Слике страница

We have UNDOF agreements that have just been renewed with Syria and Israel. I think the others, will be extended too. To try to expel Israel is madness and it is contrary to the spirit of the Charter, it is contrary to the letter of the Charter. Whatever you may think of Israel its U.N. representatives are representatives of the government and the people there. It is just this kind of mindless giving in to totalitarian, authoritarian streaks in those other countries which we should not encourage. If they do it with themselves they do it with the U.N.; pretty soon what could have started out to be a pretty attractive political tradition has deteriorated. They must not do that. The U.N. forces people you want to influence to come before it to be have them there.

Senator CLARK. I certainly agree with you and I would like to pursue that a little further. The principle you are laying down—which I certainly agree with—is that the U.N. ought to be a universal body.

Would you be willing to extend that same universality to the new governments of Cambodia and South Vietnam?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I know that I would. I would today. Whether I will tomorrow if I am confirmed, I will have to find out. But Cambodia is a member of the U.N., sir, and there would not be any question.

Senator CLARK. Just a question of recognizing the new government, apparently.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I mean surely there is no question that there is a new government and if there is, it has the right to be represented in the General Assembly.


Senator CLARK. What do you think of Ambassador Goldberg's suggestion made here that if-in spite of our strong feelings and position to the contrary—Israel actually is expelled from the next General Assembly of the United Nations, we should take the position now that we will ourselves walk out of the General Assembly and freeze our contributions; and that we ought to make that position clear so that the nonalined members of the General Assembly would be well aware of the consequences.

Do you subscribe to the Goldberg idea?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I be just marginally indirect ? Let me first say I am not familiar with any views of Justice Goldberg that I do not share. I worked for him, sir, and I edited his papers, and I have the deepest respect for that man. Second, I spoke to the Women's National Democratic Club in March, late March, just after this thing came out. I was asked what would happen if—what I would think we should do if in fact this expulsion took place, and I said that we should do what Justice Goldberg said we should do.

Senator CLARK. Do you take an advanced position we should not participate in the next General Assembly?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I have a personal tactical view on that. It is personal. Spend some time, as Senator Javits has done, at the U.N. Try to turn your own Government around on an issue. If you succeed it is a 7-month affair. Did you ever see the number of people who have to sign a State Department cable before it can go out? It takes a week if they line up to sign it. Most of these countries, since they began the bloc process with the nonalined and now the UNCTAD group, start forming their positions in March, they get a fully written out document in March, the Bureau of nonalined does, they circulate it. They will be meeting in Lima, Peru, in August, where they will put the final agreement on it. All the foreign ministers will sign and so forth. Then in September their ambassadors will show up in New York with these instructions. If at that point we start trying to chase 120 fellows around the east side of New York saying would you mind changing your government's view, they cannot change the government's view. Most of them are career officers. They are not in the business of calling back to their government asking to have their instructions changed.

It is hard to turn a government around. We should be telling them now before they have frozen their ideas, before they reached an agreement, as to what they were all going to do. This is when we should be acting

Could I say this is a little bit of a problem of adaptation. These blocs really have not existed that long in this forum. They are recent. We are beginning to learn if you want to influence opinion in October in New York you first of all notice what they do in Havana in March and get out to the capitals and try to turn them around.


Senator CLARK. What do you feel about the current level of the U.S. financial support for the U.N.? Do you think it is sufficient, particularly the voluntary contributions? Have you had a chance to look at that yet?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I have read Ambassador Buffum's testimony in the other places. We put up about $277 million, it is not, sir. I am sorry, I do not want to be vague.

Senator CLARK. We actually appropriated somewhat less than the administration asked for in most of the areas.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I guess we are asking for 245. Excuse me.
Well, I think I had better not speak to that, Senator.

Senator CLARK. My last question—really, in some ways, I think it is the most central question. Do you believe that our Government in the past has used the United Nations as an international forum to the degree that it should have, and, if not, what can our Government do to better utilize this facility or international organization, to make it more effective. Or do you think we are doing the best we can do in that regard ?

How can we make the U.N. a more central forum for the conduct of American foreign policy?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I simply say that there is a history, although it is a brief one, it has got lots in it. There was a time when we proposed to turn over to the United Nations our atomic monopoly in the world. It is not as if we have not given the outfit a chance. When we were the only atomic power in the world we proposed to turn that power over to the U.N. There was a long period when I do not think there was any question we abused our majority, got saying the General Assembly could do things which the Charter does not say it can do. Then we were a little bit shaken by the onset of a majority clearly that was not with us.

I have been a student of the League of Nations. I wrote my doctoral dissertation about the “United States and International Labor Organization,” which was only one of the three branches of the League we joined. I think I have some feel for what do you get, what comes of trying to make large formulations about what the relationship of this international organization will be. Not much, sir. You shape, you evolve a relationship in terms of specifics, you do this and then you do that. I think in all truth that relationship tends to be denser and to go further faster to the degree that you speak in more specific and confined terms.

Senator Baker was speaking about the International Atomic Energy Agency. That is an important organization. You do not have to know five things about it before you want to know five more. You do not have to know anything it does to believe probably it ought to be doing more. That leads you into a relationship which is a large question of how much sovereignty you want to turn over. That happens to be what I think I learned from what I have studied. If I have changed my mind in time I will tell you.

Senator CLARK. Thank you. Are there further questions?
Senator BIDEN. I have a couple of questions.


As an Irish-Catholic, like yourself, and as a Senator from Delaware where the DuPont Corp. is located, I am compelled to speak.

