« ПретходнаНастави »
ing as world policeman since the end of World War II and shared government of the world with the Soviet Union since that time. Our Presidents have acted as part-time presidents of the world and our Congress has been acting as a parttime world legislature. Let us now abandon this make-shift role. At age 200 we ought to begin to show some maturity. And the most appropriate way to do that is to drop our Metternichean bully-boy role and revive our own eighteenth century tradition, which we pioneered and under which we still live but on which we turned our backs when we assumed leadership in the construction of international organization in 1919 and 1945. Both times we joined in establishing a confederate organization. Our thirteen states also began on this level but had a bellyful of its defects within thirteen years and meeting in constitutional convention they created a constitution for a federal republic of states.
In contrast to our American experience, we have on the world level over half a century of trial and tribulation with confederate organization. The present model—the United Nations—has in theory immense responsibilities over economic, social, political, peace-keeping and human rights problems. But in practice it is an over-grown paper-work factory, restricted to taken gestures and carefully confined to the more trivial episodes of man's inhumanity to himself. With the simultaneous pressure of converging global problems, unprecedented in character and immensity, our political time-lag is catastrophic. We are in acute need now of an already existing powerful world federal government capable of taking emergency action over a broad field of issues that should include coping with both the population and living-standard explosions; with the development, use, conservation and recycling of natural resources and protection of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations; with the ownership, administration, protection and supervision of sea-bed development; with control of nuclear research, testing and power production ; with the supervision of simultaneous universal disarmament and the demobilization of standing armies ; with the preservation of the democratic process and the stemming of world-wide erosion of civil government and provision for the protection of human rights. This is but a partial list of the overwhelming problems that require world action.
Now that we are no longer able to marshal automatic majorities in the United Nations General Assembly, we are increasingly displeased with the United Nations. As the New York Times editorial puts it today (May 27, 1975):
The reason the General Assembly does not work now is that countries with 10 percent of the world's population and 5 percent of its output can muster a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. Half that number can block a Soviet-American proposal—and have done so.
The disparity between nations with voting strength in the General Assembly and those with effective power in the real world has led to frustration on both sides.
This is one way of stating the problem but it is a superficial analysis of what is wrong with the United Nations. On December 17, 1974, 82 nations in the General Assembly voted for an Ad Hoc Committee of 42 to Review the Charter. Most of those voting were "the wretched of the earth” but no line-up containing as this one did, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Spain, Thailand, Venezuela, Yugoslavia can be described as having only 10 percent of the world's population, nor are they all that insignificant in world output.
There are statistics and statistics. We choose the ones that suit our purpose. But let us take a look at the statistics that weigh on the developing world which contains the majority of earth's people. These figures are supplied by that former Pentagon whiz-kid, Robert S. McNamara, who used to give us those splendidly fictive, computerized body-counts of the Vietnam War. As President of the World Bank he now has a better grasp of the grim realities. He tells us :
“During the First Development Decade, the total Gross National Product of the world increased by 1100 billion dollars. But how was this growth in income distributed throughout the world ? Eighty percent of the increase went to countries where per capita incomes already average over $1,000_and they contain only one-quarter of the world's population. Only 6 percent of the increase went to countries where per capita incomes average $200 or less--but they contain 60 percent of the world's people."
Professor Gunnar Adler-Karlsson of Roskilde University, Denmark, interprets this to mean that:
“People belonging to the world's 25 percent richest, consumed 32 times more per capita of the increase in total world income than every person belonging to the poorest three-fifths of the world population.
“During the sixties every rich individual increased his ecological pressure about thirty times more than every poor individual.
“60 percent constituting the poorest in the world get 11 percent of incomes, whereas the 20 percent richest get 66 percent of incomes."
He concludes that:
“The living standard explosion of the rich countries exerts a very much greater pressure on the limited resources of the earth ... than does the growth of population in the developing countries."
