Слике страница

ment on tariff and Trade would also be invited to join the Committee, and the executive heads of other United Nations agencies and programs would be invited, as necessary, to attend. The main task of the Committee would be to review the world economic and social situation and to bring to the attention of high-level meetings of ECOSOC, together with their own assessment and recommendations, all issues requiring, in their view, international decisions and actions.

To insure harmony between planning and operations, it would be useful to establish a post of Administrator of U.N.D.A., who would be responsible for the functions now being carried out by the Administrator of U.N.D.P. and the executive heads of other United Nations voluntary programs and funds for technical assistance and pre-investment activities excluding, for the time being, the Executive Director of UNICEF. In addition, this official would also serve as a Deputy to the Director General for Development and International Economic Cooperation. It is recognized that the eventual consolidation of United Nations funds in the new U.N.D.A. and the designation of the Administration of U.N.D.A. as Deputy to the Director General for Development and International Economic Cooperation must be dependent on the negotiation of satisfactory arrangements with regard to the composition of the new Operations Board and the division of responsibility between the Board and ECOSOC and the U.N.D.A. Administrator, as well as a satisfactory definition of the status of the Administrator.

The Inter-Agency Consultative Board (I.A.C.B.) of U.N.D.P. and the Environment Coordination Board (E.C.B.) should be merged with the A.C.C. However, the Program Working Group and the Meeting of Environmental "Focal Points," the two subsidiary bodies that now back up I.A.C.B. and E.C.B., should be maintained and function as subsidiary bodies of A.C.C.


PLANNING, PROGRAMING AND BUDGETING To assist the Economic and Social Council in the performance of the expanded functions envisaged for it in the fields of programing and planning, the C.P.C. should be strengthened to make it a more effective body for reviewing programs and determining priorities and, thus, for imposing a coherent and deliberately chosen balance among the wide-ranging activities of the subordinate bodies of the United Nations.

As a long-term goal, the United Nations should work toward a single body to advise the Economic and Social Council as well as the General Assembly with l'espect to the review, approval and evaluation of both programs and budgets. This could be a small body representative of the different groups of member states composed of highly qualified individuals nominated by governments but serving in their personal capacity.


All funds for technical assistance and pre-investment activities should be consolidated for the purpose of more effective policy-making, administration and management, into a new United Nations Development Authority (U.N.D.A.). Certain small funds for capital investment should also be consolidated, as hereinafter specified, in the U.N.D.A. With respect to trust funds established by individual donors, their future disposition would be subject to further study and negotiation among interested parties. For the time being, UNICEF is not included in this consolidation.

There should be a single governing body responsible for reviewing the operational activities of the United Nations system as a whole and providing over-all policy guidance within the context of global development strategies. The Economic and Social Council is the appropriate body to perform this policy-making function since it is fitting that global policy-making on operational activities be part of the responsibilities of the body charged with the task of formulating global developmental policies. This arrangement would not only promote the integration of global policy and operations but would also avoid the duplication of discussions that debates in the various governing bodies and the subsequent ECOSOC review of reports of the voluntary programs and funds entail. For this purpose, the Economic and Social Council should include in its program of work an annual session devoted to a global review of operation activities.

There should be a consolidation, as early as possible and under appropriate administrative arrangements, of intergovernmental structures such as the U.N.D.P. Governing Council, the U.N.E.P. Governing Council, the Inter-Govern

mental Committee of the World Food Program, the Board of Governors of the Special Fund, and these bodies should be replaced with a single Operations Board which would be responsible for the conduct of the general operations of U.N.D.A. and would exercise all the powers delegated to it by ECOSOC. The mandate of the Operations Board would extend to all operational funds currently administered by the United Nations.

In the consolidation of funds under the proposed United Nations Development Authority the separate identities of certain administrative units should be maintained, notably in the case of population, environment and other areas where this would facilitate fund-raising or operations.

The present Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which would become part of the secretariat under the authority of the Deputy Director General for Policies and Research, should be relieved of the responsibilities presently performed by the Office of Technical Cooperation, which would be transferred to U.N.D.A., when established. The sectoral technical functions of E.S.A. should be progressively transferred to the system as soon as satisfactory arrangements could be worked out, with the understanding that certain functions would remain at the center.

