74 I

. f w i 

Un 36/15

/< ? //

U.S. POLICY AND MAJOR ISSUES IN T H E & >4>

government 3 4 T H u n g e n e r a l ASSEMBLY

Storage

)C U M E N T S

APR 1 1980

F A R R E L L L ib R A R Y

KANSAS Si AIL U im.V " H E A R IN G S

BEFORE THE

SUBCOM MITTEE ON 

INTE RN AT IONA L ORG ANIZA TIO NS

OF THE

COMM ITTEE ON FO RE IGN AF FA IR S 

HOUSE OF REPR ESEN TATIVES

NINE TY -SI XT H CONGRESS 

FIR ST SES SIO N

SEPT EMB ER 13 AND 19, 1979

Print ed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

M-256

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1980
i ■

vt

tf,-'

* A *

J

V.

nf i

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

CL EM EN T J. ZA BLOCKI, Wisconsin, Chairman

■x O i j

L. H. FO UN TA IN , North Carolina 

DA NT E B. FA SC EL L, Florida 

CH AR LE S C. DI GG S, Jr., Michigan 

BE NJAM IN S. RO SE NT HA L, New York 

LE E H. HAMILTON , Indiana 

LES TE R L. WO LFF , New York 

JONA TH AN B. BIN GHAM , New York 

GUS YA TR ON , Pennsylvania 

CA RD ISS CO LLINS , Illinois 

ST EP HEN J. SOLA RZ, New York 

DO N BO NK ER , Washington 

GERRY E. STUD DS, Massachusetts 

AN DY IR EL AND, Florida 

DO NA LD J. PE AS E, Ohio 

DA N MICA, Florida 

MICH AE L D. BA RN ES , Maryland 

WILLIA M H. GR AY III, Pennsylva nia 

TO NY P. HA LL, Ohio 

HOW ARD WOLPE , Michigan 

DAV ID R. BOW EN, Mississippi 

FL OY D J. FI TH IA N, Indiana

John J. Brady, Jr., Chief of Staf f

Sandra P. Reinhardt, St aff Assistan t

WILL IAM S. BR OO MF IELD , Michigan 

ED WA RD J. DER WTNSKI, Illinois 

PA UL FI NDLE Y, Illinois 

JO HN H. BUCH AN AN , Jr., Alabama 

LARRY WIN N, Jr., Kansas 

BE NJAM IN A. GILM AN, New York 

TE NN YS ON GU YE R, Ohio 

RO BER T J. LAGOMARSINO, California 

WILL IAM F. GO OD LIN G, Pennsylvania 

JO EL PR IT CHARD, Washington 

MIL LICE NT FENW ICK , New Jersey 

DA N QU AY LE, Ind iana

Subc omm ittee on I nterna tio na l Orga nizations

DON BO NKE R, Washington, Chairman

TO NY P. HA LL, Ohio ED WA RD J. DER WTNSKI, Illinois

FL OY D J. FI TH IA N, Ind iana DA N QU AY LE, Indiana

DAV ID R. BOW EN, Mississippi

Alan E. Van Egmond, Subcommittee Staf f Director

Lawrence B. Sulc, Mino rity Staf f Consultant

Carole A. Grunberg, Subcommittee St af f Associate

Fariborz S. Fatemi, Subcommittee Staff Associate

(U)
CONTENTS

Page

Thu rsda y, Septem ber 13, 1979:

Hon. Charles William Maynes, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs________________________________ 2

George Dailey, Deputy Assistant Secretary of S tate for Hum an Rights 

and Social Affairs__________________________________________ 16

Wednesday, September 19, 1979:

Hon. John Hechinger, public member, U.S. delegation to the 33d

session of t he U.N . General Assembly_________________________ 26

Hon. Charles Whalen, Jr., executive director, “ New Direction s,” and 

U.S. congressional represen tative to the 32d session of the U.N. 

General Assembly__________________________________________ 29

Donald Puchala, editor of Issues Before the 33d General Assembly of 

the United Nations 1978-79, a publication of the U.N . Association 

of the United States of America______________________________ 35

AP PE ND IXES

1. List of members of th e U.S. delegation to the 34th session of the U.N .

General Assembly___________________________________________ 45

2. Articles from the New York Times:

A. “The U.N.’s On-Going Decline,” by Yehuda Z. Blum, Septem ber 13, 1979, Op-ed________________________________ 46

B. “U.S. Disclaims Anti-Israel Votes,” by Bernard Gwertzman,

Septem ber 7, 1979____________________________________ 47

C. “U .N. Assembly, Opening Tomorrow, To Focus on Mideast,

Africa and Cambodia,” Septem ber 17, 1979______________ 48

3. The Washington Sta r (morning edition) article of September 11, 1979,

entitled “Nonalined Nations Face Test of Un ity on Issues Before 

U.N . Assembly session” by Louis Halasz, Time-Life News Service .. 50

4. Article from the Washington Post, September 13, 1979, e ntitled “ Waldheim Sees Troubles in 34th General Assembly,” by Lee Lescaze____ 51

5. Article from the Washington Post, September 16, 1979, entitled “Israelis Seen More Isolated at United Nations Than Ever Before,” by 

Lee Lescaze________________________________________________ 52

6. Tex t of September 25 letter sent to Hon. John Hechinger from Subcomm ittee Chairman Bonker, requesting a responses to additional 

questions for the record______________________________________ 54

7. Responses of Hon. John Hechinger to additional questions subm itte d in

writing by Subcommittee Chairman Bonker_____________________ 55

8. Text of September 25 letter to Hon. Charles Whalen, from Subcommittee Chairman Bonker, requesting responses to add itional questions

for the record_______________________________________________ 56

9. Responses of Hon. Charles Whalen to additional questions submitted in

writing by Subcommittee Chairman Bonker_____________________ 57

(in)

U.S. POLICY AND MAJOR ISSUES IN THE 34TH U.N.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1979

H ous e of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

C om m it te e on F orei gn A ffa ir s, 

S ubcom m it te e on I n te rnati onal Organiz ati ons,

Washingto n, D.C.

Th e sub comm itte e met at 3:05 p.m . in room 2255, Ra yb ur n House 

Office Bui ldin g, Ho n. Do n Bo nker (chairma n of the sub com mittee ) 

presiding.

Mr. B o n k er. Th e Sub com mittee on Intern ationa l Organ ization s 

will come to order.

Th is is the firs t of two sub com mittee hea rings on U.S. policy and 

majo r issues facin g the 34th U.N. Gen eral Assem bly.

We h ave scheduled anoth er da y of hearing s on September 19, when 

th e sub comm itte e will receive test imony f rom priv ate witnesses. Delegates from o ver 150 countries will convene in New York Ci ty on Septem be r 11 throug h Decem ber 21, 1979, for the 34th session of the 

U.N. Gen eral Assembly.

Th e Gen eral Asse mbly age nda will include over 120 items, ran gin g 

from admi nis tra tiv e questio ns to problems threaten ing global peace, 

security and the env ironment.

Re prese nta tives to the UN GA will address man y difficult issues, 

such as the que stio n of the rig ht to self-determination for the Pales ­

tin ian people, and wh eth er to impose economic san ctions on So uth 

Africa. Th eir decisions will determ ine the role the Un ite d Na tio ns will 

pla y throughout the following year in coping wi th global pro blems.

Th e purpose of thi s hea ring is to examine and assess U.S. positions 

on key issues facin g the 34th Gen eral Assembly. We also wan t to look 

at the prog ress in U.S. prepara tio ns for UN GA and wh eth er U.S. 

preparati on s are sufficient to insure effective U.S. pa rti cipa tio n in thi s 

UN GA session.

We also wa nt to insu re th at the official delega tion to the Un ite d 

N atio ns will reflect the position s t h at are con sistent w ith congressional 

policies in connection w ith thi s area.

Th e sub com mittee is pa rticularly int ere ste d in U.S. pos itions on 

other majo r don or and Th ird World countri es on agend a items concerning hu man rig hts in South Africa, the Middle Eas t, and to form 

peac ekeepin g, bu dgeta ry, and personnel matter s.

Th e sub com mittee is also intere sted in agenda items on which discussions on proposed actions are expected.

XD
2

This afternoon we are pleased to have with us the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Charles William 

Maynes, who is a very capable U.S. representative of the State Department, and who will present the administration’s policies for the 

upcoming General Assembly. Accompanying Mr. Maynes is George 

Dailey, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights 

and Social Affairs.

Again, we will pick up on the second part of these hearings on 

September 19 to hear from private witnesses.

The subcommittee will also acknowledge the presence of a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Charlie Diggs, 

who will perhaps be asking some questions; and of course, the ranking 

member on the Democratic side, Tony Hall.

At this time we will proceed, Mr. Maynes, with your testimony. 

You can either read your prepared statement or summarize and submit your prepared statement for the record; whatever is your pleasure.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES WIL LIAM MAYNES, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

AFFAIRS

Mr. Maynes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the prepared 

statement for the record and briefly summarize what we have written 

in there.

We believe that the 34th U.N. General Assembly provides us with 

an opportunity to advance administration and congressional goals of 

attempting to encourage peaceful settlements of international disputes 

and build bridges between the industrialized and the developing 

countries.

At the same time we will be working to protect and if possible 

build on major administration initiatives in the Middle East and 

southern Africa.

We have to be frank and acknowledge that neither our specific 

nor our general objectives will be easy to obtain. We have recently 

had a nonaligned meeting in Cuba, where the results have been mixed. 

Particularly on the Middle East, we anticipate a difficult session at the 

General Assembly.

Moreover, in an age of austerity and tight budgets, we will find it 

more difficult than in the past to respond positively to worthwhile 

economic initiatives.

But the Department strongly believes tha t in this more difficult 

environment, we must avoid the temptation to shirk our international 

responsibilities, because to do so would have major and unacceptable 

costs to our long term foreign policy interests.

We will be operating with a new permanent representative in New 

York, fortunately a man of the widest experience and highest competence in this field, Donald McHenry.

We have made clear to the developing countries that Andy Young’s 

search for areas of common interest with them reflects abiding interest 

of the United States and certainly of this administration and tha t 

this search will continue to be a very high priority of President Carter 

and his administration.

In the economic field we face a critical juncture in the North-South 

relationship. The U.N. General Assembly takes place against a background of serious economic problems and major political change.
3

On the economic fr ont, the Un ite d State s believes the debate sho uld 

focus on specific dev elopment issues, whe re mutua lly satisfac tor y actio n is possible. And we hope th at we can receive su pp ort for thi s 

approach.

In rec ent mo nth s develop ing cou ntri es have beg un to pursue their 

own natio nal inter ests in a more different iated manner with many 

non-oil-exp orting develop ing countries, which are always the ha rdes t 

hi t by oil price increases, beginning to criticize openly OP EC pric ing 

policies.

These countries are increasing ly critica l of the unwillingness of the 

Soviet Uni on and Eas t Eu rop ean s to be of any help . And they are 

also increasingly conc erned wi th the fa lterin g O DA or official develop ­

men t assistan ce perf orm anc e of We stern cou ntries like the Un ite d 

Sta tes.

We wa nt to build on the growing paralle l inter est between the 

developed and the develop ing cou ntries in economic gro wth and 

energy sta bility. We th in k it is of pa rti cu lar importance th at we 

move bey ond the som ewhat simplistic bloc to bloc, North/Sou th 

fram ework to a broader economic dialog which reflects the ran ge 

of int ere sts in the inter natio nal economic system.

Our goals should be pra ctical, rea listic and realizab le. We seek 

res ults ra th er t ha n rhetoric. And we wa nt to make prog ress w hen and 

where we can. We do no t believe th at we should pe rm it disa greeme nts on some sub jects to become artificial obstacles to mo vem ent 

in oth er critical areas.

Mr. Chairma n, this Gen eral Assembly will become the scene of 

majo r political develop men ts. Pope Jo hn Paul II will m ake an importa nt pre senta tio n to the General Assembly. Fid el Ca stro is expecte d 

in New York and we can expect, will exploit to the fullest his role 

as cha irm an of the non alin ed movem ent.

The re are also rum ors th at we could have othe r majo r intern ational personalities, such as Yasser Ar afa t, arrive in New York and 

other world leaders and rep res entative s from the world pres s will 

dra ma tize events at the General Assembly in a way th at com mands 

global attenti on .

This General Assembly will also tak e place again st a backg rou nd 

of great politica l change. Th e colonial era has come pract ica lly to an 

end. South ern Africa rep res ents the last bas tion. And we are all 

wor king hard to reach acceptable s olutions on Na mibia and Rhodesia.

There are also a nu mb er of endemic crisis areas which dema nd 

a sus tain ed U.S. political role. These include So uthe ast Asia and 

the Mid dle Ea st. We can review in the quest ion period these issues 

in som ewhat m ore detail.

The situatio n in So uth east Asia has change d rad ically over the 

last 'y ear, with a Vietnam ese Arm y occ upation in Ka mp uchea and 

br utal Vietnam ese refugee policies contr ibuti ng to a majo r hu man 

dis ast er affecting all of the cou ntries of the region.

Th e General Assembly will offer oppo rtu nitie s for U.S. lea dership in mobilizing hu man ita ria n assista nce and focusing political 

attention on the problem s of South east Asia.

In the Mid dle Eas t our chief prior ity will be to avoid act ion w hich 

would dam age the peac e process. Our task will be to tr y to protect 

the peac e process beg un at Camp Da vid, as it is the only viable 

appro ach to peac e in the 30-year his tor y of the Middle Eas t conflict.
4

We also will be faced wi th a nu mber of other very difficult Mid dle 

Eas t issues, including the sit ua tio n in Leb ano n, the widespread 

opp osition in the inter natio na l com mu nity to Israeli set tleme nts 

policy, and the so-called Zionism /racism resolution which rea ppear ed 

at the Hav an a conference.

As to south ern Africa, the Lu saka Com monwe alth Conference has 

cre ated a new hope for finding alt ern ati ves to escalating civil war in 

Zim babwe- Rho desia. West ern co nta ct group effo rts conc erning 

Na mibia also show signs of progre ss.

Th e U.S. Gover nm ent will su pp ort U.K. efforts on ZimbabweRhodesia and work with othe r gov ern me nts of the co nta ct group on 

Na mi bia to bring about inter na tio na lly acceptable solu tion s in both 

countries.

Main tai nin g the mo me ntu m pro vided by the Special General 

Asse mbly on Arm s Control and Disarm am ent held in 1978 will be 

an im po rta nt objective at the forthcoming General Assembly, which 

will consider some 40 age nda items concerned with arm s con trol and 

disarm am ent .

We will continu e our effo rts to implement elements of the Pre side nt ’s 1978 U .N. reform pac kage. Our majo r goal should be app rov al 

of proposals to rationaliz e U.N. Gen eral Assembly procedu res.

We are encoura ged in the se efforts by the Sec retary Gener al’s 

June 24 rep ort, which set forth rec om menda tion s for making this 

Assembly more efficient.

On Ju ne 14, I app eared before this sub com mittee and addressed 

the subje ct of peace, sec urity, and int ern ational law. Du rin g th at 

tes tim ony, I covered the top ic of peaceke eping in detail. I would be 

ha pp y to take any questio ns on specific matters .

In the bu dget and financing area, we hav e two difficult issues. We 

plan to seek adjus tm ents in existing U.N . financial procedures where 

th at is wa rra nted. Growth in bu dg etary levels relate d to growing 

U.N. responsibilities also rem ains a serious problem and requires 

closer c ontro ls.

Fin ally , we may face a major challenge to our curre nt assessment, 

25 perce nt, by sta tes which believe we should shoulder a larg er 

bu rden of U.N. costs. We will no t acc ept any increase in our assessme nt.

We expect to be able to build on the steady , if uns pec tacula r, 

prog ress in hu man rig hts question s in previous sessions. The tragic 

plight of t he Indo-C hinese refugees, to which I hav e alr ead y alluded, 

will focus attention on this problem in South eas t Asia and elsewhere.

Th e Pope’s app earance will arou se new inter est in the question of 

freedom of religion.

Th e bro ad range of othe r hu man rig hts issues on the agenda will 

pro vide us with num erous opportu nities to demo nstra te our natio nal 

comm itm ent to civil, politica l, economic, social, and cultu ral ri ghts of 

bo th groups and individ uals .

In pa rticular, we plan to prop ose ini tia tiv es to hig hlight such 

continuing abuses as tortu re, disapp eared persons, and a rel ate d need 

to e nha nce t he p rotec tion of detained persons.

No m at te r how ima gin ative the initia tiv es deve loped for th e General 

Asse mbly , however, th e ab ility of the Un ited States to pa rticip ate 

effec tively in the hu man rig hts work at the U.N . is imp aire d by our 

failure to ratif y the majo r U.N. hu man rig hts cov enants. I hope thi s
5

is an issue to which the Congress can dir ect more attention. The se 

convenant s provide for hu man rig hts ma chine ry from which we are 

now excluded because of our failure to r atify these cov ena nts. Over the pa st 3 years we have discu ssed key multilateral issues in 

unpre ced ent ed detail with othe r majo r donors and Th ird Wo rld countries, and , where possible, we have coord ina ted positions. We also have ha d a wide ran ge of pre -Genera l Asse mbly, high -level 

con sultation s with ma ny cou ntri es on bo th political and economic 

issues. These efforts of coordination a nd m any oth ers all affect o ur position 

at the Gen eral Assembly. Las t year, our dele gation to the General Assembly was composed 

of 59 pers ons: 5 senior rep res entative s, 5 alt ern ate s, including 2 

congressional and 3 pub lic mem bers , and 49 oth ers, mo st of whom 

were m embers of the U.S. mission in New Y ork and S tate D ep artm en t 

experts. We are cu rre ntl y com pleting this ye ar ’s del ega tion list.1

Mr. C hairm an, the Dep artm en t welcomes thi s com mittee’s init iativ e 

in revie wing our prepara tio ns for the ne xt Gen eral Assembly. WTe hop e 

th at in the next 3 months of the Ass emb ly’s work, some of you will have an op po rtu nity to visit New York, to monito r events an d provide 

us with yo ur own recom mendatio ns and advice. In any even t, I and my bureau will be h ap py to answer an y ques tions 

you and other members of the com mittee may have as the session 

unfolds. I would be ha pp y to answer a ny question s.

Mr. B onker. Th an k you , Mr. Ma ynes. And th an k you for the 

brev ity of yo ur sta temen t. Th e full conte xt will be included in the 

official reco rd.

[Mr. Maynes’ pre pared stat em en t follows:]

P r epa r ed Sta te m e n t of H o n . C h a r les W il lia m M a y n es, Assis ta n t

Secreta ry o f Sta te fo r I n ter n a tio n a l Or g an iz a tio n Affa ir s

in tr o d u c tio n

The events of the pa st year, as few years since 1945, have highlighted the majo r role which the U nite d Nations plays in international affairs. The recently recessed debate on Palestinian rights, the "Geneva meeting on Vietnam refugees, the con­ tinuing efforts to foster peaceful settlements in Lebanon, Cyprus and Namibia, are only among the more prom inent efforts undertake n b y member states through the U.N. Because of its extensive network of specialized agencies, and because it is the U.N. thro ugh which most countries of the world choose to seek solutions to a vast array of problems, we have found it necessary and desirable to respond to problems of a global n ature thro ugh the institutional political, legal an d economic 

opportunities offered by th e U.N. Many of these problems and opportunities will be presented and given focus at the annu al meeting of the U.N. General Assembly. The 34th U.N. General As­ sembly provides an opp ortu nity to advance our broad goals of encouraging the peaceful settlement of inte rnational disputes and building bridges between in­ dustrialized and developing countries. We will have to be careful to protect and if possible build upon major Administration initia tives in the Mideast and southern 

Africa. Neither our specific nor our general objectives will be easy to attain . Recen t declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement have adversely effected th e atm osphere on political issues. Moreover, in an age of austerity and t igh t budgets, we will find it more difficult than in the past to respond positively to worthwhile economic initia­ tives. But in this more difficult environment, we must avoid the tem ptation to shirk our international responsibilities. To do so could have major costs to our long-term 

interests.

1

 See appendix 1, p. 45. 

54-256—80----- 2
6

We will be operating with a new Permanent Representative in New York — 

fortunately, a man of the widest experience and highest competence in this field, 

Don McHenry. We will have to find some way of meeting Andy Young’s high 

standards in understanding and responding to the Third World’s agenda of issues. 

We have made clear to developing countries th at Andy’s search for areas of common interest with them reflects abiding U.S. national interests and will continue to 

be a very high priority of President Carter.

EC ONO M IC IS SU E S

The U.N. G.A. takes place against a background of serious economic problems 

and major political change.

On the economic side, there is widespread concern in the international community over th future prospects for the world economy and frustration over the 

apparent inability of existing institutions to solve the problems of slow growth, 

inflation, unstable world energy prices and supplies, unbalanced trade and payments flows, and economic development.

The United States and the industrial countries will no doubt continue to come 

under attack for not doing enough for the LD C’s. Nevertheless, the tone of the 

North/South economic dialogue has improved somewhat over the past year. The 

U.S. position that the debate should focus on specific development issues, where 

mutally satisfactory action is possible, is sound and gaining support. But we 

should not expect the developing countries to cease demanding more resource 

transfers and a greater decisionmaking role on global economic issues.