Then there is still another way of looking unpleasant statistics in the face by taking note of the protein empire of which we surely constitute the top hog. This is how George Borgstrom, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Geography of Michigan State University, puts it:
“We continue to mobilize world resources almost to the exclusive benefit of the well-to-do. What amounts to a protein empire was built on the prevailing trade patterns, with Europe and Japan as dominant recipients. In the shape of grain, oilseeds, and oilseed meal, Europe is purchasing per year more feed protein in plant products than either Africa or India is over a whole year consuming as human food. The USSR was let in as a member of the luxury enclave last year, initiating the biggest transfer of food and feed ever taking place in history . thereby placing these indispensable reserves beyond reach of the hungry less rich world ..
World fertilizer production and consumption is another painful subject dividing the minority of the rich from the majority of the poor of the world. Kenneth Laidlow, Research Officer for the World Development Movement, had this to tell us on that:
“Over 90 percent of the world fertilizer production is in developed countries. The developing countries produce only 7 percent and consume 15 percent of world production. What this amounts to is that 30 percent of the world's population consumes 85 percent of the fertilizer supply.
"Whereas every developed country possesses its own domestic fertilizer industry, more than 70 countries in the developing world have no domestic production and are completely dependent on the developed world for their supplies...."1
Enough in the developing world have learned to read to have learned not only that they are hurting, but also where they are hurting and why they are hurting. No wonder they're mad. This is why the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has begun to use clout to force fair prices and development out of us, over-consumers, during the relatively brief period before their highly depletable resource-oil—is exhausted They are trying plan ahead for that time.
Are we? Or do we first guzzle it up to the very last drop even though we no longer hold all the chips? Other developing countries are also beginning to insist on fair prices for the commodities and raw materials on which their livelihoods depend. Do we go through motions pretending to meet them halfway while we diddle them out of it? Do we imitate multinational corporations, such as United Brands and Gulf in bribing their governments so as to deprive their people of a living wage? Our Congress, President, Secretary of State and we, the people, have to face some really unpleasant facts very fast. We can no longer afford our high and wasteful standard of living and the rest of the world is coming to realize that they cannot afford us either.
Recently there has been a tremendous outpouring of indigantion over relatively trivial episodes within the United Nations, such as allowing the Palestine Liberation Organization leader, Yasir Arafat, to address the General Assembly, the suspension of South Africa and a UNESCO vote against Israel. Since the General Assembly it basically a talk-shop, even Arafat, ought to be allowed his say. He just might rely less on his machinegun if we let him use his mouth more. But surely these are trifles compared with United Nations inability to liberate the United States from its ten-year war in Indochina. Or its powerlessness to stop the massive world-wide proliferation of both so-called
1 The foregoing quotations are from the Bulletin of Peace Proposals, Oslo, 1975, Vol. I, pp. 8–9, 19, 25.
conventional and nuclear armaments involving the criminal waste of precious non-renewable resources in the production of this lethal junk.
American denunciation of United Nations misbehaviour, weakness and ineffectiveness comes with special ill grace from us. That's how Franklin D. Roosevelt designed it in May 1944 in order to get our Senate to accept it. One vote, one nation is part of the original sketch of what is essentially a permanent diplomatic conference with elaborate trimmings. Thirty years later, is the Senate of the United States ready for something more effective? Because as far as I can tell our State Department is basically content with things as they are since we voted against even the most superficial consideration of Charter Review.
Carlos Romulo of the Philippines has been the leader these many years in efforts to get the Charter reviewed. The Philippine Proposals presented by him in December are beautifully phrased, eminently sensible and moderate within a minimalist range that, if adopted, would make for more effective operation without earth-shaking changes in basic United Nations structure. Will the United States, which is on that Ad Hoc Committee of 42, support even these modest proposals or will we maintain our negative stance all the way? Then, on May 21, we learned of the recommendations of an International Panel appointed by the Secretary General, to contain the unmanageable, duplicating and inefficient Specialized Agency sprawl and to provide for behind-the-scenes consensual agreements on economic issues between developed and developing nations. Do we remain negative also on this?
I hope this Committee will put the heat on the Ford Administration to propose some serious, up-dated bicentennial, revolutionary American thinking on Charter Review. I also hope you will establish your own sub-committee to act as a stimulus and pacemaker. It is very important that the developing nations who are in favor of review, realize that American opinion on this issue is not a united monolith, that both in our Congress and among our people there is support for review and for fundamental changes to make for an effective United Nations.
