« ПретходнаНастави »
Pauline, would you start off?
Miss FREDERICK. Mr. Senator, I would suggest, primarily, that our Government—and by that I mean, the executive branch, particularly the State Department-demonstrate that the United Nations is im. portant to our foreign policy. So important that we bring it in on takeoffs rather than just on crash landings as was demonstrated yesterday.
I think it is very, very important for the United States to prove to the American people, as well as to other people, that we do believe in the commitment we made in San Francisco in 1945—that the United Nations was going to be a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and that the United Nations Charter was going to be the law of our land.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.
Mr. BITKER. I would say that one of the things that can be doneand I referred to it in my opening statement-would be—is right in the lap of this very committee.
We keep on hearing in the General Assembly about South Africa. And it is true that we take a position which, on paper, is opposed to apartheid. But when it comes to signing on the dotted line, we run. We have not signed the genocide treaty. We have not even considered the treaty against racial discrimination, both of which treaties were drafted, in great measure, by our own representatives at the United Nations. And we have come nowhere near the basic international human rights treaties on ciyil rights and economic rights.
I would urge upon this committee that it ask the Executive to send these treaties to it, so that it can consider these treaties and give its advice and consent for ratification. This would improve the status, the position, of the United States before the whole world, and, of course, before the General Assembly.
Senator CLARK. Would you include the repeal of the Byrd amendment in that?
Mr. BITKER. Of course. I yet do not understand how that got by.
Mr. FULLER. I really do not have suggestions, because my whole way of thinking is apolitical. I think in the terms of artifacts—of reforming the environment and not of reforming humans by laws. I am just very proud that you wish to have me come and speak, and I know all of
and am moved by your sincerity. I think that is all I can say.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. I enjoyed your remarks about our shrinking world and our growing interdependency as a result of the scientific changes. Mr. Scammon?
Mr. SCAMMON. I would think probably Mr. Cleveland's suggestions with respect to trying to avoid, as much as possible, the votes in the United Nations would be helpful as a part of—for lack of a better word, I will call it a return to civility.
THE U.N. WILL SELL ITSELF
And, Mr. Humphrey, in your view of television, and people taking off their shoes and banging them on the table, which I am sure would get the attention of the camera immediately—the fact is, the U.N. will sell itself—it is worth selling. There is no gimmick by which the
Mekong Delta or disease or anything else is going to sell your constituents if your constituents see the U.N. as a vehicle for the gunmen, a vehicle for anti-Semitism and anti-Israel feeling. They probably will not support it, and I agree right now that there is a good deal more support for the U.N., as an ideal. There is less support for the U.N. as a specific institution.
I do not think, really, that a public relations campaign will do this because the public relations campaign is never going to outweigh the picture of a Khrushchev banging his shoe on the table, the picture of an Arafat throwing back his coat to show that he is armed in the General Assembly, the expulsion of participating nations for whatever reason. As soon as you start expelling people from the parliament of governments, you get into trouble. Because you do it, most frequently, on an ideological basis. And the business of diplomacy is not the furtherance of ideological triumphs; it is trying to work together with other people to preserve that world long enough for Mr. Fuller's dreams about it to come around. It is trying to get along, trying to negotiate.
This is not a romantic or glamorous thing; it is much easier to stand up there and, I suppose, fire six machine gun rounds into the ceiling. This would get much more attention, as it would if any Member of the Senate here this morning would do the same thing. I am sure it would get at least 30 seconds on the evening news.
The U.N. will sell itself, and as a part of that selling, I would think, Senator Clark, that the most desirable thing we could get would be by physical acts within the U.N. to reaffirm its position as the forum from which useful negotiation can be carried on. Because the more this becomes an ideological platform, the more the people opposed to any given ideology are going to reject the U.N. as an institution, because you must accept that the ideological platform—whatever it may be at the moment–is not going to be accepted by everybody.
The people who are nonaccepting of the ideological majority are going to be the ones who then must turn against the institution to preserve their own ideology. It is only when the institution can be neutral, when the institution can be used by both sides, when the institution can be a true witness, and a place where you can do business, that this is going to work. And if anything, I would think that those steps which we might take, which would make of the institution a more useful, helpful, negotiatory place, would be helpful.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.
Senator HUMPHREY. Let me just say to Mr. Scammon that I do not believe in a public relations campaign for the U.N. I believe in what I call balanced observation of the U.N.
Mr. SCAMMON. I am afraid, though, Senator Humphrey, as you know better than I from your long experience in politics, people come into your office, as the mayor of Minneapolis, with a dying child in their arms, are the people to whom the people are going to listen.
I do not think, really—I would not want to say it is irrelevant, but the fact is that news values being what news values are; the fact, the demonstrable facts as an expulsion of Israel from the General Assembly, will have far greater weight than all of the youngsters
going around in my neighborhood, for example, on Halloween collecting for UNICEF.
Senator HUMPHREY. I do not disagree with that at all. That is what bothers me, I guess.
The Arafat thing was very disturbing; the boycotting of Israel in UNESCO was very disturbing to those of us, who have been very, very pro-U.N. I served as a delegate there in 1956. I have sponsored the resolution for our 10th anniversary of participation in San Francisco. I have devoted 25 years of my life to work for the U.N., but I must be very frank about it, I became very discouraged and disgusted this past year.
And I believe the point you are making about the Assembly is so valid. The Assembly does work itself into an ideological forum, regrettably.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RHETORIC-A SOUND BARRIER TO U.N.
Mr. SCAMMON. It is a forum of showboating and rhetoric, and almost inevitably—I will not say inevitably, that would be too strongbut in many, many instances you will find that the rhetoric is so inflammatory, and the Arafats are so disturbing, that they tend to create a sound barrier through which the true accomplishments of the U.N. find a great deal of difficulty penetrating.
