Слике страница

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Senator, we ought to talk about this in a year's time. I could be dead wrong, my impression was that the Indians felt that the result of the conference was to absolve them of working much harder on the programs as they had originally conceived them.

The proposition that economic development takes care of those things is curiously counterproductive. I mean I didn't see anybody come back to India saying I have got the idea, I talked to the delegate from China. No male should marry until he is 28 and no female until they are 25. They didn't come back and say that.

Senator PERCY. I didn't want to leave any misimpression with you because in my own report on the U.N. to this committee I pointed out the artificiality of our dialog in New York with, say, the Soviet Union when we do have some basic differences of opinion on issues which we don't hesitate to express on Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe.

They object to it but it doesn't spoil détente. They understand that we have a right to speak and they have a right to speak. And I have suggested that it could be fairly forthright.

I presume the concern is the way in which it would be done. And opinions vary.


William Buckley said in testimony before this committee:

I should think what Senator Percy and I probably would agree to call-I am not sure we have always agreed on things but I am glad to see we might—we agree to call the Moynihan approach very definitely in order. It is an proach best described as saying that the U.S. has not only the right but duty to argue its own ideals in its own self interest.

But Richard Falk said:

It would not help (as he conceded what the Moynihan approach was) it will give us a warm feeling domestically. It is for that reason that Ambassador Moynihan's way of thinking about these issues has attracted, in my view, a very large following, but it is a very short-sighted attitude on how to participate constructively and effectively in international institutions.

Pauline Fredericks said : If the idea is for him to pursue, presumably on instructions of the State Department, rhetoric of confrontation, then I think we are going backwards instead of forwards. The time has come we should lower our voices and enter into a dialogue such as we are trying to do with the Soviet Union. I wonder whether we should have one policy for the little nations and one policy for the big nations.

You have got all kinds of advice from all quarters. I must say it is one of the most provocative arguments. If it was put out for the purpose of orbiting thought and creating debate and draw attention to the U.N., it certainly has accomplished that purpose. But I think it will mean that your performance in New York will be watched with unusual interest, your words watched with unusual interest, and that I think you will draw from all of this advice.

The last comments I have is the comment that was the undertone of some of the testimony here, that the word and phrase "benign neglect” might refer to the United Nations, and that maybe that is why you were selected by the President for this job, that really we wanted to deemphasize the U.N., not to withdraw but to not pay much attention to it, and maybe you would be the best one to do it.


Alexander Dallin said, “I do no mean to imply that he necessarily would himself apply it, that is, benign neglect toward the United Nations," but the implication was running through there that maybe you would, and my final question to you is, would you care to summarize what you consider the importance of the U.N. today is in the world, what the importance of the U.N. is to the United States in its relationship to our foreign policy, and what you as a permanent representative would want to carry out as your own personal conviction about the U.N., because you are obviously accepting the nomination of the President because you attach some degree of importance to being there and saying what you want to say.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Sir, I made that fairly clear in that commentary piece and a dozen other things I have written. I have spent my life more involved in this subject than any other.

My doctoral history concerned our involvement in the International Labor Organization, I have been involved in these things for years. At different times in our post-war period the United Nations has been of greater or lesser importance to us. The huge decision was made in 1919 in the U.S. Senate. The world has never quite recovered from our failing to pursue the Wilsonian League idea, just as the world has never really recovered from the first World War.

Most of the things that have happened to us in our lives happened before we were born and there is not much we can do about it. The world is in very bad shape and the critical year was 1919, 1920, and we made critical mistakes and I don't know, I don't expect we are going to get that back.

With the U.N., I think President Roosevelt was wise in preparing the ground for the way President Wilson didn't do. He had Wilson's example. For the early U.N., remember, we put propositions into the United Nations that would have yielded our atomic monopoly. We proposed to turn it over to the U.Ň. Think about that. We are a long way from there.

The question of the world order is not really any longer whether you want one, but in what arena do you want one. One of the great services the U.N. has done in the world is to persuade people who want to avoid the United Nations to set up special purposes agencies to do so, some of which have been very effective.

