« ПретходнаНастави »
influence there and outside the organization to prevent this from occurring.
There are very difficult tasks for the United States because we have a history in the organization. We did dominate the organization in the first 20 years. We were able to use it in support of American foreign policy. When we now attempt to take steps to minimize the use of the organization for conflict purposes, we will be accused of having changed only because the organization is no longer useful to us. Despite that, this is no reason, not to take this tack. What it does mean is that it is much more difficult for us to do so.
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT NECESSARY In other words, what I urge upon you, Ambassador Moynihan when he finally arrives in that place, and the Government generally, is that you support what I would regard as a more realistic view of the organization and make this view better known to the American people, a people who have been brought up on devotion to the principle of having such an organization. It is necessary in order to do these hard things that you obtain support from the American people, especially when you find it necessary to bypass the organization, to oppose the decisions taken in the organization.
You must help create an American public opinion which will be understanding of why those positions are taken, and which will support them.
It is not an easy task but I wish you godspeed in it.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM YESELSON It is difficult for me to respond to the question of how well the United Nations is working in the 1970s without saying a few words about the perspective from which I approach the subject. I see the United Nations as an arena for combat. States use the Organization to advance national conflict positions, and their estimates of its utility depend upon the extent to which it serves those ends. The starting point of analysis, therefore, is: “Who brings what issue to the United Nations and why?”
From this viewpoint, I can state that the United Nations is working, but not in the interests of international peace or of the foreign policy of the United States. Generally speaking, the countries which now dominate the Organization use it against colonialism, Apartheid in South Africa, Israel, and to support certain approaches to the economic problems of the developing world. These issues, with some additions, such as Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone and South Korea will continue to monopolize debate in the United Nations. That list may be supplemented in the future by Chinese attacks against the Soviet Union, Taiwan, or Hong Kong.
The purpose in all cases is national advantage and the effect is to embitter relations between the parties. Clearly, the United Nations is now an instrument useful primarily to the developing countries and Communist States although it will be less valuable for the Soviet Union than for China.
Although the United States is now a direct or indirect target of majority in the United Nations, this country retains considerable influence and is still capable of avoiding defeats on some issues. This was demonstrated on items concerning the status of troops in South Korea and the legitimacy of the Lon Nol government during the 29th General Assembly. Nevertheless, the speech by Ambassador John Scali on December 6, 1974 to the Assembly reflects real dilemmas for the United States in the United Nations.
A normal, instinctive reaction to assaults in the United Nations is to reduce support for the Organization. After all, it is hardly reasonable to buy the club
which is used to bash in one's head. But financial contributions are minimal in proportion to our wealth or national budget, and the void will be filled by others, especially the oil-wealthy Arab States. Retreat could also take the form of reducing the amount and quality of diplomatic input, and by official denunciations of the Organization.
I would oppose such steps. It is precisely because the United Nations is used as a weapon that we must invest important diplomatic capital there. When certain States used the Assembly during the last Special Session to define world economic issues as a confrontation between the wealthy industrialized nations and the developing world, the possibility of a cooperative approach to very real and tragic problems is diminished. We must counter such tactics while explaining publicly and privately the reasons behind the American position. The P.L.O. issue was raised to block peace negotiations in Geneva and by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It is imperative that we stand against such attacks against the peace and retain maximum flexibility of action. If it is our calculation that expulsion of South Africa will result in an even greater repression of blacks and contribute to the possibility of racial war in Africa, it is necessary to make those points while retaining the ability to use our influence constructively. On a less obvious level, some developing countries and especially Communist China are initiating issues and employing debating tactics in order to force the United States and the Soviet Union apart, thereby threatening the developing of détente .Only an alert and close attention to such maneuvers in the United Nations can frustrate these designs.
These are formidable tasks. As part of the new minority, we must attempt to prevent dangerous issues from being politicized in the United Nations. Inside and without the Organization we must exert our efforts to prevent adoption of resolutions which rigidify positions and create obstacles to negotiations. We must impress others with the dangers which flow from public polemics. It will be argued that the United States did not show this concern about abuse of the United Nations during the first twenty years of the Cold War. That charge was repeated again and again during the debate which followed Ambassador Scali's speech. This perception does not alter the necessity of acting in the manner I have described. It just makes the job that much more difficult.
