7 4 Un 3 5 ^ 4 Z

REV IEW OF THE 1974 GEN ERA L AS SE MB LY AND

UNITED STA TES POSITION IN THE UNITED N A T I O N S ^

government

Storage

y / I E N T S

12 1975

T H £ L - I S A A R V

KA NS AS ST AT 6 UNIV ERSIT Y H E A R I N G S

BEFORE TH E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HORSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

= = >

NINE TY -FOU ET II CON GRESS 

FIR ST SE SSION

FEBRUARY 4 AND 5, 1975

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

48-890

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC E 

WASHINGTON : 1975
3T M3M U0 00

□ r PF

CO M MIT TE E ON FO REIG N A FFA IR S

TH OM AS E. MOR GAN , Pen nsy lv ania , C fa a in ria rr

-I- J 3 H T 

3TA T6 2Az?MA>

CL EM EN T J. ZA BL OC KI , W isc on sin 

WA YN E L. HA YS , Ohio 

L. H. FO UNTA IN , N ort h Car olina 

DA NT E B. FA SC ELL , Flo rida 

CHA RLE S C. DI GG S, J r., Michigan 

ROBER T N. C. NIX , Pen ns yl va ni a 

DO NA LD M. FR A SER, M inne so ta 

BE NJA M IN S. RO SE NT HAL , New York 

L E E IL HAM IL TO N, In dia na 

L ESTE R L. W OLFF . New York 

JO NA TH AN B. BING HA M. New York 

GU S YATRON, Pen ns yl va ni a 

ROY A. TA YL OR , N or th Car ol in a 

M IC HAEL HARR IN GT ON , M as sa ch us et ts 

LEO J. RYA N, C al if or ni a 

CHARLE S W ILSO N, Tex as 

DO NA LD W. RIE G LE, J r., Michiga n 

CA RDIS S CO LL IN S, Illin oi s 

STEPH EN J. SOLA RZ, New York 

H ELEN S. MEY NE R, New Je rs ey 

DON BO NKE R, W as hi ng to n

W IL LIA M S. BR OO MFI EL D, M ic hi ga n 

ED W AR D J. D ERW IN SK I, Il lin oi s 

PA UL FI NDLE Y, Illino is 

JO H N H. BU CH AN AN , J r., A la ba m a 

J. H ERBERT BU RKE, Flo rida 

P IE R R E S. du PO NT , D el aw ar e 

CHARLE S W. WHA LE N, J r.. Oh io 

ED W AR D G. BIE STER , Pen nsy lv an ia 

LA RR Y WIN N, J r., K an sa s 

BEN JA M IN A. GILM AN , New York 

TE NN YS ON GU YE R, Ohio 

RO BER T J. LA GO MA RS INO, C alifo rn ia

Marian A. Cza rx eck i, C hie f o f S ta ff

Subc om m it te e on I ntern a tio na l Organiz ati ons

DONALD M. FRASER. Minnesota, Chairman

DANTE B. FASCELL, Florida EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois 

MICHAEL HARRINGTON, Massachusetts

CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois

Robert B. Boet tc her , S ta ff C o n s u lt a n t

J ea nn e M. Sal via, S ta ff A s s is ta n t
C O N T E N T S

«

WITNE SSES

Tuesday, F ebruary 4 ,1975: P s«

Evans, Luther, president, World Fed era list, U.S.A________________ 21

Morgenthau, Hans, professor, New School of Social Research in New

York _____________________________________________________ 18

Scali, Hon. John, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations__________ 8

Wolff, Hon. Lester L., a Representative in Congress from the Sta te of

New York__________________________________________________ 2

Wednesday, Fe bruary 5,1975:

Ginn, Rosem ary, chairma n, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO_ 56

Leonard, Hon. James, president, United Nations Association of the

U.S.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 52

Yost, lion. Charles W., forme r U.S. Ambassador to the United Na tio ns. 47

APP ENDIX

Statement of Hon. Philip M. Crane, a Representative in Congress from the

Sta te of Illinois________________________________________________ 79

Statement of the American Jewish Congress on the 1974 General Assembly 

and the U.S. position in the United Nation s_______________________ 82

Statem ent of the executive committee of the Commision to Study the 

Organization of Peace__________________________________________ 85

Article entitled “Clash of the ‘Two Majoritie s'—Whose United Nations?”

b.v lion. Charles W. Yost, the New Republic, December 28, 1974_______ 89

Article entitled “The United Nations Was Never More Relevant Than 

Today”, by Hon. Charles W. Yost, Saturday Review, Janu ary 1975___ 92

Letter from Rob ert Y. Gromet, M.D., World Federal Authority Committee,

to Congressman Donald M. Fra ser , date d Feb rua ry 1. 1975___________ 96

Material subm itted by th e U.S. National Commission for UNESCO :

Non-Governmental Organization Membership in the U.S. National

Commission for UNESCO____________________________________ 97

Fed eral Government, Sta te and local government and member-at-large

membership in the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO______ 99

Stateme nt on Isr ael by Amadou Malitar M’Bow, Dire ctor General of

UNESC O-------------------------------- x------------------------------------------------ 1 0 1

Statement-entitled “What, in the U.S. In terest, Is Given Up in O ur R efusal

To Continue as a Member of UNESCO?*’___________________________ 103

(in)
J
i

REVIEW OP THE 1974 GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE 

UNITED STATES POSITION IN THE UNITED NATIONS

TU ESD A Y , F E B R U A R Y 4, 19 75

H ouse of Representatives,

Committee on F oreign Affairs,

S ubcommittee on I nternational Organizations,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 2 p.m. in room 2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Fra ser (chairman of the subcommittee) 

presiding.

Air. Fraser. Today the Subcommittee on International Organi­ zations meets for the first of tAvo hearings on a re Anew of the 1974 U.N. General Assembly and the IT.S. position in the United Nations. Certain actions of the 1974 U.N. General Assembly became the subject of considerable controversy among Members of Congress last fall, reflecting the controversy tha t Avas apparent among the Ameri­ can people in general. These controversial actions included the As­ sembly's decision to alloAv participation by the Palestine Liberation Organization—the first, time a delegation not representing a member government was accorded such treatment, Other actions were the denial of South Africa’s Assembly seat and the adoption of a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. In each case the United States and other industrialized nations were outvoted by a wide ma r­ gin which included the developing countries of the Third World. These actions Avere met with strong criticism in the United States, and led the U.S. representative at the U.N., Ambassador Scali, to 

warn the Assembly of the tyranny of the majo rity and tha t Ameri­ can support for the U.N. Avas eroding—in our Congress and among 

the people. Controversy over the U.N. became intensified with a decision at the UNESCO General Conference in November which cut off support for tha t agency’s regional programs in Israel on the grounds tha t Israel had ignored U.N. resolutions against altering the cultural character of Jersusalem. Congress reacted to this bv voting, in the foreign as­ sistance bill, to withhold voluntary contributions for UNESCO until the President certifies tha t UNESC O’s activities have become fully consistent with the agency’s educational, scientific, and cultura l 

objectives. The opening days of the 94th Congress seem to be a particu larly appropriate time for th is subcommittee to review both the actions of the recent U.N. General Assembly and the U.S. position in the U.N. system. We will be interested in learning more about the causes and

(1)
2

consequences of the controversial measures. But we also hope to take 

this opportunity to assess other activities of the U.N. and to examine 

U.S. interests in relation to them.

We are pleased to welcome four distinguished witnesses today to 

help us with our evaluation: Hon. Lester Wolff, our colleague in the 

House and in the Foreign Affairs Committee from the State o f New 

York; Hon. John Scali, Permanent U.S. Representative to the United 

Nations; Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau of the City University of New 

York, and Hr. Luth er Evans, president of World Federalists, U.S.A.

We are delighted to have all of th e witnesses here. I know that our 

colleague will have other responsibilities, hu t if possible we would like 

to have you join us up here for as long as you are able to stay afte r 

your statement.

So we will first hear from our colleague, Lester Wolff, whose service 

on the Foreign Affairs Committee has been outstanding and who has 

recently become chairman of one of the newly reorganized subcommittees of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Wolff.

STATEM ENT OE HON. LES TER L. WOL FE, A RE PR ES EN TA TIVE IN 

TH E CONGRESS FROM TH E STATE OE NE W YORK

Mr. Wolff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank you for honoring my request tha t was 

made on the floor during the debate on the foreign aid bill tha t hearings be held to review the recent session of the United Nations and the 

relationship of the United States to tha t organization. In the past, I 

have strongly supported the U.N., though I did question the size of 

the U.S. financial contribution.

I want you to know tha t in my statement here, any resemblance of 

criticism of the United Nations does not reflect upon the gentleman 

sitting to my immediate left, our very able Ambassador to the United 

Nations who, I feel, has done an outstanding job there and has been 

very representative of the positions of all Americans.

Today, I and a large number of heretofore strong supporters of the 

U.N. find ourselves troubled by the actions the organization has taken. 

It is unreasonable for us to expect th at the U.S. position will always 

prevail, but it is not too much for us to expect th at the United Nations 

will follow its own charter and will act to increase the prospects for 

peace in the world.

In the past session, the U.N. did not live up to these most reasonable 

expectations. It acted in ways th at not only left these expectations unfulfilled but did damage to the credibility and viability of the organization itself. In light of this, I felt tha t it was essential for us to 

reexamine our policies.

In line with that, iny statement today is intended to be constructive 

rather than destructive of the organization.

I would like to recount and comment on some of the U.N. actions 

tha t have troubled me and other Americans. Perhaps the most obvious 

incident is the granting of observer status to the Palestine Liberation 

Organization and in permitting its leader, Yasir Ara fat, to address 

the General Assembly.
3

The United Nations is, as its name implies, an organization of nations. The PLO is simply not a nation. It is the umbrella organization of a band of international terrorists who have no qualms over spilling the blood of innocents. I t is an organization whose authority and ex­ istence are based on the indiscriminate use of terror in attac king civilians and avoiding m ilitary targets. It is an organization tha t has received worldwide attention not because of its respect for inter­ national law or for its attempts to bring peace, but for its tram plin g of that law and its efforts to destroy a member state of the U.N. On November 10,1974, Yasir Arafa t announced that “* * * the goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromises or mediation * * * We don’t want peace—we want victory. Peace, for us, means Israel’s destruction and nothing else.” Contrast his words with these from the U.N. Charter “* * * to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.” Despite the fact tha t the PLO operates in total violation of the goals of the U.N., the General Assembly saw fit to grant it observer status by a vote 

of 95-17-19. Aft er gran ting the PLO observer status, the General Assembly greeted Yasir Ar afa t with full ceremonial honors and permitted him to address the Assembly. Only one other nonmember has been granted 

this honor : His Holiness Pope Paul. In addition to making a mockery of U.N. ideals, this recognition of the PLO presents a most dangerous precedent fo r the future. I t makes terrorism legitimate. It shows tha t disregard for human life is an acceptable tactic in achieving one’s goals. Instead of placing the world body in opposition to bloodshed, it encourages it. It is a clear state­ ment to terrorist groups in the world tha t if they persist they can 

receive honor, rathe r than punishment, fo r their crimes. The U.N. has an abysmal record on the whole matter of curbing terrorism. After the 1972 Munich massacre of the Israel Olympic team, Secretary General Waldheim personally suggested tha t the General Assembly should give the matter of terrorism high priority. This suggestion received far less than wholehearted approval and no steps were taken. In fact, between July 1968 and the end of 1973 there were 27 recorded incidents of Arab terrorism tha t received no action by the U.N. Terrorists receive accolades as freedom fighters and their victims, who are often women and children, are ignored bv the U.N. and their deaths hailed by the organizations that perpetrate these 

crimes. During the past session’s debate on the entire question of the Middle East, a debate in which a significant number of nations seemed to in­ dicate tha t a member state of the U.N. had no right to exist, Isra el’s right to reply to the charges and comments made was limited to a single speech, plus a 10-minute statement at the end of the day. This action was, in the recollection of many diplomats, unprecedented in the entire 29-year history of the U.N. This is a most serious matter. One of the major functions of the U.N. is tha t of acting as an arena for the interaction of nations’ opinions. This action severely limited the exchange of opinion tha t is most beneficial to all parties in any •dispute and, again, sets a very dangerous precedent for the future. It was not done because of the thre at of an international form of “fili-
4

buster,” but resulted from narrow-mindedness and disregard for fair

p

] a yI would like to emphasize tha t my concern in this has two bases. One, 

I felt that the opinions represented by the majority of the nations 

were not conducive to peace. Beyond this, however, I am concerned 

over the precedent such freedom of speech curbs set for the entire U.N.

A furthe r incident was the suspension of South Africa from the 

General Assembly. I wish to make it clear tha t I am in total opposition to the apartheid policies of South Africa, but, again, I feel th at 

the action taken was improper, irresponsible, and injurious to the wellbeing of the entire U.N. system.

