Слике страница


Herewith my list of the United Nations plusses and minuses :

In the past 25 years, the United Nations has given important help in these situations: the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Iran in 1947; the communist withdrawal from Greece in 1949; resisting the aggression in Korea in 1950; the cease-fires and withdrawals in the Middle East in 1949, 1956, and 1957, and again in 1973; cease-fire or truces in Indonesia in 1949, Kashmir in 1965, and Cyprus; ending outside interference in Lebanon's internal affairs in 1958; preventing the Congo from becoming a cause of confrontation between the great powers in 1960; ushering the erstwhile colonies of Africa into the family of nations; and creating a new United Nations Emergency Force (ÚNEF) on October 25, 1973, which was followed on October 27, by Egyptian-Israeli meetings for the first time in 17 years. The new UNÈF differs from the one created in 1956 in that it can only be removed by a vote of the Security Council and that Poland, a communist power,

is to be a member. These are improvements, even though the road is still full of boulders I add four major U.N. conferences in 1972–75, each of which made a start on four major world problems: environment, law of the sea, population, and food.

Now for another big plus: The first priority at the United Nations is peace and security. The second, far ahead of any other, should be economic and social development. Along these lines, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), by preinvestment surveys and technical education, has advanced the fundamentals of a good life: food, shelter, health, and education. Because it is done “multilaterally”—many nations working together—rather than “bilaterally” the United States working with one country alone—$1 of input by the United States generates more than $6 worth of actual development work. Thus, our proportion gets smaller and the recipient nations' proportion gets greater because the United Nations Development Program—which includes such worthwhile "specialized agencies” as the World Health Organization and the Children's Fundgets more and more people “into the act."

Much, but not all, of our own bilateral AID program for economic and social development abroad could, I believe, be channelled through the United Nations agencies, with advantage to us and to the recipient nation.

That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my summary of the plusses. And I ask how many of these plusses would have happened without the United Nations? And these are all things which have made the world a better place.

How many of these “plusses” would have happened without the U.N.

UNFAVORABLE ASPECTS OF U.N. Here are some undeniable minuses:

With the advantage of hindsight, one can now say that much trouble would have been avoided if, before the French left Indochina, we had used the United Nations in the early 1950's, somewhat as the United Nations acted in the Congo in 1960—as an international pres

ence to prevent the area from becoming the cause of big power involvement. The United Nations later did nothing about Vietnam: because it lacked the tools and the will. Also, the communist powers, notably North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, opposed bringing the Vietnam question into the United Nations.

To go on with the minuses, in 1956 the Soviet aggression against Hungary could not be stopped by any method short of war. In 1968 Czechoslovakia could not be protected against a Soviet takeover. In 1971, the United Nations did not make a determined effort to persuade the Government of Pakistan to cease its brutal behavior toward East Pakistanis. Nor did the United Nations prevent—or try to prevent—India from invading East Pakistan. These are all United Nations failures. In all candor, can we doubt that these failures would have occurred even if there had been no United Nations?

There are other defects: voting does not correspond with the ability to carry out the things which are voted; there is an alarming tendency not to consider questions on their merits, but to vote as blocs; the lateness in starting the meetings; the windiness of the oratory; the lack of germaneness and the much too lengthy so-called debates all make a bad impression.

There can today in our United Nations of 138 members be little confidence that even if a clear and unambiguous case of aggression came before the Security Council or General Assembly, a majority of the members would treat it as such and would come to the aid of the victim.

To me, that is a terribly serious thing.

Finally, I cite the vote (105 to 4 with 20 abstentions) at the last session which recognized the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) as the sole representative of the Palestine people, and gave Mr. Arafat honors proper to a chief of state—an outrageous event which, understandably, infuriated so many people that some are talking about the United States withdrawing from the United Nations. I do not think it would be wise to withdraw. This suggestion reminds me of the man who stuck his head out of the window, found the weather was insufferably hot, and proceeded to break the thermometer. The cure for the United Nations' troubles is not to leave it, but to reform it.




