Слике страница

trations on such subjects as apartheid and development which have been building up for many years and are now bursting forth. It is not surprising but it is unpleasant.

I would also agree with him entirely that we have never hesitated to answer back when we were criticized. I am sure this was true of Senator Lodge and I can report that it certainly was true of Adlai Stevenson and Arthur Goldberg and it has been true since.

But it's worth listening to these voices. They are important. If there were no U.N., the same views would be held by the states concerned. We would have the same difficulties in relation to energy and other problems that we have today.

We must in all fairness, when speaking of the tyranny of the majority, recall that when we did have a majority we didn't hesitate to use it to override minorities on matters like Chinese representation. We tried it on article 19 but unsuccessfully.


Now, turning to the present and future, and particularly the utility of the United Nations to the United States and other members.

If you will refer back to the original objectives I mentioned, first, keeping the peace, I don't think there is any question that the U.N.'s usefulness in the Middle East has been demonstrated in the last year or so. The forces that have been sent out there are playing a substantial part in preventing the situation there from getting a lot worse than it already is.

If one interprets what has happened in Vietnam, as many commentators are, as suggesting that the United States is going to be able and willing to play much less of a role, of a military role, as a world policeman in the future, it is going to be more and more important that there be another impartial policeman, that is, the United Nations and its peacekeeping forces.

Now on the second object of the U.N., economic and social development. We used to think of this as something that was in the interest of the developing countries and of lesser concern to us, but we have learned in the last 3 or 4 years a great deal about the word interdependence and its real meaning. We now know that these economic relations are going to be just as vital to the welfare of American citizens as to those of Senegal or India or any other place. It is important that a whole new effective international economic system, in which all or at least most states will participate, be brought into being. Fortunately we have in being an institution which is far from perfect, but which has a wide series of international agencies, which have been dealing in the last couple of years with food, population, environment law of the sea, international monetary arrangements. This is just the beginning of what needs to be done. The framework is there, the vehicles are there. If we inject a little more vigor, a little more resources, a little more leadership into them, it would seem to me that we are going to achieve our goal of a viable world economic system more quickly than if we try to scrap those and rebuild entirely new ones.

Finally, on the third object of harmonizing the actions of nations. Aside from the object of avoiding nuclear war, which makes our détente with the Soviet Union so important, the next most important

[blocks in formation]

international issue is avoiding a confrontation between North and South, between the developed and the developing worlds, which we see brewing and building up. If such a confrontation should go to the lengths that the old cold war did, it would totally prevent the formation of this new global economic sysem which I have argued is so much in our interest. The U.N. is the proper framework and vehicle for avoiding this confrontation.


The old majority and new majority have to be brought together. There has got to be a much greater search for consensus of views, not only in the General Assembly, though it is important there, but in the Security Council, in all the economic agencies and in new economic agencies that will have to be created. Despite the bitter debates at the U.N., one does see an effort among some of the important responsible people in the Third World to move toward consensus. I think we should welcome and take advantage of that effort and reciprocate.


In this connection it is obviously, and I agree heartily with Justice Goldberg here, important to do everything we can to avoid illegal and unconstitutional actions by the majority. If the system is to work it has to work according to the rules, and the Charter is the constitution.

I think the exclusion of South Africa from the last Assembly was illegal and was a mistake and obviously the exclusion of Israel, if it should occur—I don't think it will—but if it should, would be illegal. We should take the strongest steps that seem effective to prevent it.

However, we must recall that, if we are going to take a very strong position on legality in the United Nations, we must be extremely careful to keep our own skirts clean. You will recall that our record is not entirely pure, on Rhodesian sanctions, for example. Those sanctions were voted by the Security Council with our concurrence. It is a binding action, binding on all members, and yet we are not fully complying with it. This is a violation of the Charter.

So, once again, if we don't pay the dues of an organization, the U.N. itself or one of its specialized agencies, we are acting illegally. We can always withdraw. But as long as we are a member, we are obligated to pay our dues. So I don't think this would be a proper response to illegality. On the other hand, there are other ways of dealing with it.


The U.N. needs a great many reforms. I won't try to spell them out now but I will say that we are obviously going to be able to play a role in affecting those reforms only if we are there. If we leave we won't have much to say.

I would like to see the leadership in the U.N., which we exercised so effectively in its early years, restored. It will, as my colleagues have pointed out, be much more difficult under present conditions. It is a more difficult and complicated world, but as Dag Hammerskjold said, if the U.N. didn't exist, it would have to be created. It seems to me the need for such an organization is greater than ever. We have security

problems. We have a whole broad range of economic problems. To scrap even imperfect existing institutions and try to start from scratch with new ones would be very foolish and unprofitable. I hope we will follow the other course.

Thank you.


The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Ambassador Yost, I am not sure I heard whether or not you agree with Justice Goldberg with reference to the U.N.'s exclusion of South Africa. Mr. Yost. I think this exclusion was unwise and unconstitutional. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you agree with Justice Goldberg then? Mr. Yost. Yes.

UNESCO EXCLUSION OF ISRAEL The CHAIRMAN. And the same thing with reference to the UNESCO exclusion of Israel ?

Mr. Yost. Yes, sir. They didn't exclude Israel in quite the same way, but they took certain action against Israel of which I disapprove.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the other members of the panel agree with that decision?

Senator Lodge?
Mr. LODGE. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Governor Stassen.
Mr. STASSEN. Yes, sir.


The CHAIRMAN. You know, when I was more closely connected with the U.N., than I have been recently, I used to hear a lot about universality of membership. Has that gone by the board ?