The Un ited Nations Charter clearly states that a member . . may 

be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendations of the 

Security Council.” In the case of South Africa, the Security Council 

did not make any such recommendation. Rather, the suspension proposal met with a triple veto. The legal counsel of the United Nations, 

at the 25th session of the Assembly, set forth a ruling th at stated that 

“the participation in meetings of the General Assembly is quite clearly one of the important rights and privileges of membership. Suspension of this right through the rejection of credentials would not 

satisfy the requirements and would therefore be contrary to the 

Charter.”

Despite this clear ruling, the General Assembly voted 91-22-19 to 

suspend South Africa from participation.

One of the objects of the U.N. is to bring persuasion to bear on its 

delinquent members. To suspend a nation from membership in the 

Assembly is to isolate it from the very forum from which the persuasion emanates and is totally antithetical to the goal. Suspension 

is a one-time blow to a nation’s international standing; it is a oneshot expression of international protest, but once this “shot” is fired, 

the U.N. has no fur ther hold on the delinquent nation and a subsequent 

resolution condemning that nation ’s activities will have even less effect 

than before.

This suspension is also a step away from the desirable goal of universal membership and sets a disturbing precedent for the future. 

By the parliamentary chicanery of refusing to accept a delegation’s 

credentials, even though there can be no question as to the legitimacy 

of those credentials, tlie doorway is opened to suspending any nation 

that a mathematical majority wishes to express its pique at.

A fur the r example of the U.N.’s irresponsibility in this session 

is in the exclusion of Israel from a regional group of UNESCO. This 

is an international agency dedicated to educational, scientific, and 

cultural goals. I t has been, and should continue to be, nonpolitical in 

its operation. Yet, there is no question tha t its actions against Israel 

were politically based. Accordingly, the United States has chosen to 

halt aid to UNESCO u ntil it returns to its proper role. This is a most 

appropriate response.

One of the concerns underlying all of the actions I have discussed 

is the hypocrisy tha t the U.N. has shown. The U.N. seems to be wearing a set of blinders; condemning activities in one nation, while ignoring similar or worse in other nations. The spectacle of Uganda, where
5

General Amin expelled all those of Asian ancestry and has people 

liquidated almost daily, solemnly condemning the racism in South 

Africa borders on the ludicrous. Thousands of Burundians were killed 

in 1972 and 1973, yet the U.N. remained silent. Amnesty Internation al 

has accused more tha n 60 of the 125 member nations of UNE SCO 

of using torture as an instrum ent of control over the past 10 years. 

The U.N. response was to withdraw its offer of its facilities to the 

organization.

Violations of human rights must be acted upon by the U.N., b ut the 

U.N. must serve all mankind and not act for political reasons.

The disturbing actions I have outlined were taken because a majority 

of the U.N.’s membership favored them. But, because each nation is 

given one vote, a two-third m ajority can be obtained from nations representing a scant 10 percent of the total population represented in the 

U.N. Bv virtue of this, the General Assembly has passed measures tha t 

do not conform to the realities of the world situation. A majority passes 

a resolution that requires the minority to make concessions. It must 

be remembered tha t the General Assembly cannot dictate solutions 

and any attem pt to do so will be ignored if it is considered unreasonable by those it is directed against. If this is a recurring situation, 

and it has become one, the minority will treat these resolutions with 

less and less repect. Such actions by the General Assembly accomplish 

nothing. They only serve to undermine the respect tha t is essential 

for the U.N.

I would like to quote from then Secretary of State Rogers’ statement 

in 1972. He said that “the voting dominance of U.N. forums by the 

developing nations bring s certain distortions in the functioning of 

many multilateral institutions.” This can cause the institution to 

adopt unrealistic budgets over the opposition of major contributors.

Now this problem becomes more acute when the minority contains 

members whose economic, military and political resources are, in all 

probability, equal to or greater than those of the majority.

To summarize, the General Assembly has acted irresponsibly, in 

violation of its own Charter, in violation of any standard of fairness, 

and has acted to promote conflict and divisiveness rath er than promote conciliation. It has acted according to the whims of a m ajority 

of the members, a m ajority tha t does not accurately reflect the world 

political situation. The General Assembly has become a seriously 

flawed body and these flaws are shared by other U.N. agencies such 

as UNESCO and Ecosoc.

It is ironic tha t the voting bloc that now controls the United Nations and has such a ma jor voice in the policies adopted takes such small 

interest in financing the U.N. The United States pays a full 25 percent 

of the U.N. regular budget. For 1975 this comes to $81,268,780. The 

United States has but one vote.

On the other hand, the countries tha t constitute the Third World 

bloc and more than half of the U.N. membership are, for the most 

part, assessed at the minimum rate of 0.02 percent of the budget, or 

$56,030 for 1975. Additionally, nearly 110 Thi rd World and Soviet 

bloc nations are delinquent in some form of payment. The OPE C 

nations only pay a combined total of 1.28 percent of the to tal budget.

Drug abuse is a problem tha t afllicts a large number of nations
6

and the problem continues to grow . T would like to quote from Am ­

bassa dor Bus h’s sta tem ent in 1972 when he spoke before the Uni ted 

Nations. ITe said.

My de lega tio n w ishe s to po int on t onc e ag ai n th a t th e wor k now be ing done 

by th e U ni ted N at io ns in th e field of in te rn ati o n al dru g co nt ro l m ust he re in ­

forced an d ex te nd ed . We ca nn ot sol ve th is ex trem el y grave an d co nt in uo us 

prob lem w ithout in cr ea se d in te rn ati onal co op er at io n such as th e au sp ic es of 

th e U ni te d N at io ns .

In the New Yo rk Un ivers ity Jo ur na l of Intern ationa l Law and 

Po lities in which the y talk about the whole question of inter na tio na l 

dr ug traffic—and I would like to jus t quote one po rtion o f t hi s fo r t he 

rec ord—t he abuse of dan ger ous dr ug s is not lim ite d to the United 

State s. I t is a grow ing problem aro und the world. As such it is a 

cre dib le top ic fo r U.N. actio ns. Th e U.N . alr eady has a Com mission 

on Na rco tics Abuse, an In tern at io na l Narco tics Co ntr ol Bo ard and 

a fun d fo r d ru g a buse control.

T hi s is a glob al co nc ern w ith li tt le re gar d fo r national ho rd er s. U.N. sa nc tion s, 

like th e econ om ic bo yc ott of Rho de sia, ha ve th e advan ta ge of unif yin g signi fica nt . . . wor ld su pp or t. U.N. ac tion may also mor e effecti ve ly re ac h thos e 

dr ug -p ro du ci ng nati ons w ith wh ich th e U ni ted S ta te s has li tt le co nta ct an d 

to which th e U ni te d S ta te s giv es fo re ign ai d. Tf a det er m in at io n of no nc oo pe ra ­

tio n in th e su pp re ss io n of na rc ot ic s tra ffi c w er e mad e by a U.N. ag en cy , th e 

st ig m a of American . . . [i nte rf er en ce ] . . . w ou ld he remov ed. Dom estic fe ath ers 

wo uld st ill be ruffled , hu t th e U ni ted N at io ns , not th e United S ta te s, wo uld 

do th e ruffling .

The U.N . Fun d for Dru g Abuse Control att acks this problem on a 

worldwide basis, yet of the $13.6 million th at has been donated to th is 

fu nd since 1971, $10 million , 74 perce nt, has come from the United 

Sta tes . Asrain the Un ite d State s pays a dispropo rti on ate sha re in comba tin g th is problem of global im po rt. We ca rry the br un t of the 

burde n despite th e fact th at the United State s does not pro duce any 

of the opium th at is one of the principa l components of th is problem.

I have attach ed a full excer pt from the New Yo rk Unive rsity 

Jo ur na l of In tern ationa l Law and Po litics , which I wou ld like to in ­

clude in the r ecord.

Mr. F raser. W ith ou t obje ction it will be so included.

[E xc erpt fo llo ws:]

B ut flic ab us e of da ng er ou s dru gs is no f lim ited to th e United Sta te s. Tt is a 

gr ow in g prob lem ar ound th e world. As such , it is a cr ed ib le topi c fo r U ni te d 

N at io ns ac tio n. The U.N. al re ady has a Co mmiss ion on N ar co tics Abuse, an In te rnational N ar co tics Con tro l Boa rd an d a Fun d fo r D ru g Ab use Con tro l. Dru g 

ab us e— lik e en vi ro nm en ta l des truc tion , oc ean re so ur ce s an d econom ic de velop ­

m en t— is a glo ba l co nc ern w ith li tt le re gard fo r national bo rd er s. U.N. sa nc tion s, 

li ke th e eco nomic bo yc ott of R ho de sia, hav e th e a dvan ta ge of u ni fy in g sig nific an t, 

th ro ugh no t ne ce ss ar ily un an im ou s, w or ld su pp or t. U.N. ac tion may also mo re 

eff ec tiv ely re ac h th os e dr ug -p ro du cing nati ons w ith which flip U ni ted S ta te s ha s 

li tt le co nt ac t an d to which th e U.S. give s no aid. If a det er m in at io n of no ncoo pera ti on in th e su pp re ssio n of nar co tics traffic w er e m ad e by a U.N. agency, th e 

stig m a of American di ct at io n o f th e te rm s under which m ult il ate ra l ai d is gra nte d 

wou ld be remov ed. Dom estic fe ath ers w ou ld st ill be ruffled, but th e U ni ted N ation s, n ot the U ni te d S ta te s wo uld do t he ru ffling .

Mr. Wolff. Th is discusses th is m atter and its rel ati on ship to the 

U.N.

W ha t we hav e. M r. Ch air ma n and mem bers of th e c ommittee, is contra di ction. The nations th at hav e joined toge ther in these .majorities 

an d have made th eir position prev ail do no t su pp or t the in stitu tio n
tha t they are now abusing. It is the United States, the American tax ­

payer, who has paid the lion’s share of the U.N.'s expenses. We have 

financed the irresponsibility of the past session. To continue as we have in the past would indicate our continued 

support for such irresponsibility. Accordingly, 1 urge a reduction in our contribution as a clear gesture of U.S. disapproval. Again, 1 would like to make it clear that I advocate such a reduction not because the U.S. position did not always prevail, but because the U.N. has violated its own charter and acted in ways to encourage world conflict rather 

than curb it. In addition, in the upcoming review of the charter I urge that the 

U.S. delegation give consideration to a form of weighted voting system 

in the U.N. Such a system should consider a nation’s population and economic base in determining the voting weight. The United States should also insist th at the U.N. strictly adhere to article 24, paragraph 1 of the charter, which states tha t the Security Council will have the “* * * primary responsibility for the maintenance of internatio nal peace and security * * * ’’ These proposals, if implemented, would 

make the U.N. a more viable body, responding to the accurately re­ flected concerns of the world in a way tha t would insure th at the suppor t of the necessary powers is obtained. In closing, 1 would like to note t ha t while the United Nations has 

acted irresponsibly and improperly in all of the actions I have out­ lined, it did take many actions tha t show tha t it can act as a useful instrument for world peace. The United Nations can take pride in the Secretary General’s effort on Cyprus and in the stationing of peace­ keeping forces on that island and their continuation in the Middle East. However, these bright points are overshadowed by the others. We must act to insure that irresponsibility does not continue and tha t the United Nations returns to an uncompromised role as a body devoted 

to conciliation between nations.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. F raser. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolff. That is a very forceful and very well put together statement, which I think sums up the concerns that have been expressed by many Members of the Ilouse 

and we certainly appreciate it. Wha t I would like to do, if there is no objection from the sub­ committee, is to proceed through the panel before we get to questions, because otherwise I fear we won’t leave an opportunity to get through 

the panel this afternoon.

Mr. Wolff. If 1 might be excused for a little while, and I will come 

back and join the panel.

Mr. Fraser. Yes, we understand that you may have a conflict, but 

whenever you can be here, that will be fine.

Mr. Wolff. T hank you.

Mr. Fraser. Our second witness is the Ambassador to the United 

Nations. I would like to say in introducing him t hat those of us who have had an opportunity to work with him have been very impressed with his forthrightn ess and his efforts to make the United Nations work well and his efforts to represent the U.S. interests within the 

U.N. system. He has become a friend of many of us and we are pleased 

to have him here.

Mr. Scab.
8

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SCALI. U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TH E 

UN ITE D NAT IONS

Ambassador Scali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before this distin­ guished committee and renew my friendship with many of the dis­ tinguished gentlemen on the other side of the table who have become friends and whose views and suggestions I listen to with respect and 

whose friendship I hope to continue to merit. 1 am pleased to have this opportunity to examine with you the bal­ ance sheet on the performance of th e United Nations. As you already know, some developments at the United Nations in recent weeks and months have been most disturbing. They have aroused thousands of letters from many, many Americans who have written to me, as well as much editorial comment in tho- news media across the Nation. I expect you share these concerns and tha t you are also hearing from 

your constituents. I brought along copies of the address T made in the General Assembly on December G, 1974, on the performance of the General Assembly session th at was then about to end. I also have available copies of a speech I made only last Wednesday to a Boston audience in which I look not only at the General Assembly, but at the entire U.N. system. I offer these statements not because T am enamored of my own rhetoric, but because they represent the considered, continuing analysis 

and review tha t my staff and I are conducting.