In recent months, developing nations have begun to pursue their own national 

interests in a more differentiated manner, with many non-oil exporting LD Cs— 

which are always the hardest hit by oil price increases— beginning to criticize 

openly OPEC pricing policies. These countries are increasingly critical of the 

unwillingness of the U.S.S.R. and the East Europeans to be of any help. They 

also are increasingly concerned at the faltering ODA performance of Western 

countries.

This growing diversification of the international community is of course a longterm process. There will be ups and downs; both directions were evident at the 

recent UN CT AD V meetings in Manila. But this process is a natural development and will continue in the years ahead as additional countries take their 

places in the international economy.

As Secretary Vance said in his May 1 Chicago speech on “ The Challenge of a 

Changing World,” we welcome pluralism and are determined to work with 

developed and developing countries to ensure a more equitable world economics 

system. We want to build on the growing parallel interests between developed and 

developing countries in economic growth and energy stability. We think it is of 

particular importance that we move beyond the somewhat simplistic bloc to bloc 

“ North/South” framework to a broader economic dialogue which reflects the range 

of interests in the international economic system. Our goals should be practical, 

realistic and realizable. We seek results rather than rhetoric. And we should make 

progress when and where we can. We should not permit disagreements on some 

subject to become artificial obstacles to movement in other crucial areas.

P O L IT IC A L IS SU E S

This G. A. will be the scene of major political developments.

Pope John Paul II will make an important visit to the United States, including 

a presentation to the General Assembly, which will focus world attention on the 

importance of freedom of religion in the contemporary era.

Castro is expected in New York, on the heels of his non-aligned summit spectacular, and will exploit to the fullest his role as chairman of the Non-Alignment 

Movement.

Yasser Arafat is expected to spotlight attention on the Palestinian question.

Finally, other world leaders and representatives from the world press will 

dramatize events at the General Assembly in a way that commands global 

attention.

This G. A. also will take place against a backdrop of great political change.

Cold war has given way to a complex and unstable mix of competition and cooperation, with S AL T and arms control a major and continuing policy imperative

Many developing nations increasingly exercise influence in our interdependent 

world and their national interests must be taken into account.
There is a growing diffusion of political, economic and military power, which is 

creating new (albeit still unclear) internatio nal relationships. These range from oil and industrial power to the proliferatio n of convention military power—and, 

potentially, nuclear weapons capacity. The colonial era has come prac tically to an end. Southern Africa represe nts the last bastion and we all are working hard to reach acceptable solutions in 

Rhodesia and N amibia. . , TT <s

There are a number of endemic crisis areas which demand a sustain ed u. o. political role. These include Southeast Asia, a nd the Mideast, as well as southern

I would like to review these latte r issues for you in somew hat more detail 

in light of the major role they will play in this G.A.

SO U TH EA ST ASI A

The situatio n in Southeast Asia has changed radically over the las t year, with a Vietnamese arm y of occupation in Kampuchea and bruta l Vietnamese refugee policies con tributing to a major human disaster affecting all of the countries 

of the region. . . . .

The G.A. will offer opp ortunities for US leadership in mobilizing hum anitarian assistance and focusing political attention on the problems of Southeast Asia. Special prio rity will have to be given to the meeting the threat of imm inent famine in Cambodia. The Assembly will also consider what progress has been made in responding to the net flow of refugees from Vietnam. We will seek to work closely with the countries of the region t o press for a political solution to the Kam puchean question and an end to Vietn am’s military occup ation of th at country. We may also need to focus attention on Vietnamese internal policies, 

he root cause of the refugees problem which has arisen.

M ID DLE EA ST

Our chief priority will be to avoid U.N .G.A . actio n which could damage the peace process. Despite defeat of the att em pt to exclude Israel and punish Egypt at the WHO, some rejec tionist Arab states remain determined to condemn Egypt and Israel and to undermine th e a uth ority of the T rea ty and the legitimacy of the auto nomy talk s. The confrontational approac h adopted by the Non- Aligned Summit, at the urging of Arafat and the rejection ist Arabs, prob ably 

will be reasserted in the U.N.G.A . Our task will be to try to protect the peace process begun at Camp David, as it is the only viable approach to peace developed in the 30-year history of Mideast conflict. We wan t to make the point strongly th at the process of negotiations is much more likely to produce peace and to prom ote legitimate Palestinian rights, than the infla mmatory language and confron tational rhetoric employed by the NAM. We will stress th at a confrontational approach is entirely inappropr iate in a body such as the U.G.A. which has a Charter obligation to work for int ernational peace and security. We also will be faced with a number of other very difficult Mideast issues. These include the situatio n in Lebanon and the widespread opposition in the inte rna tional community to Israeli settlements policy. We remain concerned at the Zionism/ Racism link which reappeared at the H avana Conference. We may also see General Assembly calls for Chapte r VII sanctions against Israel, building on a resolution las t yea r which called for a ban on arms sales to Israel.

S O U T H E R N A FR IC A

The L usaka Commonwealth Conference has p ut a whole new face on the African debate in th e GA by reviving alternative s to escalating civil war in Zimbabwe- Rhodesia. Western Con tact Group efforts concerning Namibia also show signs of 

progress. The U.S. government certainly will do wh atev er it can, in su ppo rt of the U nited King dom’s efforts on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and in coordination with the oth er members of the Contact Group on Namibia, to bring abo ut inte rna tionally- aeceptab le solutions in both countries. African Fron t Line states and Nigeria will continue to p lay a major role in efforts to bring about a peaceful tran sition to majority rule in southern Africa. Their active cooperation w ith Western efforts over the past three years, and the ir highly visible commitm ent to the Com monwealth initiative, have been critical in the progress obtained a nd will be decisive in any GA actions.
8

We anticipate, at the same time, tha t there will be no let-up in pressures to bring 

about an end to South Africa’s apartheid system. The Third World will seek to 

assert those pressures through Western industrialized countries’ support for 

Chapter VI I mandatory sanctions against South Africa, with attention probably 

focusing on the supply and distribution of oil.

AR MS CO NTR OL

Maintaining the momentum provided by the Special G.A. session on Arms 

Control, held in 1978, the forthcoming G.A. will consider some 40 agenda items 

concerned with arms control and disarmament. The G.A. will consider the work 

of the newly established Committee on Disarmament, the old CC D enlarged to 

include France, among others. It will also review the efforts of the revived U.N. 

Commission on Disarmament which met last spring. Several of the issues before 

the G.A., such as proposals for a comprehensive test ban and a trea ty on chemical 

warfare, are of particular importance to the United States. Consideration of the 

dangers of nuclear proliferation will take on new significance in light of the 

nuclear programs being conducted by Pakistan and South Africa.

U .N . REF ORM

We will continue our efforts to implement elements of the President’s 1978 

U.N . Reform package. Our major goal should be approval of the proposals concerning U.N. G.A. procedures developed by our representatives and an ad hoc 

group of U.N. Ambassadors. We also will want to press our ideas for reform in 

FC work and in U.N . peacekeeping.

We are encouraged in these efforts by the Secretary General’s June 24 report, 

which set forth recommendations for making the Assembly more efficient. Many 

of our proposals are incorporated in that report, including those to make greater 

use of the General (Steering) Committee of the Assembly by having it review the 

progress of work throughout the session, reduce the number of agenda items 

through groupings of similar issues and staggering consideration of items over two 

or more sessions. Other U.S. proposals also are included in the Secretary General’s 

report.

W e and other countries which have been concerned by the organizational chaos 

tha t affected last year’s session are extremely pleased b y the Secretary General’s 

report. It is our hope that at this session the Assembly will approve it and begin 

to institute many of its recommendations.

U .N . P E A C E K E E P IN G

On June 14, I appeared before this Sub-committee and addressed the subject 

of peace, security and international law. During th at testimony I covered the topic 

of peacekeeping in detail. I discussed recent U.N . peacekeeping operations and 

how the technique of peacekeeping is one of the truly hopeful innovations of the 

United Nations. I also discussed our proposals for institutionally strengthening 

United Nations peacekeeping capabilities. I would be glad to take any of your 

questions on specific matters.

BU D G ET AN D FIN AN CIN G IS SU ES

We face two highly controversial issues.

The Washington Post series on U.N. financial management, though discredited 

in its major conclusions by the GAO testimony, has nonetheless focused attention 

on the need to push for adjustments in existing procedures. We plan to do so 

where t hat is warranted.

Growth in budgetary levels, related to growing U.N . responsibilities, also 

remains a serious problem and requires closer controls. We sponsored some proposals at last year’s U.N .G.A., including, in particular, a request that the Secretar y General identify marginal and obsolete activities so that their cost can be 

used to offset new requirements. We also voted against substantial supplemental 

appropriations for the 1978-79 U.N . budget and were successful in obtaining the 

support of several other major donors.

Finally, we m ay face a major challenge to our current assessment (25 percent) 

by states who believe we should shoulder a bigger share of U N costs. We will not 

accept any increase in our assessment. We are also working with U.N . specialized 

agencies to develop new techniques to separate technical assistance out of assessed 

budgets. We appreciate the high priority placed on this matter by the Congress.
9

HUMAN RIGHTS

We expect to be able to build on the steady, if unspectacular, progress on human 

rights questions in previous sessions. We have moved beyond having to persuade 

others that human rights are a vita l and continuing concern of the international 

community, and not a Western ploy.

The tragic plight of the Indochinese refugees, to which I already have alluded, 

will focus attention on this problem in Southeast Asia, as well as in Africa and 

elsewhere. The Pope’s appearance will arouse new interest in freedom of religion. 

We plan an active role on these issues. Our efforts to counter racial discrimination 

are hampered since the Zionism-racism linkage required our non-participation in 

the U.N. ’s Decade Against Racial Discrimination.

The broad range of other human rights items on the agenda will provide us 

with numerous opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to the civil, political, 

economic, social and cultural rights of both groups and individuals. We plan to 

propose initiatives to highlight such continuing abuses as torture, disappeared 

persons and the related need to enhance the protection of detained persons. Elimination of discrimination among women and support for programs under the U.N . 

Decade for Women also will be major objectives. We believe that no groups of 

rights should be emphasized by the U.N. to the exclusion of the other.

I want to make one last point in this area. No matter how imaginative the 

initiatives we develop for the General Assembly, the ability of the United States 

to participate effectively in the human rights work of the U.N. is impaired by our 

failure to ratify the major U.N . human rights covenants.

COORDINATION

Over the past three years, we have discussed ke y multilateral issues in unprecedented detail with other major donors and Third World countries, and, where 

possible, we have coordinated positions.

We consider the success with which Western and African Front Line states 

have worked together on southern African problems in the U.N. to be a direct 

result of this effort.

We have just completed two major rounds of coordination, involving representations in scores of capitals and in New York, aimed at protecting Israel’s and Egypt’s 

position in international fora and at ensuring as constructive an outcome as 

possible at the Non-Aligned Summit.

We have had a wide-range of pre- U.N.G.A . high-level consultations with many 

countries on both political and economic issues.

These efforts at coordination, and many others, all affect the G.A.

U.S. DELE GATION

Last year, our delegation to the GA was composed of 59 persons: five senior 

representatives, five alternates (including two Congressional and three public 

members) and 49 others. Most of the others were members of the U.S. Mission in 

New York, and regional or functional specialists in the Department, who are 

expert either in multilateral meetings or their own fields, or both. The Washington 

specialists were physically present in New Yor k during the session whenever 

agenda items of particular concern to them were active. We have not yet completed this year’s delegation list.

Mr. Chairman, the Department welcomes your initiative in reviewing our 

preparations for the next G.A. We hope that in the three months of the Assembly’s 

work some of you will have an opportunity to visit New York to monitor events 

and provide us with your own recommendations and advice. In any event, I and 

my bureau will be happy to answer any questions you and other members of the 

Committee may have as the sessions unfolds.

Mr. B on ke r. I am jus t going through the clippings that my staff 

has collected in the past few day s.1 Thi ngs do not look ve ry brig ht 

for the upcoming session. One article by the Israeli representativ e to 

the United Nations appeared in the New Yo rk Times jus t tod ay on 

the United Na tio n’s decline, and it talk s abou t problems tha t he 

perceives. In fact, the United Nations is hav ing a form of confrontation and dissension among member nations. Waldhe im sees trouble

1

 See articles in appendixes 2, 3, 4, and 5, beginning on p. 46.
10

in the 34th session, but I think more specifically it relates to U.S. 

representation with the new and perhaps continuing problem of 

official State Department policy as it relates to U.N. activities and 

votes. We know tha t now, with the more recent example of our 

Permanent Ambassador taking action tha t may or may not be consistent with the established State Department policy. In the New 

York Times the other day, it was reported tha t a U.S. representative 

cast two anti-Israeli votes at a U.N. Human Rights Subcommission 

meeting in Geneva in the representative’s personal capacity, not in 

his official capacity.

Are we going to have continuing problems with U.S. votes, actions 

and attitudes that are not consistent with whatever the State Department’s established policy is?

Mr. Maynes. Mr. Chairman, I am very glad you raised the question of Ambassador Carter’s votes. Let me explain the nature of the 

post of a representative on the Human Rights Subcommission.

The Subcommission is a body of the United Nations where representatives from countries serve in their individual capacity. The 

United States has never instructed its representative to the Subcommission in the history of th at body. We do not take the Soviet view 

that it is impossible for an individual to serve in an expert capacity. 

Subsequently, the U.S. representative to the Subcommission, the U.S. 

representative to the OAS Inter-American Human Rights Commission, the U.S. expert on the ILO group of experts, have never been 

instructed in the history of U.S. involvement with these organizations.

Quite the contrary, the United States left the ILO because we felt 

tha t other countries were attempting to politicize the impartial and 

objective work of the group of experts. The group of experts has been 

at the heart of the human rights activities of the ILO, and we were 

seeing a situation where the work of that group of experts was overturned or disregarded by the fall conference of the ILO.

I think it is very important tha t the United States protect the 

concept tha t we can pick distinguished Americans like Ambassador 

Carter and allow them to vote their conscience in an expert’s capacity.

In comparison now, the U.S. representative to the Human Rights 

Commission, former Congressman Mezvinski, is instructed, and 

when he speaks, he will be speaking with the full authority of the 

United States, but Ambassador Carter’s role on the Subcommission is 

really to serve on a quasi-judicial capacity. As a matter of fact, the 

Subcommission’s primary responsibility is to review the thousands, 

indeed, tens of thousands of letters th at are sent to the United Nations 

alleging practices of discrimination or violation of human rights in 

various countries around the world.

The Subcommission reviews these documents in this quasi-judicial 

manner, and then makes recommendations to the full Commission for 

action. Obviously, tha t kind of situation, we cannot have our representative instructed in a case where, as I say, he is reviewing in effect 

evidence and deciding whether the cases proposed seem to reflect a 

pattern of violations which deserve consideration by the full Commission.

Mr. Bonker. At some point we need consistency or we are going 

to leave our friends and adversaries in a highly confused state, because 

U.S. policy may represent one standard at the U.N. level and may 

represent an entirely different standard according to tha t person’s
11

conscience at another level. I don’t think this exists with this particular 

case, but politicization is not going to disappear, it is going to intensify. 

I don’t know which agencies are instructed by State and which ones 

are not. I don’t think you could provide me with a list t hat would have 

that.

Mr. Maynes. We certainly could provide you with such a list. The 

three bodies that I mentioned fall into this category. We also have 

an expert on the Committee on Contributions which serves in a private capacity; an American expert on ABAQ serves in a private 

capacity. We have a number of bodies in the United Nations where 

an individual serves in a private capacity. They tend to be concentrated either in the financial area or in this area like human rights, 

where we do have bodies, where the individuals are supposed to examine the evidence as objectively as possible and then make recommendations.

I would point out tha t the Subcommission can take no action of its 

own. The recommendations it makes have to go to the full Commission and then the full Commission makes its decision.

Mr. Bonker. Is our representative to the full Commission then 

instructed by him?

Mr. Maynes. Yes; he is, and our representative to the ILO conference is also instructed. However, there have been U.S. experts 

who have served in the ILO group of experts who did not accept 

instructions. A former representative who comes to mind quickly is 

Earl Warren. You can see th at the situation depends on the character 

of the person tha t is selected and the nature of the body in which 

they serve.

Mr. Bonker. Mr. Hall?

Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maynes. many of the nonalined countries at the conference 

in Havana supported many anti-U.S. positions. Can we expect this 

kind of approach at the upcoming session of the General Assembly?

Mr. Maynes. Let me comment on the nonalined conference in 

Havana. I think it is important to look at the political context in 

which tha t meeting took place. What you have there is a struggle 

between countries represented by Cuba on the one hand and countries 

represented by Yugoslavia, Tanzania, India on the other, regarding 

the fundamental character of the nonalined movement.

In 1973, Fidel Castro decided to join the nonalined movement. He 

went to Algiers and delivered a speech in Algiers in which he said 

there was a natural alliance between the nonalined movement and 

the Soviet Union. At tha t time, he was denounced from the floor, 

and as I recall, I think it was even Qadafi who walked out of the 

meeting.

The meeting was, in short, unsuccessful.

This time around, the Cubans, in the drafts tha t they wrote never 

formally advanced the proposition that there was a natural alliance, 

but the whole thrust of the documents suggested tha t there was an 

affinity. The opening section of the document did discuss this critical 

issue in theoretical terms, but it is not just theoretical. It has implications particularly for a country like Yugoslavia.

The Cuban draft was radically revised. The document reflected the 

traditional position of the nonalined countries. In assessing, then, the
12

res ults of Hav an a, one has to go to the var iou s sections of the documen t to det erm ine wh eth er it was good or bad. Th e res ult s the re are 

mixe d. Th e session on the Mid dle Eas t is ve ry bad. There is no disguising th at fac t, and we fra nkly deplore the kin d of decisions which 

were made the re. I t is im po rta nt to no te, however , and I think it is 

im po rtan t for the Congress to realize, the role th at the African 

cou ntries pla yed in the non alin ed me etin g dealing with this section. 

I t was African su pp ort for Egy pt which blocked the effort to expel 

Egy pt from t he n ona line d movem ent. It was African re sistance which 

las ted all even ing, in an all-night session, which blocked con dem natio n of E gy pt itself.

Mr. B onk er. Mr. Mayne s, may I ju st ask, if the gen tlema n will 

pe rm it, were there established leaders withi n the African movem ent 

ta t p rov ide d this dire ction?

Mr. Mayn es. Th ere certain ly were. I thi nk a very im po rta nt speech 

and one th at w as extr emely well rece ived by t he delegate s was J uli us 

Ny ere’s speech and ini tiatives tak en by Senegal and Nigeria.

Mr. B onk er. W as Sudan invo lved in that?

Mr. Maynes. Mr. Chairma n, we were no t pe rm itted into the hall.

Mr. B onk er. I can’t imagine w hy. [General laughter.]

Mr. Mayn es. We do no t have a detaile d acc ount of all of the discussions. We are curre ntl y assembling—man y of the speeches given 

in H av an a which were denied us are now being pub lish ed in the press 

by the gov ernme nts in question, so surely we will have all of thes e 

speeches, bu t the cou ntries I mentio ned certa inly playe d an im po rta nt 

role and a helpful role, and as I say, I th in k it is im po rta nt th at the 

Congress un de rst an d th at .

Th e south ern African section of the nonaligned docume nt was 

revised to reflect the res ult s of the Lu saka Conference. In the rest, 

there was reco gnition of the ne gotia tin g effort. There was strong 

criticism of South Africa for no t accepting the decisions of the Security Council, and the re was strong rheto ric ab ou t the relatio nsh ip 

which some We stern countries, including th e Un ited Sta tes , have wi th 

South Africa, bu t th at lang uage was no different from wh at has tr aditiona lly app eared in doc ument s of this sort.

So, in short, the re really was n ot m uch difference between the non - 

aligned doc um ent th at came ou t of Hav an a and oth er non alig ned 

doc ument s with res pec t to sou the rn Africa.

Th e In dian Ocean section was dram ati cally revised to dele te the 

attack s on the Un ite d State s, and to call for general dis arm am ent in 

the region. Th e section on South east Asia was changed to call upo n 

the cou ntries in the region, and th at means Vietnam in particular , to 

live up to the com mitment s made at the Gen eva Conference. The 

section on Lat in A merica was revised to dele te the atta ck on the Rio 

Tre at y System and the Inter-Am erican Defense College, bu t there 

was str ong la nguage on P uerto Rico, s tro ng language on the American 

base at Gu antan am o, and the blockade.

In short, the mo st difficult section for the Un ited State s in the 

nonaligned docum ent was the Mid dle Eas t, where there was a clear 

and d ram atic change in the tone of the lan gua ge used and the stre ng th 

of the words employed.

Mr. Hall. T o follow up on th at que stio n, the House just recently 

passed a fairly costly foreign aid bill. At the tim e we were passing it, 

many of the Th ird World countries, many of the countries attend ing
13

the conference in Havana were giving us considerable verbal abuse. Is 

this going to continue in the United Nations? I am sure many Americans cannot see the necessity of continuing to aid Third World countries tha t do in fact seem to be stepping up their criticism of us.

It is my understanding that at the United Nations, we have between 15 and 17 countries that always support our positions. Will 

there be a change in this, and do you also see a step-up of criticism 

and denunciations of the United States?

