tion for Economic Cooperation and Development-which would in a considered and organized way say we are going to depend on the United Nations for the following things. We are not going to depend on the United Nations for the following other things. We are giving the third world fair notice. No use in our pretending that the United Nations is what it isn't. We need it, and we want it, but we realize that under existing circumstances its jurisdiction must be limited to the following area: peacekeeping forces, a very desirable activity, or any other item along the same line.

In other words, starting from where we are, what do we do? So two questions: One, the doctrine of consensus rather than trying to vote, which just seems to frustrate itself, in the General Assembly, and two the idea of some caucus of the industrialized nations of the world who are being outvoted but nothing happens.

Can we start with my former colleague, Senator Lodge?

Mr. LODGE. In your processing in the General Assembly, at least when I was there, the more stress you put on wording the less you accomplished and the further you got away from harmonizing the actions of nations. In a world organization you have frightful language problems anyway and the tendency to quibble and to split hairs is magnified by trying to run the thing as though it was the lower house of some State legislature because it isn't that at all. So I am very sympathetic with Mr. Cleveland's idea, which I read, stressing the importance of trying to get consensus, and during the 7 years I was there the U.S. delegation tried very often to get consensus. I believe that is the best way for that organization to move ahead.

Now on the second point, to limit the jurisdiction of the U.N., I would certainly favor taking the position that you don't think the U.N. ought to make moral judgments. When you remember reading about the meeting of the Cabinet where Theodore Roosevelt reported how he had fomented the revolution in the northern provinces of Columbia and then given them recognition and had the U.S. Navy appear in the harbor at the right time and created the Republic of Panama and then the Panama Canal Zone. He asked all of the different members of the Cabinet to comment and finally he came to the Attorney General Pilander C. Knox, and he said I would like to hear the opinion of the Attorney General on the legal phases of the question, and Knox said, "Mr. President, if I were you I would have no taint of legality about it."

Well, I think that applies in this case that you have raised, for the U.N. to make moral judgments is really a rather gruesome farce and I would be very happy to see the U.S. representative say at some appropriate time that he didn't think it was any of the job of the U.N. to make moral judgments.

U.N. SHOULD DEBATE MORAL VALUES

Mr. STASSEN. I have to disagree with my distinguished associate on that matter. I think inevitably and in fact for the lifting of any kind of outlook for the peoples of the world the moral values do have to be debated and considered. If you do not want hypocritical moral judgments, you have to come to grips with the facts in that process. Bringing these issues forward I think is a very important part of the

whole evolvement of the world in the next decade. I would emphasize, for example, right now, a discussion of the fact that too much of the inflow of substantial revenues in some countries do not go to their people at all. In other words, bring forward the matter of a return for the people of the economic situation is a very important aspect of frank world discussion at this point. I think we will come through more in leadership of the peoples of the world by being willing to debate these issues openly and bringing them up and taking a strong affirmative position, as Ambassador Goldberg referred to, than in closing it off.

FORUM OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. GOLDBERG. Senator Javits, I think every U.N. ambassador, U.S. ambassador has tried desperately to get a consensus in the General Assembly. We have been much more successful in the Security Council where we are largely responsible for adopting the concept that the business of debating and dividing is not sensible, without first consulting and seeking a consensus. To try for consensus, is very difficult in the General Assembly, as you well know, from your own experience. Now, I would be opposed to changing the forum of the General Assembly. Let people talk, let them state their point of view, but as I said in my statement, don't allow the assembly to exceed its powers. On this we must take a firm stand.

It is true, as Ambassador Yost said, that we did violate the U.N. Charter on Rhodesian embargo, since we had voted for it in the Security Council, and our vote was not disapproved by the Congress when we did. However, there are violations and violations and the most fundamental violation is the question of membership because that relates, as I said, to the right to vote, franchise. The General Assembly has a right to put anything on the agenda for discussion. We cannot exclude that.

So it seems to me that we can live with it but it also seems to me we have a right to take the stand on the basic principle that a member cannot be excluded from deliberations. That I think we have a right to do.

