Слике страница

The main problem of food has to do with fertilizer, and until such time as the price of fertilizer can be brought down, it is going to be difficult to talk about growing more food all over the world, which is what has not been done. We can go through that in one year. The Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, is leading the way in nitrogen fixation.


Second, on the energy front there, too, it is not a matter of redistributing oil, even bringing the price down. I think we have to think in terms of creating new forms of energy. And here I would like to see the United States undertake a crash program for the development of a fuel cell. Pratt Whitney has already I think developed a prototype of a fuel cell, but you have got problems of weight and cost. But we live in an age of miniaturization. I think it is possible through effective research to create a fuel cell which I think will do a great deal toward bringing energy

within the range. Senator SYMINGTON. What is the fuel cell ? Mr. COUSINS. Conversion of chemical and electrical energy into usable energy without having to go through a combustion engine, which has problems in terms of heavy use of fossil fuels, and also the problem of pollution. But the fuel cell would seem to offer one good approach. You have got the need, I think, to move very swiftly in the direction of solar energy. Swiftly those nations which need energy the most, such as India, are the nations that have the most abundant resources, which is not as utilized as it should be. Here, too, you have got prototypes but you have to accelerate, I think, your research and development.

These, are examples, it seems to me, of the use of scientific intelligence in technology rather general redistribution of capital which I think can run out in a very short time.


With respect to the whole area of safety, I think you have to


back to the basic concept of the U.N. The purpose of the U.N. fundamentally is to keep the peace.

I try to indicate in my prepared text that you come a lot closer to creating a condition of peace if you meet the problems of disparity economics and also of social justice but basically you do have the problem to create a world mechanism. You cannot expect, it seems to me, indefinitely to have the United Nations run after history with a mop, which is to say to wait until the crisis occurs and then try to mount some response. That will work only where small nations are involved. Where large nations are involved you are not going to have enough time. You will have to start thinking in terms of preventive mechanism, which is what I am thinking. That is why I emphasized the need to integrate the world court into the total peacekeeping and peace interpreting machinery of the United Nations.

We go back to San Francisco. There were certain mistakes that were made with the knowledge of the founders of the U.N. at San Francisco. They tried to do as they said the very best they could at that time, but they recognized that you could not expect the General As

sembly to work in the system of one nation, one vote because this would mean, as Mr. Toffler said, few nations with combined population of million could outvote a nation with 300 million. So you can't expect large nations of the world it seems to me to look to the General Assembly for codifying and carry out law.

The Security Council represents imperfections and weakness on the opposite side, which is to say it gives the large nations a predominance role in keeping the peace. That is the responsibility, however, that has to be tied to definition of law, if the smaller nations are going to expect it, and also involve social justice. So both with respect to the General Assembly and Security Council it seems to me you

have built-in weaknesses which at some time are going to have to be examined. Therefore, I would hope that the United States in supporting resolution 25, would also support the concept that at some time very soon we ought to have a fundamental reexamination as to how the United Nations can be given capability of the world. The need to codify laws so all nations understand what their obligations are in the world.

Second, the need to enforce it. And third, the need to refine it and interpret it so it will not be abused.

You always have need to balance powers in due process. I don't think it is too soon for the U.S. now to be considering a very serious way in which the world law can become a unifying principle of its foreign policy, so I have tried to address myself both to the problem of a better world and also the problem of a safer one.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Cousins.


Mr. Brown. You asked, Senator Clark, what we could do this year in the U.N., what would be the most important thing to do this year, and I think that is a pertinent question because this year is going to be one of the toughest years that we have faced in the U.N. It is going to try the patience of the U.S. Government more than probably any other session. It is going to start off with the U.N. special session in which the issues are being defined, at least up to now, not by the United States but the militant populist coalition I was talking about. They want to discuss a new economic order on their own terms. It is also a session in which the coalition is going to be exploited by the Arabs to make things as impossible as they can for the Israel delegation to the U.N.

The question is going to face us: How are we going to react to these kinds of moves which are going to be embarrassing, which are going to try our patience. I suggest this really compels us to reexamine our philosophy of how we are going to behave. If indeed the rumor is true the next ambassador to the U.N. is going to be coming up for confirmation next week, I imagine a probing on this point of exactly what our posture should be is very important.

Let me suggest that it is not only a negative posture, not isolating ourselves that has to be developed, but a positive strategy of identifying ourselves as much as possible with particular action and with resolutions that are presented by elements of the populist majority.

I would suggest, for example, that we will not lose too much by identifying ourselves with some of the favorite themes of the Africans


in the U.N. We don't have to identify ourselves with everything that they want but we have to look for opportunities to identify ourselves with resolutions that they put forward.

Now, of course in the legislative process this is well known. A Senator doesn't have to support every single word in a resolution in order to be a cosigner of a resolution. The United States should not feel it has to support every single nuance in every resolution in order to be a cosigner. I would suggest in some debates and some international forums we have been much too rigid about the wording of resolutions that we could have supported. This certainly characterized how we behaved at the Stockholm International Conference when countries like Japan, France and others went along with some of the more militant sounding resolutions proposed by the less developed countries because they were coalition building. This suggests to me we ought to be building coalitions and

Senator Percy. Do you think we should have gone along with the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties that meant so much to Mexico and quite a bit to Algeria, Iran, and Yugoslavia, even though we decided we couldn't approve it or abstain.

Do you think we should have just tagged along with the boys?

Mr. Brown. I think that we wouldn't have lost very much by finally going along, registering our objections but indicating that the basic concerns were ones that were important.

