companies, and finally the issue of restructuring of international agencies, not just the U.N. itself, but the Bank and the Fund and the GATT-General Agreement on Tariff and Trade—to provide a fairer sharing in decisionmaking power between all groups of nations.
If there were time, I would offer some specific ideas on all those subjects, but I am afraid that would take too much time and not be fair to my fellow panelists.
If you are interested, I would like to suggest at a later stage specific things the United States could do in each of these fields to deal with this great economic agenda
In essence, my philosophy can be summed up in this sentence. We have to strike a new economic bargain with the developing countries in which access to supply, particularly to vital raw materials, energy, and other minerals which we want, is traded for access for the developing countries to markets at fair and remunerative prices for their products, and access to technology, to capital, and to a fairer share of decisionmaking in international economic forums, which up to now have been dominated by the developed countries.
MR. GARDNER'S DISAGREEMENT WITH MOYNIHAN ARTICLE IN
A third issue has been raised this morning, and that is Ambassador Moynihan and his article in “Commentary.”
The article is a brilliant article, as is everything that Pat Moynihan turns his hand to. I would have to say, in all honesty, that I think in several respects it is very wrong. The basic fallacy is that it focuses on the the U.N. as a rhetorical system; but the U.N. is also an action system in which peacekeeping and economic cooperation programs of practical importance provide essential services to member countries.
I don't suggest the rhetoric is of no importance, but I suggest that we would have a better appreciation in this country of the importance of the U.N. if we looked at what is done by the U.N. as opposed to what is said at the U.N.
The issues emphasized by the Moynihan article represent only the tip of the iceberg.
For example, he says that the great global conferences on population, food, and environment were disasters, and in support of that proposition he cites some of the more ridiculous things that were said. But as Senator Clark can testify, the World Food Conference was not a disaster. Out of the World Food Conference, the Bucharest Conference on population, the Stockholm Conference on the Environment, came specific action proposals that are being implemented and that are demonstrably in the interests of the United States of America. And that is totally overlooked in the article.
It is said in the article that every time the United States takes a specific issue to a multilateral forum we lose. That is demonstrably not the fact.
Now, if Ambassador Moynihan does go to the U.N. I have sufficient confidence in his good sense and his brilliance that after he is exposed to the reality of the United Nations he will develop his views further and will turn out to be a very effective representative; but I must state that there are a number of things in the article that I think were most unfortunate and simply wrong factually and analytically.
RECOMMENDED REMEDIES FOR PRESENT DIFFICULTIES IN U.N. Now, the final thing I would say in closing is that the remedy for our present difficulties in the U.N. is not to downgrade our U.N. participation, not to leave, not to get out of the General Assembly, not to do what columnist William Buckley has proposed, to sit in the General Assembly and not vote. These proposals haven't really been thought through. Leaving the U.N. or any part of it would be what one Israeli friend described to me as "abandoning the battlefield under fire.” It would be a very stupid thing to do. We could not protect our national interests if we walked out. We could not vote on important issues in which we have an important stake—the Middle East, disarmament, Cyprus, the budget of the U.N., its personnel system, economic issues, and so on. So it would be very foolish to walk out.
What we need to do is not downgrade our participation but upgrade it. This would mean a new commitment to international institution-building at the top levels of the U.S. Government, the strengthening of our U.N. mission and Assembly delegations, much greater use of our diplomatic strength around the world in support of U.N. positions we believe in, involvement of our European allies and the Soviet Union in the search for a Middle East settlement which will guarantee Israel's security essentially within its 1967 borders, a more imaginative approach to the “world economic bargain” I have mentioned, and a serious search for new decisionmaking procedures in the U.N. in the direction of Senator Fulbright's suggestion which we are working on at this moment in New York in the committee to which I referred.
MORE PRINCIPLED APPROACH TO CONDUCT OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY SUGGESTED
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would also say we need in this country a more principled approach to the conduct of our foreign policy. Instead of citing the U.N. Charter and other sources of international law when it suits our short-term interests and ignoring them when it does not, we should recognize our long-term national interests in strengthening the structures and processes of a civilized world community.
