« ПретходнаНастави »
Senator HUMPHREY. We were involved for two decades before that in efforts that saved the lives of millions of people. I am not going to forget the Marshall plan, our AID program, our food program. We drew down on our food reserves in this country in 1947 to less than 1 day's supply and gave it away, depending on God Almighty and weather to give us a good crop. I was involved in that. I come from the Midwest. We had 80 million tons of wheat left, which was not enough to feed chickens. We took a chance. I think we ought to get credit for some of the good things we have done. We get kicked around.
I have been a sharp critic of this Government–I do not mean this administration—I mean of this Government. I do believe that our Government does not play a proper role in the U.N. I do believe that we underestimate its potentials and I think we have helped weaken it. I must say again I get a little weary hearing just criticism. Might I also add, if you keep telling the American people all the time that we have always been wrong, we have done nothing right, they are not going to respond. They need to be told once in a while not only did we take lives, make a tragic mistake, but we have done some good things.
Mr. Falk. I think that is fine to tell the American people. That is not my point.
Senator HUMPHREY. And the world, too, needs to remember it.
Mr. FALK. I am trying to make a rather simple practical point, namely, that in my judgment at this stage in international relations the U.S. cannot effectively present itself to the world as a force for good independently of doing concrete things, and to lecture foreign governments or to point to the abuses that exist elsewhere in the world will be viewed as a diversionary maneuver. The most this approach can do is to give a warm feeling domestically. In my view this is the reason that Ambassador Moynihan's way of thinking about these issues has attracted a large following, but it is a very shortsighted attitude toward how to constructively and effectively participate in international institutions.
Senator HUMPHREY. You made a very valuable point. I think it is a matter of how it is done, more than the fact that it is done.
DEFENDING THE U.S. SYSTEM
I do think you are right—it does not do us much good to lecture them—but I am in politics. If someone makes a false charge at me and repeats it and repeats it, I do not consider it abrasive if I say to him, you do not speak the truth; here are the things are are true, if you can refute them, well and good.
I am not trying to tell some country over there how they should run their government. I think that is another matter. We need a sense of idealism. But idealism still includes free speech, freedom of press, the right of trial by jury. We still believe in these things, and I think we ought to say so. If other countries do not have them, we should not lecture but tell them we believe in them and practice them well.
Mr. Falk. Could I interrupt you for a second on that point? If you were to tell that to Chileans, what they would say is, “We would like to see you dismantle the covert operation's capability of the CIA, then tell us about your commitment to civil liberties.”
Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, I know, that is one place where they have some evidence. However, even in that instance, I still think it was hardly the best of government on the part of the Allende regime to suppress the press. I do not believe that you have to stand by and start making Allende look like an international hero. I was one of those who hoped we could cooperate, when he was elected. Other governments become repressive when opposition comes and they start cracking down. It was wrong for us to have a covert operation there, and we have exposed it, which is more than other countries do.
I do not want us to downgrade ourselves all the time. You are bright and intellectual, showing how wrong we are. We were wrong in many things but we also need to outline those things that are right. I have not seen any other countries being very concerned about refugees around the world. You cannot get a pittance, and there are countries that have billions and billions of dollars. When people are hungry and in trouble and sick they come to the United States.
I have to let you go. I will bet you are glad, too. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, the committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair.] QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PERCY AND ANSWERED BY PROFESSOR FALK
1. You have stated that many governments from the Third World which are most "progressive” on the international stage pursue contradictory policies toward their own people. Would you cite some examples of this?
2. Do you think delegates of the United States should point out these contradictions in the General Assembly?
3. What likelihood do you see that the developed and developing nations will be able to agree on programs increasing economic distribution to the poorer countries without causing serious economic dislocations in the richer countries?
4. Do you think the United States should modify its position of opposition to indexation, the price linkage between raw materials exported by the developing countries and manufactured goods imported by them from the developed countries?