Mr. Maynes. This charge is often made. In terms of the United 

Nations, itself, I went through the general debate last year looking 

for evidence of abuse of the United States, and quite frankly, there 

were only two or three countries tha t I think fell into the category 

that you are talking about. One of them was Cuba, which at the last 

General Assembly delivered, as Castro once again did in Havana, a 

very abusive statement with respect to the United States. We will 

have to look at the general debate of the General Assembly to see 

what kind of rhetoric will be employed, but it is important to point 

out there were a number of Third World countries at the nonaligned 

movement tha t took very courageous stands.

One was Tanzania. Another was India. Another was Panama. As a 

matter of fact, the Panamanians stood up and formally praised President Carter for his courage in pushing through the Panama Canal in 

the face of significant domestic opposition. Peru played an important 

role, and there were a number of other countries. So, I think it would 

be unfair to the developing countries to imply that somehow they are 

united against the United States. That simply is not an accurate 

picture of what took place, but more important, I think we have a 

longer run interest in fostering ties with a number of these countries 

that are important to us politically, economically, geographically. It 

would be very foolhardy on our part to cut ourselves off from a relationship with these countries.

Mr. H all. With respect to the PLO controversy, is there going to 

to be a different approach to the PLO, or are we going to follow the 

same line that we have taken in past years?

Mr. Maynes. The United States has never had a different approach 

to the PLO. What has happened in recent months is that there have 

been rumors tha t the PLO may have a different approach. Whether 

tha t turns out to be true, I really am not in a position to say. But I 

think you can see from a variety of sources that the PLO is cultivating 

a new image, attem pting to reach out in a way tha t it did not before. 

I think the meetings with Kriesky are an example of this, and there 

have been other initiatives tha t they have taken. There have been 

rumors, as you know, in the press that the PLO was or is perhaps in a 

)osition to meet the conditions which were laid down some time ago 

yy the United States, on the issue of whether it would enter into some 

rind of discussion with the PLO. The essence of this question is 

whether they accept Resolution 242 and the existence of Israel.

There have been many rumors in the past on this subject. They 

have invariably failed to materialize at the last minute, for one reason 

or another. While no action has taken place to date, what has been 

different in recent weeks is a marked increase of speculative rumors. 

Therefore, they were given more credence. We have yet to see however, the decisive steps that people are talking about.

54-25G— 80----- 3
14

Mr. H all. The Presi dent ma de several sugg estio ns to the State 

Dep artm en t in regard to U.N . refo rm. He sugg ested a pro gra m— I 

don’t know w hat has happene d to th at program . Is th at again going 

to be pus hed in thi s session of th e Un ited Nation s?

Mr. Mayn es. We have in our earlier con sultations, and inten d to 

continu e pressing for our initial prio ritie s. We do think th at there 

may be an op po rtu nity for the first tim e in ma ny years to make some 

prog ress in reform of the Gen eral Assembly. Now, wh eth er th at will 

pa n out, I don’t know. Bu t, there was at the end of the last Gen eral 

Assembly a great deal of widely shared satisfaction amo ng various 

regio nal groups about the way the Gen eral Assembly is being conducted. With the Un ited State s and countries like Ca nada tak ing an 

initia tive, we were able to esta blis h in New York an ad hoc grou p of 

sta tes which bro ught tog eth er rep res entative s from all regio nal 

political groups.

We ha d rep res entation from the developin g countries, from socialist 

countries, and from We stern Europe. Recommenda tion s were developed, ma ny of which have found their way into the repo rt of the 

Secre tary General to the membership with reg ard to steps th at could 

be tak en to imp rove the work of the Gen eral Assembly. We would like 

to see continu ed progress m ade on this high p rio rity issue dur ing this 

ye ar’s UNG A.

Merging all of these perspective s is a difficult problem, because each 

member stat e has its own reasons for either actively supporting some 

steps of refor m, or on the other ha nd disagreeing on the same set of 

step s. Fo r example, I was rec ently in India where they strongly suppo rt the idea th at there should be a procedural refo rm in the Gen eral 

Assem bly. But t hey also pointed o ut th at t hey have parliam entar ian s 

who are on their delegation, who are very rel uc tant to see som e of th ese 

chan ges because it provide s the m with an op po rtu nity to spe ak in a 

way which is useful to the m at home.

I think, however, th at this year offers great poten tia l for success. 

Giv en the record, it would be prud en t to wa it and see before we can 

really claim success.

Mr. H all. Th an k you, Mr. May nes.

Mr. B onk er. I am pleased th at the gen tlem an raised the question 

of reform, beca use this sub com mittee is very intere sted in th at 

sub ject. T he State D ep artm en t in response to a congressional initiative 

has s ubmi tted a report which c ontain s v ery specific recommendations. 

We hav e alread y had hearing s on this sub ject, and have noted th at 

no t much prog ress has been mad e, so I app reciate the high pri ority 

you attach to your reform, and after the General Assembly session 

we hope to p ick up on this m at te r again and see what progress has been 

made. You can pass it on to our official delegation th at at lea st this 

sub com mittee is vit all y intere sted in the sub ject, and we hope th at 

the re is progress.

Mr. Mayn es. I a ppreciate t ha t sen tim ent, and it will be useful to be 

able to pass on both to senior officials in the State Dep artm en t and 

our delegation, the sub comm itte e’s concern in this area.

Mr. B onk er. Th e sub com mittee is very pleased to hav e with us 

toda y Repre sen tative Cha rlie Diggs, who is a distinguish ed member 

of the full com mittee.

Mr. Diggs, we invite you to ask questio ns and make any commen ts 

at thi s time.
15

Mr. Diggs. Th an k you very much, Mr. Ch airma n. I app rec iate 

your cou rtesy in extending me an op po rtu nity to ask thr ee or four 

questions.

Mr. Chairma n, you as a form er memb er of the Subco mm itte e on 

Africa and I as a con tinuing member of th at sub com mittee are well 

aware of the im po rta nt com pon ent th at is represented by Africa in 

U.N . affairs. Hen ce the ration ale for my presence here tod ay.

Mr. Chairma n, ma y I first of all observe th at the Dep uty Assistan t 

Sec retary, Mr. Dailey, has been selec ted lor a no the r post. A s I understa nd i t, this ma y be his farewell app ear anc e before the sub com mittee 

and before the com mittee in general. I certainly would like to extend 

my co mpliments to him for his p erfo rma nce a nd for th e enl igh ten me nt 

th at he has provided so ma ny of us in th e ex ecution of his responsibility, 

and I wish him well in his new assignment as a member of the Civil 

Aer ona utic s Boa rd. I am sure th at his career dev elopment will be 

concluded the re as it is here with distinctio n.

Mr. Dall ey. Th an k you, Mr. Diggs.

Mr. Diggs. Who are the congressional and pub lic members for the 

upcoming session?

Mr. Mayn es. Mr. Rosen tha l and Mr. Winn from the com mittee. 

Mr. Rosen, who is a lawy er from New Jersey, M rs. Es ther Coopersmith, 

who is from Wa shington, D.C ., and William Win ford , who is from 

New Hampshire.

Mr. Diggs. 1 wa nt to get a couple of relatively less im po rtan t 

questio ns ou t of the way. The prop erty th at is in back of our 

mission------

Mr. Bonker. Mr. Diggs, would you yield for a moment?

Mr. Diggs. Yes.

Mr. Bonker. We are supp osed to have five official rep res entat ive s 

and five altern ate s. The General Assembly picks up next week. 

As I understand it, the re are only fou r official rep res entative s. Th ere 

is ye t one rep res entat ive to be assigned.

Mr. Mayn es. Mr. Chairma n, un fortu na tely, the sit ua tio n is more 

difficult than th at . Am bassador M cH en ry’s urgent pri ority rig ht now 

is to pick a successor for himself and a successor for the job of our 

rep res entative to the Econom ic and Social Coun cil, because the 

inc um bent, Melissa Wells, will be leavin g the mission.

Mr. Bonker. So you are awaiting Am bassador McH en ry’s ap ­

pointme nt. Th at will be his appoint me nt, and the perso n will then be 

a pa rt of the official delegation?

Mr. M ayn es. The ap po int me nt will be made by the Presi dent, 

bu t obviously Am bassador McH enry will have a ma jor influence in 

th at choice.

Mr. Bonker. You mentio ned the n ame Sm ith. Ts th at an alt erna te?

Mr. M aynes. Usually our five Am bassadors at the Un ited Na tio ns 

are our perm anent delegate s, and the alt erna tes are the three pub lic 

members and two congressional mem bers . At this time , beca use we 

do no t hav e a full com plim ent of Am bassadors up there, some of the 

alter nates will be mov ed to the perm an en t catego ry.

Mr. Bonker. Are we lack ing then—I apologize to the gentlem an. 

I ju st wante d to pursue this question. Th en are we lacking only one 

perm anent delegate?

Mr. Maynes. T wo.
16

Mr. Bonker. We are lacking two. Then Ambassador McHenry 

will recommend the one. How about the second position?

Mr. Maynes. He will have a major influence on the recommendations to the President in both areas. His own successor and the successor to Melissa Wells.

Mr. Bonker. So the five alternates are now in place?

Mr. Maynes. T hat is right, they are. I should say that their papers 

are going to the Senate. They have not been officially confirmed.

Mr. Bonker. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Diggs. What is the status of the property tha t is in back of 

the USUN mission in New York City which is owned by the Uganda 

Government? They have been through some very severe financial 

crises, and tha t is a very valuable piece of property. Are they hanging 

on to that, or do we have a chance to get in? I don’t know how we let 

it get away from us in the first place, but that is another question.

Are they hanging on to that?

Mr. Maynes. At this point, they are holding on to the property. 

It hink a number of missions, including our own, have talked to the 

Ugandans about use of some of that space. I don’t believe they need 

a building of tha t size for their mission, but nothing firm has come of 

our discussions.

Mr. Diggs. The OAU for the next year is being headed by President 

Tolbert of Liberia, and Liberia is considered to be the closest country 

to ours. In t hat capacity, he will be appearing before the U.N. That 

would add an extra dimension to American considerations. I am told 

tha t there is pending a prospect th at he will be coming to Washington 

end there is a question of the status of that visit. Has it been decided 

whether or not tha t will be an official visit in terms of protocol? To 

an outsider, t hat may not seem important, b ut you and I know that is 

important. I wondered how strongly the Department is making representations to the White House to see that the visit is properly classified.

Mr. Maynes. I am not familiar with the details on tha t visit. I 

know tha t we have very close relationships with the President of 

Liberia. I am sure you can be certain tha t the State Department will 

recommend the best possible treatment for him. Mr. Dailey, as a 

matter of fact, visited Liberia this year as part of our pre-General 

Assembly consultation schedule, and we have been trying to work 

very closely with the Liberians as well as other African states. The 

fact tha t Liberia is the Chairman of the OAU was the motivating 

factor for Mr. Dailey’s special trip there to allow them to discuss 

preparations for the General Assembly.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DALLEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECEETAEY 

OF STATE FOR HUMAN EIGHT S AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Dalley. We certainly look forward to Liberia’s chairmanship 

of the OAU because of the historically close relationship we have had 

with the Liberians. Of course, as the Chair of the OAU, Liberia must 

represent all of Africa. Nevertheless, we anticipate that under Liberian 

leadership, the OAU will be moving in directions tha t we certainly 

have felt were necessary and im portant for Africa, particularly in the 

human rights area.
17

This week, Liberia is hosting a meeting of African governments th at 

was convened by the U.N. Human Rights Commission to discuss the 

formation of a regional human rights mechanism and institution for 

for Africa. I think it is a very hopeful development. It stems from the 

Nigerian initiative in the U.N. Human Rights Commission 2 years 

ago, which this year was confirmed in the OAU conference at the summit meeting by a resolution in which the OAU declared itself ready to 

study the possibility of forming such an institution.

We are looking forward to this Monrovia meeting and making a 

step toward development of the institution that will reflect African 

beliefs and African cultural aspects. This will be, I think, very important in developing a view of human rights tha t is African but yet 

consistent with many views that we hold here in the West.

Mr. Diggs. Is your assessment on tha t point reinforced by the fact 

that the new President of the General Assembly is also an African; 

that is, Salim Salim, the Tanzanian representative to the U.N.?

Mr. Dalley. I think we have always felt tha t tha t recognition of 

the African states in the General Assembly and other African bodies 

is extremely im portant because the Africans quite often are the swing 

votes, the votes t hat are extremely important for us to try to influence.

Mr. D iggs. Are there any changes in the status of Mr. McHenry as 

opposed to the status of Mr. Young? Will it continue to be a Cabinetlevel position? Are there any changes at all-----

Mr. Maynes There are no changes. Ambassador McHenry will be 

a member of the Cabinet. He will participate in the formation of 

policy, as did Ambassador Young. As one who, first of all, has been 

a close friend of Ambassador McHenry for some 16 years, and also 

someone who has worked with him to resolve various policy issues, I 

can assure you that he will have a full-throated voice on foreign policy 

issues. He is, I think, a brilliant professional with strong views which 

he very effectively defends.

Mr. Diggs. One of the things tha t came out of the Andy Young 

affair that disturbed me and, I know, a lot of other people were reports 

about intelligence activities in and around the U.N., which obviously, 

if true, were in violation of U.S. Federal statutes. There have been 

all sorts of funny responses to that, the Justice Department claiming 

tha t they had not been asked to make an investigation and then when 

they were asked, they still came up with funny answers to the 

questions.

I am sure you have gone into this thing, and from your position 

you m ust know something about these kinds of activities. What kind 

of comment would you make about the tolerance of what is obviously 

in violation of Fedeial statutes, intelligence activities on the part of 

foreign governments in and around the United Nations, and particularly as it relates to our own mission? Are we being spied upon by 

these foreign agents, and why are they being tolerated?

Mr. Maynes. Mr. Diggs, the President has personally issued a 

statement on this question which is an authoritative statement. He 

has categorically denied, after consulting with the appropriate agencies 

of the U.S. Government, tha t there was any intelligence activity by 

any U.S. agency against any of our officials in New York. He has 

stated tha t in terms of some of the foreign missions tha t have been 

mentioned, they were acting within appropriate limits.
18

I would also add th at U.S. security procedures m ake the assumption 

th at people will no t always act within perm issible lim its, and we 

the relore are very careful to prote ct the sec urity of our Am bassadois 

in New Yor k and of our mission again st the kinds of activities th at 

yo u are talkin g about.

Mr. Diggs. If there is time, Mr. Ch airma n, I hav e one final question , if I ma y, th at relates to the whole con cept of diss ent. I have 

served as a member of the US UN delega tion , and it is like a un it 

rule. W ha t kind of provisions are made for a m ember of the deleg ation 

dissen ting from the official U.S. position which ma y be establis hed in 

some instances wi tho ut even the inpu t of th at individ ual.

Mr. Bonker, Briefly, please.

Mr. D iggs. Briefly.

Mr. M ayn es. There is a formal dissent ch annel in the S tate D ep artmen t which is used by Foreig n Service officers. I know from my own 

experience we have ha d diss ents from the field or within the Burea u 

to decisions th at are made. Th ere is a form al proce ss which requires 

a Direc tor for Policy Planning, exter nal to the Burea u again st which 

the diss ent is being mad e, to exam ine thi s diss ent, and to subm it a 

me mo ran dum to the Secre tary concern ing the r eco mm end atio n.

So, the re are prov isions for diss ent, bu t the issue th at you raise is 

one th at has tra dit ion all y plagued or pro vided a cre ative tension 

between our missions and our State De pa rtm en t. If you look at the 

bio gra phy of Gover nor Stev enson, you will see at one point he went 

to the ex ten t of try ing to negotiate a trea ty on thi s with Th e White 

Hou se, because he felt th at the issue need ed to be clarified. We do 

hav e thi s form al dissent chan nel.

Mr. Digg s. Th an k you, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Bonker. Th e sub com mittee will sta nd in recess for 10 m inutes.

[Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.]

Mr. Bonker. The Subco mm ittee will come to order.

Mr. Mayne s, I ju st h ave a few rem ain ing questions.

To follow up on Re pre sen tative D iggs’ com ments about the moderate and responsible role African lead ers have been playing, both in 

terms of the rec ent conference in Hav an a as well as the upco ming 

Gen eral Assem bly. Th ey have been a stabilizing force and poten tia lly 

pro -W est in much of the deliberations , bu t the re will come a time 

whe n resolu tion s will be adv anced th at dea l with South Africa, possible 

economic san ctio ns on th at c ountry. We are try ing to furth er nego tiations in Namibia , possibly wi th African sta tes becoming somewh at 

involved with the PLO question.

W ha t is going to happen if we ca n’t vote in a way th at is going to 

be com patible with the ir inter ests an d concerns and pursue the 

scenario? Do we lose our block of su pp ort within the assem bly?

Mr. M aynes. Mr. Chairma n, the re nev er has been, and pro bab ly 

never will be, a com plete overlap of int ere sts betw een ourse lves and 

African sta tes . W ha t the Ca rte r admi nis tra tio n has tried to do is to 

help the co un try to un derst and th at while there nev er will be a 

com plete overlap in ma ny areas the re is a substan tial overlap. It 

sim ply w as no t tru e, is not tru e, and will no t be tru e th at i t is impossible to work with the A frican cou ntri es on issues of comm on int ere st.
19

We have not given up on either Rho desia or Namibia . We think, 

as a m at te r of fac t, in rec ent weeks dev elopments have tak en place 

which are rath er hope ful. When we come to a point where our positions do n ot overlap, I think we sh ould fran kly vote o ur own intere sts.

I think th at Africa n cou ntri es will un derst and th at , pro vided they feel 

th at we are attempting actively to pursue areas of mutua l 

collaborat ion.

i think th at one of the accomplishme nts of this ad mi nis tra tio n is 

th at we hav e tried in some of the areas where collab ora tion is more 

obvious.

Mr. Bonker. Mr. Dailey , first of all, do you have any suspicion 

th at the OAU and A frican leaders will be advan cin g a reso lution th at 

will in fact place economic sanctio ns on So uth Africa similar to th at 

which was placed on Rho desia a few years back? And if th at occurs, 

and we do n’t su pp ort the resolution, how would you antic ipa te the 

fallout?

Mr. Dalley. I believe th at if there is a loss of belief or there is a 

con viction th at we are no t going to be able to make prog ress tow ard 

a peaceful resolution of tra nsition of po wer in Namibia , the re pro bably 

will be a call for a Security Council meetin g on Namibia .

Mr. Bonker. I was talkin g ab ou t South Africa and a resolu tion 

th at would place an economic sanction.

Mr. Dalle y. 1 am saying if th at me etin g did occur, the re wou ld 

pro bably be a n effort to pass a resolution of t hat s ort for S outh Africa. 

We have said from the beginning of the Na mi bia process th at we 

would be fru str ated in our ability to achieve a success considering the 

imposition of voting on san ctio ns again st South Africa. e do no t 

know ye t what our po sition will be on th at issue when t he time comes.

Mr. Bonker. So wh at you are saying is, wh eth er or no t th at issue 

arises depends on prog ress being mad e in Namibia .

Mr. Dalle y. I believe so. There is, of course, an underlying concern of Africans in the Un ited Nations th at the Un ited States and 

Western n ations have relatio nsh ips w ith So uth Africa. Th is manifests 

itself in all specialized agencies and all hu man rig hts issues, bu t as 

far as an actua l effort to have a resolution to impose san ctio ns, I 

would say th at we are no t ye t certain th at th at will occur.

Mr. Bonker. My impression has been th at South Africa has no t 

acted in good faith with respec t to Namibia . Th ey agreed to elections, 

and the y are try ing to back ou t and hold their own elections.

Mr. D alley. Ne gotiations continu e. We feel the door is no t ye t 

closed. The un fortu na te de ath of the Presi dent of Angola is a com ­

plicated factor, as Mr. Ma ynes men tion ed. He was a very im po rta nt 

pla yer in the discussion s th at had tak en place.

Mr. Maynes. Mr. Chairma n, if I could com ment on th at , too, I 

do n’t think the re is tim e for the mem bers hip of the Un ite d Na tio ns 

or c ertain ly for the U nited Stat es to be talkin g in term s of a break down 

in neg otia tion s, or actions by the Un ite d State s in the event th at 

neg otiations b roke down. Th ere have been a nu mber of v ery im po rtan t 

developments in rec ent weeks regard ing the Namibia negotiations. 

We are in active, or I shou ld say, the B ritish on beh alf of the western 

co nta ct group, are in active neg otia tion s with the South Africans.

It would be foolish to be too optim istic given the his tory of Namibia 

for the last 30 ye ars. In fact, the re is some promise th at we can finally 

resolve t his issue, so we w ould like to tal k in ter ms —no t of a breakdow n
20

in negotiations—but of a major challenge which the United Nations 

will face in conducting probably the largest operation in its history 

with the exception of the Congo.

Mr. Bonker. Now tha t Ambassador McHenry has replaced 

Andrew Young as our representative at the United Nations, who is 

going to take charge of these negotiations?

Mr. Maynes. I am sure Ambassador McHenry will himself continue to play a very important oversight role. My guess would be th at 

his successor, the Deputy Permanent .Representative to the Security 

Council, will become the President, who is most intimately involved. 

We also have a very, very equal deputy chief of the political section 

up there, who has been Ambassador McHenry’s strong right arm 

during negotiations, John Blackman.