Senator JAVITS. Ambassador Yost.

SEEKING A CONSENSUS RATHER THAN VOTING

Mr. Yost. I would agree entirely with the suggestion that there be a substantial progress toward seeking consensus rather than voting. This is beginning to happen. These big conferences, like the Law of the Sea, population, food, are conducted on the basis of consensus. This is perhaps one reason why, on the one hand, they move slowly and on the other, they don't move as far as we would like to see them move. But still it is probably under the circumstances a proper procedure. And I think it will be used gradually, very gradually in the Assembly. It won't happen quickly but it is the right goal to pursue. Consensus of the developed countries does exist in a substantial degree. We see the developed countries dealing with problems of foreign aid and with energy problems and so on, more and more in cases where the U.N. isn't acting and action is required. I think the developed countries will work together.

Now, I think in many cases, and energy may be an example, if common action by developed countries is carried too far, it becomes

counterproductive because it provokes confrontation. It hardens, entrenches, the two sides in separate positions, though ultimately they are going to have to work together.

So I would agree there should be concensus. When it is absolutely impossible to get U.N. action on something that has to be acted on, let the developed countries move, but let them constantly try to extend the scope of U.N. action in order to include the wider membership, wider cooperation and greater concensus.

Senator JAVITs. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Clark.

FUND SUSPENSION BENEFITS TO UNITED STATES AND WORLD

Senator CLARK. Two questions.

First, to Justice Goldberg. Let me read just briefly from your testimony on pages 7 and 8 dealing with our possible boycott of the General Assembly. You say to make this demand credible the United States should make it clear before this proposal gains further momentum that if Israel is unlawfully denied its proper seat in the Assembly, the United States will not only vote against but if the Assembly, notwithstanding, persists, will not participate in the Assembly deliberations.

You go on to the next page to talk about the freeze of funds which you referred to just a moment ago.

My question is this.

If the majority continues to hold its position after having voted Israel out, I assume that you would recommend that we hold our position, that we not back down at that point. My question is this. What specific benefits to the United States and to the world will accrue from having made that decision?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Senator, in my opinion it will stop this attempt. The United States is a great power and its participation is essential, whether its viewpoint is agreed to or not, by the Assembly. The Assembly lacking the United States would not be a real Assembly and think if that message is brought home, it will abort this movement to exclude Israel which is underway, stop it. The difficulty is with our policy. It seems to me that we are too hesitant about stating straightforwardly our position on the essential issue of membership. I emphasize membership. There are a lot of arguments whether one country has something or another country does something, in violation of the Charter, but with regard to the fundamental rights of a member state, that is a different story, and I think a clear position on our part will stop an attempt at the Assembly. I don't think we will have to go to the next step.

Senator CLARK. I think you are probably correct in that assumption if we made our position clear.

BENEFITS OF U.S. POSITION REGARDING THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES

Let us suppose, as Senator Javits just said, that the Third WorldI am not sure this is true but let's assume it is true that the Third World sometimes is willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. Let's suppose they did, nevertheless, continue that action and we had to keep

our position. What would be the benefits to the United States and the world if that were the result?

Mr. GOLDBERG. I think, well, I would go the next step then, which is to say we will not pay our pro rata share of the expenses of an assembly which is improperly constituted, which to me is different from article 19. I think we have to be credible. If we say it we have to do it. Again, I can only assume, based upon my experience, if that were done it would stop it too.

Now, suppose the third world, and Senator Javits says OK, do it, well, I don't see much of a loss. We still are in the Security Council, so speeches will be made, recommendations will be made, as they are made now, you see, and we then await the day when the General Assembly rectifies its unconstitutional behavior.

CAN U.S. PROPOSALS BE SUPPORTED BY GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAJORITY?

Senator CLARK. My other question really is addressed to all of you, to anyone that might want to answer it.