Mr. GOLDBERG. No; I think it is improving. It is making progress toward that objective. I agree with Ambassador Charles Yost that our skirts in this regard are not entirely clean. We should have brought Vietnam to the U.N. I doubt that we even then would have succeeded, but the additional factor which militated against it, in addition to what has been said, the U.N. wasn't a universal organization. Had North and South Vietnam been there, had China been there, it might have been a different story. Lacking universality I think militated against U.N. action, in addition to what Ambassador Yost properly said about consideration by the U.N.

I doubt that the United States, if it were an excluded nation, would submit to adjudication by the U.N. when it was not a member, even though the U.N. Charter contains a provision purporting to give U.N. jurisdiction over nonmembers.

Mr. STASSEN. Mr. Chairman, I do feel very strongly that we should move to a clear concept of universality in the organization. We moved in that direction by recently bringing in the two Germanys, which I had long advocated and which had long been resisted. I also advocated the two Koreas for membership.

The CHAIRMAN. But we did show the same spirit with the two Chinas?

Mr. STASSEN. No; we flipped from one side to the other, which I think it is now a fact that you have to look at. I think it is also well to note Senator John Sherman Cooper and Senator Mansfield of this committee did advocate the approach of taking Vietnam to the United Nations in the very early days and having both Vietnams come into it. So there have been members of this committee who have been in the forefront of this, even though we now I think should very strongly resist the temptation to go back over things and rather concentrate and think of "where we go from here.” But one of the steps I suggest from here, is toward real universality of membership. It will take time but it is a whole different juridical concept than the original one of the victors in the war forming the U.N. It is a big step, an important one. We should also move toward really thinking through and taking leadership for all the peoples of the world in these developing countries. We should be capable to give that kind of leadership. That leadership is very much needed in the approach of moving policy through the United Nations on behalf of the United States.


The CHAIRMAN. You said we have moved in that direction. When Cabot Lodge and I were in the U.N., we had 60 members. Now we have 132. Mr. GOLDBERG. 138. The CHAIRMAN. Still growing.

Senator Case. Part of that has been done by division rather than by extension.

There is obviously a dichotomy here. Membership in the U.N. is supposed to have some imprimatur of goodness, of democracy, of taking care of people, entirely. Mr. LODGE. “Peace loving” was the word.

Senator Case. You really can't say that you can have everybody in if you are going to have any standards at all.

You do the best you can, I should think, in matters of this kind and not feel guilty, even if you don't achieve two impossible objectives at the same time.

Is that right, Dr. Yost?

Mr. Yost. Yes, unfortunately two-thirds, roughly, of the governments of the world are not democratic.

Senator Case. So you can't pull something down from the sky as if it were the Tablet from Sinai and say everything is going to be referred to these precepts and get an answer that is automatic.


Mr. GOLDBERG. Senator Case, may I comment on that? The Charter just says peace-loving countries, and we didn't look particularly peace loving in the Vietnam situation, but isn't it similar to the whole concept of recognition of countries by traditional concepts of international law. You recognize the country in power. You didn't do it on the basis of a good conduct medal. And as I reflect upon international affairs, I think the interests of our country in recognition policy are far better served by recognizing any country that is in power. We

get advantages from doing this. We have people on the spot who can tell us what is happening. If we then apply the good conduct concept we should not accept half the nations of the world. And perhaps half of the nations of the world would not accept us.

Senator Case. Then comes the point at which the average person in this country will say, "I will be damned if any of my hard-earned money is going to support those jerks.”

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes, I agree it is very difficult. But our national interest, and I think the world's interest, is served in doing what John Marshall did in interpreting the Constitution of the United States, by saying that the language of the Charter when it says peace loving really means the peoples of the world. It would not be too much of a gloss to say that the peoples of the world want peace. A government at any given moment may be a very bad-acting government but I think we can safely assume the peoples of the world want peace, and on that assumption interpret the Charter accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN. We used the term peace loving. Senator Vandenberg used to say you had to be peace living also.

Mr. STASSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think Senator Case's point is very good that we should have in mind that if they are universally accepted into membership it is on the basis that they then take the commitment of the Charter. That doesn't mean they are going to live up to it but that is the prerequisite. They agree to abide by the Charter and take that commitment. Then they are within the framework and structure, I did propose in my draft for study, that we say specifically membership in the United Nations through such acceptance of the obligations contained in this Charter by the effective governments of any state shall not constitute approval of such government by the United Nations or by the member states of either the form, or the personages or practices of such government. I think you do then have to add something like that, if you open up the universality.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Percy ?
Senator Percy. I would rather yield to Senator Case.
The CHAIRMAN. I thought he said he was through.

DANGER OF POLITICIZING OF WORLD'S PROBLEMS Senator CASE. I just have one general line of question which has already been touched on by all of you, I think.

Dr. Moynihan has sort of expressed in various ways his very brilliant and anguished cry. I think there is more than just feelings of resentment that are involved here. Here is a real serious question as to whether the politicizing of the world's problems hasn't gone very far. As he suggests, India ought to go to work—instead of crying that we won't share our wheat with them to deal with population problems, and to stop advising us about our moral conditions. That tendency is encouraged by the proliferation of the United Nation's effort through institutional means to deal with these problems under the political control of the present sort of arrangement that we have in the world. Everything that I know is affected by this. The Law of the Sea Conference ran into the question of trying to set up an arrangement for fair, wise mining of the deep to bring up these minerals and what not. But you run into problems of upland coun

« ПретходнаНастави »