In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I submit that members of the United Nations should wholeheartedly work for a rapid growth in its effectiveness. They should change the United Nations so that voting more nearly corresponds with the ability to carry out the things which are voted. Many detailed changes are proposed in the report of the President's Commission on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, published in 1971.

I cite a few: Small states should renounce their right to vote and become associate members; if any state pays less than one-tenth of 1 : percent of the United Nation's budget, it would become an associate

member; the United Nations would submit itself in electing members of the Security Council to place primary emphasis on the contributions which the candidate can make; half of the 10 elected seats in the Se.

curity Council would be rotated among the larger states. A nation like Japan would always be a member of the Security Council.

The United States should be able to translate into political influence and power its status as a financial mainstay of the U.N. We should not show undue respect for the General Assembly, the decisions of which, after all, are purely hortatory, and do not have the force of law. A little of that treatment might be in order at the present time.

Members should rededicate themselves and strengthen their determination actually to suppress aggression—which, after all, is what the United Nations is all about, and which so many have forgotten. Remember Churchill's words that peace is not promoted by throwing small nations to the wolves. I have no illusions about the difficulty of bringing about these changes, but I believe that an eloquent effort to do so is very much worth making.

Since 1945, it is said, there have been 14 international and 24 civil wars—all with substantial casualties. The world is still a dangerous place. We need the United Nations.

Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

I remember when Justice Goldberg was appointed to the United Nations position. I suppose he is the only Justice of the Supreme Court who ever left for another appointment, but he did leave that job, and performed excellently in the United Nations.

Mr. Justice, we are glad to have you, sir.
[Justice Arthur J. Goldberg's biography follows:]


Arthur J. Goldberg has served as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations with the rank of Ambassador, and Secretary of Labor.

Justice Goldberg was born in Chicago, Illinois, on August 8, 1908, the son of Joseph and Rebecca Goldberg.

He received his elementary education in Chicago Public Schools and was graduated from Benjamin Harrison High School in 1924. Mr. Goldberg attended Crane Junior College, a branch of the City College of Chicago. He received the Bachelor of Science in Law degree in 1929 and Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1930 from Northwestern University. He was Editor in Chief of the Illinois Law Review.

In 1929, Mr. Goldberg was admitted to practice before the Illinois bar. He qualified for practice before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1937.

He was engaged in private practice in Chicago from 1929 until 1948 and was the senior partner of the firm of Goldberg, Devoe, Shador and Mikva, Chicago, 1945 to 1961. Mr. Goldberg also practiced law with Goldberg, Feller and Bredhoff, Washington, D.C., 1952–1961, as the senior partner of that firm.

Mr. Goldberg was General Counsel of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), 1948-1955, and United Steel Workers of America, 1948–1961. He was Special Counsel for the AFI-CIO, 1955–1961. He also was Legal Advisor to several international unions.

During World War II he served as Special Assistant with the rank of Captain and Major with the Office of Strategic Services.

He is author of articles in American legal publications and journals of opinion, and the author of several books, including "AFL-CIO: Labor United,” “The Defenses of Freedom: The Public Papers of Arthur J. Goldberg," and "Equal Justice: The Warren Era of the Supreme Court."

Mr. Goldberg married Dorothy Kurgans, an artist, in 1931. They have two children, a daughter, Mrs. Barbara Cramer, a social worker in Chicago, and a son, Robert M. Goldberg, an Alaska lawyer.

Justice Goldberg is practicing law in Washington, D. C., and is also a University Professor of Law and Diplomacy at American University, Washington, D. C.


LAW, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Senator Percy, Senator Case.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to present my views on what is an important and paramount subject, and I commend the committee very much for addressing itself interestingly enough after a long lapse of time to the United States and the United Nations and their respective roles. I am particularly gratified to participate in this committee's hearings with friends and colleagues of long standing, Governor Stassen, Senator Lodge, and Ambassador Yost.

