« ПретходнаНастави »
problems that are out there in the world—it does not meet the reality of India's nuclear capability, nor does it meet the very real prospect of an era of desperate politics with respect to economic redistribution.
I think we forget that Japan initiated World War II largely out of a sense that it had no peaceful alternative means through which to achieve a reasonable role in the international economy.
Senator Case. When you refer to Japan, that was a group of militarists plus super capitalists. Yet there is no such thing as a Japan apart from its people and its people happened to be under domination of that group at that time and the situation there is quite differnt
SOUTH AFRICA AND HISTORIC INEVITABILITY
When you speak to historical necessity or historical inevitability, I am not sure that I can accept this. I cannot, for instance, see why there should not be a small white colony or white country, if you will, in South Africa? Why does it all have to be black? Inevitably why? I do not believe that you can talk about historical necessity and invoke that kind of thing as sanction for views that you hold very deeply, and I respect you on that. You must recognize, however, there are other people who hold contrary views here and they do not accept that historical inevitability. There is more than one solution to many problems.
Mr. Falk. But, Senator, when you talk about southern Africa as providing an opportunity for diversity in the world you have to realize that in Rhodesia, for instance, the white ruling minority is onetwentieth of the population of that country.
Senator CASE. I am not saying these things should not be readjusted in proper ways.
say that it does not necessarily mean wiping out the whites in order to give justice to the blacks other than wiping out an area in which whites have exclusive national control.
Mr. FALK. That has not been proposed by anyone.
Senator CASE. Of course not, because that is because of the way you insist on framing the issue.
Mr. Falk. No, it isn't. I simply think that the view you and Senator Javits have asserted makes the eventual outcome much more hazardous for the white minorities in these parts of the world because it does not allow the advocates of change any plausible prospect of peaceful reconciliation.
Senator CASE. That is not fair. Neither Senator Javits nor I for a moment would support a situation in which that prospect does not exist. If you would consent to that point you would find us most active in working out a kind of change, but not the kind of change that necessarily turns things completely upside down, because that will be just as much an injustice and wrong as anything else. And when you talk about being scared of India because she has atomic weapons, or anybody else—we cannot be scared; we have to do the thing we conceive to be right, whether it is going to pull the world down on top of us. That is absolutely true. You cannot let irresponsible people in charge of the great power
govern the course of your actions. The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if I may get a question in. It seems to me this dialog has gone far enough.
Senator Case. I agree.
THE UNITED NATIONS AS A PLATFORM FOR VIEWS
The CHAIRMAN. Let me get back to the question of the United Nations. I have many questions but I am just going to ask you this question.
I have always had a feeling that if the United Nations did nothing in the world except to let the representatives of all of the nations that wanted to come there and talk, it would be well worthwhile. Would you agree?
Mr. Falk. Yes, Senator, very much. In fact one of the principal points in my prepared statement is that the United Nations performs an invaluable function and role by providing a way for governments to get feelings before world public opinion.
The CHAIRMAN. Every nation in the world regardless of how small or how large has an equal opportunity to make their views known on that platform.
Mr. Falk. Yes. The most significant point here is that it provides them with a peaceful way of making their views known.
I think one of the things we have not understood is that the only option the Palestinians had to get onto the international agenda was by shooting their way on. That is why I think that the notion of listening to those who have claims giving them the opportunity to state those claims, is not a regressive but a progressive thing.
NONDISCRIMINATION AGAINST RICH AND POWERFUL
Senator Javits. One word in that regard. I think Senator Case and I are only pleading for nondiscrimination against us because we are rich and powerful. We have as great a tyranny of the weak as of the strong, and he and I exercise the idea of getting out of the U.N. as unthinkable, unthinkable, but within the U.N. let us have a good stirring, no holdbars debate, and we have the same privileges the Third World has in that regard. That is all we say. We do not have to be inhibited because the poor timid soul will run away because we are angry.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a good way to say amen to this discussion. Senator Clark.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Professor Falk. I was interested in your comment about General Assembly actions being very significant in a symbolic way. You gave a number of examples of that and I think you are right.
POSITIVE ECONOMIC PROPOSALS FOR NEXT ASSEMBLY
Does that not mean, therefore, that if we are going to participate in that forum we have to be prepared, particularly when we go to the next General Assembly in September, to make some positive proposals, particularly in the economic area, particularly about such things as commodity agreements or, perhaps, with regard to Southern Africa ? Do you not think that is going to be essential to successful U.S. participation in the Assembly?
Mr. FALK. Yes; I very much share that attitude toward American participation in the United Nations. I think the notion of getting back at the Third World will lead us nowhere. The only possibility of achieving a more stable and moderate international order is for us
to come forward with constructive and credible proposals that demonstrate a genuine interest in devising peaceful resolutions to these outstanding international disputes. That is really why I disagree with Senators Case and Javits, to put it differently, for us of all people to go in there and give them hell, is what I find particularly questionable at this stage of history.
We have to start from the realization that America's world prestige is at a low level at this time. We have come through the 10 years of the Indochina conflict, which regardless of how it is viewed in the United States—has seriously discredited the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world. I think it is very important for our own people, as well as for our relations with the rest of the world, that we reinvigorate the genuine idealist roots that exist in this country, and that we come forward in this spirit with concrete constructive proposals.
WHY IS THE UNITED STATES IN THE MINORITY ?
Senator CLARK. Why have we not done that, in your judgment? Increasingly the United States finds itself not only in the minority, but in a minority of only four or five nations. We are not even voting with the rest of the developed world, not to mention the group of 77. Why is it we have not been able to come forward with any positive proposal in those areas?
