Слике страница

tional areas. Perhaps the most blatant would be in the area of human rights. We are now in the process of witnessing what for the U.N. might well be called the ultimate obscenity, that is to say, the Human Rights Commission will probably shortly condemn Israel for genocide and in the process of doing this one of the things they had to do or did do was rewrite history in order to eliminate references to historical genocide which, incidentally, outraged the Armenians because this eliminated references to their troubles following World War I in Turkey.

What happens when you have this kind of selective justice in the area of human rights, and it becomes impossible, really, for universal principles to be applied, except against particular targets, is that whatever moral restraint those principles had is destroyed. If

you cannot condemn all states which violate human rights, whether it is Uganda, whether it is Sudanese treatment of blacks, whether it is Hutus against Tutsis in Burundi, whether it is the Ibos in Biafra, whether it is socialists in Chile, whether it is persons who oppose brainwashing in China, and so forth and so on. If you can only condemn particular targets then the principle of universal rights is very badly weakened.

In the economic area, you have participated in the last special session. I think if you think about it you will appreciate that this was a well-mounted attack by particular states about a particular approach to economic problems. Although Mexico was the principal sponsor, it was in Algeria that the strategy was devised, and it had to do essentially with the problem of the oil producers not wanting a particular forum with oil consumers but preferring this forum which was more satisfactory in terms of defining the economic interest in their favor.


Senator CLARK. Let me interrupt to say my time is nearly up. What do you see of a positive nature by way of global management? What would you propose ?

Mr. YESELSON. I would propose—again getting back to a point made by you originally—to the extent it is possible with global problems, reducing the nationalistic input, that is to say, where it is possible we emphasize the use of experts who do not have particular association with national causes in dealing with such things as pollution, population, economic problems.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Senator PERCY. Thank you.

Senator Clark and I would like to say we very much appreciate your participation in these hearings.

I would very much appreciate a sentence comment from each of you on two points.


Senator Symington recommended that the Secretary of State spend more time in New York during the General Assembly session. I know from observation that the Secretary's participation was very much valued by foreign delegations as well as our own. I thought he put in quite a bit of time in New York.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Would you agree that the Secretary's participation is desirable ? Mr. SEGEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARDNER. I would like to say yes and cite in this connection, Senator Percy, article 28, paragraph 2 of the Charter, which is a neglected but very important paragraph

The Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members if it so desires may be represented by a member of the government or by some other especially designated representative.

I would like to see this neglected article used to have Security Council meetings at the ministerial level, in which the Secretary of State and other foreign ministers could meet from time to time in closed session to discuss world problems.

Mr. YESELSON. I would support such a thing:

Mr. STANLEY. My answer is “Yes,” provided it is backed by a higher priority, sincerely undertaken, to give greater emphasis to U.N. matters.

Senator PERCY. He also suggested that the Secretary to the extent possible, remain in the United States during the session so that his presence here, his decisionmaking powers, could be brought to bear on important matters. I think it probably would be desirable whenever possible.



I would like to ask each of you for your judgment on whether the United States should take the initiative now in attempting to resolve the remaining differences on the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties, or whether we should let sleeping dogs lie and do nothing further about the Charter now that we have voted against it?

Mr. SEGEL. Absolutely, we should take the leadership in that and all other matters where constructive leadership can bring about resolution through negotiation.

As you Senator Percy, have demonstrated during the last session of the General Assembly, many points of contention can be negotiated a way. It is true that the few that remained were points that the third world felt very, very strongly about and our Government did also, but I think that those points too can be resolved. I think that there are possibilities of compromise between the present positions of our side and theirs, and it would very much be worth the effort to take an innovative approach to try to resolve the few remaining points so that we and the third world can work together to eliminate injustices and build a better world.

Mr. GARDNER. I would make the effort, Senator, but to be very frank, my experience in the last 5 weeks in this negotiating group at the U.N. does not encourage me to think that we will break through the ideological hangups, if I may put it that way, about the right to take foreign investment without regard to international commitments and the right to set up export cartels while denying us the right to have import associations. I do not see those ideological hangups giving way sufficiently in the months ahead to permit a resolution of this along the lines you and I could accept. What is essential is that we go into this seventh special session with specific proposals on the really important practical questions that matter, not the ideological issues but practical questions like what do we do to stabilize commodity prices, what do we do to transfer more resources to the fourth world, the under-$200-per-capita LDC's—less-developed countries—who suffer from food and energy costs, things like that—that is what is going to make a difference.


Senator PERCY. Couldn't it be said, though, that 70 percent of all development funds in Latin America have been from the private sector? Won't it frighten such capital away when we adopt a charter which discourages investment in the countries that voted for it? Diplomats from OPEC countries said privately to me, “Throw it in the wastebasket, pay no attention to it, we would never think of investing if that is the attitude these countries are going to adopt. We are going to put our money where it is reasonably secure and get a little return on our investment, not where it can be seized and expropriated and nationalized and get nothing back for it, without regard for international law or for just compensation.”

So in the light of that, isn't it really in the best interest of these countries that they not adopt principles which can discourage the very flow of technology, experience, and capital that they need?

Mr. GARDNER. It is in their best interests but the political pressures operating on their leadership are such that I do not see a renunciation of this dogma in the foreseeable future. Therefore, let's concentrate on making country-by-country and case-by-case accommodations to secure our private investors and the resource access we need around the world.