I wanted to ask whether it is practical to assume our Government could take positive positions, could propose innovative, imaginative resolutions in the next General Assembly, positions that actually would be supported by the majority in the General Assembly? Are we in fact so far from our own revolution or so affluent that we really no longer have anything in common with the majority?

My question specifically is what could we propose at this General Assembly by way of commodity programs, by way of positions_on South Africa and Rhodesia, what can we do of a positive nature that really would have majority support? It seems to me that would be the right direction to go in.

Mr. STASSEN. I think, Senator, you have got your finger on morals exactly about what should be done. That is, we should think through on our part how we might really take leadership for all of the peoples of the world. I think one of the keys to it is the matter of taking leadership for the peoples, as distinguished from the governments, of other nations. One of the things, for example, we ought to be in the forefront on is that the peoples of the world should be getting more of the economic benefits of the resources of the world.

We can speak up on that. We can really go at the matter of the way many dictatorships in the world have been handling their governments and handling their people and really take a moral leadership that is also a sound economic and financial leadership and seeking to gain the leadership of these developing countries. Really we have more in the basics of the American system to offer them, to offer to the developing peoples as distinguished from their governments. There is a natural tendency to go too much with governments and not enough with advocacy of what are the results being obtained for the peoples in those countries. In that process we should recognize and emphasize that people under all forms of government ought to get better results for all of the people on an equality basis. You can say it is idealistic, but really the world has to move on an idealistic basis if it is to have its best chance of peace. I think you have raised a very important basic point of reanalysis of our approach.

Senator CLARK. We could really introduce the kind of resolution you are suggesting in the next Assembly that would get majority support,

that would be valuable in terms of identifying us with progressive movements in the world?

Mr. STASSEN. Right.

Mr. Yost. Senator, it seems to me the problem is that we as a government have been very slow in recognizing and adapting ourselves to this new global economic situation we face and working out an approved government program for coping with it. So far we have picked out pieces and dealt with them mainly among the developed countries, in order to stave off immediate crisis. Until we make up our own minds, it is difficult to present something to the U.N. and seek support. We have to pull our socks up here in Washington and reach conclusions as to what we want, how we expect to proceed. Then we have to work up public support because, as you well know, most of these programs will cost money and this is difficult, too, these days. So a good deal of preliminary spadework has to be done in order to make these proposals, which I heartily agree should be made.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.

HEARING PROCEDURE

Senator PERCY (presiding). Thank you. Because of the number of questions I have in a number of areas, if it is possible to keep the answers as concise as possible, then anything you may want to expand on for the record can be added later.

VIEWS OF U.S. REBUTTAL TO U.N. ATTACKS

I was most interested in Justice Goldberg's comments on page 4 of his testimony relating to the Commentary magazine article in which Ambassador Moynihan said we have been delinquent in not facing up to attacks at the U.N., forthrightly rebutting them and putting our policies in proper context.

Justice Goldberg said that Dr. Monyihan is mistaken in this regard. Do the other three of you believe he is mistaken in that regard as a result of your own U.N. experience and knowledge?

Mr. YoST. Yes, I do indeed. I, like Justice Goldberg, have responded very frequently myself and I know Senator Lodge has and I know Adlai Stevenson did. There was never any reluctance to do so. I don't know how Moynihan got under this misapprehension. I would differ from him only in the suggestion that crops up in one or two places in the article, that he would engage in rather abrasive personalities in responding to criticism. I see little advantage in that. There is too much in the U.N. already. If you contribute you merely provoke a similar response and you worsen the discourse rather than improve it. So I think one should respond very firmly and clearly and in defense of our positions but not in a strident or vicious tone.

Mr. LODGE. The General Assembly is a forum and a forum is there to be used and if only one side is using the forum then the whole thing is twisted out of shape. So I think Mr. Moynihan is very correct that there has got to be a really solid debating. I am not talking about attacks and merely vicious cleverness, I mean the point of view of the people who disagree with us and who attack us ought to be analyzed and exposed in the best debating tradition.

Now, I agree with Ambassador Yost that to my knowledge the U.S. representative has always done that and done quite a good job,