Mr. Bonker. Mr. Dailey, quickly, now tha t you mention the 

death of President Neto, what is going to be the prospect of moderate 

leadership in Angola? And although we had not recognized Angola, I 

follow the country very closely, and they have been very cooperative 

in the Namibia negotiations. Do you see more radical personalities 

coming forward? Or the stablization of the country?

Mr. Dalley. The only answer to tha t is, we don’t know. We don’t 

have any idea what the prospects of succession are in tha t country.

Mr. Maynes. I would suspect tha t even the Angolans don’t know.

Mr. B onker. Does the CIA know? [General laughter.]

I thought they had a permanent office in Angola. [General laughter.]

Mr. Maynes. I think after congressional action it was closed. 

[General laughter.]

It was de-l'unded.

Mr. B onker. Maybe Holden Roberto will feel he has a crack at it.

Do you anticipate tha t there will be a resolution of the General 

Assembly to move their headquarters from New York?

Mr. Maynes. No. Not only is t hat not desired by member states, 

it would also be financially disastrous for the membership, given the 

fact tha t New York is now a much cheaper place than Geneva to 

locate their headquarters, but I would like to take this opportunity 

to point out tha t despite press stories which have been less frequent 

in recent years suggesting th at the delegates do not like New York. 

I think exactly the opposite is true. I think there is probably no other 

city in the world which provides the advantages tha t New York does 

to an institution with so many cultures and races and ethnic backgrounds. The variety of New York is greatly appreciated by all the 

delegations who feel it is the only city in the world, the only foreign 

city in the world where they can go and feel tha t they don’t in effect 

stand out in every crowd.

Mr. B onker. Is Vienna cheaper?

Mr. Maynes. No, Vienna is also more expensive.

Mr. B onker. No prospects of going to Vienna?

Mr. Maynes. No. There was an article, I know, in the New York 

Times suggesting tha t is what the Viennese have in mind. If so, 

they have not informed the membership, and there is no intention of 

moving anything out of New York other than what was agreed by 

the membership many years ago as part of the development of Vienna 

as a third U.N. city.
21

Mr. B onker. You know, the subcommittee held hearings a few 

months ago regarding U.N. finances, and I rather imagine th at there 

will be further points in the press about financial status and financial 

records, investment policy and procedures, and the like. These articles 

do considerable damage to our institutional support in the Congress 

of the U.N. Will the U.N. delegation be pressing for reforms and improvements, b etter accounting procedures, better investment policies? 

We don’t have to respond to these charges and make them public, 

do we?

Mr. Maynes. We are going to make this a very high priority issue, 

Mr. Chairman. It has figured prominently in the consultations we 

have had prior to the General Assembly. As you know, the Department feels and GAO agrees, tha t the major premise of tha t series of 

articles which you mentioned, was incorrect and false. Nevertheless, 

there are serious financial problems at the U.N. We are intending to 

make a major effort to try t o do something about them.

Mr. Bonker. How about personnel policies? Are you going to be 

looking into charges that Senator Moynihan has made that there are 

Soviet spies in the Secretariat, especially in the front office?

Mr. Maynes. In the Geneva office. The United States strongly 

supports the position tha t member states should honor article 100, 

which establishes the people who work for the Secretariat shall be 

international civil servants and free from pressure or control from 

their home government. We have spoken out vigorously on that, and 

we will continue to. We will speak out wherever we have public proof 

that other nations are abusing this, but I think we should put in 

perspective this allegation.

The Soviets are not about to take over the Secretariat of the U.N. 

In fact, the United States has by far the largest number of employees 

in U.N. institutions of any other country.

Mr. Bonker. I believe the charge was not so much how many 

nationals, but KGB agents who were allegedly serving in the 

Secretariat.

Mr. Maynes. That is the charge, and as I say, if there is public 

proof, proof which will be evidence, we will be the first to bring it 

forward and demand tha t action be taken.

Mr. Bonker. We covered this just briefly, but maybe you can 

provide a more explicit response. What will be the U.S. position on 

granting observer s tatus to the PLO?

Mr. Maynes. The PLO already has observer status in the United 

Nations. There will be no change in our position on that.

Mr. Bonker. Which is?

Mr. Maynes. We opposed their observer status. They have it. 

That is an accomplished fact. The next issue tha t is posed at the 

U.N. is the question of how observers are treated in General Assembly 

debates. There will no t be a change in our position.

Mr. Bonker. The last question. This subcommittee will be taking 

up some human rights issues in the next few months that relate to 

religious intolerance, torture, and disappearances. Do you anticipate 

that the U.S. delegation will be advancing these human rights issues 

in an effort to have the U.N. adjust them?

Mr. Maynes. We want to give those priority at the General 

Assembly. We think tha t the arrival of the Pope is an opportunity 

54 -2 56 — 80-------4
22

to make prog ress on the question of interv entio n again st religious 

into lera nce, bu t perhap s 1 ought to let Mr. Dailey discuss this issue, 

because it really is one th at he follows dire ctly .

Mr. Dalley. As Mr. Maynes has said, we do hope th at the arrival 

of the Pope and the stimu lus th at he ma y give to thi s issue may be 

cond ucive tow ard some progres s, some action in the U.N. on this 

into lera nce.

As you know, the Hu ma n Rights Commission has been prepar ing 

a con ven tion on religious into leranc e for some time now, and has 

been makin g painfu lly slow prog ress. This year we thou gh t there 

was a minor breakth rou gh because we were able to inc orp ora te the 

firs t thr ee or four articles with a possible preamble for such a 

convention.

They were non con troversial kin ds of sta tem ents, bu t it was a step 

forw ard. Th ey were extracte d with a g reat deal of difficulty from th at 

sub com mittee . That was the wor king pa rty in the Hu man Rights 

Commission. Nevertheless, the re is some slight mo me ntu m th at can 

be fur the red by the Pope’s arrival.

Mr. Bonker. The sub com mittee is also supposed to mo nitor the 

prog ress of imple me nta tion of the U.S. Declaration of Hu man Rig hts. 

Will th at be fore most in the min ds of the U.S. delegation?

Mr. Dalley. It cer tainly will be. We are try ing to build on the 

prog ress th at we hav e achieved over the las t 2 or 3 years. You mentioned oth er areas, tortu re and disapp earanc e. This is an increm entnl 

prog ress in the U.N . because of resista nce to our concepts of wh at 

thes e kin ds of co nventions should hav e, bu t I think t ha t the re is from 

the la st two sessions of th e Comm ission an d even the General Assembly 

a growing acceptan ce of th e need for the U.N . to begin to speak to the 

most egregious huma n rig hts cases, and disapp earanc e is cer tainly 

one. The problem of disapp earanc e is cer tainly an area where we are 

seeing increasing inte rest, and 1 hope we will be able to make furth er 

progress.

Mr. B onk er. I am really encouraged by wh at is hap penin g in 

Africa, coming tog eth er to form a Hu ma n Rights Council and to 

mo nitor huma n rights activ ity comm issions in African sta tes . I thi nk 

thi s will work so much be tte r than the United State s try ing to set a 

sta nd ard and impose its own set of s anc tions on violators.

Ma ybe it is an issue th at has got t o be addressed by ea ch continent 

and each co un try ind ivid ually. We could help nu rtu re the issues as 

the y relate to other cou ntri es and help them build confidence, so the y 

can set u p their own monito ring program .

Mr. D alley. We are very encouraged by th at dev elopment. We 

are cer tain ly going to help in eve ry way we can to be conscious, of 

course, of the need no t to pus h it too fas t or too far, lest our efforts 

be reje cted. I think it is im po rta nt to hav e a regional hu man rig hts 

ins titution and develop men t tow ard regio nal concepts. However, we 

must keep in m ind the need for int ern ational acti on and acti on within 

the U.N. bodies as well, so th at is necessa ry neith er inactio n nor 

cou nte rac tion will tak e place while we w ait for regional institut ion s to 

be developed . Therefore, we are going to co ntin ue to push at the inter ­

natio nal dev elopment level, while we encourage the dev elopment of 

oth er national and int ern ational bodies.

Mr. B onk er. Mr. Maynes, appro xim ately how ma ny U.N. forces 

are now deployed in Leb ano n and othe r areas?
23

Mr. Maynes. We have UNDOF in the Golan Heights, UNTFTL 

in southern Lebanon, UNTSO in the Sinai, UNFICYP in Cyprus, 

and we have a small observer force in Kashmir.

Mr. Bonker. Are we having any problems with creating volunteers 

or having countries participate in this enforcement activity?

Mr. Maynes. No. Service in the U.N. is considered an honor lor 

countries tha t have participated in U.N. peacekeeping. There are, 

however, some problems tha t need to be addressed. Quite frankly, 

the situation in southern Lebanon is lack of cooperation by the parties 

concerned, and this was an issue which Ambassador oung addressed 

in his last statem ent to the Security Council. The lack of cooperation 

is creating a serious problem in southern Lebanon, and domestic controversy in many of the troops from contributing countries.

Quite frankly, in such countries as the Netherlands, for the first 

time in many years one is seeing very strong criticism of Israel for the 

policy which it is following in southern Lebanon. The U.S. position 

is tha t we have not had adequate cooperation from either Israel or 

from the Palestinians who are above the U.N. forces. So, there is a 

potential problem there. We also face a problem tha t some oi the 

smaller states which contributed to UN IFIL have not been reimbursed 

adequately by the U.N., in part because of withholding by the Soviet 

Union and Communist China. This is a serious financial burden for 

a country like Fiji, which has taken on a major international responsibility by providing troops.

As a matter of fact, the Fijian troops have been among the most 

courageous and effective in the UNIFIL operation.

We also have a problem which I call to this committee’s attention, 

namely, th at while the countries that have contributed to U.N. peacekeeping clearly are anxious to continue to contribute as part of their 

foreign policy effort, we do feel tha t more could be done to pretrain 

these troops or train these troops so tha t they would be in a position 

to move more quickly when there is a crisis th at has been identified 

by the Security Council.

I think I have reported to this committee before on the case of 

southern Lebanon. It took many weeks for the Secretary General to 

round up the troops necessary to put tha t operation into action. This 

was an extremely dangerous period, and we frankly feel tha t at least 

some of the problems which have subsequently developed in that area 

could have been avoided if the U.N. had been capable of moving 

troops more quickly.

Mr. Bonker. Well, thank you, Mr. Maynes and Mr. Dailey, for 

being here and responding to our questions. We wish you the very 

best in the upcoming session, and members of the subcommittee will 

try to make it up to New York for a few of the sessions.

Mr. Maynes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dalley. Thank you.

Mr. Bonker. The subcommittee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

UNITED NATIONS POLICY AND MAJOR ISSUES IN THE

34TH U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY

W EDNESD AY, SE PT EM BE R 19, 19 79

H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

C om m it te e on F o reig n Affa ir s, 

Subco m m it te e on I n tern a tio n a l Organiz ati ons,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m. in room 2255, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Don Bonker (chairman of the subcommittee) 

presiding.

Mr. Bonker. The Subcommittee on International Organizations 

will come to order.

This is the second of two subcommittee hearings on the subject of 

U.S. policy and major issues facing the 34th General Assembly.

Last week the subcommittee had before it Assistant Secretary of 

State for International Organizations, Charles William Maynes, who 

testified on the administration’s position on key issues in the upcoming 

General Assembly.

Today we have the privilege of hearing from some private witnesses 

who have been official U.S. delegates in previous years. Delegates 

from over 150 countries are meeting now in New York City through 

December 21 for the 34th United Nations General Assembly.

The U.N. General Assembly’s agenda includes over 120 items 

ranging from administrative questions to the problems threatening 

global peace, security, and the environment.

Today we have as witnesses the Honorable Charles Whalen, a 

former Member of Congress who will be joining us shortly, and the 

Honorable John Hechinger who was a public member of the U.S. 

Delegation to the 33d session of the United Nations General Assembly, 

and Mr. Donald Puchala who is the editor of the publication, “Issues 

Before the 33rd General Assembly of the United Nations 1978-79.”

The subcommittee will note the Democratic Caucus is in session, 

and therefore, other members of the subcommittee will probably be 

late in arriving. We are honored to have with us this morning Congresswoman Millicent Fenwick, a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, from the State of New Jersey.

We will begin the testimony this morning with Mr. Hechinger, 

whom I mentioned earlier was a public member to the U.S. Delegation 

to the 33d session of the United Nations General Assembly.

The subcommittee will also note the arrival of Congressman Tony 

Hall from Ohio who is the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Hechinger, you can either proceed with your prepared statement or submit that for the record and summarize; whatever is your 

pleasure.

(25 )
26

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HECHINGER, PUBLIC MEMBER, U.S.

DELEGATION TO THE 33d SESSION OF THE U.N. GENERAL

ASSEMBLY

John W. Hechinger, fourth-generation Washingtonian, graduate of the city’s 

public schools and Yale University, served in the Air Force throughout World 

W ar II, overseas in the China-Burma-India and Pacific Theatres. He joined the 

Hechinger Company in 1946, becoming Presiden t upon the death of his father, 

the founder, in 1958.

Hechinger is the Democratic National Comm itteem an, re-elected city-wide in 

1976 to his second four-year term. He is a trus tee of the American University and 

of the Meyer Foundation, a Commissioner of the D.C. Judicial Nomination 

Commission, member of the Board of the National Urb an Coalition, member of 

the Yale University Development Fund, and vice president of the Committee 

for Self-Determination.

Mr. Hechinger served as first Chairman of the D.C. City Council from 1967 to 

1969 and as a Special Representative to the United Nations General Assembly in 

1978. He has served as president of Columbia Hospital, Commissioner of RLA, 

truste e of the Public Library, vice president of the Health & Welfare Council, 

member of the Public Welfare Advisory Committee, co-chairman of the Citizens’ 

Advisory Com mittee to the D.C. Bar Association, on the Board of the Washington 

Urb an League, the Boys’ Club of Washington, the D.C. Bicentennial Commission, 

and the D.C. City Council Economic and Ind ustrial Commission.

Mr. Hechin ger. Th an k you, Ch air man Bon ker. My sta temen t is 

ra th er s hort.

I consider it a high honor to hav e been chosen to repres ent the 

Un ited State s at the U.S. mission.

I firmly believe th at the practic e of sele cting citiz ens at large to be 

part of the U.S. dele gation to be an excellent pra ctice th at should be 

continued.

I have the imp ression from my service at the Gen eral Assembly 

th at ma ny of the othe r 151 cou ntries’ rep res entat ive s felt th at the 

U.S. delegation was broadened by the inclu sion of pub lic mem bers 

and they would have liked to hav e ha d such rep res entative s in their 

own missions.

Being a native Wa shington ian , I hav e had some conta ct with the 

internationa l diplom atic com mu nity over the yea rs and especially 

from the time I was cha irm an of the c ity council of W ash ington, D.C . 

durin g Ly ndon John son’s presiden cy. 1 was a reg ula r member of the 

welcoming cere mony th at took place with heads of s tate on the south 

lawn of the Wh ite House.

I think this exposure cultiv ate d in me an app rec iation of the art of 

diplom acy in the foreign service.

Th e State De pa rtm en t briefings and I was asked to com ment 

upon this, th at preceded the open ing days in New York Ci ty were 

really most effective in setting the stage before my joining the U.S. 

mission. Th e Dep artm en t has thes e sessions highly organized. Th ey 

bring tog eth er the pub lic delegate s and the mem bers of the Foreign 

Service who were assigned to the U.S. mission and the top people 

from each area of the De pa rtm en t.

In thes e sessions which are high powered and confidential one 

quick ly gets the flavor of the main issues th at are to come before the 

General Assembly. If it were possible to add one more day of briefing 

it w ould allow more time for a que stion and answer period and would 

be high ly pro duc tive.
27

At these briefings and in staff meetings in New York it is constantly 

urged upon the delegates and the staff to mingle over cappuccino with 

members of the other delegations in the United Nations lounge. Let 

me tell you that assignment is tough and for the most part unrealistic.

1 am certainly no shy violet being a politician but 1 can tell you 

those people who are gathered in small clusters in the United Nations 

lounge are folks who are there discussing their own affairs and to 

break in and say, “Hello, 1 am John Hechinger, U.S. Representative 

to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations” will go over like a lead 

balloon.

I thought I had a brilliant idea which at the time I thought was 

such a good one that I even offered to pay for it personally. The idea 

was for the United States to offer to all members of all nations a very 

properly designed personal name badge on which not only the delegate’s name would appear but the name of his or her country.

It is absolutely maddening to see all of these magnificent people and 

have no idea to whom you are speaking or which side of an issue that 

person is to be reputed to be on in order to do lobbying for the U.S.’s 

position tha t is always urged upon you.

It is very possible that this whole Andrew Young affair in which he 

was accused of speaking to the PLO representative was caused by the 

fact tha t without the name badge he did not have the least idea 

tha t he was speaking to a representative of the PLO.

As imperfect as this world is it is demonstrated by the continued 

inability of the world to remain at peace as evidenced today in every 

comer of the globe. There is no doubt in my mind from one who has 

served in the United Nations tha t as troubled as things are the 

United Nations serves a magnificent purpose of vastly reducing the 

tensions and possible conflagrations that would be taking place in 

far greater number without this great body’s continued existence.

I am not unmindful from my position of heading a large organization that there is a need for thorough internal communications.

1 discovered tha t the large complement of approximately 120 

members of the U.S. Mission devoted an inordinate amount of time 

in communicating with the State Department just 250 miles from 

the United States U.N. outpost.

It seems to me it is one thing for the French and the Russians and 

all other countries to have to communicate with their capitals but 

the United States’ situation is different. Our State Department 

requires the United States U.N. to check with it on every dot and 

tittle, comma and exclamation point. I believe there are budgetary 

economies tha t can result from examining this point.

On the other hand I was horrified to learn last fall of the crippling 

reduction by the Senate of our U.S. appropriation which moneys 

were intended for our participation in the United Nations associate 

organizations such as the World Health Organization and the United 

Nations Relief Agency.

This enormous crippling dollar cut was restored to these working 

organs of the United Nations tha t are so vital to world peace and 

order as they help to balance to some extent the inequity in prosperity 

among the peoples of the world.
28

Ma ke no m istake th at I found the career Foreign Service officer to be 

a person extreme ly comp ete nt and ha rd w orking, dev otin g a ma jority 

of their evenings dur ing the 3-m onth session of the General Assembly 

to burning the proverbial m idn igh t oil with ou t ov erti me compe nsation. 

Mu ch of th at labo r was dev oted to chronicling the da y’s activ ity so 

th at every word could be mo nitore d by the State De pa rtm ent.

I feel th at much of wha t tak es place at each Gen eral Assembly is 

rep etitiv e. Perha ps 50 perce nt of the reso lutions at the upcoming 

34th Gen eral Assembly will be the same as the 33d and some resolution s ma y go bac k to the 20th Assembly. It therefore seems to me 

th at some cost benefit stu dy nee ds to be done to streamline and reduce 

the interchan ge betw een the Wa shington -New York axis with the 

pur pose of saving big dollars at bo th ends of th at axis ra th er th an in 

the dollars earma rke d for the asso ciate organiz ations.

Due to the h eav y workload of the professio nals th at I refe rred to a 

mo me nt ago my experience reve als th at a pub lic delegate has to be a 

dev oted eager bea ver to be an involve d member of the delegation.

At the beginnin g of each Gen eral A ssem bly specific assignm ents are 

made to the public member by designa ted resolution bu t unless a 

pub lic member is determ ine d one is soon for gotte n in the rush of the 

day-t o-day activity. I am s aying th at too politely.

In plainer language I believe firm er direction must be given to the 

U.S. Mission personnel th at once a public member is assigned to a 

resolution it should be a Mission perso n’s du ty to inte rface with the 

public member on all m atters p ertai ning to th at issue thr ou gh ou t the 

session.

I feel I was able to keep abreast by dogged de ter mi natio n for I felt 

I could not follow the issue witho ut bein g in on eve ry pha se of the 

development. A pu blic m ember will soon be for gotte n if he or she does 

no t hav e th at persisten ce.

Gobbledegook is the bane of us all. A delegate must force those 

profe ssion al State Dep artm en t types to “plain speak.”

A con versation or briefing ha rdly begins before a strange patois of 

acro nym s and alp habet soup st ar ts th at can leave n ot only the public 

dele gate s bu t the new ly assig ned Foreign Service people mystified for 

40 mi nutes and possibly forever.

I must n ot fail to tell yo u of m y pleasure in serv ing under Am bassador And rew Young. To illus tra te wh at his service has meant to the 

co untry let me re count a c onver sation I h ad at th e Secre tary of S ta te ’s 

luncheon for the African cou ntri es.

Am bassador Ma guid of Egy pt told me th at he had served with 

more t ha n several chiefs of the U.S. Mission who w ere all distin guished 

representat ives of our Go ver nm ent , bu t And y Young had done more 

for boo stin g the prestige of the Un ited State s amo ng the 50 African 

natio ns and indeed the close to 100 nations th at cou nt them selves 

members of the Th ird W orld t ha n any previ ous am bas sad or in histo ry. 

High testim ony from a ve teran of the chan ging scene at the Un ited 

Na tions.