However, we must also recognize that because of built-in barriers to major changes in the Charter, nothing significant may be achieved. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to sweep the question under the rug for another thirty years. I suggest we bear in mind that we too may have to do what our thirteen states did, letting the United Nations manage as best it can, while a World Constitutional Convention outside the United Nations system tries to hammer out an effective Constitution for World Federal Government, endowed with maximum powers to cope with the catastrophic problems we face.
Personally I do not believe that minor tinkering with the Charter can have any relevance to the agonies which engulf us. Therefore, as an example of a structured global plan containing the necessary far-reaching provisions that a World Constitution ought to encompass, I submit for inclusion with this statement in the Hearing Report, the enclosed Constitution for the Federation of Earth.” As far as I know this is the most recent draft proposal conceived in comprehensive maximalist terms and deserves the most serious attention.
THE WORLD ASSOCIATION OF WORLD FEDERALISTS PROPOSALS FOR
UNITED NATIONS REFORM The United Nations, as a political structure, is evolving with the passage of time and by the light of its experience in dealing with the problems of human society. Some substantial possibilities for further evolution, moreover, exist in the present Charter. History and experience show the need for continuing reform of the United Nations to meet the needs of a shrinking, dangerous and rapidly changing world.
Since 1945 the advent of nuclear power, the spreading of armaments, numerous wars, the wasting of resources, a deteriorating environment, rising human expectations in collision with poverty and over-population, a sharp increase in United Nations membership and major shifts in international relationships, and the demonstrated shortcomings of the United Nations in meeting these and other global problems and in the creation of world law, combine to show the urgency of reform and strengthening of the United Nations.
2 I have the permission of the World Constitution and Parliament Association to include this Constitution with my statement. (The Constitution for the Federation of Earth is on file with the committee.)
Proposals for the development of the United Nations must have the guiding purpose of promoting the well-being and dignity of the human person. The longer term aims of the suggestions we offer are:
1. To strengthen the capacity of the United Nations as a means of international decision-making, as a system of justice and as a source of enforceable law, so that it may replace a system based on the threat and destructive use of national power;
2. To re-enforce human rights and to enable the United Nations to meet needs which nation-states or lower levels of government cannot effectively serve, and
3. To redirect the use of human and natural resources from war and arms into an improvement of the quality of life. The World Association of World Federalists suggests to the Member Nations of the United Nations some important areas for reform of its structure and operation. We recommend such proposals as these to the Member Nations as a response to the request of the Secretary-General, acting for the General Assembly, that Member Nations present their views on review of the United Nations Charter at the 27th and 29th General Assemblies.
We believe that the challenges of our present world environment demand a quantum jump toward world order and that world leadership must move quickly to prepare an adequate response. We urge the 29th General Assembly to establish a United Nations committee for the orderly consideration of suggestions and proposals which have been made and will be made by Member Nations and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, with a view to the adoption at the earliest practicable date of those measures to strengthen the United Nations which gain general support.
Some of the recommended proposals would require, at least in part, changes in the present wording of the United Nations Charter. For other proposals, Charter changes would be preferred, but are not absolutely essential. Finally, we offer several suggestions concerning the development of the United Nations system which do not involve the Charter.
1. PROPOSALS REQUIRING CHARTER CHANGE 1. Membership. The function of the United Nations is to represent the peoples of humanity. Full implementation of the principle of universal membership will greatly strengthen the United Nations. The seating of the Peoples' Republic of China is a major advance toward the principle of universality. This development provides a basis from which to press forward for the admission of the other States not now Members of the United Nations. Amendment of the Charter is long overdue to remove from its language all reference to the "enemy states” of World War II.
2. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.—The provisions of the Charter for dealing with peaceful settlement of disputes need improvement. Experience indicates that the existing wording is too imprecise and too permissive, often leading to delay and the failure to deal with disputes at the optimum time for their settlement. There has been a tendency, moreover, for the United Nations to immobilize disputes, rather than to settle them.