The new U.N.D.A. should establish the closest possible working relations with the World Bank, Moreover, the recommended merger of the other voluntary funds with the new U.N.D.A. will make it possible for the country programs to cover a broader range of operations, including those in the field of population, environment and so on.



GATT and the United Nations should enter into a mutually satisfactory agreement providing for a formal relationship, including exchange of information and closer administrative collaboration.

As a longer-term objective, there should be an evolution toward the creation of an International Trade Organization to deal with trade issues in a comprehensive manner.


The following issues should be carefully examined in appropriate forums as a matter of priority :

Recycling of petrodollars through the I.M.F. to help both developed and developing countries deal with balance of payments problems related to the higher costs of energy ; foods, fertilizers and other imports.

Ways of rectifying the imbalance between countries that has characterized the process of international liquidity creation over the last four years, both between developed and developing countries on the one hand, and within these two groups or countries on the other.

Better international management of global liquidity, with the S.D.R. becoming the principal reserve asset and the role of gold and of reserve currencies being reduced.

Measures to enable developing countries, particularly those most seriously affected, to adjust to a higher level of international prices in a manner consistent with their development needs possibly through the establishment of facilities within the International Monetary Fund; in this context, the trust fund category of proposals would require consideration as the possibility.

The examination of voting power in the Fund, including the question of the power of veto on decision-making by a single member more generally, the possible increase of the share of developing countries to the range of 50-50 percent of the total, with a substantially greater access of developing countries to I.D.F. credit.

The distribution of voting rights under the weighted voting system in I.M.P should be revised to reflect the new balance of economic power and the legitimate interest of developing countries in a greater voice in the operation of that institution.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cousins, I want to ask you one thing. You dealt with the period 1783 to 1787. I was just curious what happen from 1781 to 1783,

Mr. Cousins. That was the period in which the American colonies moved from the struggle for independence into the Articles of Confederation. Then you had the period from 1783 to 1787, the years of breakdown because the articles were not very workable.


Might I also take advantage of the question, Senator, to comment very briefly on a point that Mr. Toffler made.

One of the significant things it seems to me, about Philadelphia constitutional convention was that the framers of the American Constitution were speaking to political principles and not just with the situation of the United States. They were thinking, they drew upon all of history and the lessons of historical experience in an attempt to construct a government. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that what they did, the principles they elucidated, at this particular time do have relevance for all time and especially for the present. This is not a matter of someone imposing American history on other countries here.

I would agree with Mr. Tofller we do not seek an American sentry but you think it would be reckless to ignore any experience in any country that has something to say to the present, including American history.

The CHAIRMAN. You read I presume, Dr. Flexner's book, “George Washington”? I think that is a very fine book treating that period.

Mr. Cousins. There is always one I think we might recall, this was called Von Doren's “The Great Rehearsal,” which dealt with that period from 1787 to 1789.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I could ask a lot of questions but our time is getting short.

Senator Symington.


Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I can't stay very long but I would like to ask my old and valued friend, Norman Cousins, just one question which some of us here were already asking this morning at a meeting. Nobody really realizes yet, and they should, and it is a fault of many nations, primarily the United States I would say, that they don't understand the unbelievable change, that have been made in the future preparation for war or peace by nuclear energy in the last 25

years. As a delegate to the U.N. in 1969 my classmate, Senator John Cooper and I got a feel of the U.N. which was very different from the one I got when I had the privilege of being a delegate to it last fall with my colleague Senator Percy. It seemed to me that there is little interest in what also seems to me to be the most important subject in the world today, illustrated by the fact that the United States has 36 bombs to drop on every Russian city of over 100,000, and the Soviets have 11 to drop on every city we have of over 100,000. They are all a lot bigger than Hiroshima, which killed 100,000.

We know the price of oil has gone up. Some countries have gotten very rich and would like to have some plutonium so they could also

be a world power, and we know there are people selling them plutonium.

I could go on. I hope to go on with this problem as it uevelops. I think it is more than unfortunate, I think it is a national disgrace how little information has been given out to the people on this subject.

The thrust of my question would be, if you got information out to everybody in the world as to what could happen to the world, unless we can harness this great nuclear force, what is the effect of all of this going to be on the average consideration of political and economic and military problems? Mr. COUSINS. You flatter


Senator. Senator SYMINGTON. I flatter you because I think you are an expert in this field, as good a man as I know.

