Слике страница

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Senator, first, I think you would agree this comes down to a matter of judgment and of how you go about, you take a risk either way, and in either direction. There is some room for style in this.

I was asked about Justice Goldberg's statement and I said that I could not imagine, as I said, I have to give a direct answer, could not imagine a view of Justice Goldberg that I didn't share. I was his assistant and I have edited his papers and I am devoted to him. I said I had been a speaker to the Women's Nationl Democratic Club in March where I had in effect in response to a question, said, entirely as a private person, much the same thing.

There are two things here, Senator, of which I think the United States is in the process of adapting to a new situation in the General Assembly. The basic thing is that we have commenced to see the formation of blocs in the U.N. which serve purposes. They are caucuses in a sense, much as you have in Congress. The two principal ones are the nonalined group and then the UNCTAD group, and of course, there is great overlap.

In March, as you, of course, know, they, as is beginning to be their practice, met a long way ahead of the General Assembly and begun forming positions. They debate them. They go through the process of collective judgment. They tend to arrive in New York with their opinions made up, their instructions written out, with group solidarity about these positions.

At Havana, in March, the Bureau of Nonalined met and there were other countries present as observers. I would like to note for the record that in this document that I had seen they list other countries, quote, unquote, present as observers, including the Socialist Party of Puerto Rico, which I do not think is a nation. It is not a government, not a country. But put that aside. But that is also a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, a small group like that. Or in fact a government in exile. Well, in that document, the declaration of Havana, there is a paragraph calling for sharp measures against Israel and its allies, the United States, including a consideration of expulsion of Israel from the U.N.

Now, of course, they cannot expel from the U.N. as you know, but they can in one General Assembly. It could take place.

This document begins to circulate. It goes back to governments and then there is, I think, a second meeting. I don't know that for sure, but at least there is a final ministerial meeting in Lima in August where they will get together and agree on a final position.

At that point people will be leaving Lima and coming to New York. On September 1, we meet in special session. At that time, particularly with many governments which don't have the communications we have—I said this morning trying to turn the U.S. Government around on an issue it takes you months—to start asking people to go back to their capital, finding people on the East Side of Manhattan, saying "Listen, would you go back to your government and reverse your instructions.” It doesn't work. It is too late. The politics of the General Assembly begin in January, and February, when these blocs begin taking their positions. I think to send them a message, not aggressively, but to any “Don't do that,” the reaction might surprise you.

One other thing, obviously it need not be action directly by us. I cannot imagine national parties directly involved in the Middle East where you have just been, Senator, where the U.N. Resolutions 242, 338, are so important and I think are seen by Arab countries as being to their advantage wanting this. They want what those provisions, those resolutions carried out.

What possible advantage to those nations could there be to expel Israel? I do not know what would follow legally from expulsion, but would Irsael feel bound by a U.N. security resolution if it be thrown out of the United Nations? Probably not.

It is not in the interest of anybody who wants peace in the Middle East, and I think that if these nations would start saying so to some other nations, it would help. I think it is time for them to say, “Don't do that,” “Don't do it, leave us here where we are working in the U.N. context, leave it be," and not have other peoples be more Arab than the Arabs.

That is my view, Senator, it is no more than that, and it is, of course, a personal view.


Senator PERCY. Throughout the morning session I understand you stressed the need to relate to nonalined nations in terms of specific projects and proposals. You felt that on specifics we could reach mutually satisfactory agreements, whereas we can only expect disagreement on statement of principle.

The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties was the other way around. We agreed completely on principle, but when we got to the specifics we found that we differed strikingly.

Is is possible that the view you expressed this morning does not really mesh too well with the much discussed view in Commentary magazine that we should be more open about our disagreement in principle. I wonder if that might not possibly jeopardize our chances for achieving accommodation on specifics then?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would agree with what you have just said. I read with great interest your report on your meeting at the 29th Assembly, which was a beautiful document. I wish we could get them in town to write that much that shortly, and your description of how you went through the articles one by one and it was the case that in the largest degree we shared that charter's principles.

There were those specific principles, if you will, which we couldn't go along with. And so in the end, where there was 80- to 90-percent agreement the industrial world and the new nations on matters of general importance, you end up with the vote of 132 to 6, something like that, as if there were no agreement at all.

Well, the charter is behind us. Secretary Kissinger said in Paris; new economic order, old economic order, what does it matter, let's talk commodity prices. I think that is now the wisdom of the case, sir. It is the question of commodity prices, and what to do about the nations devastated by the oil price increase, what to do with the billion dollar fund which oil producers said they would contribute for agricultural development, how do you get on with what was agreed to at the Rome Food Conference. That is the agenda ahead of us, not charters.


Could I just go back to another point on this one thing?
Senator PERCY. Yes.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I really meant to say, and I didn't say this morning, I have talked to a number of U.N. Ambassadors from major countries who are on the Bureau of Nonalined. It just happened, I was not seeking them out. One came to Harvard, for example, and talked to us at lunch. I asked, they were asked about this Israeli situation. It would surprise you and not entirely encourage you to know the degree to which they say nothing like that is going to happen, don't worry about it, you know. It is coming right down the line at them and because they would not want to be disagreeable and say something unpleasant and give you bad news, they say “Don't worry.”

Well, of course, they are not going to worry because they have their jobs anyway, but obviously it would be a terrible thing and it might indeed happen, and this, of course, is the whole question, I think, with respect to things like the charter as well. The U.N. is the place at which decisions can be made, of certain kinds, but they are always actually made in capitals and we should not, cannot do an effective job at the U.N. if we think about it 3 months a year, it is a year-around job.


