Слике страница

as well.

Third World in relation to matters where our country conceived that the Third World took positions that were not warranted.

Senator PERCY. I am happy to say, Justice Goldberg, that Dr. Moynihan will be before us soon and we will put the question to him.

Mr. GOLDBERG. I am sure you will, and it will be helpful and you will receive some very enlightening answers. He is a very able and gifted man.

But to review my own reactions to attacks during my 3 years as American representative, I re-read my own speechmaking at the U.N. I found it a painful task in light of the number of speeches I delivered during 3 years of tenure.

Upon re-reading this record, I found thật it is replete with the exercise by me of my right to reply-replies addressed not only to the Communist bloc but to a great many of the Third World nations

But if the problem were just rhetorical exchange in the General Assembly, as Ambassador Lodge pointed out, these, however distasteful, can be lived with, particularly since the General Assembly constitutionally can only recommend. It is the Security Council which decides, and there we have a veto. And, of course, in all fairness some of the attacks that were made against us were justified and we frankly must concede that.

U.S. ATTITUDE TOWARD U.N. But what concerns me, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the moment in addition to the concerns expressed by Governor Stassen and Senator Lodge, is that the General Assembly and some of the specialized agencies of the U.N., such as UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization-recently have gone bevond words. They have been taking actions in violation of the U.N. Charter, and this along with other failures of the U.N., as well as its substantial achievements-Ambassador Lodge and Gorernor Stassen correctly detailed some of these achievements—warrants reassessment by us of American attitudes toward the world organization.

I have come to the conclusion, expressed in my opening sentence, that we must moderate our expectations as to the U.N.'s capacity to make and keep the peace in this troubled world, and insure economic and social justice.

I think the polls show the declining support by the American people for the U.N. are based on or are the product of undue expectations.

We must accept the U.N. for what it is, a useful instrument to implement a political concensus by the superpowers in particular.

I would add to the achievements already mentioned, the final approval of the nonproliferation treaty and the guarantees that were made, by the Security Council relating thereto, and the consummation under U.N. auspices of the Space Treaty which was done under the general umbrella of the United Nations Committee on Outer Space.

The U.N. also is important as a forum to ventilate grievances by the Third World. In a great sense we get an expression of world opinion at the U.N. that we do not get in Washington. Washington Ambassadors of the Third World and other countries are here to promote friendly relations. They understandably like to stand in well with the Secretary of State and the President, and while I do not say that they do not express the views of their country, they do not express it with the same vigor, intensity and candor as the delegates to the U.N. of the same countries.

And perhaps the expressions at the U.N., we thoughtfully must consider, are more reflective of the sentiments of those countries than expressions in Washington.

And, of course, as has been pointed out by my colleagues, the U.N. is an increasingly important agency to study and promote economic and social progress. What we continuously must bear in mind is that the United Nations is not a world government and the United States, for example, would not yield its sovereignty to make it a world government. I doubt that any nation today would.

And though the U.N. is helpful in keeping the peace and providing economic and social aid and assistance, its capacity even in these areas is limited. Congress has never been willing, and I think with considerable warrant, to transfer all of its aid to other countries to the U.N.


I am generally for expanding aid through multilateral organizations. I think we have perhaps reached the limit of the effectiveness of aid unilaterally supplied; but the people of this country, I think, understandably take the position that we cannot be the only giver and other countries have not responded in equal measure to the great generosity of the United States even with respect to the U.N.

Until recently we contributed through the budget contribution and through voluntary contributions 50 percent of U.N. expenditures. This led to reaction, and Congress responded to that reaction by reducing our contributions.


Now, while moderating undue expectations, it seems to me we must also insist upon observance by all nations of the fundamental provisions of the U.N. Charter. We must not demand too little in this respect of the U.N. and its specialized agencies. Specifically, I have in mind that we have the right to demand that all member states refrain from unconstitutional action, action contrary to fundamental provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and its agencies.