Mr. Cousins. You speak of the need to develop some information. I agree with you. I think it was H. E. Wells who said that civilization today is a race between education and catastrophe. I think you have posed the issues involved in that particular race here. I think we come to a point Mr. Toffler made when he said the Nation is the product of the industrial revolution. I think he might also have added, however, that with the industrial revolution it became impossible for any nation to perform its historic function. The historic function of a nation is to protect lives and values and the properties of its citizens, but as a result of the industrial revolution I don't think any nation in the world can perform that historic function because the industrial revolution was to lead to a point where engines of world destruction were to be created without the more responding mechanisms of world control. There is no nation in the world that can perform that function. Consequently, it becomes necessary to think in terms of what we might do. It is at that point it seems to me we are confronted necessarily with the whole concept of world order. This does not mean that the individual nation has to cease to exist. Quite the contrary. Here I agree with Mr. Toffler, the nation has certain functions to perform but those functions can be performed only if you add to independence the fact of workable and defined interdependence, and its structure of interdependence it seems to me that would determine the degree of safety and sanity we can bring to our planet.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Percy.

Senator PERCY. I will be able to stay here until about 10 minutes to 1, so I would rather defer to my colleagues.

Senator JAVITS. I am due on the floor at noon. I know most of these gentlemen, except Mr. Brown. I just wish to express my deep appreciation for your being here contributing to our thinking. I shall read it all very carefully. I am engaged in other committees this morning and assure you that you are one group of intellectuals that can be taken very seriously by this committee.


Senator CLARK. I am going to pose one question, Mr. Chairman, and ask that each of the members of the panel address themselves to it.

The question is, What, in your judgment, can the United States dowhat policy could we follow, perhaps what change in policy, which would make the United Nations stronger and more meaningful ?

Start with Mr. Toftler and work down the table. What would you like to see us do differently that would help strengthen the Ŭ.N.?

Mr. TOFFLER. I think that we can't strengthen the U.N. by denying its weaknesses. Therefore, I think we oughỉ to reexamine the way we support it with money. As I have said, I am not an expert, but my impression is that we support the various specialized agencies in addition to making a contribution to the central fund. I think the very idea of specialized agencies may be obsolete, that we ought perhaps to be looking at specialized missions, specialized programs, specialized temporary projects, instead. In other words, our money ought to be earmarked more closely for specific purposes and programs rather than for the maintenance of permanent structures of that kind.


I think there is going to be a move toward regionalization within the U.N. and we should not oppose that move. In fact, perhaps we might use our financial contributions to encourage the development of healthy regionalization within the structure. As I said, that we ought to do something—and small amounts could make a significant difference—to shift in a dramatic way the relationship of the U.N. to all of these nongovernmental organizations outside which are essentially frozen out by the U.N. right now. These are all ways to encourage debureaucratization. Basically, the U.N. has to become missionoriented rather than bureaucratically organized in the pyramidal form. And we can help to some degree.

On the more general philosophical or political question relating to our stance, I would simply agree with what has been said here. We would be making, I think, a dreadful mistake if we allowed ourselves to be pushed into the corner of being the opposition party-opposed to equity in the world, opposed to ecological sanity in the world, opposed to any of these goals which are necessary for survival of everyone. If we face the position that we are going to be blindly tough, that we are going to walk out, we would very soon find ourselves an international pariah, and this would have a very profound negative impact on some of the very people in this country who favor those policies.

Senator CLARK. Thank you.

Mr. COUSINS. Senator, it seems to me that your question points to a double challenge to the United States. The double challenge is related to the problem we are talking about, need for better world also, need for safer world.

REDIRECTION OF WEALTH With respect to the need for a better world, I think there are a great many suggestions now coming forward, some of them directed to the redirection of wealth. This, of course, involves an understanding of what wealth consists of. I don't think wealth consists of capital or of loose change. I think wealth consists primarily of the production capacity of society, the ability to use resources and use intelligence in a way that will meet human needs, and in that sense I think the United States could, No. 1, contribute very substantially to the growing problem of famine in the world by putting a great deal of research on a crash basis into nitrogen fixation.

« ПретходнаНастави »