Senator PERCY. I understand that this morning you did talk about the multinationals. I serve on the Multinational Subcommittee and obviously we don't spend our time in the subcommittee looking at the good things. The subcommittee points out the ills, the problems of ITT and Chile, the problems of Gulf Oil, now the problems of Northrup in the Gulf States, and so we go.

The process that we have here is one that tries to look always at what is wrong and correct it.

Do you feel as a future Ambassador to the U.N. that you can somehow get across the story that multinationals are a means of carrying technology and scientific knowhow into developing countries? When they get public funds from the development banks, very seldom do they get the kind of technology and knowhow that flows from the MNC's. How do we get the story across that without our multinationals, which are perhaps the most efficiently organized way of doing business that has ever been developed, that we would not have the balance-of-payments surplus which finances our defense, our foreign aid program and our raw material purchases.

Is the U.N. a forum where this story can be put across ? For centuries from the days of the old charter trading corporations in the 18th century, there has always been some one criticizing business organizations. There are excesses that must be dealt with, but somehow we have to get across also that we have to live with the best business organization we can develop and try to stamp out the abuses. Business has evolved over a period of centuries to its present stage and has helped to bring about a new set of forces we have favored: decolonialization, stabilization of international currencies and freer trade.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, sir, if there is any subject that interests me, is how do you create, how do you get a dictionary whereby you can translate the language of economic liberalism in such ways that democratic socialists understand and don't just recoil from certain symbols.

54-738 0 - 75 - 25

I have told you, sir, when you were last in India, about the occasion I would go and call on Indian Ministers and say to them, you remember company X or Y that was here in the 1960's, they spent 3 years talking about developing a fertilizer complex, and so forth, and they would say yes. You remember it didn't work out? They broke their pick and they left.

Well, you know where they are now? I would say they are now opening up in Siberia. And if ever there was a people who could testify to the economic efficiency of these companies as producers of goods, it will be the totalitarian powers. If you remember, sir, this got to be such a seeming problem for the Communist Party of India they issued a statement, and it was an insufferable statement. They said, “Well, you see, Soviet socialism is mature and can take these encounters. Indian socialism is not mature enough.” But they recognize how come we do. We say it is all right for us but not for you.

I am not a conspiratorial sort, but I say to you there is a pattern whereby the totalitarian parties in these countries, speaking also often at directions from totalitarian capitals, systematically try to keep American and European and Japanese business enterprises out of the democratic socialist countries while bringing them into their own.

Why do they ? Everywhere those countries exist, those parties exist, they have one basic doctrine, the only way they know how to think, Senator, and that is the worse the better. They really do believe if the thing gets worse they end up in power. And so why do they keep these companies out?

Now these companies make mistakes; there are abuses. They are just as much subject to things you know about as anything else. But they are great producers. In particular for these new nations, in short supply of managerial talent, and for good or ill a planned economy requires managerial talent. Now if they could be just inventive enough to learn how to use enterprises of this kind, keeping their socialist goals, keeping their collective beliefs, but using the productive capacity of these firms, I think we would all be a lot better off.

For the moment I say to you it is funny the communists think they are great but they don't want anybody to seemingly know this.


Senator PERCY. Several years ago I had a feeling we ought to strengthen the economic end of the State Department and I worked with the administration introducing legislation to create a full-time Under Secretary for Economic Affairs.

My own experience at the U.N. indicated the great importance of economic issues on everyone's mind up there.

Do you feel that the U.S. Mission at the U.N. should be beefed up or strengthened in the economic area, or would you want to take a good careful analysis and look at it to see whether or not you feel it should be? If you decide it ought to be strengthened. I certainly would give every bit of support I could to you.

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Let me, if I may, get a little experience in the job, but that is my disposition. The Economic and Social Council, for example, we have always assumed is really social. But we are moving from the era, happily, of security politics to economic politics.

I would rather talk trade war than nuclear war. But the question of competence comes in and I think you have been right all along. You certainly have been one of the few people who have been saying it on either end of town and keep saying it-even though I am not an economist.


Senator PERCY. Do you feel that the U.N. Secretariat should be strengthened in any way? Do you have any feelings as to whether the role of the Secretary General could or should be strengthened?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I think, sir, that there is a problem of the career international service. They follow, the U.N. practice picked up from the League, which took its civil servants almost wholly from the British and French civil service. At the time, it was assumed these were lifetime jobs. They gave everybody 20-year contracts, every one spoke English and French and pretty high quality people came in.

I don't know that this is the case any longer at the U.N. Certainly there are people who are depressed by it. Maybe life tenure is not the logical arrangement for a new situation. I don't know why some of these new countries would want to have a first-rate man go there for the rest of his life.

I would like to note with pleasure that my colleague at Harvard, Wassily Leontief, is leaving the university and coming to New York and is going to be working on U.N. matters, doing a world inputoutput economic model. It may be the U.N. is going to find it can contract out a lot of its high quality work and get it done that way. But it is a problem.

UNIVERSALITY OF MEMBERSHIP Senator PERCY. On membership in the U.N., we have had a great deal of testimony on the hearings that we had in the United Nations on the concept of universality of membership.

Do you support that principle in general ? Mr. MOYNIHAN. I support it absolutely. There is obviously a point of de minimis, I mean

Senator Percy. But in principle?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. But in principle.

Senator PERCY. Do you support the admission of North Vietnam and South Vietnam?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would assume following my principles I would, but I will wait and see what my instructions are.


Senator Percy. On the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties you indicate you have seen my comments. Our position as a country has been that we stand ready to, in accordance with article 34 of the charter, to consider revisions, modifications, and improvements, that would possibly lead toward our being able to support it rather than oppose it.

Our position has pretty much been that the initiative should come from the originator of it, Mexico, and there should be an indication

« ПретходнаНастави »