SUGGESTED CHANGES IN U.S. ATTITUDES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in summary, my vision of the United States and the United Nations prompts these suggestions.

That the United States accept its role as a regular member of the family of nations instead of its domineering parent.

That the United States join in building an effective international peacekeeping force to reduce the use of national war power as an instrument of national policy, inasmuch as the security of one nation now requires the security of all.

That the United States recognize that the causes of international violence are found in economic decay, social injustice, and political unrest, and offer its full cooperation to work with other nations to eradicate these conditions.

That the United States select only its most qualified and outstanding citizens to represent it in international gatherings and organizations. That the United States spend more money and resources in the search for peace for the human race while reducing its commitment to the arms race.

An American statesman, Adlai Stevenson, once said:

The United Nations is not and must never be a weapon for the United States. It is a genuine international organization which can only really be effective if it is not dominated by us. The danger exists that those who are afraid and lack assurance would like to avoid the free exchange of conflicting ideas, of concepts and of terminology, particularly if from time to time matters do not go just as we might wish. However, it is we who evolve best in this free forum because it is our natural habitat, and if we have the courage to go ahead and the boldness to stand the test of an open society, if we have the courage to build, even something which is not perfect from our point of view, I can foresee only a more significant dialogue, a progressive lessening of tension and, finally the predominance of a better set of ideas.

It has been said that some Americans fear the inability of their country to make peace more than its ability to make war. I dare to hope that there is no less talent in this Nation for dealing with the human problems confronting us all than there is in any other nation. I only suggest that we summon up the courage to try it.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Miss Frederick. That is, I think, a very fine statement. We are delighted to have it.

Now we will open questioning to the panel, with the 10-minute rule to be observed.

I am sorry, I am going to have to leave. I have a commitment I have to keep, and for that reason I will not be able to stay here for the questioning. But I know that it will be good and helpful to all of us. Senator Humphrey, would you take over and preside?

Senator HUMPHREY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will. Let me join in the commendation which has been given to Miss Frederick by Senator Sparkman. It is a powerful statement, and one that is much needed. And I hope that it is listened to and read in other places than just here.

POSITION OF U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.

The five recommendations that you made in the summation, are recommendations that I fully subscribe to as an individual, personally, and as a Senator. I think they are very sound and desperately needed part of the policy of our Government. Let me quickly say that during the time that I had the privilege of serving in the Cabinet, we had two Ambassadors to the United Nations; Adlai Stevenson and Arthur Goldberg. I thought that both of them were gifted and talented men and represented the best in American quality and talent. The real problem is that the Ambassador to the United Nations is sort of set off up there by himself, and that the State Department and, indeed, the President look upon that office as an appendage, rather than an integral part of the total foreign policy and national security policy of our country. I watched two distinguished Ambassadors trying to get the attention of the more powerful figures within the Government.

EFFECT OF VIETNAM ON U.S. VIEW OF U.N.

I did go to the United Nations as the Vice President to ask U Thant to remain on behalf of the Government of the United States at a time when he was uncertain as to whether he wanted to. There were, later on, differences that grew out of the war. I have a feeling that as our difficulties in the war increased, our onus from the United Nations became even more obvious. The unwillingness to work through the U.N. at that time was always perplexing to me. The excuse was that if you did it, you would precipitate confrontation with the Soviet Union. I never felt there was a great deal of validity to that particular proposition.

DIFFICULTY OF GETTING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF U.N. CONTRIBUTIONS

Now more specifically, let me say that I have handled the foreign assistance bill on the floor of the Senate for 3 years running, in which the authorizations for the United Nations are included. Our foreign assistance bill includes not only the bilateral assistance, but also multilateral assistance. I want to say to this panel that you have a lot of work to do out in the public. I have to work at it. My political life depends on it. To handle foreign assistance in the U.S. Senate is just about as popular as handling a Zionist organization in Saudi Arabia. I want to tell you that it is an almost impossible task. If you only knew how we have to work to get those votes.

I see my distinguished colleague, Senator Javits, here, who is a stalwart in these battles. We have to plead and beg to get these votes. We won by one vote the last time. One other time we lost it, and had to use what we call a continuing resolution.

What I am getting at is, there are those of you who come here so knowledgeable about the importance of some of these programs, such as the U.N. and its many related agencies-the United Nations Development Fund, the UNESCO, the UNICEF, the Special Fund and the U.N. Assembly and all that goes with it, and our American contributions to them. But the Members of Congress, who are supposed to represent the public and have to go home and get elected, are about as interested in supporting the money for these programs as they are

in falling off a cliff in the Grand Canyon. It is an incredible ordeal. Now I am going to have to do this again this year because I chair the Foreign Assistance Subcommittee here. I happen to be a strong proponent of the U.N. Senator McGee has been a tower of strength here in this effort, but we have unbelievable difficulties trying to get our appropriations.

Miss Frederick, you know, $500 million was our total, sum aggregate total, of U.S. assistance to all activities of the United Nations last year. That, in terms of national security, is hardly worth mentioning now. And yet, this is not what is projected to the American public.

CRYSTALLIZING AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR PERMANENT U.N.

PEACEKEEPING FORCE

We have to get the message across. We have to get the message over of what the U.N. has done in peacekeeping, and how our country has not supported actively the creation of a truly international peace force. We have supported these ad hoc temporary arrangements, and I think it is to our credit that we have.

I remember the situation in Cyprus and the pleas of President Johnson to the Canadians to be of help; the Congo, and the Middle East, all of which have received our support.

What do you suggest that we do by way of crystalizing public support for the creation of a truly international peace force?

Should it include U.S. forces, or Soviet forces, or are you of the opinion-and I speak to you, Miss Frederick, primarily that it should be of other nations?

Could you give us your views on that?