I worked closely with our new head of the Mission, Am bassador 

Donald Mc Henry . I co unt him as a friend and a soft spoken, thoughtful, 

highly resp ecte d, and effective dip lom at with excellent manag ement 

abilities . Don McHenr y was the p oint m an for us in the Namib ia and 

Zim babwe negotiations betw een ourselves, the E uropean N ine and the 

Alrican front line s tates which were tw o issues to which I was assigned.
29

De spite his inte nse occ upa tion and long long hou rs he nev er failed 

to includ e me and discuss w ith m e the s alient poin ts of the deve loping 

comprom ises w hich is c ertain ly the mo st effective way to get the bes t 

from the service of a p ublic delegate .

Do n McH enry will be a sup erb head of the U.S. Mission.

Mr. B onker. Th an k you, Mr. Hechinger, for sha ring your insights 

and humo r with the sub com mittee.

The subco mm itte e shou ld also note the presence of Re prese nta tiv e 

Flo yd Fi thian who is a dist inguish ed memb er of the sub com mittee.

We will proc eed with our form er colleague, Chuck Wh alen, who 

is a distinguished citizen and executive director of “N ew Directio ns.” Mr. Wh alen was a valua ble member of the In tern ationa l 

Relation s C om mittee when he was a M em ber of Con gress and form erly 

an official Cong ressiona l Re presentat ive to the 32d Session of the 

Gen eral Asse mbly .

I tr ust y ou did no t have difficulty in finding your way to the committee room this morning .

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES WHALEN, JR., U.S. CONGRESSIONAL

REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 32d SESSION OE THE U.N. GENERAL

ASSEMBLY AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW DIRECTIONS

Mr. W halen . Tha nk you, Mr. Ch airma n and members of the 

sub com mittee and a special word of welcome to my successor in 

th e Congress, Con gressm an To ny Hall.

Mr. B onk er. Who is doing a ve ry fine job.

Mr. Whalen . I t does no t surprise me.

Mr. H all. Keep talk ing.

Mr. W hal en. Mr. Chairma n, we might wa nt to keep th at in the 

record. I hav e a p rep are d s tatemen t and , if you d on’t mind M r. Ch air ­

ma n, I will incorp ora te my p rep are d statem en t in my oral rem arks.

Mr. B onk er. Please proceed.

Mr. Whal en. Mr. Ch air man and members of the sub com mittee : 

I am delighted to have this op po rtu nity to app ear before you this 

mo rning to recount some of my experiences as a congressional delegate 

to the 32d Un ited Na tions General Assem bly. Th e 3 mo nth s which 

I spe nt in New York City dur ing the fall of 1977 were among the 

most rew arding of my legislative career. I hop e th at Ben Rosen tha l 

and La rry W inn find the ir new roles equ ally satisfying.

Mr. Chairma n, my t estimony this mornin g will focus upon the three 

que stio ns which you posed in your lette r to me of August 28, 1979. 

1 shall be brief so th at there will be adequate time for questions.

In response to your first que ry, the St ate De pa rtm en t, in my view, 

provide d very little advance guidance to the congressional and public 

delegates to the 32d General Assemb ly. Fro m wh at I have bee n able to 

obse rve, the same conclusion applies to this ye ar’s app oint ees. In 

1977 the exten t of the State Dep ar tm en t’s preparato ry efforts was a 

2-d ay sem inar held 1 week in adv ance of the opening of the Un ited 

Na tio ns session. While helpful, the re was ju st too much ma terial 

and inform atio n to absorb during thi s “c ram ” course.

The ina deq uac y of this prepara tio n, Mr. Chairma n, pro bably had 

less effect upo n Congres sma n Wolff and me. We were aware of our 

resp ective nomination s at l eas t a year in adv ance of the 32d General 

Assembly. Fu rth er, our service on the Foreign Affairs Comm ittee
30

exposed us not only to Un ited Na tio ns opera ting procedures bu t to 

most of the issues which would confront us in the Gen eral Assem bly. 

Th e pub lic delegates and alt ern ate s— Mrs. Cor etta King, Mrs. 

Ma rjorie Craig Ben ton, and Mr. Ke nnedy —had no such presession 

adv ant age s. Indeed, as I recall, their na mes were no t subm itted to the 

Senat e until aft er the com mencement of the 32d Gen eral Assembly.

Ad mittedly , there is a long selection and sec uri ty screening process 

which must be followed before deleg ate a nd alt erna te selections can be 

form ally announced. It is my rec ommenda tion , Mr. Chairma n, th at 

this procedure be insti tuted at an earlier date, there by enablin g the 

Presi dent to mak e his ap po int me nts several months, ra th er than 

several days, prior to the mid -Se ptemb er convening of the General 

Assem bly. In this way dele gation mem bers , especially those from the 

pub lic sector, will have more time for self-preparation . Th is assumes, 

of course, th at the y will be pro vided the appro priat e stud y ma teri als 

well in adv ance of the ir de pa rtu re for New York.

Mr. Bonker. I might add, Mr. Whalen , yo ur experience is borne 

ou t thi s year because, in the S tate Dep artm en t app ear anc e last week, 

it was noted th at the full selection of delegates has no t been made.

Mr. Whal en. I mig ht throw a little light on th at . I believe the 

public mem bers and, of course, the congressional nom inees hav e been 

nam ed. There are two slots still to be filled, bu t these are deputie s 

to newly app ointed Am bassador Mc He nry . One is the de pu ty U.S. 

rep res entative to the Gen eral Assembly. I know who it will be, bu t I 

do no t know wheth er the nam e has been subm itted as yet. Earlier 

this mo nth , I was in Africa fo r 3 weeks and me t him as he was d ep arting. The other would be Do n McH enry’s own replacem ent as U.S. 

de pu ty r epres entative to the Security Council.

I think thes e are more Foreign Service questions.

M y sugg estio n is th at the St ate Dep artm en t st ar t the procedu re 

earlier. I recognize the re is a long selec tion process, involving screen ing 

and s ecu rity clearing, bu t the re is a defin ite target da te. We know each 

year the Gen eral Assembly will begin in mid-Septem ber.

I would hope the St ate Dep artm en t mig ht pus h up by at least 2 

mo nth s the commen cem ent of this selection process. In this way, the 

people would be confirmed and would know well in adv ance th at the y 

would be going to New Yor k in mid -Se ptemb er and would have to be 

provided with the nec esary doc um ent s and ma terials substan tia lly 

before th at time for a course of self-study.

Mr. Bonker. It seems to me th at people hav e to prepar e for th at 

com mitment . Many of the rep res entative s, like Mr. Heching er, are 

very busy, and to set aside a large chu nk of time to be an effective 

pa rticip an t, it tak es time to get yo ur priva te life in order.

Mr. Whalen . You are exa ctly correct. I think, as I have noted in 

my sta temen t, the problem pre tty mu ch has recurred this ye ar once 

again . I ju st noticed in Thu rsda y’s Cong ressiona l Record the sub ­

mission of the nam es to the Sen ate.

May I now mak e one concession to the St ate Dep artm en t. Service 

in the United Na tio ns Gener al Assembly is sim ilar to r idin g a b icycle— 

one learns by doing ra th er than by ins tru ction. Conse quently, the 

prod uc tiv ity of a congressional or pub lic app ointee depend s upon 

th at indiv idu al’s willingness and ability to become immersed in the 

Gen eral Assem bly process.
31

To thes e members I offer two reco mm end atio ns. First , they should 

no t em bark upon their new dip lom atic end eavors with sta rry -ey ed 

misconceptions. Yes, the y will be exposed to world leaders and pre ssing int ern ational issues, bu t even before they arrive in New York, 

they shou ld be awa re of at leas t thr ee sourc es of fru str ation .

A. Th ey do not make policy. Th e Un ited Na tio ns Act, which autho rize d our admission to thi s org anization , clearly stat es th at the 

decisionma king autho rit y res ts with the P reside nt. By, in effect, being 

a par t of the executive branch , dele gate s and alternates are bound by 

decisions em anati ng not from the M ission bu t from Washington. This 

also means th at when called upo n to deli ver a speech, eit he r during 

ple nary or com mittee sessions, the app ointee will use a scrip t dra fted 

by the St ate De pa rtm ent. B. The new environme nt into which the Delegate is th ru st —unfam iliar procedures, issues, and per son alities—is furth er com plic ated 

by the fac t th at thes e rep res ent a continuing process. Fo r exam ple, 

mo st proposals alread y have been discussed in oth er fora (ECOSO C, 

UN CT AD , et cetera) by the sam e people who will hand le the m during 

the General Assembly session. Tins means, con sequen tly, th at the 

congressional and public delega tion memb ers run the risk of being 

ignored by foreign rep res entative s who, instea d, will turn to perm ane nt U.S. Mission personnel whom they know and with whom the y 

hav e dealt previously. C. The Gen eral Assem bly acts only upo n reso lutions which, as we 

know from our congressio nal rules, do no t have the force of law. 

Delegates, ther efore, mu st be prepar ed to accept the fac t th at all of 

the world’s ills will no t be solved by the tim e the 34th General Assem bly adjou rns in Dec emb er. Inste ad , there will be an abundance 

of rhe tor ic, much of it for home consum ptio n. This, however, is a 

phenom eno n no t pec ulia r to the United Nations. I recall havin g 

hea rd some bomb ast on occasion in the Hou se of Re prese nta tiv es— 

tho ugh nev er, of cours e, in this com mittee.

Mr. B onker. Abs olutely, and pa rticular ly this com mittee.

Mr. Whalen. Second, if, at the outse t, Gen eral Assembly deleg ates 

recognize the foregoing distractions, the y can tak e steps which, by the 

end of the session, will permit the m to at ta in a sense of accomp lishme nt, a feeling of fulfillment. To this end, I mak e the following 

suggestions. A. While unable t o make policy, the delegate can c ontribute to policy 

for mu lation . The perm anent rep res entative to the United Na tio ns is a 

member of the P resid en t’s Cabine t and , t herefor e, can bring to Cabine t 

mee tings positions proposed by the New York staff. Delegates can 

help shape these mission reco mm end atio ns during the thrice-w eekly 

staff meetings or by ind ividual conta cts with our United Na tio ns 

Am bassador. Caree r dip lom ats can go just so far in pressing a point with the ir 

supe riors. Th us, on occasions when U.S. Mission policy recom mendations are rejected by the St ate De pa rtm ent, congressional and public 

mem bers can use their ind epe ndent s ta tu s— the y are not s ubjec ted to a 

“ratin g” nor do the y view an Assistan t Secre tary as a “superi or”— 

to urge a reversal o f this decision. In 1977, for instance, I arra nged a 

Wa shington conference with top-level officials of several executive 

de pa rtm en ts to enco urage a more realistic app roa ch to Th ird World
32

economic problems. 1 mus t confess th at , 3 yea rs later , my principal 

idea still is bein g “co nsider ed.” Du rin g the General Assembly’s 

special session on dis arm am ent , 1978, th ree d eleg ates met with Pre side nt Ca rte r and persuaded him to acc ept their views regard ing a 

pending issue.

B. Fa ith ful att endance at the early ple nary and com mittee sessions—during which few substan tiv e matters are considered— will 

enable the delegate to grasp ra th er quickly General Assembly pa rliamen tary practic es, which are uncom plicated by congressio nal 

sta ndard s.

C. Specialization, b oth of focus and effort, will p erm it congressional 

and pub lic delegate s to com pen sate for their unfam ilia rity with 

General Assem bly issues and participa nts. The appointee’s activities 

should be confined to one c ommittee and to a limited num ber of ag enda 

item s. Da ily ap pea rance at c ommittee sessions n ot only will expose the 

delegate to conce ntrate d analyse s of the issues, bu t also increases face 

and nam e reco gnition amo ng colleagues.

D. The dele gate should pursue a syste ma tic plan to exp and his oilier acq uai nta ncesh ip with fellow com mittee mem bers. As an illustra ­

tion, I h ad tw o p erm anent staff of th e U.S. Mission arran ge fre quent— 

abou t th ree a week—luncheon g et-tog eth ers with two or three me mb ers 

of the second com mittee on which we served. The cost, inc ide nta lly, 

can be defrayed by the appoint ee’s rep res entation al allowance. By 

Decemb er, I had developed a first-name relationship with app rox ima tel y 90 foreign rep res ent atives. Fu rth ermo re, dur ing these meals I 

was able to acquire inform ation useful to the Mission while, concurrently, inform ally lobbyin g Am erican policy positions.

Pe rm it me, Mr. Chairma n, to make this closing observat ion regarding the ability of our congressional and public delegates to play 

an effective role during a General A ssem bly session. To be selec ted by 

the Presi dent to serve our co un try at the Un ited Na tions is an honor 

which has been bestowed on less th an 300 Ame rican s. Nev erth eless, 

in terms of the functio ning of the U.S. Mission, the congressional or 

pub lic delegate is one among equals. St atus accoun ts for little if the 

Presiden tial app ointee neith er un de rst an ds the game nor knows the 

play ers. To become invo lved in a meaningful way, therefo re the congressio nal/public delegate mus t becom e informed and seek out the 

acti on. The Mission staff s tan ds r ead y to assist in this que st, bu t it is 

up to the app ointee to req uest this help.

In the final analysis, the n, effective pa rticip ati on b y a congressional 

or pub lic memb er of the U.S. Delegatio n to the General Assembly 

ultim ate ly res ts with th at individual.

Mr. Bonker. Th an k you, Mr. YV halen, for an excellent sta temen t 

and for yo ur recomm endatio ns.

As one member of the com mittee, T am deeply app reciative of your 

let ter s and memos to the com mittee mem bers . You kept us well inform ed of all the activities and the issues before the 32d session. You 

were an ou tstan din g mem ber and I am glad to see y ou r reco mm end ations, and hope they will be used or at least acce pted by the State 

De pa rtm ent in futur e sessions. We will m ake sure the y hav e firsthand 

knowledge of some of the sugg estio ns you hav e made.

I am going to ask Mr. Hec hinger if he can sta y a few minutes for 

questions.

Mr. H echin ger. Yes, Mr. Chairma n.
33

Mr. B onker. I would ask your indulgence while we open for que stions. I am going to withhold my question s ab ou t yo ur experienc e at 

the las t Gen eral Assembly and instea d ask about som eth ing my wife 

purchased in one of y ou r stores. [Gen eral laug hter.]

Mr. Hall.

Mr. H all. T ha nk you, Mr. Ch airma n.

I w as in terested in one of the point s M r. Whalen brou ght up rel ati ng 

to public mem bers. As it is now, when you are appointed a pub lic 

mem ber, are the re sem inars for the pub lic mem bers at all?

Mr. Whal en. Ju st the one to which I referred. That is a 2-d ay 

mee ting which usua lly occurs about a week before the com mencement 

of the Gen eral Assembly session. Bo th Mr. Heching er and I add ressed 

the g roup las t week, recoun ting some of our experiences.

As I mentio ned , for those appointed to the 32d Gen eral Assembly, 

this same 2-d ay sem ina r was held ju st p rior to our d eparture for New 

York.

I would add th at I am no t sure any add itio nal sem inars could or 

should be held. I am concerned ab ou t th e fac t t hat th e pub lic dele gate s 

should know much furth er in a dvance of the ir selection. Furth erm ore, 

the State Dep artm en t shou ld the n provide these ind ivid uals with the 

appro priate ma ter ial so they can em bark upon a course of self-stu dy.

As I suggested in m y formal s tatemen t, I do feel in the final analysis 

it is up to the individ ual to become edu cated and involve d in thes e 

processes. T hat can only be done in New York.

Mr. H all. I can imagine it must be similar to a culture shock, 

going into a situatio n like th at , no t really havin g any bac kgroun d at 

all or a feeling for it.

Mr. Whalen . I am sure it is mu ch easier for the congressional 

app ointees . It must be very difficult for the public appointees, and 

ye t I found th at in most instances they b ecam e very dee ply involved. 

Mrs. Be nto n was reap pointed to the Special Session on Disar ma me nt 

and has been very invo lved in a numb er of special com mittee s of the 

Un ited Na tions.

Mr. H all. One oth er que stio n th at I would like for either one of 

you t o answ er— as you know, Mr. W hale n, from serving on the Foreign 

Affairs Comm itte e and being from my distr ict and yo ur forme r distric t, I sent a sur vey ou t in my distr ict an d asked people to rank the 

issues from energy all the way to welfare programs to appro priation s 

in foreign affairs.

My sur vey came back and foreign affairs ran ked last.

Mr. Bonker. You discovered you went on the wrong com mittee .

Mr. Hall. I thou gh t possibly 1 went onto the wrong com mittee , 

but than k God Chuck Whalen was before me because I think he set 

the pace f or me.

I find myself voting aga inst the gen eral feeling of my distr ict with 

regard to foreign affairs.

To tak e it a step furth er, we con tinue to assist Th ird World cou ntrie s, and I think the benefits we get in the long ru n certa inl y ou tweigh the problems we h ave experienc ed. I talk about those problem s 

relative to stance s th at they tak e in inter na tio na l foru ms such as the 

Non-Aligned Conference in Ha vana.
34

Our constituents continue to ask why we continue to support these 

countries when, in fact, they do everything they can to embarrass us 

internationally. We have always had in the United Nations only 15 to 

17 nations that are normally with us.

Can we continue to expect the same kind of support? How do we 

go about the idea of organizing and talking to the various Third 

World countries to tiy to get their support? How do we handle this 

problem that we have, this image tha t is created by these Third 

World countries toward us?

Mr. Hechixger. I believe there is a great deal of softening of this 

combination attitude from Third World countries during the 34th 

General Assembly and even before that in the 33d.

As Chuck said, a lot of the bombast is for their home consumption, 

for one does not really sense it on a person to person basis in committee or at receptions or social gatherings. The vituperation tha t 

appears in the public press is really not indicative of the real feeling 

toward the United States and its prestige and importance within the 

halls of the plenary and committees.

I think the difficulty is how to make that understood in the Congress 

and by the people of the United States in order to get the congressional appropriation so vital.

There is a great reliance on the negotiating quality of our own personnel, starting with Ambassador Young. Former representatives 

have taken a very strong position on this concern by saying, if you are 

going to keep insulting us, do not expect our cooperation.

One has to be able to separate out the rhetoric. One thing you 

learn quickly as a U.S. delegate is that much of what is said against 

the United States is verbal tongaie lashing of smaller nations establishing their bona tides with their geo-political groupings. Let’s take 

the verbal lashing and behind the scenes continue to work within 

the United Nation.

Mr. Whalen. Let me respond by making four observations. First, 

I would certainly agree with your view tha t for the average American, foreign policy issues are low on the agenda. As you know, I 

happen to head an organization that deals with foreign policy issues.

Y e find the anticipated 200,000 membership has just not materialized, 

simply for the reasons you have stated.

Second, one of the reasons the United States is the focal point of 

attack by the nonalined nations is the fact that we are “number one.”

Y e are a superpower. Quite obviously, verbal bombast will be directed 

toward that kind of a country.

As both Mr. Ilechinger and I have pointed out, this is not always 

taken too seriously even by those who deliver these statements, but 

it certainly does infuriate the American public on occasion.

First, with respect to our continuing foreign economic assistance, 

we do not do it to try to buy friendship. If it is solely for that purpose, 

I think it is a mistake. We do it primarily for our own selfish interest. 

Among other things, we have to recognize tha t as the developing 

countries improve their own economies, they represent significant 

markets for the United States.

If one would check the statistics, I think you would find the Third 

World market for American goods today is greater than our combined 

exports to Europe, Japan, and Russia.
33

Not only will our own economy benefit by the improvement of 

Third World economies, but also we are very dependent upon these 

countries for resources, especially minerals. Consequently, we want 

to put them in a position where they are able to develop themselves 

to a point where they can provide these resources. And of course, 

there are political reasons for our continuing to provide economic 

assistance to certain countries.

Thus, the American public should be apprised of the fact that we 

extend foreign economic assistance for our own benefit, not just to 

benefit the recipient nations.

My fourth observation has to do with our role in the United Nations 

itself. At the very beginning, there were 50 countries and it was one 

of American dominance. Later on, as more countries joined the United 

Nations, there seemed to be an American withdrawal or an American 

ignoring of the United Nations as an institution.

Our present approach, in my opinion, is one of U.S. involvement, 

expecially since Mr. Young took over as our Ambassador. We recognize today tha t dominance does not rest with the United States or 

with Russia, but rathe r with the Third and Fourth World nations. 

They control the agenda. Ambassador Young recognized that and 

acted accordingly. As Mr. Hechinger pointed out, in so doing, he 

generated a great deal of respect on the part of the representatives of 

these Third and Fourth World nations.

Mr. Hechixger. Mr. Chairman, may I be excused?

Mr. B onker. Yes, sir. We appreciate your presence and your 

testimony and your public service as a delegate to the United Nations. 

We hope you will have a chance to repeat your participation.

Mr. Hechixger. I thank you very much. I am sorry I have to leave.

Mr. Bonker. The subcommittee will note the presence of Congressman Bingham from New York.

Mr. Whalen, can you stay with us?

Mr. Whalen. T can stay.

Mr. B onker. We will proceed with Mr. Puchala, and then we will 

pick up on questions with Mr. Fithian.

You may proceed either with your prepared statement or you 

may submit tha t for the record and summarize your remarks.

