Слике страница
PDF
ePub

percent of the people being for something, we get much more support from that 10 percent than we get from the 75 percent.

Now, what would you do to help me?

PEACE IS DULL READING

Miss FREDERICK. Well, Senator, I do not have an answer but I think we have to go back to the basic problem about publicity which was phrased by Thomas Hardy, and that is, war makes rattling good history, but peace is dull reading.

The public has to realize that there is news that is not necessarily conflict and controversy.

Senator HUMPHREY. Wait a minute. Let me just take exception to that.

I think that is the definition of news handed me by the representatives of the media. I think that it is not dull reading to read about a U.N. organization that has moved into an area and cleaned up disease, helped fix up homes, cleaned out debris.

As a matter of fact, when we have a cyclone—and we have a lot of them and tornadoes in the United States—it is on the TV all the time. They are showing how the folks all got together and fixed up the town, and how the United Fund helped out. And they will put that on every once in a while. Of course, they have to have a tornado before they do that; I realize that.

I really think this is the problem we have today—this powerful instrument called the TV, which gets to more people in one day thar all the teachers in the United States will get to in 10 years. And that only comes when there is what they call man bites dog; that is news. I do not think that is true.

I think the fact that the dog has bitten the man is still news, but somebody has decided that it is not news. And to get in the news, all you have to do is get in a fight. All I have to do right now is say some nasty, mean thing about the President, or the Secretary of State, something that is as ridiculous as a whirling dervish, and bingo, it is just like that. Any man who has been in public life 2 weeks and who does not know that is in the wrong business.

And we, once in a while, despair trying to be constructive. Let me say, you really can despair trying to be constructive, because constructive work is something that they like to remind you of in your obituary, when you cannot hear it. You know, the get together afterward, and they said, oh, I remember dear old Hubert. But I would like to pop up out of the coffin and see if they really say it. Miss FREDERICK. Senator, without disagreeing with what

you

have said, I just want to make a point of clarification.

I am not here today as a spokesman for the broadcast media.
Senator HUMPHREY. I know that.

Miss FREDERICK. Primarily because of the fact that I got too old for broadcasting and had to be retired. So I am not representing broadcasting at all. Senator HUMPHREY. The reason I asked you

is because you

have been at it so well for so many years and because I think you have a sense of balance about it. I shall quit. I have taken more than my time, but this has bothered me to no end. I listened to a man last

night on the “Tonight Show” who had things to say about the Congress of the United States that were outrageous and they got the applause. You know, you just want to quit. Why go through all this baloney, this guff, all that people shove on you, if it is going to be distorted. And much of it is about what we are talking about here today. Go ahead, Senator Percy.

Senator PERCY. I do want to thank our witnesses today for what I consider to be extraordinarily good testimony.

I am going to limit my initial questioning to 10 minutes so that Senator Clark can come in. Mrs. Robbins indicated, at the outset of your

testimony, that you had worked very closely with the State Department, in your capacity as a journalist.

WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE U.N. AND STATE DEPARTMENT

I would like to ask you whether in this, the year of International Women's Year, women are playing the kind of role in the State Department, and in the U.N., that they are capable and competent to play, and why more women are not in policymaking roles in both organizations?

Miss FREDERICK. Senator, I am glad you gave me an opportunity to say that I think it is disgraceful that we have approached International Women's Year with the old discriminations rampant, not only in the United Nations and through the United Nations, but in the United States. And I have tried to say, today, as well as in other statements I have made, that I believe that the world deserves an opportunity for women who bear at least half the responsibility for creating the human race, to have at least that much responsibility for trying to save it.

And I think it is high time, since, with all due respect to those of your sex present, men have made such a disgraceful history of war and destruction and unhappiness in the world, women should have a chance to try to do something about it. I fear international relations are suffering from sexism and machismo.

Senator PERCY. I thank you very much for that comment. Senator Humphrey and I were cosponsors yesterday of a congressional conference on International Women's Year, and I think your comment closely parallels our own feelings. We think it would be a better world if women had a much more important policymaking role in the for. eign policies of their respective countries. And if we do anything this year, it is to emphasize the importance of that, and also to stimulate women to take the kind of initiative that you have taken over the years.

IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL INTEGRITY

Dr. Fuller, you state, and I quote, “Whether the world survives birth into an entirely new world and universe relationship depends on our individual integrity, not on that of political representatives.” This is a very powerful and provocative statement, with particular interest to the political representatives right here.

Would you care to expand on that?

Mr. FULLER. You speak of phenomena of which we know littlethe as yet mystifying phenomena that transpires as that unspoken communication between humans which occurs when human beings are, within themselves, highly convinced of the integrity of their decisions having been made only on behalf of the many. I am quite confident that we will have scientifically reproducible proof within the next decade that what humans experience as telepathy is ultra, ultra high frequency electromagnetic wave communication to transceive which all humans are innately equipped.

Humanity has been asking much too much of its political representatives. It has asked them to be responsible for thinking. Now, for the first time in history, all of humanity is literate, and all of humanity knows about everybody else. For the first time in the history of humanity we have the capability of safely implementing direct democratic expression. I meet very large numbers of audiences—this last year an average of 1,500 people on 150 occasions. The majority of my audiences is young. I established a self-discipline a half century ago whereby I was never to ask anybody to listen to me. I was to talk to others only when I was asked to do so—and then I must give them my best. More and more people everywhere ask me to come to talk to them. I am telling them about our "final exam” and that I feel that whether humanity can "pass” is to be answered entirely within the mind of the individual. Do we really have the integrity? Do we really understand that each of us is only here for all the others? If the answer is, “I am here for me,” then I think humanity is going to fail its exam.