Mr. FALK. What I fear has happened, Senator Clark, is that we have gotten ourselves locked into an ideological position of opposition to the Third World and that we find ourselves increasingly eager to fight rhetorical battles to maintain certain positions that are politically obsolete. The issue of China's representation was perhaps the best illustration of this. That battle was, in my view, a symbolic struggle for the wrong principle, our insistence on hanging on until defeat—which was just a matter of time-merely conveyed to the rest of the world the degree to which we want to resist the active forces of international change, no matter how successful those forces may be. As I see it, the underlying issue is that we are not ideologically able to adjust to the fact that changes are taking place in the world and that they require a new posture and a new kind of realism, so to speak. In a peculiar way we are being negatively idealistic, we are being idealistic about things that no longer pertain to the world of reality, and we will suffer adverse consequences as a result.
Senator CLARK. I do not want to end on this note, but I think my time is about up. I hope that we have not come so far from our own beginnings—from our own revolution—that we have become such a "have” country that we are immune to those countries that are still struggling for majority rule, and I think particularly of southern Africa. I hope we have not become so affluent that we do not still have some sense of the nature of the problems in the Third World. Is there not some hope that, as we look to the future, we will be able to come forward with proposals with regard to southern Africa, with regard to the so-called new world economic order, that can put us in a position of at least understanding the aspirations of some of these countries?
Is that too pessimistic a view? Mr. FALK. I would make a very big distinction between the American people and the executive branch of the Government. I think the
American people would support a program of constructive participation in the world if it were properly explained to them by the national leadership. And I think that the public opinion polls that have been done on attitudes toward foreign policy are much more encouraging than our official stand on many of these issues would indicate.
So that I think the challenge is one of trying to influence the official institutions to take more enlightened positions and then trying to build public support for those positions.
I think you did a great public service at the Rome Food Conference by really articulating a genuinely idealistic strain in American attitudes toward the hunger of other human beings, and it was really only through the kind of effort that you made, I think, that the Government was persuaded to come as far as it did. It did not come far enough, as you know, but I think that is the kind of illustration of an issue which obviously means a great deal to people throughout the world, and one which we could become more forthcoming and pursue a constructive policy that might reestablish our credibility as a global leader concerned with human development in the world.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Humphrey. I have an appointment, I am going to have to leave. Will you gentlemen carry on?
Senator HUMPHREY. I have just a couple of comments I want to make.
May I say first of all, Professor Falk, as a member of the committee, I am very grateful for your presence and also for all of the things that
you have said and written about American foreign policy in the past, and particularly as it relates to the U.N.
I believe that you will find that most of the members of this committee, if not all, are essentially strong supporters of U.S. participation in the U.N. and of the United Nations as an international organization and instrument.
LEGITIMATE ARGUMENTS SUPPORTED
I believe what Senator Javits and Senator Case were trying to say, and I thought they said it quite well, was that there is no reason for the United States to back away from what it believes is a legitimate argument.
One of the things that has disturbed me in my many years of public life are people who think they are so right that they walk out. That is not what I call discussion or dialog or debate. That is another way of copping out when you ought to be staying in.
I do not want the U.S. delegation to walk out on someone who makes a speech, and I do not like to see other people walk out, even though I realize they have that right. It is immature, juvenile, irresponsible, and unacceptable it seems to me.
I believe that people should be willing to engage in rational discussion even if the rhetoric hits a rather high threshold and pitch. I think this is essentially what we are saying here.
I do not agree with many policies of our Government. I have been very, very much opposed to our so-called Africa policy because I think it has been essentially negative and a nonpolicy.
I served as chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee and it is a lonely position, believe me. I tried to put some money in the assistance bill for Africa and was chastized for it because I thought we should be making an effort that ought to be made. I found no support for it. I must say that that did not bother me a bit because I have a lot of areas in which I found no support and it does not bother me. It generally makes me think I am most likely on the right track because people come around to support something after it becomes rather commonplace and acceptable.
I do believe that it is necessary for the United States to be an active participant in the U.N., and that does mean debate and that does mean standing up for our position even when our position at times may be proven wrong. That happens in the Senate. All of us Senators are in debates all the time and when we find that the majority does not agree with us, we have to accept that position. There are many times that we hold a position that is changed as a result of debate..
I think it is important, however, to recognize that it is a very, very different world. Many of these Third World countries are mislabeled. They are not going to be Third World, they are going to be First World, with commodities that are in scarce supply, and like many of the new rich they sometimes become a little flamboyant. That can happen. That has happened with us. We have gone through all of these experiences as a country. So I am not worried too much about that. And I have some sympathy for people who are the producers of raw materials. They have always been getting the short end of the stick. And many of them today want to get their fair share. So I understand that.
I believe in international agreements on trade and commodities and that the U.N. offers a good forum for it. I believe it is a place that American idealism can be started. I could not
with you more that the regrettable aspect of our foreign policy is finding ourselves, for whatever reason, over many years associated with less than progressive regimes, reactionaries.
IS BILATERAL AID TO DICTATORSHIP WORSE THAN UNILATERAL ?
Having said that, some of my colleagues have been sitting where you are in the room saying we ought to stop all aid to any country that is a dictatorship.
That makes a good statement. But in the U.N., how many governments do you have—how many representatives are there—that really represent countries that have free elections, representative governments, and democratic institutions ?
Is it wrong to put aid through our bilateral program to countries that are governed by a junta or military clique or some kind of particular dictatorship, half-baked, full-baked, or whatever it is may be. Is it any more wrong to do it that way than to give the money to the U.N. and let them do it?
Do not misunderstand me, I am for aid through the U.N. If you had to be in my position as chairman of the Foreign Assistance Subcommittee, and here comes a rather substantial number of my colleagues who say no more aid to any country that has a dictator, how would