Let me illustrate. There is a movement underway to deny Israel its proper place in the General Assembly. Action of this kind is clearly and plainly unconstitutional and contrary to the Charter. The Charter is very specific on this point. Under chapter 2 of the Charter, a member of the United Nations may, and I quote, "may be expelled from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly [only] upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

That was written in very advisedly. Clearly the majority is not empowered to deny to any member state the most basic right of membership. Similar to the protection we accord to the basic rights of the citizen of a democracy to exercise the franchise.

There can be no doubt about the meaning of the provision of the U.N. Charter I have quoted. One does not have to be an international lawyer or jurist to interpret it.

The General Assembly is simply without the power to exclude a member from its deliberations unless the Security Council so recommends.

Senator Case. Don't you think that applied to agencies of the U.N. also ?

Mr. GOLDBERG. I do. Yes; I would say that there are comparable provisions in the mandates of the specialized and, furthermore, there is an additional inhibition upon the specialized agencies to the U.N. They are not created to be the political body that the United Nations itself is; they are created, the World Health Organization, the World Food Organization, UNESCO, and others to function not in the political area but in specific areas for which they were created.

The United States, therefore, has every right to insist that a decision to deny Israel the privileges of members not be taken by a majority at the Assembly. Now, the United States and a few Western powers did vote against the exclusion of South Africa at last year's General Assembly deliberations. Personally, I hold no brief for South Africa. Its apartheid policy is utterly abhorrent to me, as I made clear during my tenure at the United Nations, often to South Africa's great displeasure. But South Africa, notwithstanding, like all member states, is entitled to constitutional due process and it was denied this.


In any event, Israel does not practice apartheid. The Security Council furthermore has made no finding that Israel has not complied with Resolution 242, the bedrock of a Middle East settlement. Resolution 242 was adopted by the Security Council during my tenure. It represents a basic decision and determination by the Security Council of the framework of a future peace settlement in the Middle East.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we have a particular responsibility for that Resolution 242. While the British offered it, the resolution is largely the result of American efforts and diplomacy: No grounds, therefore, exist for Israel's exclusion from the General Assembly or the specialized agencies of the U.N.

Therefore, I have a recommendation to make in this connection, an important one, and that is that the United States has a right to demand, and here I use the word advisedly-demand that the proposal to deny Israel its proper place in the Assembly or the specialized agencies be abandoned as unconstitutional. This is not a new concept of mine. When I was at the U.N. a majority of the General Assembly adopted a resolution dealing with important questions relating to war and peace. Under U.N. Charter important questions can only be decided by a two-thirds vote.

I stood on the rostrum of the U.N. General Assembly and said on behalf of our country, we would not comply or adhere to that resolution on the simple ground that it was unconstitutional. And I made it very clear, so there would be no misunderstanding, and I explained the reason why.

Now, to make a demand, a demand must be credible and cannot only consist of just a statement and I, therefore, believe the only way to make it credible and to abort this unconstitutional move is for our country to make it clear before this proposal to deny Israel its proper seat in the Assembly gains momentum, the United States will not only vote against this, as it did in the South Africa case, but if the Assembly persists that we will not participate in the Assembly deliberations.

Now, we ought not to follow the mistake of the Soviet Union, which walked out of the Security Council at the time of the Korean problem and, therefore, wasn't there to exercise a veto. We should keep our seat in the Security Council.

Now, I really believe that if we firmly declare to all capitals of the 138 nation states that this is the U.S. viewpoint, not by way of threat, by way simply a statement of intention, that this would suffice to bring home to all concerned that we are serious about observance of the Charter provisions about the rights of members, which goes to the very basis of the U.N. existence.

But I would even go as far that if such action by the United States does not appear likely to insure Charter compliance, we should also make it clear we are prepared to take the further step of freezing our prorated contribution to Assembly expenses if Israel is illegally denied its seat in the Assembly.

Now, I am not one who ordinarily subscribes to the view that our country ought to swing such a big stick, but the U.N. will not survive if its basic laws are violated by a majority in a matter of transcending importance such as the rights of members.