Senator HUMPHREY. Exactly right.
I would hope that we would emphasize, as a government, as was said here today, the very most qualified representation at the U.N. I think that is terribly important, because I think the quality of our representation indicates our interest in the U.N., and the priority that holds in our country.
Second, that we would emphasize these excellent agencies, the instrumentalities, the work force so to speak, of the United Nations. The effort at reconstituting the voting procedure is going to be exceedingly difficult, but it is not something that we should say is impossible. And I would hope that this committee would undertake this study, Mr. Bitker, that you have noted here. And we should send immediately a request to get the treaty on antidiscrimination before this committee. It belongs here. After all, we passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
I think we can assure you that as a result of these hearings, which are very informative, that we can draw up a body of observations and recommendations for the committee. And I hope that we will do so.
We are indebted to Senator Percy for his initiative in this matter. I want to repeat again that Senator Gale McGee, who has taken such an interest in this committee on the United Nations activity, has been a true patriot for the organization and for our participation in it.
But again, I come back to what I started with. Until the President of the United States—whoever he is—and until the power centers of the Government decide to make our participation in the United Nations something more than just a facade, it is not going to be what it ought to be.
The U.N. needs the power of the United States as a partner, and, as was said here, not as a domineering parent. I would hope that in this
period of détente there might be some more effort made to try to reconcile some of the differences between the United States and the U.S.S.R. as it relates to their conduct in the U.N. We could do a great deal that way. Senator Percy?
Senator PERCY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; you have been thoughtful in your comments.
I would certainly like to note for the record the members of our own staff: Ms. Hansen; Mr. Cohen, of my office; and the other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff.
And I would also like to mention that there is one other treaty that has been hanging around the committee for many, many years: The U.N. Convention on the Political Rights of Women.
This might be an awfully good year, Senator Humphrey, for you and I to resurrect that. How many years has it been before the committee? Sixteen years. Well, this ought to be about time; it ought to be coming into its majority soon.
Senator HUMPHREY. Well, it took us 15 years to get the civil rights year; maybe it will take us 16'for this.
LONGER PRESENCE OF SECRETARY OF STATE AT THE U.N.
Senator PERCY. Ms. Robbins mentioned on the first page of her testimony the time the Secretary of State spent at the United Nations. And Senator Symington made a recommendation in his report to this committee after his tour of duty last fall that the Secretary of State spend more time there and more time in the country while the U.N. General Assembly in in session.
have any specific idea as to how long you think the Secretary of State should spend in New York and what he should do differently than has been done by recent secretaries?
Miss FREDERICK. Senator, I believe the Secretary is probably spending about as much time as he can in New York. I would not presume to tell him how long he should be there. He should be there as long as necessary to make it plain that he is really heading the delegation and is working through the United Nations.
As I tried to point out, one gets the impression now that he comes there largely to have his minisummit meetings, and it makes it possible for him to talk with delegates separately. I would like to see him take a more active part in the U.N. activities as such, and even in making more than just one formal speech and sitting in the assembly hall. I know that must be awfully boring for him to have to listen to all those speeches, but at least it would demonstrate an interest. I believe it is very important for the United States to show to the rest of the world that the U.N. is important to us, and I do not think we are doing that at the present time.
Senator PERCY. I wonder if you would care to comment on the expected appointment of Professor Moynihan. And if you have read his article in Commentary magazine, would you care to give us your observations as to the approach he would take to the United Nations if he were to follow out his own recommendations in that article.
Miss FREDERICK. Senator, first I should ask you, of the Senate committee, whether or not he is going to be the next representative.
Senator PERCY. We received no official notification.
Miss FREDERICK. So, the question may be academic. I believe he was offered this job once before and eventually turned it down. So, it is difficult to say.
Now, as far as his point of view is concerned, I have not read completely the article in Commentary. I have read excerpts of it; I have heard a great deal about it. I know something of the substance of it. I also have heard him interviewed on the “Today Show.” I hope you do not mind the commercial.
In that interview, he did not repeat the very strong words he had used in Commentary. As far as I can remember, he did not say anything about going into the U.N. and giving them hell. But his comments seemed to be more constructive; that the idea was to go into the United Nations and make plain what our position is.
Now, I would have no quarrel with that. I think that is terribly important. But if the idea is for him to come in and pursue—or any delegate—to pursue, presumably on instructions of the State Department, rhetoric of confrontation, then I think that we are going backward' instead of forward. And the time has come, as I tried to say in my remarks, that we should lower our voices and enter into a dialog such as we are trying to do with the Soviet Union. Or can it be that we have one policy for the little nations and another policy for the big nations?
Senator PERCY. Possibly we should listen to our own American Indian adage, which says that if you want to understand the soul of a man, walk in his shoes. Maybe we should try to do that with the developing world, try to see their problems through their eyes, and show an understanding of them.
HOW TO ACHIEVE DÉTENTE WITH THE THIRD WORLD Now, we get into a very tough problem when we get to the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties. I had that responsibility for 3 months in New York. This charter has been debated for 3 years, so I was in on it for 10 percent of the time, but I was there when we had to cast the vote. There were three or four extreme sections and those sections were opposed by some in the Group of 77, but they said, “Well, we have to go along; we have to vote for it. But heaven forbid, we will never invest in a country holding to the philosophy of this charter, which would confiscate, expropriate, nationalize, and pay whatever they think it is worth, considering all the excesses of the past, and with no real recourse to international law:
We did find ways that we could conciliate in other areas, but we felt these provisions would frighten private investment away from the third world. So we voted no on it.
Would you have advised that we vote for something even though we did not believe in it? Or abstain from voting, as a number of nations did, just to have sort of a détente with the third world on this new international economic order they are trying to create.