To answer as a general proposition what our role in the U.N. should be, it is clear that there are absolutely indispensable functions which the United Nations carries out. If you forgive me, the International Atomic Energy Agency is one. If you start out with that conviction and you see what it does and can do in the Middle East, in places like Cyprus and the Congo and so forth, if you start out with that conviction, then it seems to me it takes one of two courses.

You can say because this is so important we must be excessively concerned with how we behave so as to not to annoy people and not to be offensive, and that is the way we want to work. Look at an

American opinion, which is still pretty pro U.N., but something could happen in October in New York, sir, which would result in a 95 to 5 vote in the U.S. Senate to freeze all funds and withdraw from the General Assembly. That is your opinion in this building and over in the House side the same thing, and you wouldn't have any problems with your constituents. That is how close events have brought us to where, with near unanimity, the United States could get out of the U.N. altogether.

How did that happen? Does this not somehow suggest that things have not been managed perfectly. What ought to be unthinkable, could happen just like that. And how do we get to this point? I think a certain pattern of avoidance by people who care too much to have thought clearly has contributed to this situation.

It is not people like me who are saying downgrade the U.N., on people in this building who say if they don't do this and don't do that, out we go. It seems to me that the responsibility—it is not going to be an easy job—the responsibility of the U.S. Government, its representatives is to seek to get the United Nations to behave collectively in a manner that continues to command the respect of the American people.

We don't expect it to be perfect and don't expect it to be an instrument of the United States. But opinion recognizes that respect for it is eroding, it is eroded right in this building, and you know it. How to reverse this? It will not be achieved by a process of saying, well, after all, words don't hurt us. Say what you will. Words do hurt us. Words hurt. I know something about that and you, too, I am sure. What we must say to the rest of the world is that if you wish us to be involved in these affairs, in this affair and we ought to be, you have got to have some concern for things that are important to us. Our reputation as a free country is fundamental to us. We should not to be so polite as to be misunderstood on that point, sir.

We still have a world of expansive totalitarianism, we have a world filled with people who wish to see a free system fail, and they are our enemies and we have got to see them as such, and that is what I think. I didn't write that article with respect to the U.N., I was thinking about the general posture, the ideological history of these new nations, and how we can find community with them, which I think we can and should do.

I don't know all there is to know about the subject but I am not the least informed. Senator.



Senator Percy. Well, I think I can soon present you with a document that will embody all of the hearings that we held for 5 or 6 days, the first hearings in this committee since the 1950's on the U.N. So we will present it to you for your bedside reading in New York.

Many of us will be interested in following your work there, and your accomplishments, and we offer you every bit of help and advice and counsel, free or otherwise, that we can offer.

I think you have contributed a great deal to our understanding of how you look on your future responsibility.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Thank you, Senator.

[Whereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.]

[The following communication was received for inclusion in the record :]



Cambridge, Mass., June 2, 1975. Senator JOHN J. SPARKMAN, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: This is with reference to the nomination of Daniel Patrick Moynihan to be Ambassador to the United Nations. In some superficial sense I am qualified to pass on the Moynihan appointment on more grounds than any man alive—including, if I may so presume, even the members of this distinguished Committee. He has been my fellow Ambassador to India ; my fellow faculty member; my next-door neighbor; and though I have no wish to damage him in the eyes of any of the Republican members of the Committee, my fellow Democrat. In all of these roles as diplomat, teacher, politician and friend he has invited both admiration and affection. Were I not so certain that the Committee would agree, I would write at length on his qualifications. May I confine myself to congratulating the Committee members in having such a distinguished and interesting appointment on which to pass. My warmest regards. Yours faithfully,

JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH. P.S.—Should it be your pleasure to have this letter made part of the record on this important appointment, I would, of course, agree.

J. K. G.

[blocks in formation]

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress hereby expresses itself as favoring the creation of appropriate international machinery with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace, among the nations of the world, and as favoring participation by the United States therein through its constitutional processes. Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 1943.


« ПретходнаНастави »