« ПретходнаНастави »
the other nations of the world. International cooperation stifled by shortsighted attitudes of national governments.
The common ingredient in all of these activities is international cooperation. It flourishes in its natural habitat—the U.N. Yet all too often it is stified by the shortsighted attitudes of national governments.
Take the International Court of Justice for example. It is hardly ever mentioned these days. I hope it is still in existence. Last time I heard of it, it was a body of exceptionally distinguished jurists who certainly could be depended upon to render a fair and impartial decision in any international dispute. The problem is that very few national
. leaders want a fair and impartial decision. They just want to win. And they have the power to do as they please.
And then we have the General Assembly. The General Assembly, which so many people refer to as “the U.N." When you read about the U.N. in the newspapers from September through December, it is really mostly the General Assembly that is being referred to. The General Assembly has become a big headache for the United States. We created the concept of one nation—one vote, and now it is coming back to haunt us. We made the most of the majority we virtually controlled during the early years of the U.N., often forcing the Soviet Union to cast a veto in the Security Council to protect its interests, and now the tables are turned. But, it is not really the Soviet bloc that is giving us our problems in the General Assembly. It is now the third world, in its various incarnations, treating us like a Gulliver rendered helpless by dozens of Lilliputians.
NEGOTIATION, CONCILIATION SUGGESTED AS PRACTICAL ANSWER
So what shall we do? Walk away from the General Assembly as some suggest ? Continue participating in the debate, but voluntarily suspend our voting? Or should we come out fighting and try to change the world with a new brand of fiery rhetoric?
I respectfully submit that none of these proposed solutions is a practical answer. Leaving the General Assembly or voluntarily suspending our voting would surely be cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would further isolate us in the world and do great damage to our relations with many countries. Moreover, although the General Assembly is still primarily an advisory body, there are many resolutions which we would want to support because they are harmonious with our interests and reflect positions and principles which are important to our society.
In fact, if you look at our votes in the last General Assembly, where Senator Percy and Senator Symington very ably served on the delegation representing the United States, it is interesting to note that we joined in adopting 125 resolutions (90 by consensus), while voting against only 17 resolutions and abstaining on 32 others. So, we were not always on the losing side. But the resolutions we voted against received the lion's share of the publicity. Most of the constructive actions we supported received virtually no attention from the press and thus are not known to the public.
Sure, we took some brickbats, at that session, but it was nothing compared to what was experienced by the Soviets and China as a result
of their mutual vituperative attacks on each other. We conducted ourselves with restraint and actually succeeded in stimulating constructive debate on several issues.
In the case of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, for example, it is not very well known but Senator Percy spent an enormous amount of time behind the scenes trying to negotiate a common resolution, and he was successful in narrowing down the differences to just a few key points. When the vote was called on individual paragraphs in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, as a result of Senator Percy's efforts particularly, we were able to vote yes on almost every point.
There were about 60 points, and it was only a handful that we did not vote yes on. But generally it is thought of we voted against all points of the charter, which is not so.
There is an important value to negotiations and conciliation behind the scene, and this is what we should do more of.
Those who continually resorted to fiery rhetoric in the last session, for example Cuba, embarrassed their allies and hardened the positions of their adversaries.
No, the solution is not more confrontations. The only useful solution is conciliation. We have much to offer the rest of the world, and they have much to offer us. There is no need to belabor the concept of interdependence. It is now well understood by most national leaders. The time has come to sit down and seriously negotiate away our differences.
PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL
This brings me to the Security Council.
Yes, we have to cast a veto sometimes, but that underscores the fact that nothing gets done by the Security Council unless we approve. And of course, the same applies to the other four permanent members.
Thus our minority interest is more than adequately protected. This is a good system, because it forces compromise when something has to be done.
If nothing else is ever accomplished through the U.N., the value of the peacekeeping actions established by the Security Council have been worth the whole world's total investment in the U.N. for the past 30 years and perhaps for the next 100 years. That is just about what the war in Vietnam cost us, to say nothing about the tragic loss of life and other consequences. Imagine that—the monetary cost to the United States for the war in Vietnam would approximately equal the total cost, for all countries the whole world over, of supporting all parts of the U.N. system for about 130 years.
In both Cyprus and the Middle East, the alternatives to U.N. peacekeening could easily have led to the ultimate tragedy, a nuclear conflict.
U.S. LEADERSHIP TO ACCOMPLISH U.N. PRINCIPLE Of course, peacekeeping is not the same as peacemaking. Peacemaking is primarily what the U.N. was established for—preventing conflicts before thev start. And when that can't be done, stopping the breach of peace by means of an internationally supervised peace force. The U.N. provides the framework within which this can be accomplished. What is needed to bring it about is the political will and Ieadership which the United States is in a unique position to supply.