STATEMENT 0E DONALD PUCHALA, EDITOR, ISSUES BEEORE THE 

34th GENERAL ASSEMBLY 0E THE UNITED NATIONS, 1978-79

Donald J. Puchala is a professor of government, at Columbia University, 

associate dean, Columbia School of Intern ational Affairs, and director, Columbia 

Ins titute on Western Europe. He is also the edito r (1979) of “Issues Before th e 

34th General Assembly,” a publication of the United Nations Association of the 

United States of America. Mr. Puchala received a BA from Yale, 1961, an MA 

from Yale, 1962 (political science), and a PhD from Yale, 1966 (international 

relations). Selected publications: Western Euro pean Perspectives on Int ern ational 

Affairs (1967), Internatio nal Politics Today (1971), American Arms and a Changing Europe (1973), and The Global Political Economy of Food (1978).

Mr. Puchala. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to do both.

Let me point out it is a particular delight to meet Mrs. Fenwick 

for the first time, since I am from New Jersey. I have seen her only 

by campaign posters.

Mr. Bonker. Does she look like her posters?

Mr. Puchala. Much more charming.
36

Mr. Bonk er. I might me ntion Mr. Puchala is the edito r of the 

up coming 34th session publication . We have for the com mittee 

record a copy of his publication on the 33d session.

Mr. P uchala. L et me also note, being the edito r of “Issue s Before 

the General Assembly” is ve ry m uch a p art-tim e job. I t is an occu pation 

for ab ou t 1 mo nth a ye ar. Normally , I am a professor a t the C olu mb ia 

School of Inter natio na l Affairs. The reason I po int th at ou t is, coming 

up on the airplane, I rea d the rep ort on the opening of the session 

ye ster da y and the election of Mr. Salime as pre sident . I recalled 

th at Mr. Salime was my stu de nt.

I trus t the rep ort th at he has becom e more mo der ate reflects on 

the Columbia School of Interna tio na l Affairs, or at leas t I hope i t does.

Mr. Bonk er. When we assu me a position of respon sibility we 

moder ate our views con side rabl y.

Mr. P uchala. D efin itely, and Mr. Salim e has done so, or at 

lea st I hope so.

I need no t tell you about issues before the Gen eral Assembly since 

you are aware of the pub lication. Let me sim ply note this ye ar ’s 

edition Issues Before the 34th Gen eral Assembly was schedule d for 

publication las t Frida y. I presum e it is available, and copies will be 

supplied thr ough the Un ited Na tio ns Association office here in 

Wa shington for as ma ny as you desire.

Fo r those of you unfam ilia r with it, “Issue s Before the General 

Assembly” is a review of each ye ar ’s Gen eral Assembly age nda plus 

an analysis in some de pth of mo st of the issues th at will be discussed 

from Sep tem ber to Decem ber e ach fall.

Havin g worked on it ra th er inte nsively this sum mer, I think we 

have pu t ou t this year one of the more info rmative edition s of “Issu es 

Before the General Assemb ly,” and it is the conte nts of the publication th at I would like to highlight for you tod ay.

In the lette r I received from Con gressm an Bon ker, there were 

fou r que stio ns addressed.

One concerned the issues before the Asse mbly th at are likely to 

spark pa rticular con trover sy thi s year. I will com ment on th at in a 

moment.

The second question is, wha t possible new reso lutions will be 

introd uce d this fall. Th ird , I was asked to com men t on wh at chan ges 

in natio nal positions can be exp ected; and fourth, wh at are my 

realistic exp ectatio ns about American achievements at the 34th 

Assembly.

I spent some time thinking ab ou t thes e things and writin g it d own 

so I think I can be more concise simply to read wh at I hav e and then 

tak e questions later. I trie d to answer all these que stio ns as best I 

could.

The 34th Session of the Un ited Na tio ns Gen eral Assembly opened 

yeste rday. Th ey will consider an age nda of more th an 120 item s. 

Reflecting the com position of the Ass emb ly’s majo rity, the greatest 

numb er of agenda item s will concern the intere sts , cares, and objectives of the Th ird World.

Acco rding ly, much of the debate at the 34th Assembly will be 

critica l of the policies and pra ctic es of Western ind ustrialized sta tes, 

and the United State s in particular , and many of the economic resolution s will v en t T hird World fru str ati on s w ith po ve rty and impotence 

in the form of dem and s for Western respon siveness.
37

Though muted, great power rivalries are also set into the coming Assembly’s agenda, and they will surface as the world body takes up disarmament issues and certain questions of regional concern, notably those of the Middle East, southern Africa, and Indo-China. In tone and substance, considerations at annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly are conditioned both by the tradi­ tions of the institution and the backdrop of current events. We may expect, therefore, tha t certain United Nations “perennials” will appear again this autumn: Peacekeeping in Cyprus, apartheid in South Africa, self-determination in Palestine, human rights in Chile, general and complete disarmament, goals and obligations in develop­ ment assistance, problems in United Nations financing, and the like. Debate on these and many other questions will be highly influenced 

by critical events just past or currently evolving. Impo rtant among these are the less than encouraging outcomes of the UNCTAD meetings in Manila, the Arab rejections of the Egyptian- Israeli peace initiatives and Egy pt’s isolation, the conclusion of SALT II, the conclusion of the Tokyo round of the multilateral trade negotiations, warfare in Indo-China, the plight of the boat people, the results of the summit conference of the Organization of African Unity, and the results of the Havana conference of nonalined heads of 

state. Then, too much of the economic discussion will be set in the context of escalating energy prices, rising inflation, and deteriorating employment conditions around the world. If the various pre-Assembly caucuses have accurately previewed this fall’s United Nations meetings, discussion at the 34th session will 

be serious and debate will be pointed. Concerning issues likely to spark considerable controversy, since the General Assembly debate tends to be sensitive to evolving news events, it is very difficult to predict with any certainty where the 

major controversies will emerge. For example, the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia question could be divisive and explosive at the 34th session if the Commonwealth plan and the London conference come to naught, as they appear to be coming to naught, or alternatively, it could be soft-pedaled to offer impetus to 

extra-United Nations diplomacy. I would suggest, on the basis of what is going on in London pres­ ently, th at Rhodesia is going to be projected into the General Assembly 

with some gusto and the vitriole will fly on all sides. Similarly, the SALT II agreement could be treated noncontrover- sially by a world majority which seeks to encourage ratification. Or it could be criticized by those who see the superpowers falling short of their obligations to stem their arms race. It might be further criti­ cized by those who see aspirations for hegemony in American-Soviet 

collaboration. Likewise, the issue of Egyptian-Israeli dialog and its results under 

the Peace Treaty of March 1979 may bring an Arab led Third M orld 

down upon Egypt and generate rebuttal and recrimination, or the nonalined countries might take a more moderate stance, reflecting debates at the Monrovia meeting of the Organization of African Unity and the meeting of nonalined heads of state in Havana.
38

My feeling is th at on both of thes e occasions, the Th ird Wo rld 

majority was a good deal more mo der ate than adv oca tes of hard line 

pres sure upo n Eg yp t would hav e desired. It rem ains to be seen what 

will happen here.

Non etheless, certain anticipa tions can be mad e. In the Mid dle E ast, 

the set of questio ns conc erning Pales tinian autonom y, Isra eli settlements, human rights in occupied terr itories, hostilities in sou the rn 

Leban on, and alleged Israeli nucl ear weapons will se t the Governm ent 

ol Israel again st Arab adv ersa ries and the pa tro ns and clients of each 

again st one ano ther.

If American sponsored efforts to revise resolution 242 in such a w ay 

as to gain PLO accepta nce of the St ate of Israel succeed in the Secu ­

rity Council, Assembly deba tes on the M iddle Eas t could be somewhat 

mu ted . Overall, however, the re is little likelihood of significant mov ement on Middle Ea ste rn issues this yea r.

Other questio ns likely to bring to the surface differences amo ng 

cou ntries include, first, the issue of Ka mp uch ea (Cambodia) which 

could gen erate a con fronta tion over creden tials if the Gover nm ent 

inst alle d after Viet nam’s invasion seeks to tak e the se at of the deposed 

Pol Po t regime. Th ey h ad som ewh at of a scuffle abou t th at yest erd ay, 

bu t it has been postpone d to the Asse mbly for d eba te. I do no t know 

what is going to happen on th at one.

Th e importance of th at issue is no t Ka mp uchea vers us Cam bod ia, 

bu t the Soviet Union versus China and bo th clien ts of the respective 

powers. The debate will brin g to the surface the differences betw een 

the Soviet Union and China in the Fa r Ea st, and th at is som ething 

Am ericans could well sit bac k and wa tch rath er th an pa rticip ate in.

Similarly, the question of the status of Pu ert o Rico ma y be raised 

again this fall despite American displeasure. Cu ba has pressed the 

Pu ert o Rican que stio n in the Co mm itte e of 24 on decolonization for 

a numb er of years, pro bably bo th to bolster the cause of natio nalist 

factions on the islan d and to embar rass the U.S. Governm ent by 

assigning the colonialist label.

The 33d Asse mbly refused to consider the question. W ith Fidel 

Ca str o’s coming to New York , and especially in the con tex t of successful American efforts to embar rass the Cu ban Government at the 

time of the Hav an a Nonalined Conference by raising the issue of 

Russian troops on Cu ban soil, “P ue rto Rico” may be push ed with a 

vengeance. If this hap pen s, live ly rebu tta l and debat e will follow.

In the disarm am ent area, the prim ary source of tension within the 

Un ited Na tio ns system rem ains the cleavage betw een nuc lear w eapons 

and nuc lear supp lier s tat es on the one hand, and n onnuclear sta tes on 

the other.

Dissension s urrounds the question of adheren ce to the N onpro life ration Tr ea ty. Nonnucl ear st ates are v oicing considerable dissatis fac tion 

over what they view as dec eption and delay on the pa rt of nuclear 

suppliers, who are insisting u pon the institution of effective sa feguards 

before tra nsferring nuc lear ma terials or technology.

This res tric tive behavio r, the non nuclear sta tes claim, is bo th a 

serious obstacle to the ir economic dev elopment and an infringem ent 

of the Nonproliferatio n Tr ea ty where nuc lear s tates comm itte d them ­

selves to transfer m aterials for peaceful purposes.
39

Also dividing nuc lear and non nuclear sta tes is the que stio n of 

wh eth er the superpo wers are meetin g their Nonproliferati on Tr ea ty 

obligation s to pursue arm s control. Thus, in wh ate ver con text the 

nuc lear/nonnuclear issue arises—t ha t is, un der the dis arm am ent question per se or the review of the Nonproliferati on Tre aty or the SAL T 

II discussions or even tech nology tra nsfer —accusations and rebu tta ls 

are likely to be heard .

Fin ally , the re is the question of economic dev elopment. Members 

of the Gro up of 77 are int erp ret ing 1979 as a y ear of d isappoin tment s.

I mu st say, prior to coming here I read Secre tary Maynes’ st at ements. I disagree rath er enth usi astically w ith his feeling th at this was 

a good year as far as No rth -So uth economic relatio ns are concerned. 

Fro m all th at I hav e rea d and obse rved, it is a terrible yea r. I think 

th e fru str ati on s and anim osities are pro bab ly going to come to the 

surfac e at the Gen eral Assembly this fall with some force.

The fru str ation is bound to be voiced in the Gen eral Asse mbly this 

fall, especially since the lack of prog ress tow ard a new inter natio nal 

economic ord er has occu rred in the con text of generally worseningglobal economic conditio ns.

There are any numb er of specific item s under which this debate 

could reach the forum. There is the que stio n of the review of the 

mult ila ter al tra de neg otiatio ns and the review of the UN CT AD 

Conference; the review of step s toward makin g the Un ited Na tions 

Indu str ial Devel opment Org anization into a specialized agency; or 

any numb er of dev elopment item s th at will occu r on the agenda.

I would wager in ma ny of these instances the accusation s and the 

pushing and pulling ab ou t changing the str uc ture of the inter natio na l 

economic system will come out.

I agree with Sec retary Ma yne s when he said the We st is going to 

be ra th er unsymp ath eti c to moves on the pa rt of the less developed 

cou ntries because of our fight against energy-induc ed inflation and 

lagging employment. But I see a very tense No rth -Sou th debate on 

economic questio ns this fall.

I also antic ipa te ra th er inco nsequential deb ates. It is going to 

ha rk back to the sixth special session in ma ny ways , or at lea st th at 

is my feeling.

With rega rd to possible new reso lutions on significant issues of 

global concern, I do no t see very much new coming this yea r. It is 

really no t going to be a year of inn ovatio ns so mu ch as one of contin uin g work on old business.

Par t of the reason for this is, there are a numb er of issues th at 

come under the catego ry of “let ’s wait and see.” Some exam ples are 

Zim babwe-Rh ode sia; Namibia ; Indochines e refugees and the bo at 

people, which is pro bably in abeyance because of the new Geneva 

Conference and the positive results which came from there ; the 

question of western Sahara is no t in the imm ediate concern of many 

at the present tim e; SAL T II —mo st of the world could ad op t a “w ait 

and see” posture on th at , and similarly with the Eg yp tia n-Isr aeli 

neg otia tion s.

The Assembly mi gh t possibly declare the 1980’s a decade of developme nts and it might possibly declare the 1980’s a decade of 

dis arm am ent bu t, in any case, neith er of th ese are ter rib ly spe cta cular 

initiatives.
40

The Syr ian Gover nm ent is curre ntl y pus hing a new resolution 

concern ing alleged Isra eli nuc lear wea pons dev elopment. Th e Czechoslovak Gover nm ent is s ponsoring a new reso lution on e nha ncing internat ion al confidence. These are va ria nts on pa st initia tives, and bo th 

are of lela tiv ely minor importance as th ey s tan d.

The 34th Assembly is likely not to r an k as one of the more inn ovativ e of the Un ited Nation’s ann ual sessions.

Changes in nat ion al positions: Aga in one can only gaze into a very 

cloudy crystal ball on the question of n ati onal positions.

Evidence from the eve nts of the pa st year sugg est th at the 34th 

session is muc h more likely to see a har denin g and und erlining of 

con vention al and tra ditio nal natio nal and grou p positions th an any 

significant changes.

Fo r exam ple, deb ates over Ka mp uchea and Vietn am -Chin a war 

will illu minate str ict ly and differentiate between the Soviet and 

Chinese position s. Respectiv e pa rties in the Middle Eas t, with the 

exception of Eg yp t, will also sta nd more ste adfas tly and dis tin ctly 

because this ye ar ’s so-called “peace initiatives” pola rized the region’s 

political forces.

Likewise, Nor th and Sou th are likely to exaggerate their positions 

and mu tua l dem and s because the ye ar ’s dialogs hav e no t been productive .

A few changes of position might be in evidence at the 34th session. 

Fo r example, the Gover nm ent of Egy pt will likely appear in New 

York, as it did at Mo nro via and Hav an a, as an advocate of Middle 

Ea ste rn conciliation. It wo uld appear th at Pre sident Sa da t h as passed 

a point ol no return in his peace policy. Therefo re, he must con tinu e 

to search lor a pathw ay ou t of isolatio n by attrac tin g new adheren ts 

to his view point .

Eg yp tia n diplomacy at the 34th session is therefo re likely to be 

energetic and anxious, and its conciliatory them es will register m ark ed 

departu res from Cairo’s pa st policies.

There ma y also be some mo vem ent in African positions. I personally think this is very intere sting. In ma ny ways, the Mo nro via 

meetin g of the Orga nizatio n of African Un ity t his ye ar was an historic 

event ol some significance. At l eas t three notew ort hy re sults emerged, 

each of which could well be reflected in African positions at the 34th 

Assembly.

First , the OAU sum mit acknowledge d th at ind ependent African 

sta tes had experienced ma jor failu res in both economic and political 

dev elopment and th at if thes e should continu e, the continen t’s future 

would be unprom ising.

W hat is notab le in this is, thi s sober assessment repres ent ed a new 

delerence to realism and a new ly serious attit ud e tow ard development.

Second, the conference e nded in a call for grea ter at tention to h um an 

rights on the par t of African gov ernme nts and, significantly, the 

str iving for hu man rig hts w as link ed directly to the goal of economic 

development. Devel opment was deem ed impossible in the con tex t of 

stifled huma n righ ts.

Th ird , the African hea ds of stat e serio usly discussed the establishme nt of an all African peacekeeping force.
41

Ove rton es in this discussion suggested growing concern a bout Cu ban 

militar y presence in Africa and about dan gers for Africa in becoming 

a thea ter of su perp owe r riva lry.

Whethe r or no t any of these themes will be reflected in African 

stance s at the 34th Assembly is impossible to predic t. If they are, 

they would represent im po rta nt new departu res in Th ird World 

attit ud es tow ard develop ment and hu man rights and in African 

attitud es tow ard regional security and the Cuban -So viet connection.

Realistic exp ectatio ns for A merican achie vem ent a t the 3 4th session 

of the General Assem bly.

Mr. B onk er. Mr. Puchala , if you could quickly summarize, we 

could go for a vote and come back .

Mr. P uchala. Le t me simply n ote on this last point th at I am no t a 

pa rt of the U.S. Gover nment and I do no t know what the exp ect ation s of the Governm ent are.

My own e xpectation about any General Assembly is, no t very mu ch 

by way of sub stance comes ou t of it. Th e majo r policy decisions and 

ma jor diplom atic mov es are no t ma de the re. On the other hand , a 

great deal in the way of symbolism comes ou t of it, and it offers 

excellent op po rtu nity to demo nstrate to the world what one sta nd s 

for and cherishes at the value level in intern ationa l affairs.

My feeling is, the Un ited State s does far too litt le of thi s in the 

Gen eral Assembly and tries instead to score debating points in the 

way eve ryb ody else does. If we convince oth ers of the r ectitude of o ur 

positions ra th er than the awesomeness of our power, I would argue 

th at we h ave accomplished something. This is w ha t I would hope for.

Prepared Statement of Donald J. Puchala, E ditor, Issues Before the

34th U.N. General Assembly

The 34th Session of the U nited Nations General Assembly, opening on Septem­ ber 18, 1979, will consider an agenda of more than 120 items. Reflecting the com­ position of the Assembly’s majority, the greate st number of agenda items will con­ cern the interests, cares and objectives of the Third World. Accordingly, much of the debate at the 34th Assembly will be critical of the policies and practices of western industrialized states—the United States in par ticu lar—and many of the economic resolutions will vent th ird world frustra tions with poverty and impotence in the form of demands for western responsiveness. Though mute d, great-power rivalries are also set into the coming Assembly’s agenda; the y will surface as the world body tak es up disarm ament issues and certain questions of regional concern, 

notably those of the Middle East, southern Africa anti Indo-China. In tone and substance considerations at annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly are conditioned bo th by the traditions of the institution and the backdrop of current events. We may expect therefore, th at certain UN “pe ren­ nials” will appea r again this au tum n—peacekeeping in Cyprus, apa rtheid in So uth Africa, self-determination in Palestine, human rights in Chile, general and com­ plete disarmament, goals and obligations in development assistance, problems in UN financing, etc. But, debate on these and many other questions will be highly influenced by critical even ts jus t past or currently evolving. Im porta nt among these are the less-than-encouraging outcomes of the UN CTAD V meetings in Manila, the Arab rejections of Egyptian-Israeli peace initiatives and Eg yp t’s 

isolation, the conclusion of SALT II, the conclusion of the Tokyo Round of the MTN, warfare in Indo-china, the plight of th e “boat people,” the results of the summit conference of the Organization of African Unity, and the results of the Havan a conference of non-aligned heads of state. T hen too much of the economic 

discussion will be set in the context of escalating energy prices, rising inflation and deteriorating employment conditions arou nd the world. I f the various pre-Assembly 

caucuses have accu rately previewed this fall’s UN meetings, discussion at the 

34th Session will be serious and deba te will be pointed.
42

IS SU E S L IK E L Y TO SPA RK C O N S ID E R A B L E CONTROV ERSY

Since General Assembly debate tend s to be sensitive to evolving news events, 

it is very difficult to predict with any certainty where the majo r controversies 

will emerge. For example, the Zimbabwe Rhodesia question could be divisive and 

explosive at the 34th Session if the Commonwealth Plan and the London Conference come to naught, or alternatively, it could be softpedaled to offer impetus 

to extra-UN diplomacy. Similarly, the SALT II agreement could be trea ted 

non-controversiallv by a world majority which seeks to encourage ratification. 

Or, it could be criticized by those who see th e super-powers falling short of their 

obligations to stem their arms race. It might be fu rther criticized by those who see 

aspirations for hegemony in American-Soviet collaboration. Likewise, the issue 

of Egyp tian-Israe li dialogue and its results under the Peace Treaty of March, 

1979 may bring an Arab-led Third World down upon Egypt, and generate rebu tta l and recrimination. Or, th e non-aligned countries might take a more moderate stance reflecting debates a t the M onrovia meeting of the O AU and the Havana 

meeting of non-aligned heads of state, and hence deflate the issue at the 34th Session.

Nonetheless, however unce rtain anticipating might be, it is probable th at a 

number of questions will sharply divide the Assembly. In the Middle East, theset of questions concerning Palestinian autonomy, Israeli settlements, human 

rights in occupied territories, hostilities in southern Lebanon and alleged Israeli 

nuclear weapons will set the Government of Israe l against Arab adversaries, 

and the patrons (and clients) of each against one a nother. If American-sponsored 

efforts to revise resolution 242 in such a way as to gain PLO acceptance of the 

State of Israel succeed in the Security Council, Assembly debates on the Middle 

Eas t could be muted somewhat. However, there is little likelihood of significant 

movem ent on Middle Eastern issues this year.