No. 1, I happen to have read your article, which you are having trouble recalling parts of, in which you describe the multinational corporation, combining modern management with liberal trade policy, et cetera, as "the most creative international institution of the 20th century.” Maybe you could expand on that concept a little bit for me.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, the first thing to say, Senator, is that in 1945, after that war and the long recession and trade wars that preceded the recession, international trade was depressed. More certainly than it should have been. The United States made one of its principal commitments from the time of Cordell Hull, the expansion of international trade. Mind you, for a long time after the war we probably had an over valued dollar and it was in our advantage to do so. But still Presidents made this a major issue. As I remember, in 1962, President Kennedy's principle legislative measure was the Trade Expansion Act. I was involved in negotiating a cotton-textile agreement that we needed to get some Southern votes in this building here. This was not marginal, it was central to our foreign policy. And why? Because it had the potential to create an international community of reality, rather than simply of principle, which things like the League Charter and the U.N. Charter do. In the 25 years since, 27 since World War II, international trade has consistently expanded twice as fast as national economies.

It has been the dynamic and it is clearly responded to opportunities and these particular institutions have been very good at putting together the components. Some of them made too much money, I do not doubt. Some misbehaved in other ways. That is part of the record, I believe. But did they expand welfare or did they not? By God they did. Go to a country like Singapore and see what they can do for an Asian economy. I wish the standard of living in Washington, D.C. were as high for our residents as it is in Singapore. And look up and see what you see working there. You see American, British, German, Japanese companies. What free trade meant basically was that you created a world market which had all the enormous advantages of scale, just as American firms grew in the 19th century to enormous size because suddenly had the whole continent to work with. The same phenomena occurred in the 20th century. If you are talking about the production of goods and services these are very productive organizations.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you. One last question, if I may, let's go back to Justice Goldberg's statement to the effect that if Israel is unlawfully denied a seat in the General Assembly the United States not only should vote against such a proposal in the Assembly, and that the United States should not participate in the Assembly's deliberations.

You concur with that, I understand.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. Just before I answer may I say something about the other matter I have talked about, the multinational corporation. The fact that these have been economically creative does not mean they should not be subject to social control of the kind that this Congress has legislated with respect to American corporations for three generations. But the question is do you desire productivity? Where do American trade unions have their closest relationship? Really, with the great corporations. They are the ones who are organized and they are the ones who pay the best, and so forth.

To your question just now, I do not think it is for me to expand on much of what Justice Goldberg said.

Senator BIDEN. I am not suggesting you do. I am asking if you agree.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I agree as an individual.


Senator BIDEN. Now, as an individual, do you find that at all inconsistent with your earlier statement saying that one of the primary purposes of the U.N. as stated by the chairman, is to have a world forum where people with whom you agree or disagree on matters have a chance to exchange and focus ideas? Do you see anything inconsistent by this?

Mr. MÌOYNIHAN. It certainly could end up coming out all wrong. But that is a risk you take to maintain the first principle, which is we should all be in, and I think that the risk is great, I have not counted the votes at all, but I think that any message now from us as to how serious we would take this is the best approach to assuring that it does not happen. I think that, Senator. I could be wrong counting votes, but I cannot imagine, for example, that any of the parties directly involved in the Middle East conflict, Egypt, for example, would want this to happen. Consider Security Council Resolutions 242 and 336. Think of the obligations which they impose on Israel. How possibly could the Egyptians wish to see Israel leave the U.N. and I suppose leave behind any commitments that that membership entailed? How could they? And why would they want other countries around the world deciding Egypt's future.

you came in.

Senator BIDEN. One last question, and I am not trying to be facetious, I do not know why Egypt would want that, and I do not know why you would want the job. Would you tell me why you want the job, seriously? I am really curious.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Senator, that is the way we started out this hearing, before

Senator BIDEN. Then I will read the record, no need to repeat it.
Mr. MOYNIHAX. That is very kind of you.
Senator CLARK. He avoided my question, too.

You have done a good job and we are very appreciative of your coming before this committee this morning.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Whereupon the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.]


Present: Senator Percy (presiding).
Senator Percy. The hearing will come to order.

Ambassador Moynihan, I would like to express to both you and Ambassador Toon my regret for this scheduling today. There was no way I could reschedule the speech I was giving this morning to the Council of the Americas at the State Department.

I appreciate very much your coming back this afternoon and I would like to make it clear that my purpose is not to question your qualifications or Ambassador Toon's. But these hearings on confirmation provide an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas, and I will ask you to express your own personal views. I know that you have never hesitated to do that in the past and it is always refreshing and helpful.

Because I was not here I did have a staff member here this morning. I would like to mention a few of the notes that staff member made.

I believe you did discuss nuclear proliferation as a top priority concern, with which I thoroughly agree. We have been holding hearings on the meetings that are going on in Geneva right now. I have sent staff members there to observe those meetings. We have had private consultation and public hearings with Dr. Ikle, and a number of meetings, because of our great concern about countries competing against each other to provide nuclear knowhow and technology.


On another matter, you commented, I believe, on Dr. Goldberg's proposal that the United States announce now that if Israel were suspended from the General Assembly we would take certain actions.

I wonder if you could expand on whether you feel that such a clearcut policy by us, enunciated ahead of time, would possibly cause a reevaluation of such a movement, or would just challenge the majority to take us on on this particular issue, and then what kind of a position would it put us in ?

I would consider such a movement abhorrent and I would do everything I could to see that we used our influence, to deter such an action, which I think would be catastrophic for the U.N.

Could you comment on whether you believe the suggested position would precipitate some action or whether it would deter it?

« ПретходнаНастави »