My views perhaps are somewhat different from theirs, but you invited various views and I shall express my own.

U.S. EXPECTS TOO MUCH, DEMANDS TOO LITTLE OF U.N. It is my considered opinion that the United States in relation to the U.N. expects too much and demands too little. This dichotomy requires an explanation.

The people of this country expected the U.N. to fulfill its great goal to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. This concept of unity of nations to keep the peace and achieve universal economic justice was born out of the optimism of victory in World War II.

Senator Percy, since you were sitting in the gallery at the opera house in San Francisco as a member of the Armed Forces at the birth of the United Nations I think you can bear out that statement. It reflected a conception that the World War II partners of different political systems and widely divergent ideologies would submerge their differences in the interest of international peace, security and progress and would yield enough of their sovereignty to enable the world organization to take effective and collective action to these ends.

Well, regrettably, the optimism of the Charter turned out to be excessive, despite the warnings by Governor Stassen and others that there would be problems that had to be coped with.

American expectations about the U.N. also were founded on a lack of appreciation of what was already underway when the victorious powers met at San Francisco to adopt the U.N. Charter—the end of colonialism and the emergence of more new nations than those assembled in the opera house.

If I remember correctly, there were then some 50 countries. Now there are 138 members.

The majority of the nations which met in San Francisco to adopt the Charter were of the West. The Communist Bloc was in the minority, and the third world was virtually nonexistent. In fact, that term was never employed at that time. It is of much more recent origin.

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. Now, we had advanced warning as a result of experience with the Soviet Union, even during World War II, that things were not going to be so easy, but nevertheless, we did not fully anticipate the hostile attitude of the Soviets and their satellites at the U.N., and we certainly did not foresee the intense resentment of the new nations to colonial powers, and


we never conceived the fact they would regard us to be one. After all, we were in the yanguard to free India from British rule, Indonesia. from Dutch domination, and the same was true of our role with respect to other colonial powers and other colonial countries.


Now, I need not detail what has been adverted to and 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.

As my colleagues who served at the U.N. can bear witness, and as I experienced, life at the U.N., therefore, has become increasingly difficult for the representatives of the United States to the United Nations.

Mr. Chairman, those Members of Congress who have contributed so much to the success of U.N. delegations, these also can bear witness to the same fact.

Anyone who represents the United States in an Ambassadorial capacity smarts under attack, whether justified or unjustified. And U.S. representatives at the U.N. are no different. All our representatives, the ambassadors, the congressional delegates, I am sure nostalgically recall the halcyon days when the United States and their allies were the U.N. majority. The result of this change is undertandable if not always wise, it invites responses to attacks if only out of a sense of frustration.

I recall that during my 3 years of tenure at the U.N. the members of my mission and Members of Congress, repeatedly returning after heated exchanges in the General Assembly and saying why should the United States be singled out for attacks which by our lights the Soviets on many counts deserved far more than we do?

Now, we like all nations are a proud country, and properly so; nations, like people, do not relish insults, even of a rhetorical kind.

Now we may console ourselves by the old saying, sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you—but we do not like to be called bad names. Natjons, like persons, are human after all.


Dr. Patrick Moynihan, who I see will appear before you,

and who, according to press reports, will be our next representative to the U.N., has recently written a very provocative article for Commentary Magazine, in which he says, in effect, we have been delinquent in not facing up to these attacks forthrightly, rebutting them and putting our policies in proper context.

Dr. Moynihan was my Executive Assistant at the Department of Labor. He is also the editor of one of my books and I, therefore, make my comment about his statement with the greatest friendship. He is simply mistaken. Every American representative to the U.N. from its beginning has attempted to do precisely what Dr. Moynihan recommends in his article. Indeed the latest illustration was Ambassador Scali's speech at the U.N. which forthrightly addressed itself to the

[ocr errors]



« ПретходнаНастави »