Слике страница

in some other more promising forum, but inevitably a fundamental breakdown of the main path to international cooperation. The dream of an open and cooperative world order to which mankind committed itself 30 years ago will wither and die. In its place there certainly will arise a world divided into exclusive, selfish, and rival camps, where each nation's gain is another's loss.


I see a different future, however. I see a United Nations capable at last of fulfilling the mandate of its founders. I see a United Nations serving as the international community's principal forum for peacemaking and peacekeeping. I see the United Nations being used by its members as the court of first resort to settle differences, rather than as the court of last resort for their conflicts. I see a world in which 150 nations live at harmony and in peace—their security preserved collectively and their prosperity pursued cooperatively. I see a world in which nations will frankly recognize that there may be deep differences on fundamental issues but continue to work at narrowing these differences and at the same time move ahead in areas where they are able to agree. And there are such areas where patient diplomacy can make the difference.

This is no dream. It is a realistic alternative. It requires only that we and other nations begin to use the United Nations to its capacity to help it fulfill its potential. In the Middle East and in Cyprus, the United Nations is showing that it can keep the peace. In crisis after crisis the United Nations is demonstrating that when called upon in time, it can respond effectively to the task at hand. At conference after conference, the United Nations is proving that 100 and more countries can be brought to meaningful agreement even on the most complex and controversial issues when they have the will to do so. The United Nations need not be the sole institution for negotiating and managing the complex problems of interdependence. But it should have a central role in that process as the single universal organization that expresses in broadest terms the collective hopes and needs of all who inhabit this planet.


The fate of the United Nations rests with all of its members, but it rests most heavily with those in a position to help resolve the issues confronting it. The United States cannot singlehandedly bring peace to the Middle East, majority rule to Southern Africa, or economic justice to the world.

We can, however, continue to support these goals and we can seek to lead—not as the sole headquarters of justice and wisdom, but as one who recognizes that new and exciting doors can be opened by many countries in an increasingly interdependent world.

The record of our country as a champion of freedom, social justice, and economic opportunity is one in which every American can take pride. No nation, however, can expect to be judged on its past. To the peoples of the Third World, we can show that we are still the same Nation which issued the Declaration of Independence, promulgated the Emancipation Proclamation, advanced the principle of selfdetermination of peoples, created the concept of international development and pressured its closest allies to free their vast colonial empires.

In Southern Africa we can do more than decry racism—we can disassociate ourselves from it entirely. In the Middle East, we can commit ourselves unequivocably to the pursuit of a just settlement which recognizes the rights and national aspiration of all the people of that area. In our relations with the developing nations, we can move once more into the forefront of those seeking to close the gap

between rich and poor.

If the United States follows this course steadfastly, I believe we can realistically require that others meet their responsibilities to move with us on the course of cooperation.

If we listen as well as lead, I am convinced that the current trend toward confrontation will be reversed, and that this will open a new era of achievement at the United Nations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much, Ambassador Scali. I think that is a wonderful beginning for our conversation this morning. Now, I am going to limit my questioning to 5 minutes and then turn to Senator Clark and yield to him whatever time he needs to finish his questions and then I will come back and complete my own.


Probably one of the most memorable things you have done at the U.N. was the speech you gave last December, which received both accolades and brickbats from different sides.

I wonder if you could just give us the background for that speech, how it came about, how much of it was John Scali's feeling that something had to be said, and how reflective it was of the official position of the U.S. Government. Could you also give us a capsule of the reactions that you received from American citizens, from journalists across the country, and the editorial positions of newspapers and other news media. Certainly it was the most discussed speech, probably, of the 29th General Assembly. It almost rivaled in public attention the attention that Arafat received when he arrived, although the attention was somewhat different.

Ambassador SCALI. Senator Percy, I will seek to be as responsive as I can to your question. Let us begin with the reaction to it. Of all speeches that I gave during my time at the United Nations, this received by far the most acclaim. I think that the count at last look was something like 99 to 1 in favor of what I said. If you recall, on December 6, I warned that American support for the United Nations was eroding because of a series of one-sided unrealistic and unenforceable resolutions which the Assembly had overwhelmingly passed despite the vigorous opposition of the United States and many of the developed countries. I spoke then as I do now as a friend of the United Nations who was speaking more in sadness than with indignation. I was seeking to warn those who were beginning to use the U.N. as a political weapon that to continue to pervert the charter, to continue to take illegal actions for short-term political gain, would destroy the very structure that was put in place so many years ago as a principal device for keeping the peace.

As a result of my talk, some 5) representatives engaged in what then turned out to be a great debate. The rejoinders started out fairly indignantly blaming the United States for its share of confrontation and recalling that perhaps we were guilty of a short memory in that the majority now was doing what the United States and its allies did early in the history of the U.N. As these answers continued, however, they took on a less heated and more constructive tone, and the last 25 or so, which included the representatives of some of the most influential countries, agreed that something more had to be done to prevent the very problem which I had sought to warn against. They acknowledged there had to be a greater emphasis on a conciliation and accommodation rather than seeking one-sided votes which approved resolutions that could not be carried out and which represented paper triumphs for the third world and nothing more.

In the months that have followed this increased desire to avoid confrontation has, I think, become evident in private discussions even though on many public occasions the rhetoric is still hard and still sounds uncompromising.