Can we afford not to move in this direction?
Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Now Mr. C. Maxwell Stanley, president of Stanley Foundation. [Mr. Stanley's biography follows:]
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA OF C. MAXWELL STANLEY
Stanley, C. Maxwell, Consulting Engineer, Stanley Consultants, Inc., Stanley Building, Muscatine, Iowa 52761.
Born.--Corning, Iowa ; June 16, 1904.
Parents.-Claude Maxwell and Laura Esther (Stephenson) Stanley (both deceased).
Spouse.—Elizabeth M. Holthues (married November 11, 1927; Memphis, Tenn.).
Children.-David M., Richard H., Jane S. Buckles.
Education.-University of Iowa-B.S. in General Engineering, 1926, and M.S. in Hydraulic Engineering, 1930.
Fraternities.-Theta Tau, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi.
Professional Experience.--Structural designer-Byllesby Engineering & Man. agement Corp., Chicago, 1926–27, and Department of Grounds and Buildings, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1927–28. Hydraulic engineer-Management & Engineering Corp., Dubuque, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois, 1928–32. Consulting engineer-Young & Stanley, Inc., 1932–39; partner and president, Stanley Engineering Company, 1939–66; president, Stanley Consultants, Inc., Muscatine, Iowa, 1966–71; chairman of board, 1971- . President, Stanley Consultants, Ltd./ Liberia, 1959–71, director, 1971- Managing director, Stanley Consultants, Ltd./ Nigeria, 1960-67, director, 1967
Professional Societies.-Fellow-American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Member-American Institute of Consulting Engineers (Board of Governors, 1973- ), National Society of Professional Engineers, American Water Works Association, National Planning Association, Illinois Society of Professional Engineers, CEC/Iowa, and Iowa Engineering Society (president 1949).
Professional Awards.-Alfred Noble prize (1933) and Collingwood prize (1935) from the American Society of Civil Engineers. John Dunlap award (1943), Anson Marston award (1947), and Distinguished Service award (1962) from the Iowa Engineering Society. The 1965 Award for outstanding service to the engineering profession from the National Society of Professional Engineers.
Professional Registrations.-Registered engineer in 20 states and the District of Columbia, and has National Council of Engineering Examiners Certificate.
Other Business Affiliations.-President of HON Industries Inc., 1944–64, chairman of board, 1964
Other Organizations.-President of The Stanley Foundation, 1956– . World Federalists, U.S.A., member Council, 1947– (president 1954–56 and 1964-66). Participated in Annual Assemblies, 1947 to date; chairman of several. World Association of World Federalists, member Council, 1954– (chairman 1958–65). Participated in several WAWF Congresses; chaired those in Vienna-1961, Tokyo1963, and San Francisco-1965. United Nations Association, director, 1970– Iowa Wesleyan College, trustee, 1951- (chairman 1963–65). Garrett Theological Seminary, trustee, 1972- University of Iowa Foundation, president, 1971(director 1966– ). General Board of Christian Social Concerns. Methodist Church 1960-68. Wesley United Methodist Church, Muscatine, Iowa, honorary trustee. Muscatine Development Corporation, 1957- (president 1957–64).
Honors.--Doctor of Humane Letters from Iowa Wesleyan College, 1961. Doctor of Humanities Honoris Causa from University of Manila, 1970. Distinguished Service Award for 1967 and Hancher-Finkbine Medallion, 1971, from University of Iowa. Grand Commander, Star of Africa, 1963, and Grand Commander. Hnmane Order of African Redemption, 1967, from Government of Liberia. Edwin B. Lindsay Peace Award, UWF. 1966.
Booles.-"Waging Peace.” 1956, Macmillan, and "The Consulting Engineer," 1961, John Wiley (also published in Japanese).
Articles.-Over 60 professional articles. Articles regarding foreign policy including: Environmental Management by the United Nations, Occasional Paper 1, The Stanley Foundation, 1972; Who Will Control Ocean Space? War/Peace Report, March/April, 1973 and Southeast Asian Neutralization: The Time is Now, Occasional Paper 6, The Stanley Foundation, 1974.
Listings in Biographical Publications.—Blue Book. Dictionary of International Biography. Engineers of Distinction. International Businessmen's Who's Who. International Year Book and Statesmen's Who's Who. Leading Men in the U.S.A. National Register of Prominent Americans. Who's Who in America. Who's Who in Engineering. Who's Who in Finance and Industry. Who's Who in the Methodist Church. Who's Who in the Midwest.
Conferences Sponsored by The Stanley Foundation.—Strategy for Peace Conferences: Fifteen conferences from 1960 to 1974.