We should make a greater effort to use our armed force and economic power on a multilateral basis, submitting disputes wherever possible to third party settlement. We should resort to unilateral action only in very exceptional cases where multilateral processes are clearly unavailable. Any unilateral action on our part should be done in a manner calculated to promote the restoration of multilateral processes. We should abolish the CIA "dirty tricks” department, avoid the excesses of unilateralism that characterized our Vietnam and Dominican interventions, do more to strengthen multilateral processes in foreign economic policy, and show a really objective concern with human rights questions on a global basis—whether within the border of former adversaries, neutrals, allies, or even in our own society. This does not mean unilateral disarmament, and it doesn't mean ignoring valid concerns of national security. What it does mean is recognizing that national security can only be promoted from now on by achieving a better balance between traditional preoccupations with power relations and emerging requirements of global order.
Thank you very much.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD N. GARDNER
This morning you have asked us to answer your question "Is the United Nations Working ?” My answer to that question is a qualified yes. The United Nations is working in the sense that it is providing indispensible services to its member nations, including the United States, in peacekeeping and economic cooperation.
My qualification is that the United Nations is not working as well as it should and that most of the explanation for this fact can be found in the behavior of its members. As a former British Ambassador to the United Nations once
remarked: “There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the United Nations except its members.” We should ask not only whether the United Nations is working, but whether its members, including the United States, are working as hard as they should to enable the world organization to perform the tasks assigned to it under the Charter.
Before getting to these questions, it may be helpful to set down a few basic assumptions about the relation of the United Nations to the U.S. national interest. The ultimate objective of United States foreign policy is to promote the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the American people. It is increasingly clear that this objective can only be achieved in an international environment congenial to American interests. At the end of the Second World War the United States sought to promote such an environment by creating an institutionalized world order based on the United Nations, the Bretton Woods organizations and GATT. With the onset of the Cold War, the focus of American foreign policy became the creation of a new balance of power to contain the Soviet Union and Communist China. In the thirty years since World War II, "balance of power politics” and “world order politics" have contended for supremacy in U.S. foreign policy-making, with the former steadily gaining ground over the latter.
The capacity of the United States government to promote the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" of the American people still requires the maintenance of a power balance. But the greatest threat to our future security and welfare lies in the distintegration of the international order. We talk of a "structure of peace," yet seldom in history have so many existing structures fallen apart. The United Nations system of collective security has broken down, the Bretton Woods financial system has broken down, the GATT system of open and nondiscriminatory trade has broken down, the established arrangements for supplying the world's food and energy needs have broken down, the traditional law of the sea has broken down, and essentially arrangements for population control and environmental protection have yet to be created.
As the world enters the last quarter of the twentieth century, it is more than ever necessary for the United States to re-examine its foreign policy priorities. In this decisive quarter century, the survival of human civilization as we have known it will depend on mankind's capacity to fashion a new international order-specifically, on improved international arrangements to cope with such interrelated problems as population, food, environment, energy, mass poverty, unemployment, inflation and depression, social and political instability, proliferating nuclear and conventional weapons and escalating terrorism and international conflict.
The collapse of the international order cannot be blamed on the United States or any single nation or group of nations. The clash of ideologies, the multiplication of sovereign states, the intensification of nationalism, the drastic changes in the economic balance, the revolutionary changes in science and technology—these developments have combined to shatter the old order before we have been able to build a new one. The United States has been neglectful of "world order politics,” but the record of most other countries has been as bad or worse.
Yet the responsibility of the United States is a special one. Viet Nam and "covert operations" notwithstanding, the concept of a community of nations working within a framework of law to promote security, welfare and human rights is an important part of the American tradition. The U.S. contributionpolitical, economic, scientific and managerial-remains absolutely essential to the building of a global order. The creation of new international structures to replace the collapsing old ones will be impossible in the absence of United States leadership.