The redrafting of Article 33 is therefore advisable in order to provide a specific mode of progression, when necessary, from two-party negotiations to increasingly higher levels of third-party involvement in stubborn diputes. Such provisions would commit the parties to a dispute, in advance, to accept arbitration or judicial settlement, in the event that negotiation, inquiry, mediation or conciliation may prove insufficient.
While, under Article 29, the Security Council may establish subsidiary organs as it deems them necessary for the performance of its functions, there is in fact no permanent standing machinery to function in pacific settlement of political disputes. Therefore the wording of Article 37 should be amended to include provisions for a standing Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Such a Commission should consist of a small group of persons universally respected, such as past Presidents of the General Assembly; the Commission should determine its own procedures and methods, and its work should normally be confidential.
3. The International Court of Justice.--It is desirable to relate the Court much more closely and effectively to the maintenance of international peace and security. No single act would be of greater aid to this aim than for states
to declare that they recognize as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes.
In addition, the following amendments, among others, are worth consideration in reviewing the Charter and the Statutes of the International Court of Justice:
(a) There should be a provision for referring automatically to the International Court of Justice for judicial settlement the justiciable legal elements of any dispute which has proved intractable under a revised Article 33 on Peaceful Settlement.
(6) Broader provisions for the use of the Court for advisory opinions are necessary. At present the Security Council, the General Assembly, and any United Nations organ or agency so authorized by the Assembly may request an opinion. In addition, regional organizations, individual States, and the Secretary-General should have such rights before the Court.
(c) The United Nations as a legal entity should also have authorization to bring cases before the Court.
(d) There should be provisions to establish international regional Courts under the supervision of the International Court of Justice, and for the right of litigants to appeal from a regional court to the International Court of Justice.
4. Human Rights.-At the present time the United Nations deals with most human rights matters at as many as five different stages : in a sub-committee or ad hoc committee or by a special rapporteur, then in the Commission on Human Rights, in ECOSOC, next in the Third Committee, and finally in the Plenary of the General Assembly. The United Nations should create a new Human Rights Council to integrate these steps and to report directly to the General Assembly. Such a Council would be on the level of the Economic and Social Council, and would relieve ECOSOC of its human rights responsibilities, thus freeing it to concentrate on economic and social developments.
It is desirable that the United Nations should implement the proposal for creating a new post of High Commissioner for Human Rights. The establishment of a World Court of Human Rights to supplement existing and planned regional Courts of Human Rights deserves study. Such a World Court of Human Rights would have responsibilities analogous to the European Court of Human Rights.
5. Strengthening the ECOSOC.--The United Nations Economic and Social Council needs the means to fulfill the functions for which it is responsible. Moreover, the authorization in the Charter for ECOSOC to "co-ordinate the activities of the Specialized Agencies through consultation" is inadequate. We may well expect that the present enlarged membership of ECOSOC will strengthen its ability to make broadly based decisions of policy. It is important that ECOSOC reflect the kind of concerns about the terms of trade, commodity price levels and related matters which are central interests of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
For truly effective co-ordination of the economic and social work of the United Nations system, ECOSOC should have the authority to review all questions relating to economic and social matters before their submission to the General Assembly and to pass on the policies, plans and budgets of the concerned Specialized Agencies before their adoption by those bodies. Authority well beyond that specified in the Charter is necessary to enable the Economic and Social Council to carry out its job effectively.
II. PROPOSALS FOR WHICH CHARTER CHANGE IS DESIRABLE
6. Peacekeeping.–The Charter has spelled out the procedure for taking enforcement action against aggressors in Chapter VII. These provisions should, of course, be implemented. In addition, however, the framers of the Charter did not adequately foresee the evolution of international peacekeeping by interposition in order to arrest conflict and prevent violence without prejudice to the matter at issue. Consequently a new paragraph under Article 40 is desirable to spell out the generally agreed principles of observation and of peacekeeping by interposition. A draft of this new section should include points such as the following:
(a) The Security Council may, whenver it deems it necessary to prevent aggravation of a situation, establish United Nations Peace Observation Teams, and a United Nations Interposition Force to arrest or prevent violence, and to permit peaceful settlement as delineated in Chapter VI.
(6) The establishment, deployment and maintenance of such teams and forces would be in accordance with agreed guidelines to be annexed when developed.