Co-chairman of the first three; chairman of the last twelve. Conferences on the United Nations of the Next Decade : Chairman, Conferences : San Francisco 1965 ; Burgenstock 1967; Dubrovnik 1968; Quebec 1969; Fredensborg, Denmark, 1970; Sinaia, Romania, 1971; Massachusetts, 1972; Italy, 1973; and Colorado, 1974. Proliferation Unlimited, March 1966. Non-Intervention and Self Determination, October 1966. The United Nations and Multipolarization, May 1967. Press Seminar at the United Nations, November 1967, 1970, 1971, 1972. Conferences on United Nations Procedures, May 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974. United Nations Information Seminar, March 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975. Southeast Asia: Post Vietnam, March 1973. Southeast Asian Peace and Security, September 1973. Conference on Ocean Management, January 1974. Conference on the Inter-American System and World Order, September 1974. Micro-States and the United Nations September 1974. Conference on the NPT and World Security, February 1975.
Participation in Other Conferences, Commissions, or Panels (partial list).Gould House Conference, 1956. Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, 1960 to date. U.S. Army War College Seventh Annual Strategy Seminar, June 1961. White House Conference on International Cooperation, November 1965. UNA-USA National Policy Study, New York, Stopping the Spread of Nuclear Weapons, 1967. Canadian-American Assembly on Nuclear Weapons, Toronto, June 1967. Fifth Dartmouth Conference, Rye, New York, January 1969. Conference on the Role of Force in International Order and U.N. Peacekeeping, Ditchley Park, Oxford, England, May 1969. Conference on Taiwan and American Policy, Washington, D.C., March 1971. Conference on The Human Environment: Science and International Decision-Making, Aspen, Colorado, August 1971.
Congressional Testimony.—The Senate Committee on United Nations Charter Review, 1955. The Senate Committee on Disarmament, 1957. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1961 and 1965. The President's Commission for the Observance of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, October 1970. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Outer Continental Shelf Policy, April 1972. The House Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Law of the Sea, April 1972. World Order Strategy Committee of Members of Congress for Peace Through Law on International Political Order, August 1972. The House Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, House Concurrent Resolution 417, March 1974.
Travels.-Extensive travel, particularly in Europe and Africa and to a lesser extent to Asia and Latin America. Three-week visit to the Soviet Union in June, 1972, as a guest of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
STATEMENT OF C. MAXWELL STANLEY, PRESIDENT, STANLEY
Mr. STANLEY. Mr. Chairman and Senator Percy.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me say I am going to have to leave. Senator Percy will be able to stay.
Senator PERCY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Percy is the one who is really responsible for these hearings.
And after Mr. Stanley finishes, our next session will be next Wednesday, May 14. The hearings have been very good so far, and I anticipate they will continue to be.
I am grateful to all of you who have contributed to these hearings. Senator Percy, if you will take over.
Senator Percy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stanley, go right ahead.
Mr. STANLEY. Mr. Charman, I address two of my friends; you, the Senator from Illinois, my neighboring State, and the senior Senator from my own State, Mr. Dick Clark.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE BASIS FOR TESTIMONY
Before answering the question that you have put to us, I would like to structure the basis on which I answer it against the historical perspective.
I consider that our world is in limbo between the battered century old nation-state political system, and a fledgling new world order that we are working toward more responsive to the demands of peace, security, justice, progress, and human dignity. In this stage of limbo the United Nations is our established world organization. Its 30 years of existence reflects both the need for international organization and all of the traumas of an increasingly interdependent world. I consider that the United Nations, as a bridge between the nation-state political system and some more effective political order, has dual roles. Its immediate role is aiding and abetting the cooperation of nation-states to manage international crises and solve global problems. This is a role that cannot be overemphasized because today's stakes are high. The longer range, but equally important role, is fostering an emerging international political system tailored for tomorrow.
U.N. SUCCESSFUL IN MORE AREAS THAN NOT
In applying your question, "Is the United Nations Working ?” to its immediate role, my answer is a qualified but definite affirmative. Yes; because United Nations' work is successful in more areas than it is not. Yes; because its accomplishments are substantial even though its failures are more spectacular and thus more newsworthy. Yes; because its successes occur despite significant barriers: lack of independent authority, marginal funding and failure of many nations, including our own, to consistently assign high priority to the U.N.'s work.
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL AREAS OF U.N. ACTIVITY In the immediate role, there are three areas of the U.N. activity. One of these, that we have heard a good deal about, is the economic and social role. In the economic and social role, considering the funding that is available and taking cognizance of the mistakes that have been made, the aggregate performance has been worthwhile.