I think that extraordinary individual courage—which dares to listen to its own cognition of the truth—is going to have to be manifest. I feel the knowledge that this is so is now emerging into prominence in human thought everywhere around the world. I have been around the world 37 times now; not as a tourist but incidental to my work. I do not have any agency or sales staff who solicit employment of whatever my potential functioning may be. I do not compete with others. Whatever I do with other humans must be spontaneously initiated by others. In this way, I stay attuned to Nature's evolutionary wave front. I have been invited to speak or take an appointment at 421 universities and colleges around the world. From direct spontaneous talk with people around the world, I find arising a spirit of truthfulness, comprehension and tolerance as most powerfully manifest, in the voung world which transcends all political biases.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much. Mr. Scammon, we welcome you this morning as not only a leading expert on public attitudes, but also as a former delegate to the U.N. General Assembly.

NATURE OF THIRD WORLD MAJORITY AT THE U.N.

Do you observe any similarities between the third world majority in the General Assembly and the real majority of the American voting public, which you and Mr. Wattenburg studied in 1968 ?

Mr. SCAMMON. No, I would not think that there would be many simiJarities except we are all members of the human race. It stops about there.

The fact is, many of the third world countries are not democratic states. One would hope they are emerging to that status, but unless you can find a freedom to speak out, whether pro or con, up or down, sideways, you cannot really maintain that kind of close association with people which is so essential as you pointed out, Senator Humphrey. And it is so important if you are really going to translate this parliament of governments to a parliament of man—which one would hope it might eventually become.

So, I would say that the institutions of the societies that are represented in the present majority are not the kind that I would find replicated in this country; at least not in all cases, though there are some that are. But unfortunately, in many of the third world countries, the development of what Mr. Roosevelt referred to so significantly as the four freedoms, are so limited that I would think the nature of representative function does not become prostituted-it is not that, it just becomes different. And it is very difficult to judge in terms of relativities.

Senator PERCY. Thank you.

CHANGING VOTING PROCEDURES AT THE U.N.

Dr. Bitker, you made a recommendation for changing the voting procedure. Certainly we should pay close attention to your views because of the long-term efforts you have made to achieve world peace through world law.

You suggested that the one-nation, one-vote formula might be retained in certain types of decisions with, weighted or proportional voting in other types of decisions. That reminds me of the old story of the husband making the major decisions and the wife making the minor decisions, but the husband retains the right to decide which is major and which is minor.

In this case, have you considered which types of decisions would be more appropriately made by weighted or proportional voting, and who would decide which way a vote is taken?

Mr. BITKER. Senator Percy, I would like to respond. I do not want to avoid answering the question, but I think it would be-I could not do it in a brief period, as I am sure you recognize by your own experience last fall. But I would like, if you do not mind, to respond to an issue that Senator Humphrey has raised—how do you get the story across to the American public.

MAKING USE OF BICENTENNIAL TO EDUCATE PUBLIC ABOUT THE U.N.

And I have said, get on the band wagon of the Bicentennial observance. Now maybe this is an excuse on my part to suggest it, but if it is an excuse, it is a good one. That the American public understand the difficulties that this Nation went through when it adopted the Constitution of the United States, that it went through all the very—when you asked about the one-vote, one-man rule, it went through all those problems, the conflict over that very issue then, and similar problems.

And what I am saying is that I would hope that this committee would produce a document which, I fear, will not get the kind of TV attention that Senator Humphrey wishes it might have. But I think

that it could get a part of the attention which is being devoted towell, if I use the word, silly, commercialized observances that are going to be taking place in the next year and a half with respect to the Bicentennial, and the fortune that is going to be spent on this observance of nó permanent nature and no relationship to the era of the Revolution, and I must urge upon this committee that it undertake that task of producing this document. It need not be a heavy one. I do not mean a tome. I can call off the documents that ought to be in it, I can tell you the discussion that I think ought to be in it; and included in it was my reference to Cary Van Doren’s—the preface to his "The Great Rehearsal."

And I think, Senator Percy, and I do not want to avoid answering your question

Senator PERCY. Well, why don't we leave it this way? Why don't you answer the question after reflection, and submit the response for inclusion in the record of the hearing?

Mr. BITKER. Very good.

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I hope our witnesses have the time to stay for another round of questions. I have some time, but I would yield to Senator Clark.

COMMENDATION OF WITNESSES

?

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Senator Percy.

I want to join you in congratulating the witnesses, both those at the witness table now, and those that have appeared earlier. I also want to congratulate you, Senator Percy, for having arranged these hearings. Their timing could not have been better because the United Nations is in a great deal of difficulty, both in the country and in the Congress.

Many of the people who have been the strongest supporters of the United Nations in the Congress now are raising great questions about it. But now is the time for those of us who believe in the United Nations to go on the offensive to talk about its accomplishments—in peacekeeping, in the various social and economic programs, and soon. We have seen in vote after vote that congressional support for the U.N. is eroding rapidly. It is clear that the votes are going to be very close in this body and in the House of Representatives for future levels of funding and other vital questions which will determine the relationship of the United States to the United Nations.

So I congratulate you on your coming here, and on your very constructive statements. For I happen to believe—and I think Mr. Scammon could speak to this with great authority, no doubt—that the American people are stronger supporters of the United Nations than is the Congress.

I would like to pose one question, and ask each of you to respond to it.

WHAT PROPOSALS COULD THE UNITED STATES ADVANCE IN NEXT GENERAL

ASSEMBLY?

What could our Government do in the next year that would strengthen the United Nations, that would help make it a body which would be better able to bring world peace? What do you think we ought to do in this next General Assembly by way of economic proposals, or initiatives on Southern Africa, or other pressing matters ?

« ПретходнаНастави »