« ПретходнаНастави »
cally they may yet. The world is divided between the totalitarian powers—with internal divisions there too, of course—the West, and this large new majority of nations who inherit a political doctrine which in the main, in its ideal form is that of democratic socialism. Now this is an honorable and decent political tradition, one with which we can engage in a thoroughly satisfactorily political community. Our job is to see that the social democracies of Asia and Africa and Latin America succeed. The totalitarian job is to see that they fail. And part of the posture of bringing about that failure is the systematic assassination of the reputation of the American democracy.
You go to any of those countries and what do you find! Beyond anything that is just idiosyncratic or happenstance, there is a systematic effort to declare that ours is the worst society the world has known. It is drummed in and beaten into the minds of people all over the world by persons who know what they are doing. I say to you that the reputation of this democracy is not just important to us; it is important to these other countries also and we have got to recognize the systematic and sustained—it has been going on 50 years, it will be going on 50 years from now-effort to discredit us in the world. And we have to understand the ideological context in which it takes place.
I sometimes think we have been more innocent about ideology than we are tought to be. We have to recognize what is credible and what is not credible and to know that we are on the defensive in the world and to care about that. To an extraordinary degree I think the world does not perceive us as being particularly sensitive on these issues. I think the reputation of our democracy is the most important interest we have in the world.
Senator CLARK. Well, I certainly could not disagree with anything you say, other than that it seems to me that for us to systematically attack them in the same way would not necessarily restore our reputation, that we would not necessarily gain a greater position of leadership.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. How could I disagree?
Senator CASE. I think, Mr. Chairman, you have put your finger on the precise thing that is the most interesting about Mr. Moynihan's appearance this morning and the job he is going to take on and his general thoughts.
I do not see why we ought to let up attacking the kind of conduct in foreign countries which is contrary to our view of the dignity and sanctity of the individual. In the specific instances you referred to, Mr. Chairman, I think I would rather disagree that it is wrong to bring this out constantly; the man languishing in prison and being tortured by a foreign dictator: this is an appropriate place in which to attack the dictator, to bring it out because I think this is the essence of the difference between the East and the West using those terms very loosely. This is something we ought not to gloss over.
That is all.
Senator BAKER. I had no questions previously and I still have no questions. As I listened to the dialog between the chairman and this
witness I came to have even greater admiration for his clarity of thought and perception of issues of extraordinary scope and importance. I underscore my previous accolade. I have one question, however, I would like to pursue a little.
IMPORTANCE OF IAEA SAFEGUARD PROGRAM
You mentioned the IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency. I quite agree with you that nonproliferation and possession in irresponsible hands of the world's growing supply of plutonium may be the millennium size question that confronts civilization.
It also occurs to me that the IAEA is unique and unused as an international asset. IAEA is the only forum I know of in which the United States, Soviet Union, and most of the superpowers of the world are members, but there is no veto. It seems to me that considerable effort ought to be made in trying to expand and extend the authority of IAEA and bring it greater public visibility to make clear that there are nations which, while they are members of the IAEA, do not subscribe to the inspection requirement of IAEA,our good friend from Israel, for instance.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is correct.
Senator BAKER. As a case in point, they operate two reactors, neither of which are subject to inspection by the IAEA. I think they should be. As we see the prospect of other reactors developing in Brazil, throughout Europe and Asia, there is not only a growing concern on my part for the national security arrangements over plutonium but for the non-national security arrangements—that is, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that our greatest concern may be from non-national threats, from terrorists, for instance.
We ought to consider very carefully in the United Nations, that not only do 14 nations or 13 nations profess the ability to produce plutonium or enriched uranium out of which an explosive device could be built, but there are also probably 50 corporations, or aggregations of industrial complexes, that could do it, too.
There is no doubt that the gaseous fission technique, gaseous centrifuge, are fully within the competence of the talent and capital resources of non-national entities to go forward.
I urge you to consider the possibility of using the IAEA in facing up to this millennium type problem.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank you, Senator. You have said something profoundly serious.
Senator BAKER. It may be there is no way to deal with it. I very much hope there is a way and I believe there is a way. There is pitiful little thought being given to the question that it is very late in the game to start and we have to start.
Senator JAVITS. I would like to join with the Senator in the idea he has expressed. I hope he will not confine it to Israel alone. I agree with him. But to many others where the same danger is, and danger which originates not only with the U.S. supply of atomic materials, but Canada and the Soviet Union and many other suppliers, and the fact that they are not reachable by the United Nations should not make any difference in this world forum.
Senator BAKER. Obviously there are other countries, for instance, India, from which the Ambassador just returned. The reactor there is not subject to inspection either. The plutonium yield is easily calculated from the Indian reactor and the Demona reactor in Israel. We know with great precision how much fissionable material of weapon grade they have.
Senator Javits. One other thing I would like to call to the witness attention. While we are dealing with this problem of what is available as capability for the United Nations, there is a treaty on Antartica, which is an extraordinary grant of supernational authority, including world authority, again in which the Soviet Union has joined, in short, to call attention to the great opportunities which already exist, which are pressing and which can be applied to many other problems.
Senator BAKER. I apologize for making statements instead of asking questions.
You will be our representative and this may be the last effective opportunity we have to speak to you in this way, because of our respective demand for time and scheduling. I do not think it is an oversimplification to say that the greatest challenge that confronts the super powers_namely, the United States, Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China and the others, the nuclear powers-may be in the next year or so, to derive a way to monitor, control, and secure against the proliferation of fissionable material. I think that we have the structure at the United Nations and IAEA but we have not yet marshalled the will to harness it. I would hope a major multinational initiative, by the United States and the Soviet Union, for instance, may be mounted soon to see if we can find a way to attend to the problems you and I have just discussed. If we do, the existence of the United Nations would be fully justified for that alone.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. In my last unofficial statement, if it turns out that way, I would like to agree with you. And if I may I would add one thing
Senator Javits mentioned Canada. I think that there are few nations which we could better emulate than Canada. They take these matters very seriously, they are thoroughly responsible about them, and admirably so, and they could teach us a lot.
