Слике страница

and when it wasn't possible to rebut or reply on the spot we have issued statements to the press or television so there would be something about the U.S. point of view.

RESTRAINT QUESTIONED ON U.S. POLICY ATTACKS REBUTTAL Senator PERCY. Ambassador Lodge, during your tenure at the U.N. did you ever restrain yourself from rebutting and putting our policies in proper context, or were you ever restrained by the Department even though you personally might have wanted to have replied to attacks on us?

Mr. LODGE. I was never restrained by the State Department for the very simple reason that President Eisenhower wanted me to rebut on the very same day. He didn't want the day to go by without there being something from the United States because he felt that nothing could sicken American public opinion quicker than the idea that we were being used for a punching bag in the U.N. and he wanted me to rebut on the same day. That is what I always tried to do.

Senator Percy. Governor Stassen, do you agree or disagree with Dr. Moynihan's statement?


Mr. STASSEN. I think basically I disagree. I think where he got his impression is that the tendency is natural for the media to give more attention to the extreme attacks on the United States than upon the prompt response that almost always has been given in the United Nations. I think perhaps in that sense Ambassador Lodge, and I think Ambassador Goldberg and Ambassador Yost here were especially effective in making the newsworthy kind of responses. It is not important only to respond but to do it in a way that the media will give some attention to it.


Senator PERCY. In my own report on my experience at the United Nations, I drew certain conclusions. One of them was that I observed a tendency on our part, in the spirit of détente, to avoid criticism of the Soviet Union, even in areas such as human rights and fundamental freedom, where we disagree so sharply. It seems to me there is a moratorium on mutual recrimination. When we do have such obvious differences of opinion, do you feel it is a good idea for us to artificially mute those differences of opinion at the United Nations.

Mr. GOLDBERG. My answer is no you don't mute differences.

Mr. Yost. I agree we should not. I think a great deal of time during the cold war was wasted in accusation, rebuttal, counterrebuttal, and so on. That sometimes went on too long and was counterproducitve in its effect on the rest of the Assembly. So I would favor reducing these exchanges but certainly not eliminating them.

Mr. LODGE. When I first went there Stalin was still alive and the Russian theory was that World War III will destroy the United States but won't affect them at all, and Mr. Vyshinsky was giving that type of speech extremely violent, extremely vituperative, and we felt it was necessary to keep the record straight and we tried to do it.

Senator PERCY. Governor Stassen.

Mr. STASSEN. The record should be kept straight. You do have a restraint on not indulging in personalities. I think that should be recognized.


Senator PERCY. I think there must be some balance, but it won't become our Nation to foster an artificial relationship like that. We have obvious differences of opinion which we express on Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and VOA (Voice of America), so why not at the United Nations?

For 20-some years there was a tremendous amount of effort expended in keeping China out of the United Nations. My own distinguished predecessor, who had a deep affection for the Chinese people, was a founder of the organization of a million Americans to keep China, the People's Republic, out of the United Nations.

Has it been a good thing, in your judgment, to have China a member of the United Nations, and a good thing for the world to see that the so-called Communist bloc is not monolithic? In 3 months at the U.N., I saw the sharpest disagreements between China and the Soviet Union. Isn't it a good thing that the world can see that?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes, sir.
Senator PERCY. Governor Stassen.

Mr. STASSEN. Yes, I would have wished Taiwan also stayed in, but that didn't happen. The approach of the two Germanys coming in opened up the world that way. But unfortunately it didn't happen in China that way. But taken as the absolute, yes, it is good they are in.

Mr. LODGE. I like the two Chinas being in but I think this has been good.

Senator PERCY. There is the representation for Taiwan.
Mr. LODGE. I favored two Chinas.

Senator Percy. I presume, that all of you would agree that Taiwan should be represented in the U.N.

Mr. LODGE. Taiwan is bigger than many U.N. members.
Mr. STASSEN. Both Koreas ought to be invited in.


Senator PERCY. What is your expectation, Ambassador Yost, as to representation for North and South Vietnam?

Mr. Yost. I was going to say the problem of Taiwan, differs from the other divided countries. Both Chinas claim there is only one China. Under those circumstances it is very difficult to have two in the U.N.

It is either/or. And going to your other question, I would think that both Koreas, and both, if there are two Vietnams, both Vietnams should be represented.


Senator PERCY. Does anyone care to comment on the situation that if North and South Vietnam are admitted, they would really be two voices and two votes for essentially one country?


Mr. LODGE. If you are going to make me guess, I am going to guess that within a few years they are going to be one country.

Mr. STASSEN. My guess would be, and it is purely a guess, that you will see a new civil war in South Vietnam between the people there and North Vietnam, it will go on for a number of years as part of a very unstable situation.


Senator PERCY. Ambassador Yost mentioned that we had sharp differences with the developing world at the last session, and the United States voted against the Charter on Economic Rights and Duties.

At that time I insisted that in the Second Committee there be a separate rollcall vote on virtually every paragraph to demonstrate that we were in agreement with the developing world on most provisions. We had 73 rollcall votes and there were only four articles on which we had basic disagreements. Mainly the difference was over investment and—while no one questioned the right of sovereign nations to expropriate—there was an unwillingness to insert the words fair compensation or just compensation, and the developing countries insisted upon conditioning compensation on such factors as prior colonialism, neo-colonialism and racial discrimination, raising the concern that a nation could pay or withhold whatever it wanted to, taking into account what happened as long as 200 years ago. One of our major concerns was that this language might stop the very capital investment which is urgently needed.