In the preliminary discussions which are underway in assorted forums, prior to the special session which begins September 1, we have found that even the most militant of the third world leaders are saying that they want to compromise, they want conciliation and they do not want a repeat of the situation that occurred last fall. We are seeking to meet them and seeking to concentrate on what we hope will be a positive U.S. position which, as I said in my text, listens as well as leads and which seeks to compromise the differences.

I am not sure at this stage Senator Percy, whether all of these preliminary discussions will lead us to softer rhetoric and more accomplishment this fall. I am hopeful that this is so.

I am encouraged by the more moderate tone and indeed even the more moderate proposals that are being discussed as a possible agenda but the final outcome of this will depend on a series of developments including political developments.

If, for example, there is progress toward peace in the Middle East, if there is additional acceptable progress on the problem of South Africa, Rhodesia, and Namibia, many of the third world countries will moderate other demands. So all of these are inextricably linked and my only hope is that we recognize that the problems that the third world is bringing up are not just idealistic and retaliatory visions which they wish to force the industrialized world to accept, but that they reflect genuine fears, deep worry, for example, that the gap

between rich and the poor countries is increasing at a time of recession, at a time of energy crisis, and at a time when food remains one of the great uncertainties of our time. And I think that we in the West who possess so much wealth and a good deal of wisdom, too, should recognize that some of the economic reforms that are being asked are not

that radical if we just recognize what the international facts of life today really are.


Senator PERCY. Another question relates to International Women's Year.

We had a tremendous U.N. effort for the population conference and also for the food conference. Do you think a comparable effort is being made for International Women's Year? Are we in the United States making enough of a contribution to it? And what do you

think is the principal purpose of it? Also, do you think enough effort is being put into the special session? You are aware that Gale McGee and Senator Clark have written a letter to the Secretary asking for heavy emphasis to go into the planning for the special session so we can take the leadership and initiative and not just find ourselves in a confrontation. Do you think enough effort is going into that? After your response I will yield to Senator Clark.

Ambassador SCALI. On your first question, I suspect very strongly that the United States will be represented at a very high level in Mexico City at the International Women's Year Conference. I have urged it and I also believe that the suggestion perhaps will be adopted.

I am more encouraged in the past few weeks about the kind of preparations that we are making for this Conference because I think it is one of the most important that the United Nations has undertaken recently. I suspect that 5,000 American women who will show up there will remind us very clearly if we have not prepared properly and if the results do not meet with their expectations.

So I would hope that those of the administration who have the task of making sure that there are adequate preparations, adequate programs and adequate followthrough, would keep in mind that many of the American women leaders in this area are expecting that Mexico City is going to be more than just a carnival of women getting together to discuss some of the overdue achievements and goals which are rightfully theirs.


On the preparation for the special session, I have been somewhat disturbed that we have not moved as quickly as we might have within the Government in creating an all-Government position. The State Department has created a special task force to formulate assorted proposals. The U.S. mission has come up with what I believe are some very important suggestions which have been cranked into this, but there continues to be some evidence, I must say frankly, that all segments of our Government are not in agreement at this stage.

Now we still have time and we are dealing and discussing highly complex problems such as whether there should be commodity agreements, for example, whether there should be even consideration of an indexing price system, and whether or not there should be a reform, for example, of the voting rights of the International Bank and Monetary Fund.

You are talking about some very important and very fundamental changes of a kind that have an impact in the field of international economics and finance for decades to come, so there deserves to be the most careful consideration.

I would hope that once this consideration and interagency and interdepartmental discussion ends that we wind up with a positive constructive policy and one which recognizes that some change inevitably not only should be made but are overdue.

Senator PERCY. Thank you very much.
Senator Clark.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have only four or five questions. I would like to start out with a general question.


Do you

think that the United Nations can become a more central forum for the conduct of American foreign policy and, if so, what can we do as a government to better utilize the United Nations?

Ambassador SCALI. Senator Clark, I do believe that it should become a more important vehicle for foreign policy. It requires a determination in advance that it be used more often and that its presence be a constant reminder that there is an international forum which can be of positive assistance to the United States in achieving its own foreign policy goals.

I do not believe that the U.N. can or should be the sole forum. I think that there are many, many international groups of a kind that provide more specific expertise than you can in a broad sweep forum of 138 members. But I would suggest that if we follow through with some of the economic streamlining and reforms which I think are fundamental to a more effective U.N., that the United States will of its own will decide that more of its aid, for example, could be channeled through multilateral sources.

I would also hope that as the Middle East crisis eases, and I believe it will ease one day, I think that there will be permanent peace in the Middle East and that the United Nations and United States will join in playing the central roles. But as this eases, the United States can then expect more objective judgments of third world countries to line themselves up with the United States in seeing the same way to the solution of economic and other problems.

I would suggest that the Middle East crisis right now is completely distorting the possibility of the kind of cooperation which we should have within the United Nations, but once that is substantially eased I can see the nations of Africa, for example, who then would no longer have to march in step automatically with all of the Arab countries and the developing countries of Asia, moving in parallel with us to achieve many of the same objectives that we both want. Most of the African countries, despite their current preoccupation about what is happening in South Africa and Namibia and Rhodesia, very well remember that the United States took the lead in promoting independence for the black African nations and they know that while some countries talk about aid, the United States is usually the one that produces it and provides more than words, it provides food for them. So there is a tremendous reservoir of good will and believe that we can work together.

« ПретходнаНастави »