Obviously, this government faces hard problems. We romanticized the role of the United Nations and majority rule, especially when the Organization implemented American foreign policy. It will be extraordinarily difficult now to rationalize continued involvement in an Organization which sponsors wars, passes one-sided or unenforceable resolutions, provides forums for international insult instead of diplomacy, and is guilty of the most outrageous examples of selective justice. Perhaps it will be impossible for the American people to overcome disillusion and they will demand withdrawal from the world body. Because such action is inimical to our interests and those of world peace, I urge you, Ambassador Daniel Moynihan, and other responsible officials to pubilicize honestly and soberly the reasons for our continued participation. By recognizing the United Nations as a dangerous weapon, you will be better able to discount its pernicious effects. You will be less discouraged in your support for quiet diplomacy, mediation, efforts to avert nuclear or environmental catastrophes, and contribute better to social and economic justice for the peoples of the world. Clearer perception of the World Organization will facilitate the search for appropriate means of accomplishing these ends, which reality and good sense demand, and which must be pursued in spite of the uses made of the United Nations.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.
We are glad to have you with us.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOSEPH M. SEGEL Joseph M. Segel, founder of The Franklin Mint, retired as chairman of the corporation on December 31, 1973, and is now a consultant to the company. He is currently serving as Chairman of The Segel Foundation, a non-profit trust
engaged in research and education programs focused on the development of new approaches to international cooperation.
Mr. Segel was appointed by President Ford as a member of the United States delegation to the 29th General Assembly of the United Nations. During that session, which met from September, 1974, Mr. Segel was involved in reviewing and presenting the United States' position on six issues; peacekeeping guidelines, freedom of information, disaster relief, apartheid environmental modification and strengthening the role of the United Nations.
Mr. Segel also recently completed a two-year term as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. He declined to accept renomination as Chairman at the biennial convention of the UNA-USA in April 1975, but will continue as a member of the association's Board of Governors for the period 1975–1977.
After graduation from the University of Pennsylvania in 1951, Mr. Segel joined the faculty of the University's Wharton School of Finance and Commerce. During this period of time, he established The Advertising Specialty Institute, which grew into the central information service of the specialty advertising industry. He left the university in 1953 to devote full time to that business.
In 1961, The Advertising Specialty Institute and its affiliated companies were acquired by National Business Services, Inc. Mr. Segel continued as Chairman of the Board of Directors of National Business Services, Inc., for three additional years.
Then, in 1964, at age 33, he embarked on a new career in the numismatic field. He founded The National Commemorative Society, which introduced many new concepts to collectors of medallic art. In the same year he founded The Franklin Mint, which has since become the world's largest private minting organizationwith operations in eleven countries, more than 2,000 employees and annual volume exceeding $150 million.
CURRENT ACTIVITIES—1975 Chairman, Board of Trustees, The Segel Foundation, Philadelphia ; President, Le Mirador, S.A., Mont Pelerin, Switzerland ; Board of Governors, United Nations Association of the United States of America ; Board of Directors, World Affairs Council of Philadelphia ; National Commission for the Observance of World Population Year, Department of State, Washington; Fine Arts Committee, Department of State, Washington; Founder Member, International Peace Academy, New York; Fellow, Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia.
Chairman, Board of Governors, United Nations Association of the U.S.A., 1973–1975; Delegate (Alternate United States Representative) to the 29th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 1974; Chairman, Board of Trustees, The Franklin Foundation, 1969–1974; Chairman, Board of Directors, Franklin Mint Corporation, 1972–1973; President, The Franklin Mint, 1964–1971; Chairman, Board of Directors, National Business Services, Inc., 1962–1964; Chairman, Board of Trustees, Customer Relations Research Foundation, 1963–1964; President, Jordan Edwards Co., 1962–1964; Editor & Publisher, The Counselor Magazine, 1954–1963; President, The Advertising Specialty Institute, 1951–1962 ; Founder and Secretary Emeritus, Advertising Specialty Guild of America (Now Specialty Advertising Association), 1957–1960.
AWARDS AND HONORS
1974Medal of Merit Award-American Numismatic Association; 1974– Super Achiever Award-Juvenile Diabetes Foundation ; 1973–Man of the YearGreat Eastern Numismatic Association; 1973–Marketing Man of the Year Award-Direct Mail Advertising Association; 1972–William Hunt Eisman Award-Philadelphia Chapter of the American Society of Metals; 1971—Humanitarian Award—The Chapel of Four Chaplains; 1970—Industrial Progress Award-Delaware County Chamber of Commerce; 1969—Howard G. Ford Award-Sales and Marketing Executives of Philadelphia.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. SEGEL, FORMER CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION; U.S. ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 29TH U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. SEGEL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I thank you very much for this invitation to appear before the committee and I will address myself directly to your question, "Is the U.N. working ?"