Other questions likely to bring to the surface differences among countries 

include first, the issue of Kampuchea (Cambodia) which could generate a confrontation over credentials if the government installed afte r Vietnam’s invasion 

of Cambodia seeks to ta ke the seat of the deposed Pol Pot regime (which this y ear 

opened a Perman ent Mission in New York). The Kampuchean issue, of course, 

is much more th an a question of credentials because it pits southeast Asian clients 

of the Soviet Union and China against each other, reflects the rivalry of the two 

communist great powers, and therefore assumes high stakes.

Similarly, the question of the status of Puerto Rico may be raised again this 

fall despite American displeasure. Cuba has pressed the Puerto Rican question 

in the Committee of 24 (on de-colonization) for a number of years, prob ably 

both to boster the cause of nationalist factio ns on the island and to embarrass 

the Linited States Government by assigning the “colonialist” label. The 33rd 

Assembly refused to consider the question. However, with Fidel Castro ’s coming 

to New York, and especially in the context of successful American efforts to 

embarrass the Cuban Government at the time of the Havan a Conference of 

Non-Aligned Heads of State by raising th e issue of Russian troops on Cuban soil, 

“P uerto Rico” may be pushed with a vengeance. If this happens, lively rebutta l and debate should follow.

In the area of disarm ament and arms control the prim ary source of tension 

(within the UN system) remains the cleavage between nuclear weapons and 

supplier states on the one hand, and non-nuclear s tates on the other. Dissension 

surrounds the question of adherence to the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). 

Non-nuclear states are voicing considerable dissatisfaction over what they view 

as deception and delay on the part of nuclear suppliers who are are insisting upon 

the institution of effective safeguards before transferring nuclear materials or 

technology. This restrictive behavior, the non-nuclear states claim, is both a 

serious obstacle to their economic development, and an infringement of the NP T 

where nuclear states comm itted themselves to tran sfer materials for peaceful 

purposes. Also dividing nuclear and non-nuclear states is the question of whether 

the superpowers are meeting their NP T obligations t o pursue arms control. Thus, 

in whatever context the nuclear/non-nuclear issue arises (i.e., under disarmament, 

the NP T review, SALT, or even technology transfer and the UNC STD) accu sations and rebutta ls will likely be heard.

. Finally, there is the question of economic development. Members of the Group 

of 77 are interpreting 1979 as a year of dis appointment, frus trating to their aspirations for movement toward a New7

 Internatio nal Economic Order (NIEO). This frustra tion is bound to be voiced in the General Assembly this fall, especially since
43

lack of progress toward a NIE O has occurred in the context of generally worsening global economic conditions. The specific issues or items that will bring the displeasures of the Less Developed Countries to the surface are numerous; there will 

be a report on the Manila meeting of UN CT AD , a report on the conclusion of the 

MT N, a report on UN CS TD , a report on development assistance, a debate on 

development strategy for the next decade, a report on steps to make U NID O into 

a specialized agency, and any number of such “development” items that will 

bring forth demands from poorer countries for global economic change. These will 

probably be met rather unsympathetically by the OE CD countries that are 

currently fighting energy-induced inflation and bracing for a new recession. NorthSouth economic debate at the 34th Session might well be reminiscent of the Sixth 

Special Session.

P O S S IB L E NEW’ R E S O L U T IO N S ON S IG N IF IC A N T IS S U E S O F G L O B A L C O N C E R N

At the time Issues Before the 34th UN General Assembly was prepared (August, 

1979) it did not appear that there would be any significant new initiatives this 

fall. This is partly because a number of issues are at a “wait-and-see” stage (e.g., 

Zimbabwe Rhodesia, Namibia, Indo-Chinese Refugees, Western Sahara, SA LT 

II, even Egyptian-Israeli negotiations). The Assembly might possibly complete 

work on a development strategy for the 1980s, and it could possibly declare the 

1980s another disarmament decade. However, these initiatives are both highly 

uncertain, and in any event unspectacular. The Syrian Government is pushing a 

new resolution concerning alleged Isreali nuclear weapons development, and the 

Czechoslovak Government is sponsoring a new resolution on enhancing international confidence. But these are both variants on past initiatives, and both are of 

relatively minor importance as they stand. The 34th Assembly therefore is not 

likely to rank as one of the more innovative of the UN’s annual sessions. There is, 

however, a sufficient amount of “ old business” on the agenda to keep delegations 

fully occupied through the fall.

A N T IC IP A T E D C H A N G E S IN N A T IO N A L P O S IT IO N S

Again, one can only gaze into a very cloudy crystal ball on the question of 

national positions. Evidence from the events of the past year, however, suggests 

that the 34th Session is much more likely to see a hardening and underlining of 

conventional and traditional national and group positions than any significant 

changes. For example, debates over Kampuchea and the Vietnam-China war will 

illuminate and strictly differentiate respective Soviet and Chinese positions. 

Respective parties in the Middle East (with the exception of Egypt) will also 

stand more steadfastly and distinctly because the year’s “peace initiatives” 

polarized the region’s political forces. Likewise, North and South are likely to 

exaggerate their positions and mutual demands because the year’s dialogues have 

not been productive, and little movement toward accommodation seems possible 

given economic conditions.

A few changes of position, however, might be in evidence at the 34th Session. 

For example, the Government of Egy pt will likely appear in New’ York as it did at 

Monrovia and Havana as an advocate of Middle Eastern conciliation. It would 

appear that President Sadat has passed a point of no return in his peace policy. 

Therefore, he must continue to search for a pathw ay out of isolation by attracting 

new adherents to his viewpoint. Egyptian diplomacy at the 34th Session is 

therefore likely to be energetic and anxious, and its conciliatory themes will 

register marked departures from Cairo’s traditional themes.

There may also be some movement in African positions. In many wa ys the Monrovia meeting of the O AU this year was an historic event of some significance. At 

least three noteworthy results emerged, each of which could well be refle?ted in 

African positions at the 34th Assembly. First, the OAU summit acknowledged that 

independent African states had experienced major failures in both economic and 

political development, and that if these should continue the Continent’s future 

would be unpromising. What is notable is th at this sober assessment represented 

a new deference to realism and a newdy serious attitude toward development. 

Second, the conference ended in a call for greater attention to human rights on the 

part of the African governments, and significantly, the striving for human rights 

was linked directly to the goal of economic development. Development was deemed 

impossible in the context of stifled human rights. Third, the African heads of state 

seriously discussed the establishment of an all-African peacekeeping force. Overtones in this discussion suggested growing concern about Cuban military presence 

in Africa and about dangers for Africa in becoming a theater of super-power rivalry.
44

Whether or not any of these themes will be reflected in African stances at the 34th 

Assembly is impossible to predict. If they were, however, they would represent 

important new departures in third world attitudes toward development and human 

rights, and in African attitudes toward regional security and the Cuban-Soviet 

connection.

R EA LIS TIC EX PEC TA TIO N S FOR AM ERIC AN A C H IE V E M E N T AT T H E 34 TH SE S S IO N OF 

T H E G EN E R A L ASS EM BLY

As an outside observer I am unfamiliar with the actual objectives of the United 

States Government concerning the 34th Assembly. Therefore, I can comment 

only upon what I would hope to see this country accomplish this autumn. As a 

political scientist and serious student of the United Nations for many years, I 

can conclude that little of substance is actually accomplished by any government 

acting in the United Nations, especially in the General Assembly. But this is 

unimportant because accomplishments of substance are made elsewhere. The 

General Assembly is important for symbolic reasons, and it is toward symbolic 

ends that the United States should aspire at the 34th Session. Debates within 

the General Assembly and its committees offer excellent opportunities for countries to exhibit the values that guide their national and international behavior, 

and th ey are therefore opportunities for the Government of the United States to 

demonstrate exactly what it stands for and cherishes. Yet, it seems to me, much 

that is positive in American values is confused and lost in U.S. diplomacy (especially UN diplomacy) because we dwell so often in multilateral forums upon 

what we are against. If I have not badly misinterpreted American values, I would 

say that we as a people are in favor of the protection of human rights, especially 

protection against political oppression. We are also in favor of human material 

well-being— food, shelter, health, and the dignity that comes from gainful employment. We value human life and w'e cherish peace; we respect cultural, ethnic, 

political and economic diversity; we value international cooperation and organization for their own sake. We stand for a good many things with which much of the 

world can readily identify. Why then have we fallen so short of convincing most 

of the world that we indeed hold these values? Whatever the reasons— and there 

are many— our participation at the 34th Session of the General Assembly can 

provide opportunity to project our values more positively. If our Government 

persuades at least one other UN member that the United States can be respected 

because of its values, rather than feared because of its power, we will have achieved 

a great deal at the General Assembly.

Mr. B on ke r. Thank you for an excellent statem ent.

I think it is probably prudent if we adjourn the subcommittee. I 

know the staff will submit individual questions, and maybe the 

members, for you r written response.1

 I am sorry we have to cut short 

this session.

I have found it most informativ e and I want to than k the witnesses 

for their time this morning and for their excellent statements. The 

subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at the call 

of the Chair.]

1

 Additional questions submitted in writing and responses thereto appear in appendixes 

G through 9. At publication, Mr. Puch ala had not responded to written questions.
AP PE ND IX 1

U.S. D elegation to the 34th Session o r the U.N . Gene ral

A ssembly

R e pr e s e n t a t iv e s

The Honorable Donald F. McHenry, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentia ry, United States Representative to the United Nations (Designate).

The Honorable Benjamin S. Rosenthal, United States Representative from the 

State of New York.

The Honorable Larry Winn, Jr., United States Represe ntative from the State 

of Kansas.

The Honorable Esther L. Coopersmith, Public Member.

Al t er n a t e R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s

The Honorable William L. Dunfey, Public Member.

The Honorable Howard Rosen, Public Member.

The Honorable Richard W. P etree, Ambassador, Alternate Representative of the 

United States for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations.

(45)

I
AP PE ND IX 2

A rticles F rom th e New York Times

[From the New York Times, Sept. 13, 1979]

T he U .N .’s Ong oing D ec lin e*

(By Yehuda Z. Blum J

)

When Skylab recently crashed in Australia, The Daily Express of London 

commented th at the United Nations building in New York, “the world capital 

of humbug and hypocrisy,” would have been a more suitable targ et. For all its 

facetiousness, this statem ent aptly illustrates the growing disencha ntment with 

the United Nations and the steady decline in its sta nding and prestige, as reflected 

also in its constantly diminishing resonance in the news media.

The United Natio ns General Assembly is ab out to convene for its 34th session. 

It is worth recalling th at when the organization came into being in 1945 in San 

Francisco, it was designed to become a “centre for harmonizing the actions of 

nations,” as Article 1(4) of the Cha rter pu t it, in the pursuit of international 

peace and security and the development of friendly relations among nations. 

Instead, it has declined into a forum of confrontation and dissension among nations.

The fundamental reason for this decline is no doubt the transformation of the 

United Nations over the years into a body dominate d by an unholy alliance of 

dictatorships and tota lita rian regimes whose respect for the purposes and prin ­

ciples of the Cha rter and for the rule of law in international relations is matched 

only by their domestic observance of the rule of law and human rights.

This majority in recen t years has tram pled under foot every provision of the 

Charter th at it perceives as inimical to its bloc interests, and in particular those 

provisions designed to safeguard the rights of the minority within th e organization.

The democracies within the United Nations have now dwindled to a minority 

of about 30 states out of 150. Ironically, this minority keeps the United Nations 

going, financially speaking. It contributes over 70 percent of its budget, with the 

United States alone accounting for 25 percent.

By contrast, all the Arab members of Organization of Petroleum Exporting 

Countries combined contribute 0.84 percent of the budget, with Saudi Arabia 

contributing 0.23 percent (one-third of Isra el’s dues).

However laudable the principle of universal representation proclaimed by 

the Charter, the current situation in which 10 percent of th e world’s p opulation 

can muster a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly is, to pu t it mildly, 

highly grotesque, particularly when this new streng th is put in the service of 

totalitarian practices incompatible with the United Nations’s principles.

It is perhaps also because of this unrepresen tative character of the United 

Nations th at virtually all major inte rnational issues—especially those direc tly 

affecting major-power interests—have been settled outside the United Nations 

(Berlin, Cuba, Vietnam, Germany, Israel-E gypt, disarmament, strategic-arms 

treaties) even if on occasion those solutions were subsequently rubb er-stamped 

by the United Nations.

It is in this surrealistic atmosphere th at United Nations organs ponitificate in 

a manner th at can only further undermine the United Nations’s alread y shaky 

standing. For frequently, those organs consciously ado pt mendacious resolutions, 

as was the case in the notorious equation of Zionism with racism. Daniel Patrick 

Moynihan, then the U nited States’ chief delegate, on tha t occasion rightly admonished the United Nations for “the terrible lie th at has been told here . . . [It] 

will have terrible consequences. . . . People [will] begin to say, as indeed they 

have already begun to say, tha t th e United Nation s is a place where lies are told .” 

His warning has gone unheeded.

•Copyright 1979 by the New York Times Co. Reprinted by permission. 1

 Yehuda Z. Blum is Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations. He also holds a chair In in ternational law a t the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

(46)
47

This process has also affected the United Nations Secretariat, which, as a result of the manipulation of the staff by the totalitarian majority, has been gripped by a deep sense of frustration. Recruitment to this avowedly independent staff is now based on national pressures rather than on merit and proper qualifications. In a situation like this, it would be all the more imperative for the Secretary- General to assume the role of a guardian and custodian of the Charter and of its principles and to remind the tyrannical majority of its obligations under it. Admittedly, this may prove more difficult than the politically more expedient 

course of towing the majority line. True, the Secretary-General is defined in Article 97 of the Charter as “ the chief administrative officer of the Organization” ; yet this should not be construed as barring him from becoming also the “ keeper of the United Nations’ conscience.” The United Nations of 1979 no longer resembles the organization its founders 

intended it to be. It has consistently violated its own Charter. The authentic Charter is no longer in effect. A return to it should have been one of the most urgent tasks of the upcoming session of the General Assembly. 

This, however, will not come to pass.

[The New York Times, Friday, Sept. 7, 1979]

U.S. Disclaims Anti-Israel Votes*

(B y Bernard Gwertzman)

Washington, Sept. 6.— The State Department dissociated itself today from two anti-Israel votes cast at a United Nations human rights subcommission meeting in Geneva, saying the United States representative had been acting in 

a “personal” capacity. The representative, W. Beverly Carter, one of the highest-ranking blacks in the State Department, voted yesterday with the majority on two resolutions critical 

of Israeli policy. The first urged Israel to negotiate with the Palestine Liberation Organization and to restore to Palestinians the right of self-determination. The second called on Israel to stop bombardment of southern Lebanon and said the subcommission “ deeply deplores the violation of the fundamental rights of the Arab population 

in Palestine. Mr. Carter holds the title of Ambassador at Large for State and Local Govern­ ments. He is former Ambassador to Tanzania and Liberia and served for three years as the United States representative at the United Nations Human Rights 

Commission’s Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination.

‘pe r so n a l an d e x p e r t c a p a c it y’

Asked about the votes in the subcommission, the State Department spokesman, Hodding Carter 3d, said that Ambassador Carter served in the human rights posts “ in a personal and expert capacity, and as such is not subject to instructions.” “ Thus, Ambassador Carter’s vote does not represent the position of the United States,” the spokesman said. “ The United States would not have supported those 

resolutions.” Other officials said that the human rights subcommission was intended to be a panel of experts not under instructions from their governments. But they added that the United States and other Western countries were the only ones tha t followed such a practice in the 26-member group. “ To my knowledge, we’ve never issued instructions to the American on tha t 

subcommission,” a State Department official said. The State Department said later that Ambassador Carter’s travel and per diem expenses are paid by the United Nations and not the United States Government when he is in Geneva as a member of the human rights panel.

F U R O R AT N EW S C O N F E R E N C E

The department’s comments provoked a furor at the regular State Department 

news conference, particularly from Israeli correspondents. Reporters asked the spokesman repeatedly to explain how an ambassador at large could also be seen as a nongovernmental “expert.” But the department’s spokesman, who is not related to Ambassador Carter, stood by his statement. The Human Rights subcommission action was widely reported in Israel and 

drew condemnation from some American Jewish groups.
48

Ambassador Carter, a former newspaper editor, was involved in controversy in 

1975 with Henry A. Kissinger, then Secretary of State. Mr. Kissinger blocked 

his appointment as Ambassador to Denm ark because, as Ambassador to Tanzania, he had allowed his embassy to establish contacts with guerrillas who 

kidnappe d thre e American students.

This violated Mr. Kissinger’s policy of not n egotiatin g with “terrorists,” even 

though Ambassador Carter did succeed in obta ining release of the hostages.

American black leaders brou ght pressure on Mr. Kissinger, who promised t ha t 

Mr. Carter’s career would not be hurt. He wa6 later named Ambassador to 

Liberia.

[From the New York Times, Se pt 17, 1979]

U.N . Assembly, Opening Tomorrow, to Focus on Mideast, Africa and Cambodia*

(By Bernard D. Nossiter)

United Nations, N.Y., Sept. 16.—For the next 13 weeks, the halls here will 

resound to a ngry denunciations of Israel, Egypt and th e Camp David accords, to 

bitte r attac ks on white rule over blacks in southern Africa and clash between the 

rival regimes in Cambodia.

The 34th annu al meeting of the General Assembly opens Tuesday, a forum for 

the sentiments of 151 Governments ranging from the Seychelles, population 60,000, 

to China, population 900 million. The g athering will be rich in oratory and resolutions. Its practical consequences for the tro ubled areas of the world are a matt er of dispute.

“I t’s a place to blow off steam, for foreign ministers to make a splash on t heir 

television at home,” a vete ran official here said.

But even those most scornful of th e annual meeting, delegates from the West 

and other countries typica lly outv oted by the Assembly’s overwhelming majority 

of th ird world nations, do n ot dismiss o ut of hand the flood of words.

GROWING INFLUENC E OF P.L.O.

As one delegate observed, no na tion enjoys being isolated. “There is an interplay 

between New York and national capitals” th at can erode the ha rdest of positions, 

the delegate said. Israeli diplomats, for example, acknowledge the growing influence of the Palestine Liberation Organization among Israel’s warmest supporters, an influence th at p artly reflects the words and deeds here.

The new session, moreover, is likely to reveal th at the thir d world’s a utomatic 

majority is less solid than it has been in th e past. The third world is divided on a 

wide array of issues, from how closely to cling to Moscow’s political line to the 

price of oil.

Dra ma is expected in the opening days when th e c andidates sup ported b y China 

and the Soviet Union fight it out for the right to represent Cambodia. Peking’s 

ally, Pol Pot, was driven from his capital of Phnom Penh by Vietnamese forces in 

Jan uary. Moscow supports the delegate from Prime Minister Heng Samrin, who 

was installed by Hanoi. The Russians and their friends will assert th at Heng 

Samrin is in control and th at his representative m ust occupy the place reserved for 

Cambodia. But several other countries, including Indonesia and Thailand, as well 

as China, will contend th at the world body must not reward aggression.

U .s . WILL BACK POL POT

The Pol Po t Government killed tens of thousands of its own people. Nevertheless, th e United States is expected to line up w ith the Chinese behind Pol Pot (an 

American official held his nose as he spoke of this) on the ground th at the MoscowHanoi candidate was p ut in place as a result of foreign force.

A close vote is expected, with many delegates abstaining from backing what 

the y regard as equally obnoxious regimes. The expectation here is th at the outcome will be similar to th at of the recen t conference of third world countries in 

Havana. There, Pol Po t’s representative lost his seat, bu t it was left vac ant and 

not given to his rival.

More tha n politics is at stake here. The struggle over Cambodian representation is hampering efforts to provide food and medicine for the starving and 

disease-afflicted Cambodian population. United Nations officials are struggling 

with ways to aid both camps bu t have not yet succeeded in figuring out how.

The diplomatic the ater here will be enlivened by some notable personalities-
49

POPE AND CASTRO EXPECTED

Pope John Paul II is scheduled to address the Assemb ly on Oct. 2, and Presiden t Fidel Cas tro of Cuba is expected to repo rt on the conference of countries 

professing nonalignment, where he succeeded in asserting his leadership role despite his regim e’s close ties to Moscow. No date for Mr. Castr o’s address has 

been announced, however, largely for fear of an assassination atte mp t. Th e new 

chief United States delegate, Donald F. McHenry , will be closely watched to see 

how his quiet diploma cy compares wit h the flam boy ant and freewheeling sty le of 

his predecessor, Andrew You ng.

Ine vitably, the Middle Ea st will be at the center of the Assemb ly’s atte ntio n. 

Bu t it is hard to find a delegate who expe cts more than ritu al resolutions to be 

approved, condemning the Cam p Da vid peace accords. The third world, the 

Soviet bloc and a growing number of Western Euro peans insist that the core of 

the problem lies with the Palestinians, and that t he Palestinians go unrepresen ted 

as long as the P.L .O. does not tak e part in Mid dle Ea st nego tiations. Bu t even 

some of the P. L.O.’s supporters in the thir d world agree that this cannot happen 

until the organization open ly and firmly agrees th at Israel has a righ t to a secure 

existence. The speeches and resolutions here are seen at best as a verbal war of 

attr ition designed to move both sides and their backers.