The central preoccupation of United States foreign policy from now on ought to be the building of effective international machinery to manage mankind's common problems. Unfortunately, in a divided world of competitive nation-states, we cannot dispense entirely with "balance of power politics" in favor of "world order politics." But we will need to demonstrate the same degree of commitment to "world order politics" that we have demonstrated to "balance of power politics" if we are to have any hope that the latter will one day prove unnecessary.
A commitment of this kind has been notably lacking in recent Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, despite much use of "world order” rhetoric. U.S. foreign policy has favored short-term considerations over long-term interests, bilateral diplomacy over multilateral institution-building, and political and military responses over economic and functional cooperation. To mention but one example of distorted priorities, we spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars in defense of “national security” in Viet Nam, while neglecting the much greater threat to national security from our growing dependence on Middle East oil.
Let us now look at the central question of today's hearings: "Is the United Nations Working ?” To begin with, we need to distinguish between what is said at the United Nations and what is done by the United Nations. The United Nations is really two systems—a rhetorical system, in which delegates come to the General Assembly and other forums to debate and make policy recommendations which have no binding force, and an action system, in which peacekeeping and economic cooperation programs of practical importance provide essential services to member countries. I do not suggest that the rhetorical system is of no importance, but I do suggest that it is of much less importance than the action system and that the American people would have a more balanced appreciation of the United Nations if they focused more on the latter and less on the former.
Let us take peacekeeping in the Middle East as a specific example. Although recent debates in the United Nations have made many Americans wonder whether support for Israel and support for the United Nations are mutually compatible, the fact remains that the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations in the Middle East are very important to Israel as well as to the United States. When Secretary of State Kissinger undertook his extraordinary bilateral diplomacy in the wake of the October 1973 war, he found out that there was literally no way of getting a disengagement of the opposing armies without the interposition of United Nations forces. When the negotiations took place on the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force in Syria, it was Israel that wanted a more numerous force with a stronger mandate, and the final arrangements for the force ended up reflecting Israel's point of view much more than Syria's. The United Nations forces in Syria, I should add, have suffered a 10% casualty rate in the first year of operations. The members of the United Nations who are supplying these forces, countries with no direct interest in the Middle East, are thus making a very direct contribution to the maintenance of peace in the area for which we should all be grateful.
It should also be noted with respect to the United Nations forces in the Middle East that, for the first time, they include a contingent from Eastern Europe and that, also for the first time, the Soviet Union is paying its share of the cost. This also represents progress.
Looking toward the future, it seems overwhelmingly likely that a final Middle East settlement will have to involve demilitarized zones and United Nations forces to provide security for all the parties involved.
To generalize the peacekeeping point: in the foreseeable future, the world will need to make increasing use of United Nations peacekeeping forces to monitor ceasefire agreements, patrol borders, supervise elections, and generally to assure adherence to the non-use of force, self determination and non-intervention in internal affairs.
Now let me turn to the other major activity of the United Nations, which is in the field of economic and social cooperation.
In the world of 1975, with the rich nations facing double-digit inflation and rising unemployment, with the poorest nations facing economic stagnation and misery for increasing numbers of their population, and with the sharp confrontation between developed and developing countries over oil, over other vital raw materials, and over almost every economic issue, the cynic reviewing the past thirty years of UN economic experience might be tempted to ask whether ever in human history so many have negotiated over so much with such meager results.
Yet such a conclusion would not be entirely fair to the United Nations and its members. Preoccupation with present difficulties should not blind us to a number of solid achievements. It is too often forgotten that the principal preoccupation of economists at the end of the Second World War was that there would be massive depression and unemployment on the scale of 1929. Not only did this not occur, but the global product (in very round figures) grew from $400 billion a year to over $4 trillion between 1945 and 1975. Even allowing for inflation and population growth, this still represents on the average at least a doubling of real income per capita. To be sure, this increase has been very unevenly dis