Слике страница

Now, when we are under attack, I think that it is a normal and instinctive reaction to retaliate, to reduce support for the organization which is being used in that way; and I think we have seen some steps in this direction to reduce the percentage of financial support, and so forth.

As I say here, it is hardly reasonable for a country to buy the club which is used to bash in its head, but we should keep in mind that our financial contributions to the United Nations are minimal. If we do not continue to pay what we have paid then that slack will be taken up by others, and especially the oil wealthy Arab states. And another way of responding to attack is by official denunciations of the organization.

In spite of this approach, and its implications, I do not suggest that we take such steps. I oppose such steps, and precisely for the reason that Professor Gardner mentioned, when he spoke of the Israeli who said that they should not abandon the battlefield when they are under fire. It is a battlefield.

The things which are most important to us and the peoples of the world are under fire at the United Nations, and it is precisely for that reason that we should support the United Nations by contributing maximum diplomatic coin. We must, I think, do this precisely because the organization is constantly used for conflict purposes. I think this is true for the reason which was stated basically by Senator Clark in his question to Senator Fulbright, because of nationalism and sovereignty. It is nationalism and sovereignty which prevent the establishment of a community.


You do not create a community by creating an organization and saying there are community objectives. If the community does not exist, they will use the organization for selfish purposes in the name of principles stated in the Charter, and that I think is precisely what has happened. The PLO issue, I think, we must recognize was as direct an attack


the peace in the Middle East as the attack on the hotel in Tel Aviv. It had the same objective to make it more difficult, especially for the Egyptians, to negotiate. Those who support it, introducing the PLO issue into the United Nations, did so in order to stymie negotiation at Geneva, or by Secretary of State Kissinger. They made it that much more difficult for Egypt to defy what would now be regarded as the opinion of mankind, that only the Palestinian Arabs had rights throughout Palestine, which is where the ultimate resolution came out, since it did not mention Israel in that area, or Israeli rights.


I say if it is our calculation that the attack on South Africa, let us say, through expulsion of South Africa, would result in a further repression of blacks in South Africa, by the white government, and if we believe that the attack on South Africa through the United Nations makes more likely racial war in Southern Africa, that is all the more reason for our presence in the organization and using our 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.


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.
Thank you.
[Mr. Yeselson's prepared statement follows:]

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. Mr. Joseph Segel, former chairman of the Board of Governors, United Nations Association.

We are glad to have you with us. [Mr. Segel's biography follows:]


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.


Mr. Segel was born in Philadelphia on January 9, 1931.

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.


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.


1974—Medal of Merit Award-American Numismatic Association; 1974Super 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.



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.



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

« ПретходнаНастави »