Now, we did this for example, in the Alliance for Progress, where there were elements that were very idealistic sounding, probably nonimplementable. We gained nevertheless by identifying with those kind of slogans. It appears to me that the United States was able to at least to include itself on the side of those who have those concerns. The Charter on Economic Rights and Duties was only such a resolution.

Senator SYMINGTON. That is all the U.N. passes, they are not laws. Where do you draw the line?

Mr. BROWN. I would draw the line on certain kind of action that would destroy the U.N. system.

It appears to me that the question of Israel
Senator SYMINGTON. What do

you think if it destroys the economic system-not reform or evolutionize it, which I certainly favor—but revolutionize it and really cut off the flow of capital to the developing nations in the whole private sector?

Mr. Brown. If they are actions. If you are talking about philosophies of redistribution, we can indicate that we are for philosophies of redistribution.

Now, in order to answer on that specific declaration, I would have to go over the charter again, and perhaps I would have to come out as a dissenter on the basis of one or two points.



Let me, however, answer my own question about the position that we should take with respect to attempt of the Arabs to mobilize the U.N. majority against the Israelis because I think this is going to come up in other agencies; it is going to come up in the World Health

Organization. The United States has been defensive on this issue. It seems to me that here is a place where we can take the offensive.

We have become a recent convert to universal membership in the U.N. We fought Chinese membership, but now it is the principle of universality that is at issue. The United States could help break the coalition which is going away from the principle of universality by taking the lead in sponsoring universal membership.

Now there is a candidate coming up for membership. The United States could indicate that it is truly for universal membership even for a country that is very hostile to us by supporting the membership in the U.N. of the Government of Vietnam. This is going to be difficult for us to do, but it seems to me that we want to indicate to the Arabs and to others that you don't expel a nation or don't deny a nation membership and participation in this very messy. world body, because you fundamentally disagree with them. Even if you have recently fought a war with them, nonetheless, they ought to have an opportunity to be full participants in the kind of deliberations that take place in the U.N.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you include the Palestine Liberation Front as evidence of our position.

Mr. Brown. Yes, I would, but with the qualification to the extent that we are admitting a government of a state that is still coming into being, which means we have to consider them for a different kind of membership. They are not yet a state, so that representation or the ability to come to the U.N. and present their case appears to me is what they should get now. They don't get the status in the U.N. of a full state, which doesn't deny them coming to speak. We don't deny them coming to make their case. With respect to Vietnam, the new governmental organization in Vietnam, whether it is South Vietnam or whether it is a unified government that emerges out of Vietnam, it appears to me the United States can indicate that we would accept their formal membership in the U.N.

Senator CLARK. Reverend Coffin.


Mr. COFFIN. I was turning over in my mind following Senator Percy's line, this must be a terrible dilemma for you gentlemen between problem staters and problem solvers. My sympathies are very large. On the other hand, I keep coming back to the fact until we define problems we are just not going to have any answers. On the definition of something as basic as the law of the sea, are we going to be able to define this in a monetary way? Can we be planetary or do we have to go on power really.

Now, I think it is kind of naive to think if you are born over an oil well it belongs to you. But most people seem to feel that way. But the sea is different. This could be a terrific breakthrough, couldn't it, and wouldn't it be possible in this instance to define the problem so the solution could genuinely be different and not just for this jurisdictional approach, you know. And I feel going back to our earlier conversation, when Senator Case was inquiring here about American public opinion, I think there is a yearning for spokesmanship, a craving to be satisfied by leaders like you who would really talk about

interdependence. Everybody knows that is true. And a larger vision would capture the imagination. I think law of the sea would certainly be one place where we might be able to define correctly and really have some kind of breakthrough. Food, how do you define food ?

I am impressed not by everything that goes on in China, I don't know that much about it, but I surely am impressed that the most populous nation in the world and surely one of the world's poorest has no famine, and to me it is not mercenary. Food is defined as a right. It would be a great thing if we could define food in our own country that way. Actually public education I suppose is more of a right than food. It seems to me once again if we define it properly we might come out with a planetary solution to the world problem. It demands a world solution. Suppose we could get it out on a global basis. Suppose some organization, let's say the World Food Council was given authority to decide and to draw up a stiff criteria how money is going to be spent or using NGO's. There are all kinds of imaginative ways it could be done. If we define food as a right at home and in the world, I think that would be another area where we could deal with it.

Lastly, to come back to Senator Symington's point on nuclear disarmament. I am not sure that you can get peace through disarmament. Mr. Cousins knows more about this than I do. I am more impressed by the fact you get disarmament through peace. That is, if people can move from détente to entente some way, you really are working together on something, so you are not targeting each other. Then maybe it makes sense to go for some type of disarmament. This whole notion of taking 10 percent of everybody's military budget for longterm development seems to me to make sense and a way from dealing with the world problem with a world solution, and that is $27 billion if you

throw the Arabs in. If you put 10 percent of everyone's military budget that is something I think most people can see make eminent sense. I can't help think people of the world around would just rise up and say we have heard some uncommonsense and we go with it.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have to leave. I have a 12:30 appointment that I must go to. Before I

go I certainly want to extend my thanks and the thanks of the committee to the panel we have had today.

Senator SYMINGTON. I can stay until 12:30. Senator Percy said he will stay until 10 of 1.

Mr. COUSINS. Just a brief comment.


Dr. Coffin raises the question: Is peace the product of the disarmament or disarmament the result of peace? Obviously no nation is going to disarm until it finds a place for its security; therefore, the need is to create a basis that will enable the nation to disarm. At the same time we have to recognize that the very existence of arms of certain types and certain quantities especially in certain situations, tend to be attacks on the peace and so you have got both.

No nation is going to disarm until it creates the equivalent or creates a basis for peace.

« ПретходнаНастави »