I would have to answer yes, when its member nations allow it to work.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the U.N. It has no sovereignty. It has virtually no authority. It is simply a place where the representatives of 138 sovereign nations can either work together, or make trouble, as their governments so direct.
Fortunately, they work together more often than they make trouble.
Unfortunately, the public does not know this. It is the trouble that makes the front pages.
OLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS DO CONSTRUCTIVE
The constructive work of the U.N. is done mostly in the specialized agencies and voluntary organizations. There are about two dozen of them that are integral parts of the U.N. system-such as the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Universal Postal Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Environment Program, the Fund for Population Activities, UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), etc. It is in these groups that men and women of good will, from all parts of the world, are allowed to work together with a minimum of interference from their national governments, and thus things get done.
This is the real U.N.—nations united, and people united, in cooperative work for the common good. It is a U.N. that very few people know about. But the economic, social and humanitarian organs of the U.N. actually are the areas in which about 80 to 90 percent of the U.N. budget is expended.
It is through these specialized agencies and voluntary organizations that many things have been accomplished, which we take for granted. Such as the elimination of vaccinations for smallpox, thanks to a U.N. program that has wiped out that dreaded disease in all but four countries. Being able to mail a letter with U.S. postage and have it delivered anywhere in the world. Expediting relief to victims of major earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. Flying and landing safely in any country because a U.N. agency made English the common language for all commercial pilots and control towers around the world. Training farmers in developing countries to increase their agricultural production. Providing population control education where it is most needed. Coordinating worldwide research findings on cancer. And so forth.
This is indeed just a small sampling of what goes on at the U.N. The U.N. environment program alone, which is only about 3 years old, has 150 different .projects underway. And many of these projects are vital to the future protection of the air and the seas we share with
the other nations of the world. International cooperation stifled by shortsighted attitudes of national governments :
The common ingredient in all of these activities is international cooperation. It flourishes in its natural habitat—the U.N. Yet all too often it is stifled by the shortsighted attitudes of national governments.
Take the International Court of Justice for example. It is hardly ever mentioned these days. I hope it is still in existence. Last time I heard of it, it was a body of exceptionally distinguished jurists who certainly could be depended upon to render a fair and impartial decision in any international dispute. The problem is that very few national leaders want a fair and impartial decision. They just want to win. And they have the power to do as they please.
And then we have the General Assembly. The General Assembly, which so many people refer to as "the U.N.” When you read about the U.N. in the newspapers from September through December, it is really mostly the General Assembly that is being referred to. The General Assembly has become a big headache for the United States. We created the concept of one nation—one vote, and now it is coming back to haunt us. We made the most of the majority we virtually controlled during the early years of the U.N., often forcing the Soviet Union to cast a veto in the Security Council to protect its interests, and now the tables are turned. But, it is not really the Soviet bloc that is giving us our problems in the General Assembly. It is now the third world, in its various incarnations, treating us like a Gulliver rendered helpless by dozens of Lilliputians.
NEGOTIATION, CONCILIATION SUGGESTED AS PRACTICAL ANSWER
TO PROBLEMS So what shall we do? Walk away from the General Assembly as some suggest ? Continue participating in the debate, but voluntarily suspend our voting? Or should we come out fighting and try to change the world with a new brand of fiery rhetoric?
I respectfully submit that none of these proposed solutions is a practical answer. Leaving the General Assembly or voluntarily suspending our voting would surely be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would further isolate us in the world and do great damage to our relations with many countries. Moreover, although the General Assembly is still primarily an advisory body, there are many resolutions which we would want to support because they are harmonious with our interests and reflect positions and principles which are important to our society.
In fact, if you look at our votes in the last General Assembly, where Senator Percy and Senator Symington very ably served on the delegation representing the United States, it is interesting to note that we joined in adopting 125 resolutions (90 by consensus), while voting against only 17 resolutions and abstaining on 32 others. So, we were not always on the losing side. But the resolutions we voted against received the lion's share of the publicity. Most of the constructive actions we supported received virtually no attention from the press and thus are not known to the public.
Sure, we took some brickbats at that session, but it was nothing compared to what was experienced by the Soviets and China as a result