5. I am puzzled, Professor Falk, by your reference in Footnote 4 in which you cite my speech on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties as, and I quote you, "an official attack", unquote. I have reread my speech, which was given in the Second Committee on Dec. 6th, and I don't see how you could characterize it as an attack. The strongest language that I used in the speech was the following: "Many of the unagreed provisions. the view of my Government, are fundamental and unacceptable in their present form. To cite a few: the treatment of foreign investment in terms which do not take fully into account respect for agreements and international obligations; and the endorsement of concepts of producer cartels and indexation of prices. As a result. Mr. Chairman, we have before us a draft Charter which is unbalanced and which fails to achieve the purpose of encouraging harmonious economic relations and needed development. Moreover, the provisions of the Charter would discourage rather than encourage the capital flow which is vital for development.” I really don't see any attack in this language, which is a straightforward explanation of the American position. ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ME BY SENATOR CHARLES H. PERCY
1. The contradictions between foreign and domestic policy is not unique with the Third World. For instance, many critics of U.S. foreign policy would argue a reverse contradiction for the United States—that is, we are relatively progressive on domestic issues, but reactionary on many international questions. When it comees to identifying Third World countries which illustrate my proposition considerable analysis would be needed to justify a specific assertion. Let me take three examples of governments which champion Third World claims for a new international order, and yet fail, in my judgment, to embody even minimal principles of equity in their official domestic policies : Brazil, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. There are, unfortunately, many other examples throughout the Third
World, but I chose countries which clearly had the capabilities to reconcile their domestic and international postures if they chose to do so.
2. No, it would serve only rhetorical purposes to point out these contradictions, and it would seem rather imprudent as the examples I have given are geopolitically allied with the United States in other settings. Beyond this, I do not believe, except for limited circumstances, that it is helpful to discuss domestic policy in the General Assembly. The two kinds of limited circumstances I have in mind are, first, where an overwhelming global consensus exists as to the domestic policy (e.g. apartheid in South Africa) and, second, where a gross horror is being committed (e.g. genocide in Burundi, torture of political opposition).
3. I believe that constructive cooperation between developed and developing countries can occur without dislocation in rich countries, but only if firm and enlightened national leadership emerges, especially in the United States. Programs need to be explained to the American public and adjustments made, especially by large corporate interests. I believe the well-being of the American people and the poorer nations of the world can be simultaneously served by bringing real regulatory energies to bear upon agribusiness and the large oil companies so as to avoid excess profits and to relate productive priorities more closely to human needs.
4. Yes, I believe that indexing would help stabilize the terms of trade in a manner that would defuse many of the international economic controversies now active in world affairs and avoid some of the unevenness associated with present movements of commodiay prices.
5. I agree that my reference to your UN speech as "an official attack" on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties was unwarranted and have modified the language in my text to read "an official explanation." I hope such a change meets your concern.
THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 1975
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. John Sparkman (chairman), presiding
Present: Senators Sparkman, Pell, Humphrey, Clark, Javits, and Percy.
The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order, please.
We are very glad Senator Percy is here, because these hearings were initiated at his request. We have had very good hearings on the United Nations and we are glad to continue this morning.
Today we are hearing from distinguished private citizens who, for the most part, do not have a close identification with the United Nations. We started off with people who are directly connected with or indirectly concerned about the United Nations, but today, we have asked people who do not have a close identification with the United Nations. We have asked them to turn a nonprofessional eye on the United Nations and to share with us their version of what they would like to see that organization become. As I introduce them, I will ask them to take a seat at the witness table.
First is the distinguished architect, R. Buckminster Fuller, who hardly needs an introduction. He is best remembered perhaps by Americans for the U.S. Pavilion at Expo '67 in Montreal, Canada. Mr. Fuller, will you come around and take a seat at the table.
Next, we have Richard Scammon, director of the Elections Research Center, best known, probably, for his coauthorship of “This U.S.A.: The Real Majority.” I have had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Scammon on different occasions discuss Democratic successes, and maybe sometimes Republican successes, but we are glad to have him
Next will come Mr. Bruno V. Bitker, who is Chairman of the Wisconsin's Governor's Committee on the United Nations, and a member of the Wisconsin Revolution Bicentennial Commission.
And then we will hear from Mrs. Robbins, better known to us as Pauline Frederick. Pauline, I did know that was your name. Mrs. Robbins is an astute observer of the United Nations for NBC. She
( 181 )