« ПретходнаНастави »
I would like to say I was rather surprised when I finished my tour of duty as a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly last fall, to learn that it had been 20 years since the U.S. Senate had held hearings on the United Nations. In view of the U.N.'s potential to promote peace, and the misunderstanding at the U.N. today between the developed and developing worlds over many political, economic and social issues today, it seemed best to stand back now to see where we are and what our policies should be in regard to the U.N.
Certainly the hearings that begin this morning and will continue tomorrow, May 8, and on the 14th and 15th, 21st and 22d, will be quite comprehensive. I am most indebted, Mr. Chairman, to you for the decision that you have made to devote as much of the time of the Foreign Relations Committee to these hearings as you have.
We shall be hearing from those who made and executed U.S. policy at the United Nations over the years, from distinguished experts in international relations and from other prominent Americans who have important viewpoints to express.
I have a deep personal interest because in 1945 I was up in the peanut gallery at San Francisco—I was in the Navy then—the war was winding down, and with a little time on my hands, I watched the remarkable proceedings, as the U.N. was put together.
I think it rather remarkable that the four witnesses today have represented different branches of government—a Governor, a Senator, a Justice of the Supreme Court, an Ambassador—and two of them played more than one role during their government service. They certainly are among the four most knowledgeable and devoted Americans who could be testifying this morning. I think it is an auspicious beginning
for these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Percy.
Senator Percy, you stated that you served last year, was it not, in the United Nations?
Senator PERCY. Yes, sir.
U.S. CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES SENT TO U.N. SINCE 1950
The CHAIRMAN. You know, ever since 1950 we have been sending two Congressional representatives to the United Nations for each session. The Senate one year and the House the next year-one Democrat; one Republican.
I want to say that Senator Lodge and I started that in 1950 when President Truman appointed us to go to the United Nations, and the practice has been followed ever since. It is a great experience, and I enjoyed it very much.
We are very glad to have all of you distinguished gentlemen with us, and if you will take the seats at the table, Governor Stassen, Senator Lodge, Justice Goldberg, Ambassador Yost.
That is quite an array of distinguished talent.
Charlie Yost was around the United Nations when I was there. I have known him through the years and the great work that he has done.
We will be glad to hear from you, gentlemen. I will ask Governor Stassen to lead off.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. STASSEN, MEMBER OF THE U.S. DELE
GATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, SAN FRANCISCO, 1945
Mr. STASSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Responding to your invitation to testify at this hearing on the subject “The U.S. Role in the United Nations: The Vision and the Reality,” may I first of all commend the committee for addressing itself to this subject at this critical hour in the conduct of our foreign relations.
The very serious adverse consequences in recent years, arising out of our foreign relations are, in my view, a direct result of an excess of unilateral, bilateral, and individualistic conduct of our foreign affairs.
These unfortunate results are causing some tendency to turn inward and to increase isolationist sentiments.
MULTILATERAL AND U.N. APPROACH TO FOREIGN POLICY URGED
What we need urgently is a turn toward a greater use of open multilateral and United Nations' centering of the conduct of our foreign policy.
These latter methods may at first seem more difficult, but in the modern world they are the only sound road toward true progress.
The unilateral, bilateral, and individualistic methods may at first seem easier and more productive, but they nearly always lead to tragedy and disaster.
The United States should take the lead in making the United Nations more adequate, rather than bypassing and downgrading it. We should think now of the next 30 years. We need that kind of approach at this juncture.
U.N. SHOULD BE MODERNIZED AND STRENGTHENED
When we drafted and signed the United Nations Charter in San Francisco 30 years ago, we anticipated that it would need modernizing and strengthening in the future. Such improvement is overdue.
My own views in this respect were expressed in a national broadcast on NBC on July 5, 1945, immediately after the conclusion of the Charter.
Sometimes there are references by others that we then thought we had solved everything. We did not think we solved everything.
I said briefly, quoting from that address of July 5, 1945, which is in the printed volumes of my address: "Taken as a whole, the Charter is a human document. It is a realistic document. It is not perfect. It has weaknesses."
I said that it is important that the people of the world do not feel that they have automatically insured future peace, or that they have ipso facto solved the problems of war. I said further that even at its greatest significance, the Charter only establishes a framework, a machinery, a code. And then I said that is why our adherence to the Charter is only one step in the whole field of our world policy for peace with justice and freedom.
The entire address, 30 years ago, was realistic in its analysis of the plusses and minuses, and the potential of where we were.
The late distinguished Senators Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenberg, both former chairmen of this committee, and both also signers of the United Nations Charter, had similar realistic views, and expressed them at the time.
Permit me as the youngest then, and the only survivor now, to pay a word of tribute to all of those men and women who worked at San Francisco to draft and then sign the Charter, on behalf of the United States.
Before proceeding to give my views on the needed improvement of the Charter, may I make a few concise points of overall perspective?
There will be a continuing need for the United States to be militarily very powerful and very alert.
The United Nations organization, as now established, is inadequate, but it nevertheless represents humanity's best hope for future world peace.
With the many far-reaching events of the past three decades, it is probable that if there had not been any United Nations organization, there would have been a catastrophic third world war before this date.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATING AND IMPROVING U.N. CHARTER
May I now give a summary of my recommendations for modernizing, improving, and strengthening the United Nations Charter for the decades ahead? A few years ago I drafted a complete proposed charter for study purposes. It has now been updated, and I will provide a copy to the committee for review by its staff.
[The material referred to is on file with the committee.]