Mr. Fraser. Without objection we will insert those statements as a 

part of the record of the hearing.

Ambassador Scali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is the balance sheet on the United Nations? Let us look at the General Assembly, at the Security Council, and at the family of economic and social agencies which are part of the U.N. system. Basically it is the General Assembly tha t has produced the most startling developments in the past 6 months. The 138 members of the General Assembly have equal votes, and there is no veto. About 100 of the 138 can be identified as Third World countries, developing countries, or nonalined countries. The remainder includes states more or less alined with the Atlantic community or with the Socialist bloc. When the Third World closes ranks, it can easily mobilize the votes to invite an Arafa t to address it, to exclude a member such as South Africa from participation, or to impose unfair restrictions on the Israeli delegation such as dic tatin g the number of times it may speak on an issue of vital importance to its survival. All these things happened at the 29th General Assembly tha t ended just before 

Christmas. In addition, the Assembly voted a “Charter of Economic Bights and Duties” in the form we could not support, although we had tried very hard up to the last minute to negotiate our differences with the 

charter’s Mexican sponsors and thei r associates. On the other side of the balance sheet, this same Assembly took measures to strengthen the United Nations’ facilities for disaster relief, to improve the status of women, to encourage greater interna­ tional cooperation in locating soldiers missing in action. It adopted
9

and activated recommendations of the World Food Conference and the World Population Conference, both strongly supported by the United States. It also rejected ill-advised, lopsided resolutions on Cambodia and Korea. Above all, it also provided funds and policy support for continuing the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the Middle 

East. During the very same period, and going back to October 1973, in my view the Security Council has shown new effectiveness in the vital area of peace keeping. Many, including myself, regard peace keeping as the most im portant activity of the whole U.N. system. The United Nations gets little credit when outbreaks of violence are contained and virtually none at all when it is able to head off violence before 

it occurs. The October 1973 war brought two new U.N. peace-keeping forces into the Middle East to help restore peace on the Egyptian and Syr ian fronts. The Security Council has continued to show that at moments of gravest tension and danger it can be a critically important element in the world political order. In the Security Council, East and West, North and South, developed and developing, have debated seriously. They have worked together constructively and they have come up with practical results to problems of peace keeping in the real world. Other U.N. programs and activities have been continuing with less attention from the general public. I refer to the whole range of U.N. activities in the fields of health, child care, food, disaster relief, human rights, and economic development. Many of these programs resulted 

from U.S. initiatives. For example, we have promoted U.N. efforts to control narcotics, as Congressman Wolff has already eloquently indicated. We have moved to protect the environment, to determine how to manage the wealth in and at the bottom of the sea. We have noted a growing interest in human rights in the United Nations as in Congress, and we seek to improve the U.N.’s effectiveness in promoting human rights. It is also worth remembering th at the entire cost of all those U nited Nations programs I have mentioned works out to less than $2 per American per year. Compare th at figure to the $2.2 billion authorized for aid to Israel alone at the height of the October war. and I think you will agree that international cooperation may be less dram atic 

than conflict, but it is also a great deal cheaper. Unfortunately some of the specialized organs of the Un ited Nations system have followed the example of the 29th General Assembly and succumbed to the temptation to politicize their work. You are all well aware of UNESC O’s action toward Israel. I deplore this action as mainly a political reprisal against a member state—a trend which 

opens a dangerous path for the United Nations to follow. I have said before tha t I don’t have ready answers to all the prob ­ lems of the United Nations. I hope these hearings can help produce new insights and new expressions of opinion tha t will help the execu­ tive branch in its current rethinking of our participation in the United 

Nations. I have not hesitated to declare forth righ tly in the General Assembly what the U.S. Government thinks about these recent developments. I am pleased th at my statement of December 6 precipitated what is now
10

remembered as the great debate in which more than 50 delegations 

participated. This debate revealed a surp rising degree of general agreement on two essential points. First, tha t the United Nations exists to promote orderly change. Second, in our interdependent world it must accomplish this task through genuine dialog and constructive compromise. I am proud that the American statement could lead to this kind of constructive 

look at the United Nations by its own membership. As we keep under critical review the pattern of our participation in the United Nations, it is my working hypothesis tha t the United Nations has never needed positive leadership and constructive p artici­ pation by the United States more th an it does today. I have never been one to call it quits when the going gets a little rough and I have no inclination to turn my back on the problems we face in the United 

Nations today. I shall be seeking to help formulate new approaches by which we can reduce the area of confrontation and achieve constructive actions in the United Nations. We in America do not think our world is perfect and neither do the 138 nations represented in the U.N. We are not going to prevail on every issue regardless of our power and position. But I believe that if we press our views vigorously in the forums of the United Nations, we can eventually achieve results acceptable to all. I feel deeply tha t we must try. Acceptable results, however, depend on a greater initiative and role by the moderates in the Third World. They must recognize that doctrinaire or one-sided proposals, put forward on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, promote confrontation and 

deadlock instead of conciliation. The United Nations did not create the problems tha t confront our world. Bather, the recent actions of the United Nations which have caused such grave concern reflect the deeply held grievances of a wide arra y of developing countries. They are acting in response to some of the most critical issues of our time, those of the Middle East, of racism in southern Africa, of threatening starvation and of wide­ spread poverty. Their actions may be unrealistic, but their frustrations 

arise from very real problems. A new effort in the United Nations to achieve constructive compro­ mise can, I believe, help moderate their extreme behavior. Only real progress on these fundamental issues, however, can prevent a heighten­ ing confrontation from eventually destroying the United Nations and undermining the hopes for world peace which tha t organization has 

embodied for over a quarter of a century. I have told you of my general approach. Perhaps at this point it would be more useful to you if I listened to your views and responded 

to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Ambassador Scab’s statement to United Nations and address to Massachusetts State Federation of Women’s Clubs follow:]

Statement by Ambassador J ohn Scali. U.S. Representative to th e United

Nations, in Plenary, on Stre ngt hen ing th e Role of th e United Nations

December, 6, 1974.

Last year the United States Delegation sought to call attention to a trend which we believed threatened the United Nations’ potential as an instrument
11

fo r in te rn ati onal co op er ation. We were de ep ly co nc er ne d th en ov er th e gr ow in g tend en cy of th is O rg an iz at io n to adopt on e-s ided , unre ali st ic re so lu tions th a t 

can not be im plem en ted. To da y, mor e th an a y ear la te r, my D el eg at io n fe el s th a t we m ust re tu rn to th is su bj ec t be ca us e th is tr en d has not on ly co ntin ue d, but ac ce le ra te d. Add ed to this, th er e is no w a new th re a t— an a rb it ra ry dis re gar d of U ni te d N at io ns ru le s, even of it s C hart er. W hat my Deleg at io n sp ok e of 12 m on th s ag o as a pote nti al th re a t to th is O rg an iz at io n, unhap pily has bec ome to da y a cle ar and 

pre se nt da ng er. The United S ta te s G ov er nm en t has alr eady m ad e cl ea r from th is ro st ru m it s co nc ern ov er a nu m ber of As sem bly de cision s ta ken duri ng th e Six th Sp ec ial Ses ­ sio n la st Sp rin g, and du ri ng th e cu rr en t Se ssion . The se de cis ions hav e d ealt w ith som e of th e m os t im port an t, th e mos t co ntr over si al , an d th e m os t ve xi ng issu es of ou r d a y : th e glob al econom ic cr isis, th e tu rm oi l in th e m id dle E ast , and th e in ju st ic e in Sou th er n Afric a. I will no t to day disc us s ag ain our m ai n co nc erns w ith ea ch of th es e de cis ions. R at her, I wish to ta ke th is opport unit y to disc us s th e more gen er al qu es tion of how se lf-c en te re d ac tion s en dan ger th e 

fu tu re of th is O rg an iz at io n. The U ni ted N at io ns , an d th is Asse mbly in p art ic u la r, ca n w al k one of tw o pat hs. Th e Asse mbly ca n seek to re pre se nt th e view s of th e nu m er ical m ajo ri ty of th e da y, or it ca n tr y to ac t as a sp ok es m an of a mor e ge ner al glob al op inion. To do th e fi rs t is ea sy . To do th e second is in fini te ly more difficult. B ut , if we 

loo k ah ea d, it is in fini te ly more us ef ul. The re is cer ta in ly no th in g wrong w ith like -m inde d gr ou ps of nat io ns giv in g voice to th e vie ws th ey ho ld in com mo n. How ev er, O rg an iz at io ns oth er th an th e U ni ted N at io ns exis t fo r th a t pu rpos e. Thu s, th ere are O rg an iz at io ns of A fr ic an Sta te s, of Asian Sta te s, or Arab S ta te s, of E ur op ea n Sta te s, an d of A m er ic an Sta te s. The re are gro up s of in dust ri ali zed na tion s, of de ve loping nat io ns, of W es te rn an d E ast ern na tions , an d of no n- aligne d na tion s. Eac h of th es e org ani­ za tion s ex is ts to pr om ot e th e vie ws o f it s mem be rship. Th e United N at io ns , ho wev er, exis ts no t to se rv e one or mo re of th es e sp ec ia l in te re st gr ou ps w hile re m ai ni ng in se ns itiv e to th e ot he rs . The ch alle ng e of th e United Natio ns is to me ld an d ref lec t th e vie ws of all of them . Th e only vi ct or ie s w ith mea ni ng a re tho se w hich ar e v ic to ri es for us a ll. Th e G en er al Asse mbly fu lfi lls it s tr u e fu nc tion whe n it reco nc ile s op po sing view s an d se ek s to br id ge th e differ en ce s am on g it s Mem ber Sta te s. The m os t m ea ni ng fu l te st of w heth er th e Asse mbly has succ ee de d in th is ta sk is not w het her a m ajo ri ty ca n he mo biliz ed be hind an y sing le d ra ft re so lu tion , hut w heth er th os e S ta te s wh ose co op er at io n is vi ta l to im plem en t a de cision w ill su pport it in fa ct . A b ett er wor ld ca n on ly be co nst ru ct ed on ne go tiat io n and co mprom ise , not on co nf ro nta tion which in ev itab ly sows th e seed s of new co n­ flicts . In th e wor ds of our C har te r, th e U ni ted N at io ns is “to be a ce nte r fo r ha rm on iz in g th e ac tions of nat io ns in th e att ain m en t of th es e com mo n en ds .” No ob se rv er sh ou ld be misled by th e co in ci de nt al si m il ari ti es be tw ee n th e Gen er al As sembly and a le gis la tu re . A le gis la tu re pa ss es law s. Th e G en er al As­ sembly pa ss es re so lu tion s, which are in m os t ca se s ad vis ory in natu re . The se re so lu tion s are so m etim es ad op ted by Assem bly m ajo ri ti es which re pre se nt on ly a sm all fr acti on of th e peop le of th e w or ld, it s w ea lth , or it s te rr it o ry . So metim es th ey bru ta ll y dis re gard th e se nsi ti vit y of t h e m in or ity. Be ca us e th e G en er al As sembly is an ad vi so ry body on m att ers of w or ld po lic y, th e purs uit of m ath em ati cal m ajo ri ti es can be a part ic ula rl y st eri le fo rm of in te rn ati onal ac tivity. So ve reign nat io ns , an d th e oth er in te rn ati onal org an s which th e As sembly ad vi se s th ro ugh it s reso lu tion s, so metim es ac ce pt and so m e­ tim es re je ct th a t ad vice . Ofte n th ey do not as k how m an y nat io ns vo ted fo r a reso lu tio n, but wh o th ose nat io ns were, w hat th ey re pre se nte d, an d w hat th ey 

ad vo ca ted. Mem be rs of th e U nited N at io ns are en do wed w it h so ve reign eq ua lity . T h at is, th ey are eq ua lly enti tl ed to th eir inde pe nd en ce , to th e ir ri g h ts under th e C hart er. The y are no t eq ua l in size, in po pu la tion , or in w ea lth. Th ey ha ve dif fe re nt ca pa bi lities , an d, th er ef ore , diffe re nt re sp on sibi lities , as th e C h art er m ak es cl ea r. Si m ilar ly , be ca us e th e m ajo ri ty c an dir ec tly affect on ly th e inte rn al ad m in is tr a­ tion of th is O rg an iz at io n, it is the United Natio ns it se lf which su ffer s mo st whe n a m aj or ity, in p u rs u it of an ob jective it be lie ve s over ridi ng , fo rg et s th a t re sp on ­ si bility m us t bear a re as ona ble re la ti onsh ip to capab ility and to auth ori ty . Ea ch tim e th is Asse mbly ad op ts a re so lu tion which it kn ow s wi ll no t be im ­ plem en ted, it dam ag es th e cr ed ib ility of th e U ni ted Natio ns . Eac h tim e th a t
12

th is Assembly makes a decision which a significant minority of members rega rd 

as unfai r or one-sided, it furth er erodes vital supp ort for the United Nations 

among th at minority. But the minority which is so offended may in fac t be a 

practic al majority, in term s of its capacity to supp ort thi s Organization and 

implement i ts decisions.