I think there is another thing we have a right to demand—the right to insist that the Secretary General forthrightly declare against this and other egregious violations of the Charter. The Secretary General is the principal executive officer of the United Nations. In a very realistic sense,

he is its leader and, in a substantive sense, since he heads up the U.N.'s organization, he is the custodian of the Charter. A timely declaration by the Secretary General on occasion may offend the majority or the minority, depending upon the circumstances, but a Secretary General should not attempt to please the majority, or us, or anyone else where the integrity of the Charter is at issue.

It is far more likely that the U.N. will sustain irreparable harm from excessive caution on the part of the Secretary General than from insisting on compliance by all member states with the fundamental law of the organization.

This does not mean the Secretary General should declare himself about every problem of the U.N. and insist or urge that his viewpoint be accepted. I am talking about violations of the fundamental saw of the Charter. I defended U Thant against vigorous protest by my colleagues in the State Department when he declared himself on Vietnam. It was not happily received in Washington but he had a right to declare himself as a world leader and as Secretary General. But this must be a two-way street. The Secretary General should not submit to a majority where it is plain that the Charter is being violated.

So I conclude by reiterating my thesis, American foreign policy toward the U.N. should lower its sights about unrealistic objectives and raise them about essential demands. It is my conviction that both the U.N. and United States will be better served by such a policy on our part.

Thank you.

[Mr. Goldberg's prepared statement follows:]



I thank this distinguished Committee for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

The United States in relation to the United Nations expects too much and demands too little. This dichotomy requires an explanation.

The people of this country expect the UN to fulfill its great goal-to save suc-. ceeding generations from the scourge of war.

This great concept of the unity of nations to keep the peace and achieve universal economic justice was born out of the optimism of history in World War II.. It reflected the conception that the World War II partners of different political systems and widely diversified ideologies would subinerge their differences in the interests of international peace, sécurity, and progress and would yield enough of their sovereignty to enable the world organization to take effective and collective action to these ends.

Regrettably, the optimism of the Charter turned out to be excessive.

American expectations also were founded on a lack of appreciation of what what was already under way when the victorious powers met in San Francisco to adopt the UN Charter-the end of colonialism and the emergence of more new nations than those assembled in the Opera House.

The majority of the nations which met in San Francisco to adopt the UN Charter were of the West; the Communist bloc was in the minority, and the third world was virtually non-existent. Thus, in the early days of the United Nations, it is not too much to say that we and our Western allies ran the show.

Although we had advance warning as a result of experiences with the Soviet Union during World War II, we did not anticipate the hostile attitude of the Soviets and their satellites at the UN; and we certainly did not foresee the. intense resentment of the new nations to colonial powers and the fact that they regarded us to be one. After all, we were in the vanguard to free India from British rule and Indonesia from Dutch domination, and the same was true of some other countries.

I need not detail what is a matter of record, the declining influence of the United States in the United Nations as a result of these developments.

We lost our majority in the General Assembly to the third world and to the Communist bloc, which has all too often exploited the grievances, justified or without warrant, of the new nations, newly freed from colonialism.

Life at the United Nations, therefore, has become increasingly difficult for the Representatives of the United States to the United Nations. All of them have smarted under attacks, some justified and some unjustified, against the United States. And all, I am sure, nostalgically recall the falcyon days when the United States and its allies were the UN majority.

Our response to this change is understandable, if not always wise. This response is the product of frustration. Why should the United States be singled out for attacks which, by our lights, the Soviets on many counts merit far more than we?

We, like all nations, are a proud country, and properly so; nations, like people, do not relish insults, even of a rhetorical kind. We inay console ourselves by the old saying-sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you—but we do not like to be called bad names. Nations, like persons, are human after all.

Dr. Patrick Moynihan, who, according to press reports, will be our next Representative to the UN, has recently written an article for Community Magazine in which he says, in effect, that we have been delinquent in not facing up to

*Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, 1965–1968.,

« ПретходнаНастави »