« ПретходнаНастави »
Mr. COFFIN. What about the proposal made by some very establishment types? After all
Senator SYMINGTON. Before I yield to Senator Percy I want to make this point. You have been using two words interchangeably, disarmament and arms control. I have found through my experience in Government of 30 years or so the word “disarmament” automatically creates a lot of unnecessary friction. I think what Mr. Cousins is talking about, for example, today you look at the number of people who are using nuclear energy in hospitals against what they did 15 years ago. It's almost unbelievable, in the way of radioisotopes for instance. You have got problems of distribution of plutonium which should be eliminated immediately and completely. We could develop either the plasma or laser. The question was not one that just had to do with armament because of the danger of being destroyed by the millions instead of by the thousands. It had to do with the way we could perhaps save the world from other problems such as overpopulation, and so forth. That was my point.
Senator PERCY. I would like to comment.
I was at a meeting this morning with Senator Symington and the Acting Secretary of State, which prevented our being here on time. I couldn't give my opening statement which was very short. The opening statement simply wanted to indicate that we had invited particularly for this session, on the fifth morning of these hearings, four opinion leaders who are known for their creative thinking, known for their nonconventional thinking, but whose thinking could stimulate us to have other visions about where we are going. And I think it is not only the most frustrating morning that I have had but also the most stimulating and rewarding frustration from the standpoint that I think we could have spent a whole day or a week with anyone of you, and it's not doing justice to you to have you on a panel of four.
But certainly it has been rewarding from the standpoint that you stimulate our thinking. We would like to keep the record open long enough so any thoughts you may want to send back to us could be incorporated, and I ask unanimous consent this be done.
Senator SYMINGTON. Without objection.
UNITED NATIONS ROLE IN NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION
Senator PERCY. The subject matter that Senator Symington and I were dealing with this morning was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty review now going on in Geneva and the people who met with us had just flown back last night to report to us. I think we share a deep concern which has been expressed in one way or another by all four of you. We share that concern as we see the price of oil possibly going up, and the balance-of-payments problem becoming tremendous not just for developing countries but for the developed countries as well to find the money to pay for imports and oil needs. And what we have to sell that is high ticketed is nuclear power. But there is danger that these sales will encourage nuclear proliferation, increasing the level of terror.
I would like to ask each of you to comment just very briefly on what you think the United Nations' role should be in this. What can we do now on this very, very dangerous problem?
Mr. Brown. It is very difficult because of France's nonmembership to control France and also to control what China does. We would like to be able to strengthen the safeguarding provisions of the international atomic energy agencies as much as possible for managing the use of nuclear materials but again this is very difficult to do with some of the nations.
It seems to me that here is a policy area in which if we wait for the United Nations to act, we are not going to get the control that we want. We need international coordination with our allies, with the Soviet Union, with others, and this is not simply a United Nations question. It appears to me the President and Secretary of State have to raise this to such a high level of American concern that in bargaining on other issues with France, Soviet Union, and China, this has to be made something that we insist upon. I don't believe that we have done it. I don't believe this has really been a Presidential and Secretary of State issue at this level of concern, partially because I think possibly we have been a little bit lax ourselves in wanting to market these materials.
Senator Percy. Very good. I think you are right. Mr. Cousins. Senator Percy, I think we may be 30 years too late. The time for this question to have been asked was in 1945 when it was clear that there would be a spread of nuclear materials in the world and at the time these questions were raised. I am not saying that we have got to give up now but I am trying to suggest we have lost a great deal of time. I think that we have here a dramatic illustration of the fact that the national interest and human interest are in conflict in the world today. Any nation which develops new fissionable materials in the pursuit of its own interest is less concerned about the impact of others on the rest of the world than it is about its own need. This is certainly true of the United States as much as any of the others. So I am not sure the U.N. now can, given its present framework, attempt to act as effectively, but I would hope that this would serve to highlight for the United States the need to have a fundamental reexamination of what it is we want the U.N. to do. The U.N. has to regulate in most matters of common interest. It lacks the responsible authority for doing so. Perhaps the time has come to move as swiftly as we can, taking whatever losses we may have to take doing the best we can in the terms of appeal to the conscience of mankind, whatever use that euphemism may have.