Unenforceable, one-sided resolutions destroy the autho rity of the United 

Nations. Far more serious, however, they encourage disrespect for the Charter, 

and for th e trad itions of our O rganization.

No organization can function withou t an agreed-upon framework of rules and 

regulations. The framework for this O rganization was b uilt in the light of painful 

lessons learned from the disa stro us failu re of its predecessor, the League of 

Nations. Thus, the United Nations Ch arter was designed to insu re that the importa nt decisions of this Organization reflected real power relationship s, and 

th at decisions, once adopted, could be enforced.

One of the principa l aims of the United Nations, expressed in the Preamble 

of its Charter, is “to prac tice tole rance and live together in peace with one 

anoth er as good neighbors.” The promise the American people and the peoples 

of the oth er founding natio ns made to each other—not as a matt er of law, 

but as a matter of solemn moral and political obligation—was to live up to the 

Ch arter and the duly-made rules unless or until they were modified in an 

orderly, constitutio nal manner.

The function of all parliam ents is to provide expression to the ma jority will. 

Yet, when the rule of the majority becomes the tyrann y of the majority, the 

minority will cease to respect or obey it, and th e pa rlia ment will cease to function. 

Every m ajo rity must recognize th at its au tho rity does not extend beyond th e point 

where the min ority becomes so outraged th at it is no longer willing to mainta in 

the convenan t which binds them.

My countrym en have made a gre at investme nt in this World Organization over 

the years—as host country, as the leading financial contributor, and as a conscientious particip ant in its debates and nego tiatio ns and operational program s. 

Americans have loyally continued these efforts in a spirit of good fai th and 

tolerance, knowing that there would be words spoken which we did not always 

like and resolutions adopted which we could not always support.

As the 29th General Assembly draws to a close, however, many Americans 

are questioning the ir belief in the United Nations. They are deeply disturbed.

During this 29th General Assembly, resolutions have been passed which uncritically endorse the most far-rea ching claims of one side in dangerous internation al disputes. With this has come a sharply increased tendency in this Assembly to disregard its normal procedures to benefit the side which enjoys the 

favor of the majority, and to silence, and even exclude, the representativ es of 

Member States whose policies the ma jority condemns. In the wake of some of 

the examples of this Assemby. the General Conference of UNESCO has strayed 

down the same path with the pred ictab le consequences of adverse reaction 

aga inst the United Nations. Innocent bystand ers such as UNICEF alread y have 

been affected.

We are all aware that tru e compromise is difficult and time-consuming, while 

bloc voting is fast and easy. Bu t real progress on contentious issues must be 

earned. Paper triumphs are, in the end, expensive even for the victors. The cost 

is borne, first of all. by the United Nations as an institution, and, in the end, 

by all of us. Our achievements cann ot be measured in paper.

A strong and vita l United Nations is imp ortant to every Member State, and 

actions which weaken it weaken us all. par ticula rly the smaller and the developing nations. Their secu rity is pa rticular ly dependent on a collective response to 

aggression. Their prosperity pa rticular ly depends on access to an open and expanding intern ational economy. Th eir ability to project the ir influence in the 

world is particularly enhanced by membership in intern ational bodies such as 

the United Nations.

Tn calling atte ntion to the dangerous trends. I wish also to call atte ntio n 

to the successes of the United Nations during the past year.

United Nations members overcame many differences at the World Population 

Conference and the World Food Conference. There was also progress at the 

Law of the Sea Conference. There was agreement on programs encouraging 

States to mainta in a population which the y can feed, and feed the population 

which they maintain . As a res ult of these United Nations Conferences, the world 

community has at le ast begun to grapple with the two fundam ental issues which
13

are cen tral to any mea ningful attem pt to provide a better life for most of man ­

kind.

In the Middle Ea st a unique combination of mu ltil ate ral and bilate ral diplomacy has succeeded in baitin g las t year’s war and in separating tlie combatants. With goodwill and cooperation, the Security Council has renewed the 

manda te for the peace forces, allowing time for a step-by-step negotiating process to bear fru it. My Government beileves th at this negotiating process c ontinues 

to hold the best hope in more tha n a qu arter of a century for a just and lasting 

peace in th at area.

On Cyprus, the Security Council, the Assembly and our Secretary General 

have all contributed to progress toward peace and reconciliation. Much rem ains 

to be done, but movement toward peace has been encouraged.

Perhap s the United Nations' most overlooked success of the past year resulted from the mission of the Secretary General’s represen tative. Mr. Weckman-Munoz. This effort, which was und ertake n at the request of the Security 

Council, succeeded in med iating a pa rticular ly dangerous border dispute between Iran and Iraq. This example of how to preven t a small conflict from 

blowing up into a much bigger war must ran k among the United Nations’ finest, 

if lea st heralded, achievements.

Thus, despite the disturbin g trend tow ard the sterile pur sui t of empty ma jor ities, recen t United Nations achievements dem onstrate that this Organization can 

still operate in the real world in the int ere sts of all its members. Unfortunate ly, 

failur e and controversy are threatening to overshadow the record of successes. 

It s lapses, are long remembered and remain a source of lasting grievance for 

those who feel wronged.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to say a few7 words, not as the 

United States Representative to thi s Organization, but as an American who 

has believed deeply in the United Nations since 1945 when, as a young rep orter 

ju st returned from the war, I observed the birth of thi s Organization.

I must tell you th at recent decisions of this Assembly, and of other United 

Nation bodies, have deeply affected public opinion in my country. The American 

people are deeply disturb ed by decisions to exclude Member State s, and to restr ict their p articipation in discussions of ma tters of v ital concern to them. They 

are concerned by moves to convert huma nit ari an and cultural programs into 

tools of political reprisal. Neither the American public nor the American Congress believe th at such actions can be reconciled with the spirit or letter of the 

United Nations Cha rter. They do not believe that these decisions are in accord 

with the purposes for which this Organization was founded. They believe the 

United Nations, in its forum s, must show the same understanding, fa ir p lay and 

responsibility which its resolutions ask of individual members.

My country cannot partic ipa te effectively in the United Nations withou t the 

support of the American people, and of the American Congress. For yea rs they 

have provided th at support generously. But I must tell you honestly th at this 

supp ort is eroding—in our Congress and among our people. Some of tlie foremost 

American champions of this Organization are deeply distressed at the trend of 

recent events.

A majority of our Congress and our people are still committed to a strong 

United Nations. They are still committed to achieving peaceful solutions to the 

issues which confront thi s Organization, in the Middle E ast, in South Africa, and 

elsewhere. They are still committed to building a more jus t world economic order. 

But the tren ds and decisions of the past few7 months are causing many to reflect 

and reassess wh at our role should be.

I have not come to the General Assembly today to suggest th at the American 

people are going to turn awray from the United Nations. I believe th at World 

Wa r II tau ght Americans the tragic cost of stan ding aside from an organized 

intern ationa l effort to brin g intern ational law and justice to bea r on w orld problems. But, like every nation, we must from time to time reassess our prio ritie s, 

review7 our commitments, and redirect our energies. In the months ahead, I will 

do all in m.v power to persuade my countrymen th at the United Nations can 

ret urn to the path the Ch art er has laid out and th at it can continue to serve 

the intere sts of all of its members.

If the United Nations ceases to work for the benefit of all of its members, it 

will become increasingly irre levant. It will fade into the shadow world of rhe toric. abandoning its important role in the real world of nego tiation and compromise.

4 8 -8 90 — 75------ 2
We must join to prevent this. The reasons for which this World Organization 

was founded remain as valid and as compelling today as they were in 1945. If anything, there is added reas on; the spec ters of nuclear holocaust, world depres­ sion, mass famine, over-population and a permanently ravag ed environment. If we are to succeed, we must now renew our commitment to the central principles of tolerance and harmony upon which the United Nations Charter was built. We must redouble our efforts to use this Organization as the world's ultimate instrum ent fo r compromise and negotiation.

I pledge my nation to these efforts.

Address by Ambassador John Scale, U.S. Representative to the United Nations, at the Meeting of the Massachusetts State Federation of Women's

Clubs in Boston, Mass.

J anuary 29, 1975.

At the opening of this decade we Americans had alre ady sta rte d to think of ourselves as a natio n in perp etua l crisis. And today our world still seems to be changing too fast for comfort. Our child ren come home from school with some curious ideas and sometimes behave in ways th at are difficult to understand. Many of our most cherished values and ideals have been questioned, analyzed a nd assaulted. Our sweet land of liberty has become a sweet land of libe ration move­ ments. Women's lib was one of these, and adjustment didn’t always come easy. 

These social problems are real, imp ortant and continuing. In the intern ational aren a, new, unexpected problems have erupted to chal­ lenge us even as we seek answ ers to the old ones. The painful memory of Viet­ nam is reviving at the same time trou ble spots like the Middle Fa st and Cyprus threaten the peace of th e world. New crises of food and energy were only proph­ ecies a few years ago. Today they are realities and have sent shock waves through the economies of the world. In the last 12 months alone, $60 billion of new profits have poured into the treasu ries of oil producing countries under the label of petrodollars. This economic earth qua ke has coincided with drought, food shortages and crop failures in many are as of the world. Along with this have come sharply increased inflation and unemployment in the United States and 

othe r countries. This unnerving combination of economic and political developments has led some to advo cate a new economic order for the world and related changes in the 

old politica l order. Nowhere has the cry for a new economic and political order in this world of growing interdependence been louder than in the forums of the United Nations. The glass palace of the United Nations is sometimes a distorted mirror. Gen­ erally , however, it reflects all too clearly the stresses and strains, the frus tra ­

tions and the crises of the entire world community. In its brief 28-year history, the U.N. ranks as still too modest an element in the world community to wa rra nt the blame for developments it did not cause and cann ot magically dispel. Nevertheless, among our other fru strations, the shortcomings and failings of the United Nations have recently att racted more atte ntion tha n at any time in the past decade. Statesmen, public opinion leade rs and mass communications media have found much to criticize in the United Nations during the past year. Some of this criticism has been exaggerated. Some of it has been unjust. Rut much of it, I submit, has been well-deserved. Supporters of the United Nations are alwa ys quick to point out that while this Organiz ation’s occasional failings receive widespread press and public at­ tention. its many solid accomplishments go largely unnoticed. Basically, I agree. I know th at whenever I criticize the United Nations, I may add to this prob­ lem for the short term. I also know, however, that one cannot improve an in­ stit ution by talking only about its strong points. One must give credit where it due—as I hope I have—but only a fra nk and open discussion of an Organization’s weaknesses can help to correct them. The mounting critique of the United Nations in this country reflects a num­ ber of real concerns and poses some legitim ate questions. In my view, those who dismiss the new criticism of the United Nations as complaints from fair-we ather friends or disguised enemies seriously misread the mood of the American people. I continue to be a stron g supporter of the United Nations. I also believe that it can benefit from constructive, reasoned criticism. The United Nations is strong enough to withstand such critic ism, it is flexible enough to profit from it and it 

is imp ortant enough to justify it.
15

Last month I spoke to the General Assembly about a series of recent United Nations decisions which increasingly disturbed the United States Government. 1 deplored several actions by the Assembly which tended to inflame some of the world's most sensitive problems, rather than help solve them. On highly emo­ tional issues like the invitation to Yasir Arafat to speak before the General Assembly, the suspension of South Africa and the current world economic situation, it is our view tha t the Assembly had adopted enormously controversial, partisan resolutions. Worse still, the majority bloc which passed these resolu- , tions appeared willing to pursue their objectives in violation of the traditions and Charter of the United Nations. Constitutionalism went out the window while the Assembly voted to exclude South Africa. On some issues majorities seemed to forget that in a democracy a majority cannot safely push a minority 

.too far.