Mr. YESELSON. Yes, sir, I thank both of you for agreeing with me the Assembly was used for conflict purposes on this economic issue and that while we should at the U.N. attempt to avoid confrontations and support the cooperation, probably the best chance we have of accomplishing that is outside of that forum and in other forums and in other ways. I thank you both.

Mr. STANLEY. I would say that a reasonable effort should be made to reach acceptable compromise on those most obnoxious provisions of the charter. I would agree with Dick Gardner that more is required. At the same time let us take positive action to do those things needed to assure a world economic order more adequate to cope with the problems that it faces.


Senator PERCY. Thank you very much. I have just a few questions remaining.

Dr. Gardner, you have consistently written excellent articles on the problems confronting the U.N.

In a February 1975 article, you observed that resolving the difficulties of the U.N. will require a good deal of skill and hard work, the use of a scalpel and not a meat ax.

Can you identify a few of these difficulties as you see them and what remedies you would suggest ?

Dr. GARDNER. Yes, sir, Senator, I will try to be brief.

First, I think we must come forward, as I said earlier, on some very specific economic issues. I would put at the top of the list commodity terms of trade. It really is an anomaly in the world today, to allow these tremendous fluctuations in commodity prices, harmful both to the producers and to the consumers. I think the time has come to think of buffer stocks with agreed floor and ceiling prices under international management for at least a number of key commodities. Let's try to negotiate that. If it fails we will have at least made a good faith try and we will get some credit for it.

Similarly, the opening up of a “Third Window” in the International Bank, using petrodollars in large quantities with the help of an interest-subsidy along the lines proposed recently by the Trilateral Commission.

As to the U.N. forum itself, there are some specific procedural reforms, some of which are under negotiation at this moment in the group of experts that I mentioned, which would promote conciliation rather than voting of disagreed resolutions.

A greater commitment on our part is also needed to put forward candidates of top quality for U.N. positions. The standards of excellence in the U.N. Secretariat are being compromised and we as well as the Russians and others bear some of the blame for it.

We should attempt to submit to third party settlement, whether in the World Court or through more informal fact-finding and conciliation procedures, some of our disputes with other countries.

Senator PERCY. Very good.


Professor Yeselson, you have indicated in your testimony that you see the United Nations as an arena for combat.

As I observed the combat, the most intensive combat this fall I saw was between China and the Soviet Union. They took every opportunity to whack at each other. I thought it was fairly healthy, and it was a tremendous educational experience for those who have maintained for 25 years that Communism is monolithic. I felt it was very valuable not only for hardliners in the State Department and Pentagon but also for the American people.

Would you concur with that?

Mr. YESELSON. Yes, sir, I would. The cause of international understanding was aided for those who did not know how deep the conflict was between China and the Soviet Union but let me just suggest on a different level how this debate, this conflict between these two Communist countries can be dangerous.

The Chinese Communists, and I have observed them at the U.N., use the organization to identify American and Soviet foreign policy as a kind of dual hegemony against the third world. By so doing they constantly force the Soviet Union into defending their position, as I see it. The objective of the Chinese Communists, whom I regard as extremely skilled diplomats, is to weaken the détente between the United States and the Soviet Union.

During the Arafat debate, for example, they charged the Russians with supplying Israel's manpower, not giving the Arabs enough guns and charging them too much money. They called them merchants of death. The Russians were in the position of having to defend their policy towards the Arabs and by so doing separating themselves further from the United States.

On the Cambodian issue, the Chinese Communists initiated it and we won that really by one vote or two votes, according to the votebut the New York Times reported that the Russians showed remarkable restraint, and this was the reason for our victory.

Well, I went to the Dag Hammerskjold Library and checked. They never participated in the debate. They had to vote for Sihanouk. What they were doing was defending themselves against a Chinese effort to force them into an opposing position against the United States, so there once again we look at the organization in terms of conflict. It is possible to analyze it on levels such as this as well, although I do agree with you that it certainly was a learning experience for those who heard the kind of vicious attacks that they make on one another.

Senator PERCY. Thank you.

[ocr errors]


DECEMBER 6, 1974 SPEECH Mr. Segel, during the press conference that you held at the United Nations on December 12, 1974, you commented on the December 6 “tyranny of the majority” statement by Ambassador Scali and observed that "some signs of the beginning of meaningful dialog between the United States and Delegates of the third world has been seen. When questioned further on this you demurred. Now that you are no longer a delegate would you comment on the reaction of the third world delegates to the December 6 statement? Was a group of 77 a monolithic entity? Did you receive opinions which varied substantially from the voting record ?

Mr. SEGEL. If you read the statements by the third world ambassadors in response to Ambassador Scali's speech, you can see a definite sense of moderation there, and except for the most extreme positions, a strong desire to stimulate negotiations and conciliation rather than more confrontation.

I think Ambassador Scali's speech put the situation in very good perspective and was constructive.

What was reported in the press about the debate was very superficial.


On the second question, as I am sure you noticed also in your personal discussions with delegates from third world countries, there were often deviations from the bloc voting pattern, and the positions were often much more negotiable than reported by the press. Many of the opportunities to resolve both small and large issues were not taken up. But this goes to the very basic question of our foreign policy and our relationship with the third world, which we don't have time to get into right now, since you are about to adjourn for the day. Senator Percy. Thank you. Again I would like to say that it was an

PERCY honor and a privilege to serve with you on the delegation.

« ПретходнаНастави »