Mr. TOFFLER. I would just emphasize the idea behind what Mr. Cousins just said—that we are 30 years too late. Perhaps one of the things we ought to do is sit down right now and make up a list of other problems that are going to hit us 5, 10, 20, or 30 years down the line. The spread of nuclear weaponry is clearly a nightmare, but it is only one of a whole Pandora's box of nightmares, including biological nightmares, that are potentially at our door, and that we may still have some opportunity to control.
Nr. COFFIN. I think it has dealt with ecology, it has dealt with the population problem. As a U.N. it hasn't dealt with the nuclear problem, has it, as a U.N., so that certainly would highlight it there, too, and if we appeal to the U.N. to deal with it, you have to control it.
UNITED NATIONS ROLE IN MIDDLE EAST SITUATION
Senator PERCY. Mr. Cousins, you have just returned from the Middle East. You talked with Arafat. Would you care to comment on how the United Nations handled his appearance? The United States voted against his appearance in plenary and did everything it could in the delegation to show its displeasure but we were very much isolated in world opinion. And could you comment on the role of the United Nations now in the Middle East? What role should it be playing, what role can it not play? How do you foresee the outcome of Geneva, and what should be done pre-Geneva to make that a success ?
Mr. Cousins. I will try to restate the question. Senator PERCY. And supplement it. Mr. Cousins. That to begin with, the last point, I think that Secretary Kissinger's initial reluctance to go to Geneva was probably sound and it is difficult for me to imagine that you could expect Genevawhere the difference of opinions will be fairly substantial within the Arab communities—to arrive at a meaningful agreement. I think the usefulness of Geneva would be to ratify rather than to negotiate.
Therefore, I think to the fullest possible extent questions ought to be resolved or at least carefully defined before Geneva. That would facilitate discussion as well as to minimize the attempt of each nation to prove to the other how adamant and militant it can be. So Geneva could be a staged breakdown.
I would hope the Secretary would persist in the attempt to continue with Israel and Egypt. I think, you have got a far better chance of agreement between those two countries than you have with the others. My apprehension is when all Arab countries will come together there will be an attempt by each one to show how adamant it can be or how hardlined it can be.
Concerning the early question, about the role of the United Nations, I would hope that at the very least we could keep the United Nations informed. I do not think the Secretary General of the United Nations, has had the courtesy of being informed on all the moves the United States has made with respect to the Middle East, nor do I think that the Office of the Secretary General has been used to whatever extent might be possible during this period. I think this has made some awkwardness between the United States and the United Nations, and I do not think that has been necessary.
I see an enlarged and useful role for the United Nations, certainly for the Office of the Secretary General, who is a very patient man and a good negotiator in that, and I hope that he would be used much more than he is.
With respect to the question about Arafat and his position, I suppose by inference the question is what should our policy be toward Mr. Arafat? I think you indicated correctly, Senator Percy, sometime ago that you are dealing with a plural enterprise when you talk about PLO. It becomes necessary to understand how the PLO itself is fashioned, and I think you are right when you suggest that Arafat may actually be the most moderate of any of the elements in the PLO and since he has
Senator PERCY. Be sure you add “relatively speaking.”
Senator PERCY. I want to also emphasize, relative to who might replace him if he fails.
Mr. Cousins. That is the point you made, I think when you came back, and a point I would support. Yesterday, Secretary Kissinger made the statement he did not feel that the United States would support a place for the PLO until such time as PLO recognized Israel. I think the Secretary correctly identified the crux of the problem in the Middle East which is to say, and the number of prominent people in the Arab world agree with this, certainly Mr. Malik, former President of the United Nations General Assembly, takes the position that the heart of the matter is the willingness of the Arab States to accept the existence of Israel. Once that step is taken, then I think all other problems can be resolved. I certainly do not think that the Israelis will hold onto any territory they have taken in 1967 if they can get that recognition. And I think that here is where all your questions come together. I think it is possible that the United Nations or the Office of Secretary General might be useful in making probes toward that end.
Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.
SPEAKING OUT ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
Reverend Coffin, you have been an outspoken advocate of, and have expressed deep concern for, social justice in the world through the years. We find ourselves at the United Nations allied with some totalitarian governments, military dictatorships, where social justice does not exist. We are creating or attempting to create détente with Communist countries where social justice is defined differently, to say the least.
Bill Buckley, as a delegate to the United Nations, has criticized our policy for being very mute in world forums on the issue of social justice.
Taking everything into account, what would be your advice to the U.S. delegation, with respect to speaking out for the right of social justice, whether it rubs the fur the wrong way of people who are allies or with whom we are attempting to establish better relations?
Mr. COFFIN. I guess when my buddy, Buckley, talked of social justice he was not thinking in economic terms.
Senator PERcy. He was thinking of human rights.
Well, he does not think that much about the plight of the poor economy. He is very good on things like amnesty international, and that sort of thing. I do not think he is terribly troubled by the plight of the poor. I recognize we all have a dilemma here and we have to live with the dilemma and you have to balance up peace and freedom and justice, but I do think generally speaking, it is fair to say that world order will only work if it is based on justice, some degree of justice, a greater degree than what we have now. My fear is that it is presently being organized by a powerful people, powerful organization, powerful nations with wrong values. If we say the third world is the moral problem in a generalized way like this, and then try to deal with the redistribution of power and the redistribution of wealth, I think we have got a chance for some type of global unity, and I guess it was Norman said earlier, if you get dissent in
economic relations, you get dissent in political relations. But I think in a basic way we should understand the need for redistribution of power and the need for redistribution of wealth, and as a minister I can only say spiritually it would do us no end of good to have both our power and our wealth taken from us if we are not free enough to share it.
I do not think most nations would be free enough to share it, so I do not think we are any more sinful than anybody else. Human nature is prevalent; we do not have to see the loss of power as a negative thing, particularly when we misuse our freedom. I think the redistribution of wealth makes for much greater well-being, spiritually and physically, so it should not be approached as a negative thing.
Senator PERCY. Thank you.
PROPOSED CHANGES IN VOTING PROCEDURES OF IBRD AND IMF
Dr. Brown, in your statement, you suggested that we revise the voting procedures in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Your paper was written before publication of the report of the United Nations Panel, which yesterday suggested revision in the voting systems of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to give developing countries a greater part in the decisionmaking
Bankers might say this is like taking a bank and turning it over to decisions made by the borrowers, rather than those who provide the capital. Obviously, the borrower is interested in the longest possible terms, the lowest possible rate of interest, and the least enforcement of repayment.
How would you revise our voting pattern so as to prevent and make needless the fears of those who would say this would lead to the destruction of the banks themselves?
Mr. Brown. I do not want to present a detailed design without looking very carefully at other studies of colleagues, who are better able to discuss that than I could, and if you like, I could insert some of my favorite schemes in the record later.
Let me suggest, however, that a revision of voting procedures to give less developed countries more weight does not mean that we have to completely revise voting procedures so that stupid and basically unproductive things are done. We need not go completely away from a weighted voting procedure in the World Bank, in order to revise it in the direction of giving some of the participants, recipients, greater weight. So I think we do not have to
ik we do not have to go all the way just now. For the very reasons that you suggest, I doubt that would be the way that some of the less developed countries would really want to go, because I think the recipients themselves, who have received World Bank money, are sophisticated at least to that level, and they understand the contributions do come in part from private sources who require some reliable indication that they will have repayment. The funds will only go to projects which are thought to be worthy projects.
Otherwise, these funds will dry up. This is not an insight which is only an insight of the contributors; it is also insight of the recipients. So I do not think they will be completely stupid. Even though this is a fear, the principle of revision of voting procedures is now supported by a wide group of nations.