• My statement to the Assembly coincided with those of several Western Euro­ pean representatives who expressed concerns very similar to our own. Delegates from the Third World seemed surprised by this serious new criticism, but they 

quickly regrouped to respond. Eventually delegates from 50 Member States representing all shades of world opinion rose to express their government’s views in what developed into a “great debate”. Some speakers agreed with us, while others did not. The ex­ change of views was vigorous, forthright, but generally without rancor. For several days the Assembly thus found itself engaged in a thoughtful and un­ precedented examination of its future and tha t of the United Nations system. I am proud the United States was able to stimulate this long overdue debate. Despite the wide range of opinion expressed, there was general agreement on the proposition tha t the fundamental purpose of the United Nations is to harmonize conflicting views as the Charter says and to promote orderly change. The wealthier nations naturally tended to emphasize the need for order. The Third World understandably placed its priority on the need for rapid change. Opinion in the Assembly certainly varied, but on this central issue the difference 

was one of degree, not of principle. During this debate, all speakers seemed to agree tha t the United Nations functioned best through dialogue and negotiation. Coming at the end of an Assembly session marked by heightened confrontation, this widespread desire for greater dialogue was welcome. It was a welcome sign tha t others, too. realized tha t we were headed in the wrong direction. In a farewell press conference as the Assembly ended, this year’s Assembly President, Algerian Foreign Minister Bouteflika. added his voice to those calling for more dialogue between the Third World and older Member Nations. I share his wish, and I am genuinely pleased tha t my remarks of December 6 helped open the door to a greater and franker exchange within the Assembly. I intend in the coming months to do whatever I can to build on and enlarge the scope

■» of this two-way exchange. The time has come to create a new spirit of construc­ tive compromise in the United Nations. To do so, there will need to be less emphasis on rounding up bloc votes and more on accommodation and conciliation. In the weeks ahead we will consult intensively with those expressing dif­ ferent as well as similar viewpoints. If such consultations are to be worthwhile, - however, there must be a genuine dialogue. There must be a readiness to move from the initial position each side expresses. It is time we begin to talk to one 

another instead of at one another. On too many occasions negotiations with the dominant Third World group of countries have not involved a sufficient degree of this necessary give and take. On many important issues the initial position of the Third World coun­ tries often turned out to be their final position. F ailure to accept their unchang­ ing stand was often regarded as a stubborn refusal to acknowledge how the world has changed. This created more confrontation than conciliation. Although I have in my remarks today focused on some areas where we seek improvement of the United Nations, it is only fair th at I note th at in many ways the Organization has moved effectively, considering our complicated world. It is worth remembering, for instance, that the same recent Session of the General Assembly which adopted decisions which alarmed the United States also approved the recommendations of the recent World Food Conference in Rome and of the World Population Conference in Bucharest. In so doing, the Assembly flexibly responded to worldwide demands for action on two issues fundamental to man’s future on this planet.
16

This same Session of the Assembly took a number of other steps strongly supported by the United States. These included measures to strengthen the United 

Nation’s facilities for disaster relief, to improve the status of women and to 

encourage greater international cooperation in locating soldiers missing in action. 

These programs join with United Nations efforts to control narcotics, protect 

the environment, determine who owns the wealth in and at the bottom of the sea.

This same Session provided funds for and renewed tha t mandate of United 

Nations Peacekeeping Forces in the Middle East. After lengthy debate, it rejected ill-advised, one-sided resolutions on Cambodia and Korea.

Even as press and public attention is irresistably drawn to the verbal battle 

in the General Assembly, dedicated international civil servants are engaged in 

productive and vitally important United Nations work in fields such as health, 

child care, food, disaster relief, human rights and economic development. My 

colleague and friend, Patricia Hutar, spoke to you this morning about the pioneering efforts in the United Nations to improve the status of women. Let me, 

from my own experience, add still one more example of how quickly and effectively the United Nations can act, particularly in a crisis.

In October of 1973, at the height of the Yorn Kippur war in the Middle East, 

the Security Council agreed to establish a new United Nations Emergency Force 

to help restore the peace. Within jus t a few hours of tha t decision, the first 

contingents of United Nations troops began arriving on the Sinai battle front. 

They moved quickly into the midst of the fighting to separate the combatants. 

Within a few days this Force had brought about the cease-fire which was an 

indispensable prelude to negotiation. This cease-fire remains in effect today.

This delicate and dangerous task required cooperation, courage, discipline and 

the kind of experience in peacekeeping which only the United Nations has. Can 

you imagine the time, the effort and additional crises tha t would have been necessary to create anything resembling this impartial Force if the United Nations 

had not existed, ready to act as the respected emergency peacekeeper of the 

world? Indeed, could such a Force have been created in time if the United 

Nations did not exist? The visible success of the blue-helmeted troops in the 

Middle East reflects highly not only on these officers and men who serve but 

also on the United Nations Secretariat in New York which so effectively organized, directed and maintains them in place.

I began my remarks by noting tha t there has been a growing criticism of the 

United Nations in this country. I also said tha t much of this criticism is justified. 

The question is what are we going to do about it?

I do not have any pat answers to this question. Our Government is reviewing 

our policies tow ard the United Nations. I hope tha t through this review we can 

develop some new approaches to these difficult issues. I cannot forecast the 

results. I s tart out with the premise th at you do not solve a problem by walking 

away from it. Frank criticism can help curb irresponsible behavior, but it must 

be combined with responsible, imaginative leadership if it is to have a positive 

impact on our search for peace and a b etter world.

In an Organziation of 138 member nations, the United States cannot expect 

to prevail on every issue, regardless of our power and position. But as long as we 

press our views vigorously, while recognizing we do not possess a monopoly of 

the world’s wisdom, the result eventually can be an acceptable compromise of 

conflicting views.

There are some who feel t hat when th e United Nations acts contrary to United 

States interests, we should simply turn our back upon it, or even withdraw. 

I am not one of these.

Without the United States, the United Nations would persist. Only it would 

be worse, not better. If we could erase the United Nations from the pages of 

history—and we cannot—there would inevitably be a new Organization because 

interdependence is an incontrovertible fact of our times. It is growing rath er 

than lessening. It means that the United States cannot advance its own interests 

single-handedly, but only in concert with other nations, because the solutions 

demand action by the United States and others working together.

Secretary of State Ilenry Kissinger, whose diplomatic achievements have 

eased tensions around the world, sketched the dimensions of the problems confronting us in these words in an interview Jan uary 16:

“. . . One of the central facts of our period is tha t more than a hundred 

nations have come into being in the last 15 years, and they, too, must be 

central participants in this process. So that for the first time in history 

foreign policy has become truly global and therefore truly complicated.
17

“. . . We are at a watershed. We are at a period which in retrospect is either going to be seen as a period of extraordinary creativity or a period when really the international order came apart —politically, economically, 

and morally. “I believe that with all the dislocations we now experience, there also exists an extra ordinary opportunity to form for the first time in history a truly global society, carried by the principle of interdependence. And if we act wisely and with vision, 1 think we can look back to all this tummoil as the birth pangs of a more creative and better system.” To exercise positive leadership in the United Nations, our people must join together in support of a truly national foreign policy. The United States must be able to speak with one voice. Our leaders must be able to enter into meaningful discussion with their foreign colleagues and these foreign statesmen must be confident that the American people stand behind their leaders. We must also recognize that America often leads best by example. Thus, our success in solving our economic and social difficulties at home strengthens our voice around the negotiating table. Our willingness to accept sacrifices and in­ conveniences in meeting the world's energy crisis will be viewed as a tes t of our leadership of the free world. The truth evident in our world today is that a vigorous domestic policy and an active international role depend heavily on each other for success. Thus, only a combination of national and international action can solve global problems like inflation, rising unemployment and short­ ages of food, energy and other key resources. I believe America is ready to do what it must do—at home and interna­ tionally—both within and outside the United Nations. Even the most vigorous and imaginative American leadership cannot guarantee success, but a half­ hearted America can insure defeat. Reversing the current trend toward division and confrontation in the United Nations does not depend on our efforts alone. I am convinced, however, that we must walk the extra mile to overcome suspicion. We are not the guardians of the status quo. We are proud of our heritage as a revolutionary country which seeks to promote freedom. Some may question whether the flame of liberty burns as bright as w*e approach our 200th birthday. We must demonstrate by onr actions tha t we remain dedicated not only to freedom, equality and human dignity but to a more jus t world. I have pledged the United States to seek to promote this new spirit of constructive compromise in the United Nations. Others 

must join us. As Britain's Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Ivor Richard, said in his address before the annual meeting of the Pilgrims of the United States 

in New York January 22: “Our task is to show that the interests of the developed and the developing are complementary, not antagonistic. All must understand the realities which limit the possibilities for action, and all must make a deliberate attem pt to find the common interest and act on it to a point where all can see that they 

gain as well as give.” Ambassador Richard has pointed out the only path to a truly effective United Nations, one which can serve all members, regardless of size, wealth or aspirations. It is not the radical extremists of the right or the left who will draw the blueprint of tomorrow’s more just world order. There are thoughtful, responsible representatives at the United Nations from every continent and in every group­ ing. We must join our own efforts to the wisdom and energy of these individuals to pursue this goal—and in so doing revitalize the Organization.

Mr. Fraser. Thank von very much, Mr. Ambassador. Your state­ ment is very helpful and very forthrig ht. I may add tha t our sub­ committee particularly appreciates the fact tha t you rushed from the visit out of town to be with us today. We th ank you for your special 

consideration. Our next witness is Prof. Hans Morgenthau of the New School for Social Research in New York. I might add that Professor Morgen­ thau has been known to many of us as a realist in foreign policy and as such he is to provide guidance fo r many of us who are in some very 

critical years.
18

We are delighted to have you with us. Professor.

STA TEM ENT OF HAN S MORGE NTH AU, PROFESSOR, NE W SCHOOL 

FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH IN NE W YORK

Mr. Morgenthav. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

when Secretary of State Cordell Hull reported to Congress on the 

Moscow’ Conference of 1943, he declared that once the United Nations 

was established “there will no longer he need for spheres of influence, 

for alliances, for balance of power, or any other of the special arrangements through which, in the unhappy past, the nations strove to safeguard their security or promote their interests.”

Echoing these expectations. President Franklin D. Roosevelt told 

Congress on March 1, 1945, in his report on the I alta Conference:

The Crimean conference . . spells the end of the system of unilateral action 

and exclusive alliances and spheres of influence and balances of power and all the 

•('tlier expedients which have been tried for centuries—and have failed. We proIMise to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving 

nations will finally have a chance to join.

These expectations were disappointed, as they were hound to be. The 

United Nations, far from being a substitute for traditional power 

politics, has become a new arena on which the old game of power politics is played out within a new institutional framework and under new 

rules of procedure. I t is. therefore, not surprising but it was inevitable 

tha t all member states and groups of members states would try to use 

the United Nations to protect and promote their particu lar national 

interests.

The United States did this d urin g the first decade of the United Nations, when it and it allies dominated the Security Council and General Assembly. The so-called Third W orld nations are doing this today 

with the support of the Soviet bloc. The drastic change in the membership, which has more than doubled in the last two decades, and shifts 

in the distribution of economic and political power are reflected in the 

policies of the United Nations and the voting behavior of its members.

If this were the whole story, the United States would have no legal 

or moral reason to complain. I t would be entitled to regret the trend of 

events adverse to its preferences and interests and use the provisions of 

the charter to oppose it, as the Soviet Union did when it vetoed 109 

resolutions of the Security Council with which it disagreed. However, 

two new factors sharply distinguish the situation in which the United 

Nations finds itself today from the one that prevailed when the influence of the United States was dominant.

In the latter situation the voting bloc dominated by the United 

States reflected in considerable measure the actual distribution of 

power in the world. A vote of the General Assembly reflected the interests, and was supported by the power, of a substantial segment of the 

world community.

Today the core of a typical voting majority of the General Assembly 

is composed of mini-states who are lacking in all or most attributes 

of nationhood, who enjoy the semblance of sovereignty only by courtesy of the world community, and who could not exist even in their 

present precarious state without foreign subsidies. Their votes in the
19

General Assembly do not represent, as such, a substantial interest of the world community, nor are they supported by anything even faintly 

approaching substantial power. Resolutions which owe their main support to these mini-state votes are either noth ing more than rhetorical proclamations without tan gi­ ble consequences or they serve the purposes of other powerful states or groups of states, such as the Soviet and Arab blocs, who pay for the voting suppo rt of the mini-states with economic and political aid. The other new factor in the present situation is the ruthless use, frequently oblivious of moral restraints and legal rules, which the new majority has made of its power within the United Nations. The General Assembly has passed for years, resolutions of dubious legality or obvious illegality. The suspension of South Africa by the General Assembly of 1974 is but the latest and most spectacular of a long sirin g of resolutions subordinating respect for fair play and the pro ­ visions of the c harter to whatever political advantage can be extracted from the a rbitrary use of voting power. T hat use is typically justified by the violation of moral principles by a particular nation, in this case the South African policies of racial discrimination. The issue which is raised by this particu lar vote does not concern the moral quality of the South African racial policies, but the moral authority of the General Assembly to pass such a moral judgment at 

aH.It is a general moral, as well as legal principle, that the complainant in such a case must come with clean hands, that is, that he must not lie guilty of the same or worse contraventions he complains of. Yet i f the majority of the General Assembly finds racial discrimination morally unacceptable, how can it accept as members of the collective trib unal, states which are guilty not only of racial discrimination but of genocide as public policy ? We are here in the presence of a moral perversion which authorizes states guilty of moral outrages of the first order to condemn and punish other states guilty of a lesser contravention. Similarly, what is the moral and legal position of a majority of the General Assembly, who as members of the United Nations are committed to the sovereign equality of all member states and who receive with thunderous ap­ plause the address of the head of the PLO. proclaiming his resolution 

to destroy the state of Israel ? What, in the practices of the General Assembly, appears as moral perversion, manifests itself in the staffing practices of the Secretariat as a spoils system, pure and simple, without any moral pretense wha t­ soever. It was, of course, an illusion to expect tha t the international civil servant employed bv the United Nations could transcend by an act of will the limits of his nationality in the form of values, loyalties, 

ways of thinking, and acting. There is, however, a fundamental difference between an international civil servant tryin g, in spite of these national limitations, to serve the international organization which employs him. and an international civil servant who openly and without reservation attempts to use his position for the purposes of his nation or a particular bloc of nations. The national composition of the Secretariat of the United Nations shows, as of summer 1974, a disproportion in favor of the A rab bloc
20

of nations, which cannot lie considered to be accidental. That is particularly true of Egypt, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, and Lebanon. 