Miss FREDERICK. Senator, as you, I'm sure know, up until this most recent force now in the Middle East, it has been felt to be the better part of wisdom to use only units from the small, more or less neutral, nations, so that the cold war would not become involved by the big power rivalry.

Now I believe the United States and the Soviet Union are acting as kind of advisers, or in an advisory capacity and as observers. And there are, for the first time, representatives of Eastern Europe involved.

I would suppose that as long as the big powers are in such a state of rivalry, it might be well to keep their military forces out, utilizing policing units from the smaller nations only. But they should offer whatever logistical, financial and other support is necessary. And if the time comes when the United States and the Soviet Union are really in a brotherhood, rather than in their present power competition, then I would think they could take part also. As of now, however, they should stay out of some of these conflicts and give the U.N. peacekeepers a chance, backing the international force instead of involving their own unilateral policies in the areas involved.

Senator HUMPHREY. But as of the present, you feel that it is possibly wise not to have the United States and the Soviet Union directly involved?

Miss FREDERICK. Yes, I should think so, Senator.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, I would surely concur in that.

54-738-75-15

U.N.—A PARLIAMENT OF GOVERNMENTS, NOT MAN

May I ask Mr. Scammon, whom I did not have the privilege of listening to, but who, I gather, pointed out that this was not a parliament of man-speaking of the U.N.-but rather, a parliament of governments.

Is that correct?

Mr. SCAMMON. Yes.

Senator HUMPHREY. That was part of the thrust of your testimony? Mr. SCAMMON. And, as such, Senator Humphrey, it is too important for us to lose in the rhetoric of, for example, the General Assembly sessions.

I think it is a difficult problem, because the General Assembly is important, but the more importance you give it, the less, I think, you can accomplish in the very kind of negotiations that lead to the setting up of this sort of peacekeeping machinery. This kind of machinery is not really negotiated in the U.N.-in the General Assembly. It is negotiated between the powers that are in New York, using the U.N. as a useful device for securing on a bilateral or multilateral basis, the maximum areas of cooperation. And we all know there are areas where the peacekeeping machinery has not been particularly effective, where it has been suspended, where the troops have been withdrawn quickly because they have been threatened.

But, then, one of the purposes of diplomacy is to avoid, as much as possible, confrontation in vital areas in which international interests are involved. Because if you can keep the area of confrontationconflict-in those areas which are relatively unimportant, you can get much less commitment to involve other kinds of forces that are available to you.

Miss FREDERICK. I would just say, in connection with what Mr. Scammon has said, that where the U.N. peacekeeping force has not been as effective as it might have been, or has been hastily withdrawn, are instances in which the U.N., as such, and the Secretary General specifically, have not had the support of the big powers, because the latter were too much concerned with their own rival interests.

DEVELOPMENT AID THROUGH THE U.N.

Senator HUMPHREY. Last evening I had the privilege of visiting with the Prime Minister from the Netherlands, and in his brief remarks over dinner, he said that this coming year, the Netherlands will contribute 112 percent of their gross national product to developmental assistance; 11/2 percent.

Miss FREDERICK. Did he say the United States should go and do likewise?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes, he indicated that by indirection.

I just want to go back to the real problem that we wrestle withthose of us that are prodevelopmental assistance. I think our present rate of assistance is less than one-half of 1 percent, and yet, it is an almost impossible task to get even that much.

Many of us believe that more and more of this assistance ought to go through the multilateral and multinational organizations. I have noticed, in what testimony I have heard, and quickly read, that there

has been very little attention given to what we call the economic and social agencies of the U.N.

I have always felt that these many agencies are, in the very real sense, the body, and not so much the structure, but the lifeblood of the United Nations. For example, in the Mekong area, there has been a U.N. agency there all the time and it has been working on the development of the Mekong. And it has, despite the war and everything else, been going on and making some progress.

GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE U.N. OUT TO PEOPLE

We Americans know very little about this. How do we get information to our people about it? You know, we in public life find that people respond to what is on the television, what is in the newspapers; and they really do not read too much of these big journals that we like to publish our thoughtful, constructive, intellectual articles. You just have to face it; I used to look in my office, at a thousand letters a day, and I want to tell you, out of a thousand a day, there are two a week on the U.N. And I have a pretty intelligent population; we have a high degree of literacy; we have an international center in our community; we have a strong U.N. organization. But the reason for this is, that the only time anything ever gets reported on the United Nations is when somebody calls us a dirty name in the General Assembly, or when Arafat comes up there.

Some of you are in the media business. I am laying it on the line. I mean, after all, where do people get their education? Very little is taught about the United Nations in the school systems of our country, very little is taught about the rest of the world in the schools of our country. Most people do not go to college. People that testify here go to college; but a lot of the people that vote do not go to college-at least, they did not get to Harvard, and they did not get 4 years, or 6 or 8 years of college education. The trouble is that we talk to each other. We are floating around on cloud nine up here, and the folks are down there tilling the soil. All that those who are out there tilling the soil ever hear about these matters is when they hear about the bad things the Russians do, the bad things the Chinese do, and the bad things that happen in the United Nations. And it is inevitable that they are going to have a bad opinion because they do not have the time, nor have they had the orientation that brings them into a more positive understanding of what this is all about.

I think you are people who are tremendously important in all of this. You have a bigger job than even this committee. I think the committee will more or less respond to what happens at home. I know there are Members of Congress that would love to go along with us on many of these votes, but they listen back home, and all of a sudden they hear, no more of that U.Ñ. stuff.

These public opinion polls are very reassuring for people that get the results that they like. But when it comes right down to the nittygritty, if some 75 percent of the people are for the United Nations, they have forgotten about it when we had the authorization and the appropriations up here, I will tell you that. Because if we have 10

.