The major recommended revisions from the present Charter in outline are as follows:
1. Change the concept of the organization to universal inclusion of all humanity, and toward that end, revise the preamble, and open the membership. We must, in our advocacy, get in line with the aspirations and hopes of all mankind. There is a national tendency to think that the relationship between the three super powers is the main key to the future. It is not. It is important, but the main key to the future are the hopes and aspirations of all the peoples on this Earth, and that is the alinement that should control U.S. policy.
2. Set up a new Central Council of Ministers with weighted voting to effectively reflect and act for the world situation, and to stand between the veto power in the Security Council and the one-state, onevote assembly. Weighted voting is very important for the future, in my judgment. It cannot be attacked by trying to change the Assembly to weighted vote. We must leave that as one vote, the town hall of the world. But by bringing, in effect, the sort of cabinet approach with the Secretary General, and introducing weighted voting in the functions of that new entity, we can achieve weighted voting in the future.
3. Create a new World Court of Equity, as an additional court, with broader and special jurisdiction to add to the functioning of the judicial decision side of world affairs.
4. Add two additional organized methods for reaching settlements of international disputes, through the establishment of a World Board of Arbitration and a World Panel of Mediators, and provide for a notification of the Secretary General of all pending disputes.
5. Require the ratification of three-fourths of an expanded list of major permanent members to become effective. The expanded list includes Japan, India, Brazil, and the two German governments, as well as France, the United Kingdom, China, the U.S.S.R., and the United States of America.
6. Formally take sovereignty over those areas of the sea bed, and of outer space which are outside of national sovereign jurisdiction. Unless there is a movement in this direction, there is a great danger of a clash and confrontation in the decades ahead.
7. Initiate affirmative objectives and methods for the safeguarding of the environment against pollution, and for the fuller enjoyment of life by all humanity of all races.
8. Establish a new substantial regular method of financing the organization through a 1-percent duty on all international movement of tangible goods, materials, and machinery. Other methods may
suggested, but the great flow of goods depends upon a viable United Nations, if that is just taxed 1 percent, one-half to the seller and onehalf to the buyer, you would have an adequate financing for the longterm future.
9. Provide for a United Nations peace force which is distinct, wellprepared, elite, and not composed of national units.
It will, of course, take several years to make such changes in the Charter, but even the beginning of the process will have a constructive effect.
U.S. LEADERSHIP ROLE IN STRENGTHENING, UPDATING U.N. URGED
It is urged, respectfully, that this committee take a leading role in bringing about a new U.S. leadership toward strengthening and modernizing the United Nations, and toward a larger use of multilateral methods and principles in the conduct of the foreign policy and foreign relations of the United States.
This committee, at other times in history, has taken a lead toward such a change and approach in American foreign policy.
May I also suggest that there should not be too deep a feeling of gloom about the present situation. In a very real sense, our country is continuing to suffer from the traumatic consequences of the tragic assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Such an event has a penetrating and pervasive effect upon our country. We will come through this period, but it takes time and understanding.
Our founding principles of individual freedom and of the worth and dignity of each person, are as valid today as they were two centuries ago, and their application with intelligence and integrity to all humanity on this Earth, under God, continues to be the best road to world peace with justice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next, I will ask Senator Lodge for his statement.
BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY OF HENRY CABOT LODGE Henry Cabot Lodge, former U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative to U.N., Ambassador (Vietnam, Germany, at large), reserve Major General, Harvard overseer, and Republican nominee for Vice President (1960). Member, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1947–1953. Served in U.S. Army in World War II. Managed campaign in 1951 and 1952 to win Republican nomination for General Eisenhower. Awarded Thayer Medal, West Point; 20 hon. degrees; military and foreign decorations. Author (1973, The Storm Has Many Eyes, W. W. Norton); lecturer; since 1970 special envoy to visit the Vatican from time to time.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE
Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the honor of appearing before this distinguished committee which plays such a vital role in the foreign policy of our country.
One self-evident fact about the world is that its most difficult and dangerous problems—be they of health, or economics, or energy, or pollution, or, of course, of war and peace_can only be solved on an international basis. Individual nation-states—even as big as the United States and the Soviet Union—cannot successfully cope with these problems alone.
U.S. PUBLIC OPINION WARY OF U.N. EFFECTIVENESS
Yet, one self-evident paradox about the world is that the United Nations—the international organization created precisely for the purpose of finding international solutions—often receives a massive vote of no confidence in various American opinion polls, even though a majority does not want to abandon it.
Consider these figures: In 1951, only 43 percent of the American people, according to the
, were satisfied with the progress of the United Nations. In 1959, the Gallup poll showed that an alltime high of 87 percent thought the United Nations was doing a good job. But in 1971, this had fallen to a low of 35 percent.
Ambassador Scali, in 1973, spoke of a poll indicating that only 34 percent of the American people thought the United Nations was doing an effective job. At United Nations headquarters in New York, the number of visitors fell from 1,116,000 in 1967 to 765,000 in 1972—a record low. And in 1973, the number was 13 percent lower.
A recent poll of the new 94th Congress by the United Nations Assoeiation shows that only 15 percent of our Congressmen thought that the United Nations was helpful to our international relations.
Senator CASE. Does that include Members of the Senate?
This critical attitude of people in the world's biggest and most powerful country is a deadly serious threat to the United Nationsand to our hope for peace. And it amply justifies the sagacious decision of your committee to conduct this investigation.
It is, therefore, pertinent to consider the successes, failures, and future prospects of the United Nations.