The representation of Egypt is 238 percent above what it ought to be 

in view of objective criteria, the excess for Syria is 66 percent; for 

Sudan, 83 percent: for Tunisia, 66 percent; for Iraq, 71 percent; and 

for Lebanon, 50 percent.

It stands to reason that these disproportions in favor of the members of a particu lar bloc are not likely to be accidental. That conclusion is reinforced bv the fact tha t the Division of Personnel of the 

Secretariat is dominated bv representatives of the same bloc: the 

Director of Personnel, with the rank of Under Secretary General, the 

Deputy Director of Personnel and the special assistant to the Director 

of Personnel are Arabs.

If one combines this extreme disequilibrium in the composition of 

the Secretariat with the moral perversion which has come to the fore 

in the General Assembly of 1974, one realizes to what extent the United 

Nations has not only become the political instrument of certain blocs of 

nations, but has for all practical purposes ceased to represent the 

collective will of its membership according to the provisions of the 

charter.

This decline of the United Nations faces the United States with a 

dilemma. The United Nations, as presently operating, has become an 

instrument of certain blocs of nations who use it on behalf of their 

interests without regard for legal niceties and moral restraints. As 

such, it neither contributes to the preservation of peace nor does it 

support the interests of the United States. On the other hand, the nations of the world need an international organization which is able 

not only to contribute to the preservation of peace by mitigating international conflicts, but also to aid in the solution of problems whose 

causes and effects transcend the limits of the nation state.

The United Nations and its specialized agencies have, within ra ther 

narrow limits, performed worthwhile tasks in these two major areas 

of their competence. For instance, while there is no evidence that the 

United Nations has prevented any war, there is unmistakable evidence 

to show tha t it has materially contributed to the shortening of four 

wars: Indonesia in 1949, Palestine in 1949, Egyp t in 1956, and K ashmir in 1965.

In view of the degeneration of the United Nations, it is tempting to 

write off its past achievements and future potentialities and reconcile 

oneself to the realization of the prophecy the late Secretary General 

U Thant made in 1965:

W e are w itnes si ng toda y, I feel, a de fini te re ver sa l of th e slow pro gr es s th e 

I ’ni te d N at io ns has mad e to w ar d w or ld st abil it y an d wor ld pea ce. A fu rt h e r 

d ri ft in th is di re ct io n, if no t ar re st ed in tim e, wi ll m ar k th e clos ing of a chap te r 

of g re at ex pe ct at io ns an d th e hera ld in g of a ne w chapte r in which th e wor ld 

or gan iz at io n will pr ov id e me rely a deb ati ng fo ru m an d noth in g else .

However, at least for the time being the United States ought to 

resist that temptation. For not only does the United States have an 

interest in the proper operation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies, but it has also considerable potential power to influence these operations. The elements of tha t power are essentially three ­

fold. The U nited States still disposes of a substantial reservoir of good
21

will, the accumulated capital of its past aspirations and achievements. 

The United States is still a very powerful Nation to whose power many 

nations owe much and from whose power they expect much. More particularly, the United Slates is a financial mainstay of the United Nations and many of its specialized agencies and ought to be able to translate this financial position into political influence and power. The United States ought to consider seriously the withdrawal of its support from the United Nations only a fter its reform through 

the use of American power and influence has definitely failed.

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser. Thank you very much, Professor Morgenthau. Th at 

was a very helpful statement. Our final witness this afternoon is Dr. Luther Evans, president of the World Federalists, U.S.A. I may add th at we are especially pleased to have you here. Dr. Evans, on behalf of an organization that shares a lot of the responsibility for carry ing on a public information and 

education program about the U.N. system. T understand that you are proposing to summarize pa rt of your 

statement.

STATEMENT OF LUTHER H. EVANS, PRESIDENT, WORLD 

FEDERALISTS, U.S.A.

Mr. E vans. Th at’s right, sir.

Mr. F raser. Fine. Why don't you proceed.

Mr. E vans. Mr. Chairman- and members of the committee, most of 

what I have put in my statement has been covered in one way or an­ other by one or more of the other speakers. I am impressed by the achievements of the United Nations and also of the specialized agen­ cies. T am also impressed by the handicaps they have suffered in the 

past, by the refusal of many countries, including the United States and other great powers and middle powers, to take seriously some of the 

grievances of the world which the United Nations might have 

attempted to do more about.

They have not taken seriously the provisions of the charter reg ard­ ing disarmament and they have not taken very seriously the provision of the charter regarding the establishment of peace forces, the mili­ tary arrangements. They have not taken very seriously the question of aid to underdeveloped countries. They have adopted great declarations of aid, but the amount of aid tha t they have given has been very small compared to the amount that was needed. And I think a lot of the problems we face today come from an extreme expression on the part of the less developed countries of a sense 6f injustice and a sense of defeat, a sense of hopelessness at the failure of the great powers and the other developed countries to take measures to improve their lot. They have been the victims of imposed low prices for raw materials. They have been the victims of increasingly high prices for the manufactured goods they must buy from the advanced countries. They have suffered from trade arrangements which do not allow them to have equal import righ ts with developed countries when it comes to m anufactured and semimanufactured goods. They have been discontented
22

•with the fact that the great powers and Israel have not carried out the 

Security Council resolution of 1967.

They believe that the United States and Soviet Union are guilty of 

many of the problems in that area bv armin g Lot li sides and supporting 

them for political reasons of their own ra ther than in the interests of 

the people who live in the area.

I do not approve of the things which have been the objects of criticism of the United Nations and UNESC O at this meeting, but I do 

think th at we must take into account more seriously than we have done 

the demand of many countries for a new economic and social order, 

which is supported by the way by a good many of the advanced countries as indicated at the Special Session of the General Assembly of the 

United Nations which met last April.

I believe th at the PLO is not a state, but also tha t the powers have 

not satisfied the demands made in all of the great documents of the 

Security Council respecting the rights of the refugee Palestinians. I 

believe we will have to do more to respect these rights, and I recommend tha t Ar afat’s group be represented at the peace conference in 

Geneva.

T believe that our Government should support the creation of a West 

Bank state for these people. And I do not deny the righ t of other 

Palestinians to be represented at the peace conference. T think as long 

as powerful states do not take seriously some of the objectives of the 

charter, these people are not going to take seriously our charges tha t 

they are breaking up our system of international law and government.

We must, as Mr. Scab says, negotiate with them. We must try to 

reduce the confrontation. And I believe as we take seriously their point 

of view, listen to them, try to meet their demands, they will moderate 

their own demands and behavior. Fo r instance, Mr. A rafat’s representative told a group in London recently tha t the A rab states, would, in 

his opinion support the establishment of a West Bank Palestinian 

state as sufficient recognition of the demands of Mr. A rafa t and would 

not go with him the rest of the way to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

One word about ITNESCO. I have a three-page statement here explaining what happened in ITNESCO. The general view of what hap ­

pened, partic ularly about the old city of Jerusalem, is inaccurate and 

the general view of how Israel was excluded from the regional 

European group of states is also generally inaccurate.

The UN ESCO had protested for years since 1968 about excavations 

in the city of Jerusalem. The executive board decided in 1974, with 

only three Arabs on the Board, to condemn Israel for what it was 

doing and its proposed resolution was the one that was passed at the 

General Conference. It was an act of a body with very small Arab 

representation, and did not result from an Arab-inspired political 

campaign.

In the matter of depriving Israel of funds—only $24,000 was appropriate d in 1973-74—-the Conference decided not to contribute any 

funds in 1975-76 unless Israel comes into compliance with what the 

Conference had decided in 1972. and repeated in 1974.

Mr. Chairman, it is irresponsible in my opinion to talk about abandoning the United Nations. I think the lession is t hat we must take 

our obligations under the charter much more seriously. These people
23

who are causing concern will not go away just by depriving them of the U.N. as an area in which to operate. The problems will grow worse if they are not dealt with through the mechanism of the U nited 

Nations and the specialized agencies. I think tha t is enough for me to say at this time, Mr. Chairm an, except that I would like to call attention to a statement which has been submitted to the committee by the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. This statement deals with the whole question before us. I believe tha t copies have reached the committee, and I merely wish to say that I was asked by the chairman to speak a word of endorsement of it. I was chairman of the executive committee which 

drafted the statement, and think it is a very good one.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser. Thank you very much, I)r. Evans. Is it your thou ght 

tha t you would like tha t last report incorporated as part of your 

statement ?

Mr. E vans. Mr. Chairman, I assume that this has been received and 

tha t Dr. Sohn has requested that it be put in the hearings. 1 merely was going to endorse it, but 1 think it would be quite relevant to include it as a document.

Mr. Fraser. Without objection-----

Mr. Evans. They have requested th at, and I would like to endorse 

the request.

Mr. F raser. Your entire written statement will be put in the record 

together with tha t document as well.

[Prepared statement of Dr. Luther II. Evans follow s:]

P repared Sta teme nt of P r. Lut he r , II. E va ns, P resident of World

F edera lists, U.S.A.

C hai rm an F ra s e r: C hair m an H am il to n: Mem be rs of th e Su bc om m itte es : I am L uth er Eva ns , P re si d en t of W orld Fed era li st s, U.S.A. I am her e to day to sp eak in be hal f of th e W or ld Fed er al is ts , but al so w ith som e ref lec tio n of my se rv ic e from 1953 to 1958 as D irec to r-G en er al of UN ES CO —th e U nited N at io ns E du ca tiona l, Sc ien tif ic an d C ult ura l O rg an iz at io n. An d I sh al l also tr y to ap ply to my co mmen ts some of th e unders ta ndin g of your co nc er ns an d in te re st s which I ob tain ed as a re su lt of my te rm from 1945 to 1953 as yo ur L ib ra ri an 

of Congre ss. The issu es of U ni te d S ta te s part ic ip ati on in th e U ni ted N at io ns and in UN ES CO are be st appre cia te d if view ed in th e co nte xt of a h alf ce nt ur y of pro ­ lon ge d effo rt to sa ve hum an kin d from war . Th e U ni ted S ta te s has in a ve ry re al sens e bee n th e le ader of th is effo rt, th ou gh it re fr ain ed from fu ll p art ic ip a­ ti on in th e firs t tw o de ca de s, an d has been so m ew ha t in co nst an t in th e re m ain ­

in g thre e de cades. I t m us t be adm it te d by ev eryo ne , I believe, th a t w ithout th e le ad er sh ip of 

P re si dent W ils on to const ru ct an org an iz at io n to pre ven t w ar , th e Le ag ue of N at io ns wo uld no t hav e been l>orn a t th e en d of W or ld W ar I, an d also th a t w ithout th e le ad ers hip of P re si dent Roo se ve lt th e U ni ted N at io ns in it s ev en tu al fo rm wo uld pr ob ab ly no t ha ve bee n cre ate d a t th e en d of W or ld W ar II . It seem s cle ar th a t the U ni te d S ta te s had more of a be lie f th an oth er gre at po wers th a t a ne w ef fo rt to pr ev en t w ar w as w or th w hi le , an d th a t co nflic tin g id ea ls an d am bi tion s could be suffici en tly re co nc ile d to mak e su ch a cr ea tion mor e po w er ­ fu l an d co mpr eh en sive th a n th e Lea gu e ev er wa s. In th is we w er e su pp ort ed 

st ro ng ly by sm all c ountr ie s an d mo re o r less relu cta ntl y b y o th er s. A pr ev ai ling as su m ption of th e day w as th a t th e vi ct or io us gre at po wers— th os e giv en th e per m an en t se ats on th e Sec ur ity Cou nc il— wou ld ag re e on mos t th in gs of gre at im po rt an ce an d ac t in th e comm on in te re st in ke ep ing th e pe ace. A ft er all. th ey w er e all ie s in th e g re ate st m il it ary co nflic t of hu m an hi st ory . T his as su m pt io n has not pr ov ed ou t fu lly in pra ct ic e, w ith cold w ar an d lim ited 

de te nt e. H er ei n lie s a m ai n so ur ce of c on flict an d st ri fe i n th e wor ld of to da y.
24

Ono of the more marked changes from the League which we see in the U.N. 

and its allied organizations is found in the enormous range of their concern 

in human affairs, including such matters as food, health, education, trade, 

monetary relations, economic and social development, labor, full employment, 

human rights, promotion of science and technology, aviation, weather, communications, copyrights, patents, cultural affairs, historical preservation, and 

applied research, as well as disarmament, peacekeeping, the development of 

self-government in colonial lands, etc.