Now, article 34 of that charter provides that in the 30th General Assembly it should be brought up again for possible revision.

Should we just let sleeping dogs lie and take no leadership or should we assert a degree of leadership by saying we would be quite willing to find a way to modify a few of the articles of the charter so we could vote for it and then have the developed and developing worlds in agreement? It is really not worth very much as it now stands.

Mr. Yost. I would certainly advocate the latter course would be most desirable.

Going back to the last session-
Senator PERCY. You mean to assert leadership?
Mr. Yost. Yes, trying to get modification.

I do think going back this is one of those cases that Senator Javits was talking about, where there should have been more search for concensus. The majority should have been willing to prolong the search another year or two or three in order to reach concensus.

Mr. GOLDBERG. Maybe, Senator, we also ought to take into cognizance what is really happening with respect to expropriation disputes because corporations are negotiating settlements and negotiating it on the basis of depreciated book value and corporations seemingly are prepared to live with that, multinational corporations. Perhaps we, as a government, can live with such settlements. Apparently, what multinational corporations really want is access to the resources. And judging by my own experience, I have had experience in this area, is that there is less and less argument about fair compensation, and more and more concern about access to resources at world prices. Perhaps in the review we might consider what is actually happening in these settlements.

Mr. STASSEN. I think it should be kept under repeated review and repeated initiative by the United States.

Mr. LODGE. I would agree with Governor Stassen.

U.S. ORGANIZATION FOR DEALING WITH U.N. Senator PERCY. Ambassador Yost, State Department officials testified before the House Government Operations Committee that the Bureau of International Organization had 38 fewer Foreign Service officers in 1972 than served the Bureau during the Eisenhower administration.

Would you comment on the present U.S. official structure for dealing with the United Nations? I am not saying necessarily the number of officers is an adequate measure, but could you take the question in its general framework? Do we have adequate resources to deal with the U.N. and other international agencies?

Mr. Yost. That is a long and complicated question. I do think that our mission in New York, and perhaps even more Geneva, has not been as well staffed as it should be. That is partly because of the overall governmental attitude toward the United Nations, that it doesn't rate as high in our priorities as other assignments and, therefore, less attention is paid to staffing those missions. It is less attractive to ambitious young foreign officers than other posts might be. Also there has in the past been great economic hardship involved in some of these assignments. That has been somewhat reduced but it is not wholly taken care of. This is, as I say, a factor of our whole governmental attitude. I would urge far higher priority should be given, in view of all of the circumstances we have been discussing, to our effective participation in the United States, reestablishing the leadership that we have had.


Senator PERCY. Ambassador Lodge, during 30 years there have been four Secretaries General who have served the U.N. and each has brought his individual views and concepts to the position. What are your own views on the role of the Secretary General in view of Justice Goldberg's comments ?

Mr. LODGE. Well, I think the U.N. Secretary General is an enormously important figure. He should also be a man of the highest equality and a tremendous effort should be made to staff the United Nations with people of high quality. Because the U.N. isn't well established yet, it sort of caroms along from one crisis to another, and could very easily founder and disappear if it has mediocre personnel. So I think it is very important to have an able Secretary General and to staff the U.N. in an able way.


Senator PERCY. Governor Stassen, the Security Council has been enlarged once since 1945. The General Assembly has been increased a great deal.

Would you feel it useful to extend permanent nonveto membership in the Security Council to countries such as Japan, the Germanies and others and, if so, would you care to name other countries that you feel should be represented in the Security Council ?

Mr. STASSEN. I think it would be good to extend that membership. I certainly would name Japan, India, and the two Germanys because of this division. I think I would also name Brazil. In other words, take a wider scope of substantial countries from both the psychological and the operational aspects when you think of decades ahead.


Senator PERCY. Justice Goldberg, in the past there have been very wide differences between the United States and the Soviet Union with regard to U.N. peacekeeping responsibilities. Could you comment on the inherent limitations of the United Nations in the peacekeeping area ? And would you care to comment on the forthcoming role of the United Nations in the Middle East in providing guarantees for the territorial integrity of Israel, which must be a cardinal principle of American foreign policy and has become inherent in the policy of many countries? The Soviet Union has taken initiatives lately, and has made offers of guarantees.

What do you foresee in that very critical area?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Peacekeeping forces are absolutelv imperative until peace settlements are concluded in the Middle East and perhaps beyond. U.N. peacekeeping in the past have been based on the concept that peacekeeping forces are only

established with the consent of the nations concerned, and may be withdrawn if the country withdraws its consent, as President Nasser withdrew his consent to peacekeeping forces in the Sinai in 1967 which precipitated the war.

Therefore, the future in the Middle East and elsewhere, if a peacekeeping force is put in, that it stays and that only the Security Council can remove it. This seems to be essential for a proper operation of a peacekeeping force as an instrument of




Senator PERCY. With the upcoming special session of the General Assembly focusing on a new economic order and on economic matters, it has reinforced my long-held feeling that the State Department had to strengthen itself in the economic field.

I introduced the legislation to create an Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and it is law and the post is filled now. But I am somewhat concerned that the Under Secretary has a very small staff and even the Bureau of Economic Affairs does not report to him, so that the Under Secretary has a staff relationship but not a line relationship.

Should we strengthen the State Department in the economic field ? What suggestions would any of you have in that regard?

Mr. Yost. I think the whole U.S. Government needs to be much better organized for dealing with these international economic problems. I think, as you say, the State Department should be better or

« ПретходнаНастави »