Senator BAKER. I might add, in response to Senator Javits' remark, in using the Demona reactor I did not mean to single out the Israeli situation as a particular threat, but only as an example of the problem. There are many others.
ROLE OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS Senator CLARK. Mr. Moynihan, I have only three or four additional questions. One more on the Commentary article and then I promise to leave it. It is a little unfair, it seems to me, to keep quoting you on an article that you wrote two or three months ago but I cannot resist it. Since you have not looked at it since, let me quote from page 41. You say, "the truth is that international liberalism and its processes have enormous recent achievements to their credit. It is time for the United States to start saying so. One example is the multinational corporation which, combining modern management with liberal trade policies, is arguably the most creative international institution of the 20th century."
This committee has had a number of witnesses at hearings in the last several weeks that seem to me to call that statement into question. One of them was the Gulf Oil Co. president, who sat in the same seat you are sitting in and told us of the millions of dollars that that particular corporation turned over to the Korean Government, in the form of illegal campaign contributions. I specifically asked whether he thought these activities were unique among multinational corporations, and he said he certainly hoped they were but he seriously doubted it. Yesterday, in a closed meeting in preparation for a hearing to be held next Monday, a good deal of information was revealed about another major multinational corporation, its very questionable activities in many other parts of the world. I am inclined to believe a pattern is developing that is not exactly consonant with your position on multinational corporations.
Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, which is to say that I was speaking of the peculiar success with which these institutions—they go back to the turn of the century, the Dutch and British helped commence themhave been able to organize capital and management and materials for productive purposes and they are very productive. They make a lot of things people use, and they get around the rigidities which earlier companies faced and they are very adaptable.
I gather from what you say that they are also adaptable to the political mores of lots of places where they happen to be doing business. Well, I suppose they are and if any of them are let them face the consequences. Did I say they were without sin?
Senator CLARK. I have not read the whole article either.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I am an Irish-Catholic, Senator. I believe none of us is without sin. If there are such people I have not met them yet.
Senator CLARK. I think we reap the harvest of the multinational corporations activities.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. We still must be appalled by some of those practices although we have seen some of them take place elsewhere-not in Iowa, I am sure, but in New York, I think they take place in New York.
Senator CASE. Even in the United States.
ATTEMPT TO KEEP AMERICAN BUSINESS OUT OF THIRD WORLD
May I make a point on the multinational corporation here. I hope I do not expand beyond my knowledge.
For two years in India I found myself going into seeing ministers of one kind or another and saying, "Minister, do you remember the XYZ company that come out to India and worked 4 years with you negotiating an agreement to build a fertilizer plant or to look for oil or to dig some coal. Finally they broke their pick and they left and nothing happened ?" Yes, he remembers it very well. Next I would say: "Do you know where they have opened up business? Not far away from you. They are in Siberia now. And did you ever stop to think that maybe the people who were touting you off them in 1960 were waiting to get them themselves in 1970?" If you go around the world you will see, I do not want to use the word systematic, that
suggests more planning than I think is the case—a sustained effort to discredit American business enterprise, and by people who speak for the interests of the very same nations who will do almost anything to get themselves.
They keep American business out of the democratic socialist societies in the world. What kind of bargain is that for us and what is happening there? Why do they not want India, and Sri Lanka and Tanzania and so forth to do what they themselves want to do? I will tell you the Communist Party of India felt the contrast between the Soviet Union behavior with these companies in its own country and its posture about them elsewhere. It became so conspicuous they felt called upon in India to make a statement. They explained Soviet socialism is more mature and able to deal with the encounters with these virus-bearing institutions. Indian socialism was not mature enough. I swear to you it is the only statement that the Indian intellectuals have found patronizing in the whole time I was there. What kind of talk is that? You are not mature enough to deal with General Motors. But observe that and if you want testimony as to the creative powers of these institutions, Russia will tell you. I am saying it is one thing to let bureaucrats and Western educated ideologists in those countries deny their people things they need such as saying that the Dupont Co. cannot work within democratic India which is an opportunity which never came to anything. It is not a question of American profits. It is a question of economic development of those countries. It does not have to involve American firms. The Japanese are increasingly kept out for the same way, and I ask you why do the totalitarian powers try to prevent international business operating in the democratic socialists part of the world while they do a lot to get it operating in their own part. That is not consistent.
EXPULSION OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ISRAEL
Senator CLARK. In your judgment was the expulsion of South Africa from the 29th, this session of the General Assembly, a violation of the U.N. Charter?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. As far as I have heard it stated, I believe that is the position of our Government. The argument on the other side is that the representatives were not in fact representatives, as they represented 20 percent of the population and not the other 80. I guess it is my view that this is exactly the time to keep countries like that in the General Assembly under the spotlight of world opinion, forced to recognize what other people think about abominable practices such as apartheid.
Sir, Ambassador Scali said this, I do not need to repeat, there is an effort afoot to expel Israel. The nonalined meeting in Havana, which is a great nonalined capital, as you may know, in March, signed a declaration of Havana in which they wrote that the expulsion of Israel from the U.N. is a measure they must consider, denouncing the United States in the same process.
Now, they cannot do that. They must not do it. First, they cannot do it. It is a Security Council measure. But even an effort to expel Israel from the General Assembly will bring a disastrous reaction from public opinion in this country. It is exactly what we should not do at just that moment the U.N. is playing a constructive role in the Middle East.