While the range of concerns is great, the depth of power is not. These agencies 

provide mostly a location and mechanism for studying matters of common concern, debating what should be done, deciding to reach agreements on particular 

matters . . . but not often by applying sovereign power against anyone, particularly against .anyone who doesn’t agree to new arrangements. In many of these 

areas of activity many notable things have been achieved. Humankind is much 

more a community than before, and the makings a re present that could be used 

to create a real world society.

The fly in the ointment is that the will to cooperate has not been strong 

enough ; mutual appreciation of problems of others has not been strong enough; 

but short-range demands of national or group interest have been altogether too 

strong. All of this has been made worse by a general failure to see clearly that the 

world as a whole has been heading for disaster in matters of population growth, 

resource depletion, and environmental deterioration. Add to this the revolution 

of rising expectations, particularly by the more disadvantaged portions of humanity, and the failure of the advantaged portions to respond adequately . . . and we 

encounter a world coming apa rt a t the seams.

Further compounding our dilemma is the lack of a sense of urgency in 

solving numerous national grievances in Europe. Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere; reaction to this insensitivity is now expressed in the strident and 

extreme demands which are beyond the capacity of the international machinery of cooperation to manage.

A particula r tragedy of America’s perspective on the world has always been 

our willingness to shut out dis sen t. . . to close our eyes and block our ears to disagreement. It has always been easier to ignore the opinions of others than to accommodate them within our own national policies. The United Nations serves 

most of all as a concentration of world opinions; it is a place to hear and be 

heard. It can only serve our best advantage if we listen, and if we attempt to 

respond. It can only harm us if we attempt in any way to shut off the forum, or to 

ignore the voices. It would do us no good to take measures to restrict free expression at the United Nations.

The simple fact is that the 1974 General Assembly was a more perfect mirror 

of the state of the world and the discontent of its peoples than we have before 

had available.

Recent events are expressions of frustrat ion over continuing conflicts and the 

failu re of the organized community to adequately respond to human suffering 

and repression. The economically disadvantaged came together in the Special 

General Assembly last spring to demand a new economic order, as they had in 

UNCTAD conferences at which they demanded a better deal in trad e and financial relations. Certain countries have found the weapon of oil prices and the 

boycott as tools for a better bargain, and used the Middle East crisis to force the 

point home. The nearly 30-year old problem of unsatisfied demands on behalf of 

the Palestinians afforded the steam for the Arafat spectacle; the problem of a 

feeble policy a gainst apartheid led to the radical acts against South Africa.

Do I approve the breaches thus made evident? No. I do not. I merely say tha t 

they have understandable origins, and tha t those origins must be dealt with . . . 

or the manifestations will be repeated, and continue to compound the world’s 

difficulties.

What is the wise policy for nations to pursue? I believe they should elevate 

their sights and look more closely at the ways they should act in recognition of 

their growing interdependence: the advantaged nations should recognize how 

dependent they have been on taking advantage of less-advantaged nations, and 

they should genuinely negotiate with them in finding a new balance between n ational interests on both sides, and with world interests; and the disadvantaged 

nations should realize that they sometimes have unrealistic views of what 

aspirations it is possible to realize in a b rief span.

Certain conflicts, such as the Middle East, must he dealth with at once, along 

lines already laid down as long ago as 1967; detente must be supported and
strengthened; the armaments race must be halted—and soon reversed; and 

genuine negotiations must proceed on all the great problems which today afflict 

humankind . . . including food scarcities, population pressures, energy shortages, 

anarchy of the seas, economic disparity and instability, arms proliferation and 

trafficking, political repression, etc.

Our interests in the United Nations will not he best served by threats and 

a c

1

t}°.n ® t o

 ,

c u t o ff f u n ds, to lessen cooperation, to withdraw; such measures are 

self-defeating aberrations, advocated by persons who are either not interested in 

or not very knowledgeable about the obligations all of us must fulfill if we are to 

create a workable human order on earth. We must not only cherish the institutions we already have, but strengthen them, and indeed create new agencies or 

sub-agencies to deal with the myriad of problems which we are only now beginning to recognize. Our will must be strengthened also to obey the laws and 

agreements already on the books, since disrespect of the obligations of law is 

growing in international affairs as in domestic affairs, and the United States 

participates in this portentous evil.

[May I take this opportunity to express our highest commendations to Chairman Fra ser and Congressman Buchanan—and the many other members of the 

subcommittees and the House—for their stead fast determination to right the 

wrong of United States violation of United Nations Sanctions against Rhodesia. 

The most fundamental principles of respect for international law hang in the 

balance on this issue. You may be sure th at World Federalists, U.S.A. stands with 

you.]

Our national security cannot be guaranteed by arms, no matte r how devastating or ingenious. It can be made more certain with far more modest armed 

strength if accompanied by a more convincing respect for our common interests, 

a more consistent reliance on the institution s we have built for our mutual benefit, 

and a more determined commitment to exploring new avenues for the resolution 

of common problems.

These hearings have been convened to examine the controversies which characterized the past year’s sessions of the General Assembly and the General Conference of UNESCO. But I suggest to you today tha t there is little to be gained 

by prolonging the controversy and uncertainty of the year which is past. Let’s 

look instead to what we can do now. In the final analysis, the value of the 

United Nations and other international machinery can be judged only on what 

it accomplishes . .. and accomplishment can come only as the product of initiative. 

I suggest to you tha t we can turn the world’s attention from the petty politics 

of who gets a big white chair to creating new approaches to relieving human 

suffering and averting war.

Even in a year so marked by controversy and disagreement as 1974. the 

accomplishments of the United Nations were far from insu bstantial:

The U.N. mantained an effective peacekeeping operation in the Middle East 

during repeated resurgences of tension and even frequent outbreaks of isolated hostilities;

The U.N. renewed its peacekeeping operations on Cyprus, and employed 

its forces with distinction to lessen the effects and intensification of open 

combat on a newly-torn island ;

The U.N. undertook the first concerted global effort to examine the world 

economic situation and system, with the Sixth Special Session of the General Assembly producing both a new understanding of economic problems 

and a specific Charter on the Economic Rights and Duties of States;

The U.N. undertook the first concerted global examination of the earth 's 

population growth, with the World Population Conference producing a detailed Plan of Action and serving as a focus and generator for public information and education in all coun tries;

The U.N. responded to the worldwide scarcity of food supplies, with rese c t to both the immediate crisis and to long-range planning and management, with the World Food Conference ending with the creation of new institutions and systems for food planning and distribution, and also serving 

as a vital focus for public awareness;

The U.N. continued its efforts to negotiate a revised law of the sea, including the creation of new international administrative and conservation institutions for the protection and best-exploitation of the living and mineral 

resources of the oceans . . . with a strong consensus reached on basic principles which now requires only translation into treaty language ;
26

An d th e U.N. pur su ed de ve lopm en t of th e U ni ted N at io ns U ni ver si ty as a 

so urce fo r w or ld w id e co op er ative re se ar ch an d pr ob le m -e xa m in at io n to re ­

solve g loba l ch alleng es .

We of W orld Fed er al is ts , U.S.A. look to th e U ni ted N at io ns and it s re la te d 

ag en cies as th e ch an ne l fo r ex pl or in g an d de ve lopi ng ne w in st it uti ons an d more 

pr od uc tive a pp lica tion s of exis ting in st it uti ons to co pe w ith the G re at Cris es o f o ur 

er a. Th e role of th e U ni te d Sta te s in cre ati ng an in te rn ati onal re sp on se to th e 

re al itie s of in te rd ep en de nc e is cr uc ia l. O ur co untr y, a co nt in en ta l st or eh ou se of 

n atu ra l an d hu m an reso urce s, ha s been th e le ast se ve rely affecte d by th es e 

crises, an d th us ha s a spec ial ob lig ation an d abil it y to off er le ad ers hip i n de ve loping new in st it uti ons and policies .

We ther ef ore call up on th e U nited S ta te s to :

(1 ) Re- as se rt th e 1967 U.N. reso lu tion s as th e ob jectives of U ni ted S ta te s 

ef fo rts in th e Midd le E a s t; ac kn ow led ge th a t a la st in g so lu tion of th e co nflic t 

re quir es th e es ta blish m en t of a new st ate on th e W es t B an k wh ich wo uld re sp ec t 

th e ri ghts of its in h ab it an ts an d its neig h b o rs : an d see k th e ac ce pt an ce of re pre ­

se nta tives of th e P ale st in e Lib er at io n O rg an iz at io n as part ic ip ants in th e Ge neva 

pe ac e c on fe re nc e an d any o th er ne go tia tio ns .

(2 ) Red uc e ou r w as te fu l exi>endit ure fo r ar m am en ts , which in cr ea se t he p ot en ­

ti a l fo r nu cl ea r an d co nv en tio na l co nfr onta tion ; impo se re st ri cti ons on our own 

in dis cr im in at e tr ad e in arm s an d m il it ary tr ain in g an d tech no lo gy ; an d in te nsify our ef fo rts —t hro ugh bo th bi -l at er al ch an nel s an d m ulti- la te ra l co lle cti ve 

se cu ri ty pr op os als under th e au sp ices of th e United N ations —t o ac hiev e m ut ua l 

re du ct io ns in ar m am ents lead in g ev en tu al ly to univ er sa l nucl ea r an d co nv en ­

tion al di sa rm am en t.

(3 ) Lea d in in te rn ati onal effo rts to resp on d to bo th th e sh or t-te rm an d long ­

te rm as pe ct s of th e w or ld foo d crisis, by m ak in g av ai la ble im m ed ia tely se ve ra l 

mill ion ad ditio nal to ns of gra in fo r dis tr ib uti on th ro ugh m ulti- la te ra l ag en cies, 

by co m pe ns atin g th e hard est -h it nat io ns fo r th e dis pro port io nat e am ou nt of ca pi ­

ta l re so ur ce s which th ey ha ve ha d to ex pe nd to purc has e em erge nc y fo od -stuffs 

a t co mmercial ra te s, and by su pp or tin g th e w id es t po ssible de ve lopm en t of th e 

ro le o f th e new W or ld Fo od Counc il as a pl an nin g an d adm in is tr ati ve ag en cy 

fo r tech no logica l as si st ance a nd rese rv e m an ag em en t.

(4 ) Re cognize th e ri ght of each co un tr y to go ve rn th e ex pl oi ta tion of th e 

n atu ra l reso ur ce s w ithin its ju ri sd ic tion, but pr om ote ne go tiat io n be tw een consu m er an d pr od uc er co unt ri es to arr iv e a t ag re em en ts co nc erni ng eq uitab le 

acce ss an d fa ir co mpe ns ation.

(5 ) See k th e cr ea tion of a new U ni ted N at io ns E ne rg y A dm in is trat io n to co ordin ate th e re se ar ch and deve lopm en t of ne w an d ex pa nd ed so ur ce s of en ergy , 

an d to ass is t in ass uri ng th a t th e le gitim at e ne ed s of all co un tr ie s are fulfi lle d.

(6 ) Seek a ne w regime fo r th e oc ea ns w hi ch ca n pr ote ct bo th th e livi ng re ­

so ur ce s an d th e econ om ic in te re st s of all st ate s in th e ex pl oi ta tion of fis he ries 

and m in er al s, an d whic h wi ll also pr ov id e fo r a dir ect re ve nu e so ur ce fo r th e 

fin an cing of U ni te d N at io ns de ve lopm en t pr og ra m s. Most part ic ula rl y, it is im ­

pera tive th a t th e Con gress no t un de rm in e th e cu rr en t in te rn ati onal ef fo rts to 

ne go tiat e an oc ea ns tr e a ty by pa ss ag e of any le gi sl at io n which wo uld u n il ate ­

ra ll y ex tend U ni ted S ta te s ju ri sd ic tion or oth er w is e pre em pt th e co lle cti ve ob jec ­

tive s o f t he L aw o f th e Sea Co nfe ren ce.

*7) Seek th e st re ngth en in g—t hr ou gh re gula to ry an d en fo rc em en t po wers— of 

exis ting in te rn ati onal in st it uti ons which a re att em pti ng to pr ot ec t th e e a rth ’s 

ec osys tem from th e eff ects of in se ns itiv e and da m ag in g national an d p ri v ate 

pra ct ic es .