The discussion of southern Africa, at least init iall y, is seen as an exercise in 

marking time. It is wid ely recognized, even by the strongest backers of bla ck 

ma jority rule, th at the real action rests elsewhere. No consequential moves can 

be made here affec ting Zimb abwe Rho desia as long as the talk s in London continue between leaders of the Patriotic Fro nt guerr illa alliance and the bira cial 

Government of Bishop Abel T. Muzo rewa.

In much the same way, nations here will watch rath er tha n act on the quest 

for an independent South-W est Africa , or Nam ibia. Th e Un ited States, Britain , 

Canada, France and Wes t Ger man y hav e drawn up a plan for United Nat ionssupervised elections in Nam ibia to end both the guerrilla war there and South 

Afr ica ’s control. There is, however, a growing suspicion among bla ck African 

nations that South Africa is deliberately prolonging the negotiatio ns, and this 

mood could find expression before the Assembly session ends.
APP EN DI X 3

[From the Washington Sta r (morning edition), Sept. 11, 1979]

Non-Aligned Nations F ace Test of Unit y on I ssues Before U.N. 

Assembly Session 1

(By Louis Halasz)

UNI TE D NATIONS —The shaky un ity of the non-aligned world, barely 

preserved during the explosive Havan a summit of 94 of its members, will be put 

to an even more severe t est in the U.N. General Assembly session th at opens next 

week.

The main problem th at will face the non-aligned majority of U.N . member 

states is th at the ir technique of compromise by consensus, real or imagined, is 

still n ot the customary way of resolving problems in the world organization, where 

decision by votin g is often unavoidable.

If things are pushed to the phase of voting, dissent brewing u nde r the formal 

facade of un ity may well brea k into the open.

Diplom ats and observers trickling back to U.N . headqu arte rs from Cuba 

generally agree th at President Fidel Castro did succeed in formally pushing the 

movement in th e direction of th e Soviet bloc, even if only at the cost of a lot of ill 

will generated b y his heavy-hand ed suppression of opposition.

Even the dubious “moderate” victory of inserting into th e final communique a 

condemnation of “ the policy of domination and hegemony”—code words meaning 

the Soviet bloc— was more than counter balanced by other passages.

Those passages denounced the “exploitation of human rights issues as a political 

instrument” and “the exploitation of the right of the individuals to leave their 

country for political purposes,” such as promoting the uprooting of Jews from the 

Soviet Union for resettling in Israel.

The litmus tes t of non-aligned u nity is th e fate of Cambodian representation in 

the United Nations. At present, th at repre sentation is still provided by Thiounn 

Prasith, Pol Po t’s ambassador here, and by protocol it is he an d his men who will 

occupy the Cambodian seat on the floor of the assembly as it opens next week.

Their removal can be effected in two ways; either the y leave on their own 

volition—which is out of the question—or the Credentials Committee, established 

on the first day of any new assembly, has to rule against them . In any case, 

whether th at committee decision favors Pol Pot or Vietnam’s Ileng Samrin, it 

would be challenged and the full assembly would have to make the decision.

It also is possible th at Vietnam’s numerous proponents would opt for the 

Havan a non-solution of simply declaring the seat vac ant for the time being.

But there alrea dy is ano ther item on the assembly’s agend a pertainin g to 

Cambodia, submitted by the five countries of the Association of S outheast Asian 

Nations. It demands th at the session discuss “the threat to peace and secu rity” 

repre sente d by the continuing conflict in Cambodia, since “there is a real danger 

th at (it) would f urther worsen at th e end of the current monsoon season.”

1

 Copyright 1979 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

(50)
APPENDIX 4

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 13, 1979]

W al dh eim Sees Troubles in 34th General A ssem bl y1

(By Lee Lescaze)

United Nations, Sept. 12.—The 34th U.N. General Assembly th at opens 

next week promises to be one of th e most difficult in the international organization’s history, U.N. Secretary General Ku rt Waldheim said today.

Problems of the Middle East, Indochina, disarmament, Cyprus and southern 

Africa th at have long divided the world are expected to provide flashpoints during 

thre e months of debates th at will see an extraordinary number of impor tant 

visitors to the United Nations.

The Oct. 2 visit of Pope John Paul II will be one of th e earliest and will draw 

the largest crow’ds. At least a dozen national leaders have indicated they will address the General Assembly, among them Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat also may decide to 

speak to the General Assembly, depending on the course of the Middle East 

debate.

The Palestinian issue, Waldheim told a news conference, remains the crux of 

the Middle East problem. Asked if he considers the U.S. policy of refusing to have 

contact with Ara fat’s PLO an obstacle to solving th e problem, Waldheim replied, 

“I thin k Andrew Young has given us the answer.” Young resigned as U.S. 

ambassador here after violating th at policy.

Waldheim has proposed th at an international conference on the Middle East 

with representatives of all concerned parties be convened in Geneva. In recent 

talks with world leaders, he said, “1 got the idea th at this was a n idea which has 

considerable sup por t.”

The time is not y et right, however, Waldheim said. The Soviet Union told him 

such a conference should not take place soon, he said. The United States opposes 

such a conference because it supports the present negotiatio n on Palestinian 

auton omy under the framework of the Israeli-E gyptian peace treaty.

On other issues, Waldheim said:

World leaders generally supp ort SALT II and he hopes the chances for U.S. 

Senate approval of the tre aty will not be damaged by the debate on Soviet com bat 

troops in Cuba.

The political and hum anitarian problem s of Cambodia are “one of the greatest 

challenges of the General Assembly.” He stressed th at the United Nations is 

pushing to increase shipments of food and medicine to Cambodia.

He sees no improvem ent in the situ atio n since seven months ago he publicly 

deplored a lack of political will among the world’s nations. Narrow national interests continue to be th e basis for m ost nation’s actions, he said.

He is encouraged th at North and South Korea are in contact thro ugh inter ­

mediaries and the United Nations will do what it can to further those 

communications.

1

 Copyright 1979 by the Washington Post. Permission to rep rin t granted.

(51)
APPENDIX 5

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1979]

I sraelis See n More I solated at U.N . T ha n E ver Before 1

(By Lee Lescaze)

United Nations, Sept. 15—Israel begins the 34th General Assembly of the 

United Nations Tuesday more isolated in the world body than ever before.

For years, any U.N. debate, including those on women’s rights or postage 

stam ps, h as included denunciations of Israel by Arab nations and th eir supporters, 

bu t Israel now finds itself with fewer friends to stand up against the anti-Israel 

majority, according to a number of Western diplomats.

Even the United States and Canada, which with Costa Rica are the only nations 

always voting with Israel, have made public their concern abo ut Israel’s military 

activities in southern Lebanon and its construction of settleme nts on Arab land 

captured in the 1967 Six-Day war.

On some crucial issues, such as the 1975 anti-Israeli resolution equating Zionism 

with racism, the Western European natio ns and some Latin American and 

African countries voted with Israe l or abstain ed. But these n ation s do not stand 

up for Israe l when it is condemned these days—as it frequently is—for Lebanon 

or th e settleme nts question, t he two issues diplom ats say have deepened Israel’s 

isolation.

Israel’s response to criticism here has been to s tand on its head Groucho Marx’s 

famous dictum th at he would not want to belong to any club th at would have 

him for a member.

Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Blum and his aides have atta cke d the United 

Nations, saying in effect th at any organization that condemns Israe l does not 

deserve to be respected.

“I would prefer to have the majority behind me,” Blum said in an interview, 

“b ut the decisive criteria for us h as to be whether we believe we are right in what 

we are doing.

“Our isolation is the latte r day tran slation of the Jewish condition,” he said. 

Lebanon and the settlements, he said, could be replaced by other issues. “No 

ma tte r what we do we would come in for this kind of criticism.”

One diplomat here said, however, th at “Lebanon and the settlements have 

made it easier for nations to vote against Israel—less afraid of being called antiSemitic.” Guilt over the holocaust is ebbing, he added, citing the West German 

decision to send its foreign minister to meet with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

An ambassador whose country usually supports Israe l criticized Israeli public 

relations tactics. “If they are trying to make it easier on the ir friends here, they 

are not yery sm art,” he added.

Many of Israel’s friends agree.

“Israel has drifted into a policy in Lebanon th at no one can defend,” another 

diplomat said. “I t’s runn ing a quisling movement in ano ther coun try and running 

it w ith arms.”

A U.N. force comprised of troops from Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, 

France, Fiji, Nepal, Nigeria and Senegal is stationed in southern Lebanon and 

has been frustrated—and shot at—by the Lebanese Christia n forces of Ma j. 

Saad Had dad, which are armed b y and allied with Israel.

On his las t day in the Security Council chamber, Andrew Young said the 

streng th of Israel in its early days “was th at i t was based on a moral fo unda tion 

and yet Israel now is rapidly spending its moral capital, wasting it in pursuit of 

violence and d estru ction in Leban on” and in th e building of settlem ents.

1

 Copyright 1979 by the Washington Post. Permission to rep rint granted.

(52)
53

“What he called moral capital was in a certain sense a guilt complex,” Blum 

commented. The Begin government finds its critics—including its Israeli critics— 

wrong.

A newT generation has grown up for whom the origin of the Middle E ast problem 

wTas the Six-Day War, Blum said. That means th at Israel is an occupying power. 

“Those of us with longer memories know better,” Blum said.

A supp orter of Israel who thinks Israel’s course is dangerous for the Jewish 

sta te’s future spoke in almost the same terms bu t with a different message.

The new generation he described included Palestinians who grew up in refugee 

camps and watched U.N . resolutions fail to do anythin g to improve the Palestinians’ lot. Now their determination to affect change coincides with changing 

perceptions in the world. Israelies have a quick explan ation for the world’s change—oil.

“I wouldn’t w ant to eq uate one’s moral capital with oil,” Blum said of nations 

th at have distanced themselves from Israe l in recent years. “All the criticism 

fits into the patte rn of forming better relationships with the Arabs.”

Blum went on the offensive against the United Nations last wreek with an 

article in The New York Times declaring the world body is in a stea dy decline 

because it is dominated “by an unholy alliance of dictatorships and totalitarian 

regimes.” When the anti-Israel resolutions begin to pour forth at t he General Assembly, 

Blum will be firing back. The Jewish people have always been called names, 

Blum said. “The grea t change in the Jewish people’s s tatus is th at when people 

call us names now I can get up and exercise my right of reply,” he said with a 

smile. Isra el’s siege mentality, created by the history of the Jews and the belligerence 

of Israel’s neighbors, is evident at the United Nations. If Lewis Carroll were writing today, Chaim Herzog, Blum ’s predecessor, once 

observed, Alice would only have had to wear a Star of David in the U .N. building 

to hear people cry “Off with the head .” Herzog was Isra el’s rep resentative in 1975 when the 22 Arab nations and their 

supporters won U.N. approval of a resolution equating Zionism with racism.

“The Jewish people will no t forget this scene nor this vote,” Herzog said then. 

“We shall not forget those who voted to attack our religion and our faith , li e 

6hall never forget.” There were 70 votes for the resolution, 29 against it, 27 

abstentions and 16 nations absent. Any lessening of Israel’s isolation would be helpful, diplom ats friendly to 

Israel believe. Andrew Young reportedly has been urging African nations to 

resume diplomatic relations with Israel, bu t the Israelis are not working hard to 

encourage new friendships.
APPENDIX 6

Letter F rom Subcommittee Chair man Bonker to H on. J ohn

H echinger Requesting Responses to Additional Questions for

th e Record

C o n g r ess o f t h e U n it ed St a t e s,

C o m m it tee on F o r eig n A f f a ir s,

H o u se o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s, 

Washington, D.C ., September 25, 1979. Hon. J ohn H e c h in g e r,

Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r . H e c h in g e r : Tha nk you very much for your excellent testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Intern ational Organizations on September 19, 1979 

concerning U.S. prep arations and policies for the 34th U.N. General Assembly.

Unfortu nate ly, the Subcommittee was unab le to receive your views on several 

issues which would be par ticu larly useful for the hearing record. Therefore, if 

you would be kind enough to submit in writin g a concise response to the following 

questions we would be most grateful.

1. In your testimony you suggested adding one more day of briefings for public 

members of the U.S. Delegation. Would you suggest any other improvements 

which migh t better prepare public members of the U.S. Delegation for the G.A.?

2. During your testimony you indicated th at the U.S. Mission devoted too 

much time in relating to the Sta te Dep artm ent, and th at the exchange between 

the U.S. Mission and the Sta te Depar tment could be “reduced and stre amlined.” Please describe what specific measures would resolve these problems.

3. What specific measures would improve coordination of work and cooperation 

between U.S. Mission personnel and public members of the U.S. Delegation?

4. W hat degree of in put did you have in formulating the U.S. position on issues 

facing the G.A.?

The Subcommittee would hope to receive your response no later than October 

15, 1979. If you have any questions, please con tact Carole Grunberg, at the 

Subcommittee at 225-5318.

Sincerely yours,

D on B o n k e r,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Internationa l Organizations.

(54)
APPENDIX 7

R esponses of H on. J o h n I I ec hin ger to A dd iti on al Q ue st io ns

S ub mitte d in W rit in g by S ub co mmitte e Ch a ir m a n B on ke r

October 3, 1979.

Hon. Don Bonk er,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Internatio nal Organizations, House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

Dear C ongressman Bon ke r: I have been te stifying before Congress in various 

capacities for a very long time, but I must say that you and your committee are 

the only ones, I believe, who have ever listened. To have developed the thoroughness of your questions impresses me no end and I will do my best to answer them very briefly numbered paragraph by numbered paragraph. 1. I testified that I thought the briefings were excellent and tha t another day should be added for more thoroughness. Beyond this, I don’t believe further 

indoctrination would be necessary. 2. My main suggestion to reducing and streamlining the interchange between the U.S. Mission and the State Department is to not require it to the extent that it is now engaged in. As I indicated, many of the resolutions are carryovers from previous G. A.s and our position is quite clear and unchanging. It would seem to me that we ought to put an ambassador and staff in charge at the U.S. Mission in which we have sufficient faith in their capabilities to recognize only when there is a deviation that should be carefully cleared with the State Department. 3. The only specific measure necessary is to see that orders are given to the U.S. Mission personnel that it is their duty to interface with the public member to which th ey are assigned and such assignments be made on a very clear one-to- one basis. Furthermore, for those U.S. Mission personnel who do not have a direct assignment of a public delegate that they be instructed tha t they should involve themselves with the public delegates in the same manner t hat they do with the 

permanent ambassadors assigned to the General Assembly. 4. I had some very interesting definite input in regard to ten or fifteen words in a resolution on Zimbabwe and ten or fifteen words in regard to the use of nuclear strengths. It doesn’t sound like very much, but I felt the debates that I had with the State Department, while being cheered on by the U.S. Mission in New York, were great victories and these two experiences were among the 

most notable of my service in the General Assembly. Again, I am impressed with the care with which you are involving your committee in this matter and hope that I have been of some help.

Sincerely, John W. IIechinger.
APPENDIX 8

Letter F rom Subcommittee Chairma n Bonker to H on. Chartfs Whal en Requesting Responses to Additional Questions for th e Record

C ong ress o f t h e U n it ed Sta te s,

C o m m it tee on F o r eig n A f f a ir s,

H o use o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s, Washington, D.C., September 25, 1979. Hon. C h a r les W h a len,

Executive Director, New Directions, Washington, D.C.

D ea r C h u c k : Tha nk you very much for your excellent testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Internatio nal Organizations on Septem ber 19, 1979 regarding U.S. preparations and policies for the 3 4th U.N. General Assembly.

Unfortunately, the Subcommittee was unable to receive your views on several 

issues which would be particularly useful for the hearing record. Therefore, if you 

would be kind enough to subm it in writin g a concise response to the following questions we would be most grateful.

1. During the hearing you stated th at the State Depar tment’s preparations 

prior to the G.A. were inadequate to ensure your effective participation in the 

G.A. as a Congressional member of the U.S. Delegation. Were th e Sta te Depar tment’s or U.S. Mission’s prep arations and briefings during the G.A. also in­ adequate?

2. In monitoring the activities of the G.A., do you feel tha t the Sta te Department exercised too much or too little control over t he U.S. Mission and th e U.S. 

Delegation?

3. You stated during th e hearing th at while public and Congressional members 

of the U.S. Delegation do not “make” policy, the y may contribute to policy “formulation .” What degree of inpu t did you have in formulating the U.S. position on issues facing the G.A.? How can public and Congressional delegates con­ tribu te effectively to policy formulating?

4. Did the Sta te Department or the U.S. Mission give you instructio ns con­ cerning contacts with th e P.L.O.?

5. If a resolution is brou ght to a vote without advance warning and our delegate has not been instructed how to vote on the particu lar resolution, is the 

delegate instructed to abstain and requ est instructio ns from the State Dep artment? Should our delegates be permitted greater flexibility to exercise their own judgment in voting in such instances?

The Subcommittee would hope to receive your response no later than October 15, 

1979. If you have any questions, please contact Carole Grunberg at the Sub­ comm ittee at 225-5318.

Sincerely yours,

D on B o n k er,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Inte rnation al Organizations.

(56)
AP PE ND IX 9

R esponses of H on . Cha rl es W h a len to A dd iti on al Q ue st io ns

S ub mi tt ed in W rit in g by S ub co mmitte e C h a ir m an B onke r

New Directions,

A Citizens’ Lobby for World Security,

Washington, D.C., October 2, 1979.

Hon. Don Bonker, M.C.,

Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Committee on Foreign

Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear D on: T han k you for your letter of September 25 a nd the kind comments 

contained therein. I certainly enjoyed appearing before your Subcommittee—it 

was like old times! It is regre ttable th at your “class picture” session limited the 

opp ortu nity for questions.

The following are my views concerning the five additional queries which you 

posed in y our communication.

1. Once a General Assembly session commences, all U.S. U.N . Mission personnel 

are confronted with severe time constraints. Thus, there is little opp ortuni ty for 

the Ambassador or his senior deputies to conduct lengthy briefing sessions for 

Congressional and Public Delegates. As I noted in my opening statem ent, much 

of the learning process rests with the individual delegate. However, by following 

some of the recom mendations which I outlined in my testim ony, Delegates can 

successfully complete an “on-the-job training program” by mid-session.

With respect to the education al efforts of th e mission, Congressional and Public 

Representatives were kep t abreast of operation al activities during the one-hour 

mission meetings held on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings. Ambassador 

Young met priv ately with the delegates on several occasions to discuss broad 

policy questions. Mission officers were most cooperative in working with me on 

issues coming before the Second Committee, on which I served, and in arranging 

luncheon meetings with delegates from nation s who sat on this committee. Finally, 

Ambassador Young was instrum ental in s etting up for me a meeting in the State 

Departme nt with top level officials whom I pressed to ado pt a particular course 

of action favored by those of us involved with Second Committee m atte rs.

In summary, those pe rmanently assigned to the U.S. Mission were willing to give 

their time and advice to the uninitiated, such as myself, bu t with many other 

concerns on their minds, the y had to be asked. This is the thrust of my opening 

statem ent—Congressional and Public Delegates can not sit back and wait for 

something to happen ; t hey have to seek out th e action.

2. As I stated during my formal remarks, the U nite d Nations Pa rticipation Act, 

enacted by Congress, clearly states tha t the Preside nt (through the State Department) establishes the policies pursued by the U.S. U.N . Mission. Therefore, it is 

not a question of “too much or too little control”—complete control has been 

vested by law in t he Executive Branch.

3. I contributed to policy discussions in several ways.

A. During mission meetings I voiced suggestions concerning positions which 

Ambassador Young should advocate during Cabinet sessions or when he contacts 

State Dep artm ent officers with decision-making jurisdiction.

B. I met privately with Ambassador Young on a num ber of occasions a t which 

time he solicited my views concerning pending issues.

C. Ambassador Young and I engaged in a three-way telephone conversation 

with Father Theodore Hesburgh (in South Bend, Indiana), Chairm an-designate 

of our delegation to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology, 

and Ambassador Wilkowski (in Washington), Sta te Departme nt coordinator for 

the Conference. We tried unsuccessfully to get the ir approval of a more vigorous 

mission lobbying effort to secure New York as the site of the 1979 Conference. 

As the Subcommittee knows, the General Assembly, sensing that the U.S. “invitat ion” was only pro forma, overwhelmingly voted in favor of Vienna as the 

Conference host.

(57)
58

D. As previously mentioned, I “invaded” the State Departme nt to take the 

case directly to those responsible for establishing policies relating to the so-called 

New Internatio nal Economic Order (NIE O).

Public and Congressional Delegates can utilize the same approaches, or variants 

thereof, during the policy formulation process.

4. To my knowledge, during t he 32nd General Assembly, no instru ction s were 

given Congressional and Public Delegates concerning contacts with the P.L.O.

5. In this era of instant communication, no vote is cast in the General Assemblv 

without prior clearance from th e State Departme nt. While, from a personal sta ndpoint, it might be desirable for the U.S. Mission to have greater decision-making 

flexibility, it must be remembered th at the mission is an instrument of policy 

contributing only to the formulation of tha t policy.

I hope th at the foregoing has been responsive to your questions.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Charles W. Whalen, Jr.,

Presi dent.