(8 ) R ea ss ert an d ex pa nd our c om m itm en t to econ om ic an d socia l de ve lopm en t, 

which re qu ir es b ett er te rm s of tr ad e an d a g re ate r tr a n sfe r of reso ur ce s to th e 

low- income co u n tr ie s; an d specifically to seek a m as sive ne w in te rn ati onall y-a dm in is te re d pr og ra m to al le via te th e econ om ic an d so cial re pr es sion of th e w orl d’s 

poor.

ffl) Seek th e es ta bl is hm en t by th e U nited N at io ns of ba sic co nd itio ns an d 

st an d ard s to go ve rn bi -l at er al an d m ult i- la te ra l as si st ance w ith re sp ec t to need, 

te rm s, form , adm in is tr ati on, do no r re sp onsi bilitie s an d lim its, re ci pie nt re sp on ­

si bilitie s an d lim its, etc . f i t is an u n fo rt u n ate ci rc um st an ce of Amer ican aid 

th a t we ha ve be en th e mo st m an ip ula tive an d ost en ta tious, fr eq uen tly re su ltin g 

in th e un der m in in g of m ulti- la te ra l ef fo rts and pro gra m s of oth er co un trie s, an d 

also fr eq uen tly re su lt in g in a net -c ou nte rp ro duct iv ity of th e ai d pr og ra m . I ha ve 

been ad vo ca ting th e ad op tio n of ba sic st an d ard s fo r nea rl y tw o de ca de s n o w ; I 

ho pe th is si mple m ea su re is n ot f a r fr om re ali zati on.)
(10) R eass ert a gre ate r co nc er n fo r hum an ri ghts in th e fo rm ula tion of ou r 

nati onal po lic ies in bi -l at er al an d m ult i- la te ra l re la ti o n s; jo in in su pp or tin g— 

an d ob se rv ing—co nc rete m ea su re s to ad va nc e th e princ ip le s of th e U ni ve rs al 

D ecla ra tion of H um an R ig h ts ; pr om ot e a gre ate r co ns istenc y in th e ‘•procla m at io n" an d co mba t of vio la tion s of hu m an ri g h ts ; an d seek bo th an im prov ed 

in ves tigat ory ca pa ci ty an d w id er de finitio ns of th e ro le an d auth ori ty of in te rnational lega l m ac hi ne ry su ch a s th e W orld Co urt.

(11) Re ne w effo rts to im pr ov e th e ca pa ci ty of th e U nited N at io ns to resp on d 

to in te rn ati o n al ar m ed conflict by as si st in g in th e se para ti on of ho st ile forces 

an d in th e im pl em en tation of or ga ni ze d ap pr oa ch es to w ar d co nflic t reso lutio n.

If th e U ni ted S ta te s wo uld offer le ad er sh ip in th es e in it ia ti ves, I ca n as su re 

yo u th a t th e re st of th e del eg at es a t th e U nited N at io ns wo uld hav e li tt le tim e— 

an d even les s in te re st —i n purs uin g th e ki nd of ac tivitie s which so di sc on ce rted 

us d uri ng 1974.

I pled ge to you th e unre le nting su ppo rt of W orld Fed er al is ts , U.S .A. in th e 

p u rs u it of th es e ob jectives as ba si c te net s of th e glob al po lic ies of th e U ni ted 

Sta te s. It is a ca mpa ign wh ich we sh al l att em pt to car ry to all officers and ag en ­

cies of Gov ernm en t, an d to al l el em en ts of pu blic socie ty. Our co m m itm en t is to 

a be tter -m an ag ed wo rld .

Con gr es sm an , if yo u wo uld a llo w me two di sg re ss io ns :

F ir st , C ha irm an H am ilto n, I wou ld lik e to m en tio n to yo u th a t shou ld yo u 

soon be givi ng fu rt h er stud y to th e si tu ati on in th e Middle F ast , yo u ma y wish 

to ca ll up on ou r H on or ar y Pre si dent, N or m an Cou sin s (e dit or of Sat urd ay Revie w ), wh o has ju st re tu rn ed fr om Ne w Delhi w he re he pre si ded ov er th e 

Q ua dre nnia l Co ng ress of th e W or ld A ssoc iatio n of W orld Fed er al is ts , from 

wh ich he re ti re d as Pre si den t a t th e session. On his re tu rn tr ip , N or m an Co usins 

stop pe d in th e Mi ddle E ast fo r a ve ry in te re st in g se ries of co nv er sa tion s w ith 

go ve rn m en t officials, his as so ci at es in th e pu blic me dia, an d also su ch politica l 

le ad er s as Y as ir A ra fa t. I am su re he co uld offer you som e val ua bl e, up -to -date , 

in si ghts on th e si tu at io n.

An d sec ond, ma y I no te th a t th e A nn ua l Rep or t on th e G en er al Assem bly by 

ou r W or ld F ed er al is t R ep re se nta tive a t th e U ni te d Natio ns , Don ald F. Key s, 

wi ll sh ort ly be av ai la ble th ro ug h out W orld F edera li st E duca tional Fu nd . Thi s 

Rep or t incl ud es a review of all pr oc ee ding s, co m m en tary on th e ca us es an d im ­

pl ic at io ns of va ri ous ac tion s, an d our annual Voting Re co rd of al l st at es . W e 

wi ll be ta kin g th e lib er ty , Co ng ressmen , of se nd in g th is ve ry us ef ul Rep or t to 

al l Mem be rs of Co ng res s fo r th eir pe ru sa l. I am su re you wi ll find it high ly in ­

fo rm at iv e, auth ore d by an ex pe rien ce d an d reco gn ized ob se rv er of th e U.N . 

sce ne . . . Do n Ke ys is of ten re fe rr ed to as “t he 139th A m ba ss ad or ” !

A Com me nt on U NESC O's Action s Regarding I srael

(B y L uth er II. Eva ns , D ir ec to r G en eral of UN ESCO, 1953-58 )

Th e G en eral Co nfere nc e of UN ES CO , a t it s 18fli Session (O ctob er -N ov em be r 

19711. vo ted on th re e am en dm en ts to a reso lu tio n defin ing th e mem be rship of 

th e E ur op ea n Re gio nal G ro up ing as in cl ud in g on ly mem be r st ate s wh ose pri ncipa l te rr it o ry was in Eur op e. The firs t am en dm en t w as to in cl ud e th e United 

Sta te s, which was acce pted by te ll er vote ; th e second was to, incl ud e Can ad a, 

which was also acce pted : an d th e th ir d was to in cl ud e Is ra el, which re su lte d 

in a ti e vo te (3 0- 30 ). A roll ca ll vo te w as th en take n, an d th e prop os ed am en dm en t w as los t. Th e im pa ct of th e vo te is quite lim ite d, sin ce ev er y mem be r st ate 

ha s th e ri ght to be re pr es en te d a t an y UN ESCO mee tin g, a t le ast in th e rol e of 

ob serv er.

T he G en eral Con ferenc e also co ns id er ed th e pers is te nt vi ol at io n by Is ra el of 

nu m er ou s re so lu tion s an d de cision s of th e G en er al Con ferenc e an d th e Exe cu ­

tive Boa rd in earl ie r yea rs re gard in g ar ch ae ol og ical ex ca vat io ns in th e Old City 

of Je ru sa le m . Th e Gen eral Con fe re nc e in 1972. fo r in stan ce , di sa pp ro ve d “of th e 

co nt in uat io n by Is ra el of ar ch ae ol og ic al ex ca va tion s in Je ru sa le m ,' an d ur gen tly 

ca lled ag ain up on Is r a e l:

“ (o ) to ta ke th e ne ce ss ar y m ea su re s fo r th e sc ru pu lo us pre se rv at io n of 

a ll site s, bu ild ings an d oth er cu lt u ra l pro pe rtie s, es pe cially in th e Old City 

of Je ru sa le m ; •

“ (ft) to de si st fro m an y alt era ti o n of the f eatu re s of th e C ity of J er usa le m ;

“ (c ) to de si st fro m an y ar ch ae ol og ic al ex ca va tion s, th e tr a n sfe r of cu ltu ra l pro per ties an d an y alt era ti o n s of th eir fe atu re s or th e ir cu lt ura l an d
28

his to ri c chara cte r, p art ic u la rl y w ith re g ard to C hri st ia n aud Is la m ic re li ­

giou s s ite s ;

“ (d ) to adhere sc ru pu lo us ly to th e pr ov is io ns of th e Con ve ntio n fo r th e 

Pro te ct io n of C ult ura l Pro pe rty in th e E vent of Arm ed Co nflic t (T he Hag ue , 

1954) an d of th e abov e-men tio ne d re so lu tion s. ”

In 1974, th e Exe cu tive Boa rd of UN ES C not ed th a t Is ra el “p er si st s in not 

co mpl ying w ith th e re le va nt reso lutio ns , an d th a t it s att it u d e pre ven ts th e O rgan iz ation from undert akin g th e miss ion w hi ch is in cu m be nt up on it under th e 

te rm s of th e C ons titu tion.” It fu rt h er de cide d to su bm it th e m att er to th e Genera l Co nferen ce . The G en er al Con ferenc e pas se d th e re so lu tion which has ca us ed 

th e ad ve rs e pu blicity . It co ntaine d no ne w id ea ex ce pt to di sa llow any fu nds to 

assis t Is ra el in m att ers of cult ura l pre se rv at io n, etc ., unti l it is fo un d to be in 

co mpl ianc e w ith UN ES CO ’s ex pe ct atio ns . The am ount fo r th is pu rp os e in th e 

tw o ye ar s 1973-74 w as $24,000.

On e mig ht arg ue ab out th e su bs ta nc e of UNES CO's ef fo rts in th is m a tt e r of 

cu lt u ra l pr es er va tion , but one could h ard ly bl am e th e vo te of th e G en er al Co nfe re nc e on an A ra b- in sp ired pol itic al ca m pa ig n.

Ther e was anoth er reso lu tio n in st ru cti ng th e D irec to r-G en er al to su pe rv ise 

Is ra el's ed uc at io na l pr og ra m fo r Ara b ch ildre n in Is ra eli sch oo ls w hi ch seem s 

co nf us ed an d in op er at iv e, but which do es reflec t co ns id er ab le host il it y to som e 

as pe ct s of th a t countr y's ed uca tional policy. The m er its of th e co m pla in t are 

un kn ow n to me.

All I feel co m pe te nt to rec om men d as to th e U ni te d S ta te s a tt it u d e is th a t 

we sh ou ld tr y to use our influ en ce to reso lve th e co nflic ts he re, and cer ­

ta in ly th e mos t im port ant ob jective is th e bri ngi ng of pe ac e to th e ar ea . A ge nera l att ack on UN ES CO , or w ith ho ld in g co op er at ion in pu rs u it of m os t of it s 

pr og ra m s, or cutt in g off fu nd s, wo uld see m to be un ju st ifie d, an d in th e long 

ru n contr ary to our ow n world ob jectives an d nati onal in te re st s. On e m ig ht as 

we ll clo se sch oo ls unti l ad oles ce nt ga ng s st op fig hting, as a mea ns of punis hin g 

th em and te ac hin g th em bett er be ha vior .

Mr. E vans. Thank you.

Mr. F raser. Now, one of the comments I have seen that has emanated 

from some of the countries’ spokesmen who take exception to our concern about what was happening in the General Assembly was to point 

to the U.S. position through the years in denying mainland China 

the Chinese seat in the United Nations. They point to tha t as a U.S. 

hypocrisy, a U.S. failure to honor, in effect, the realities of the situa ­

tion and to suggest that we don’t come into the debate with clean 

hands.

They have other illustrations as well, but that is one in particular 

which I recall was in the statements they made. T think it was made 

in the General Assembly. I wonder what the view of the witnesses 

might be on tha t version by other countries, tha t while we may complain about what has happened, there are, I assume they would say, 

equal complaints to be made bv them about the U.S. positions in the 

past and our actions within the U.N. bodies.

Ambassador Scali. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take that question, 

if I may. I am not going to defend every decision th at every past administration has made in the area of foreign policy.

As a newsman, when I had great wisdom, I happened to believe that 

the People’s Republic of China deserved to be represented in the United 

Nations and th at it was an error on the pa rt of the United States to seek 

to prevent this.

However, if you recall, the Chinese themselves imposed a very 

important condition. It was not only that they should be admitted, 

but that simultaneously tha t the Government on Taiwan should be 

ejected. I am still not persuaded that the United Nations acted with all 

of the wisdom possible when it decided tha t in order to admit the 

Chinese Republic, i t should ejf’ct the Government on Taiwan.
29

I believe it is a strong functioning Government and t hat a t a min imum it deserved to represent the people on Taiwan. So there is something to be said for that argument. But I submit to you that we face 

the present and we look toward the future.

Mr. Fraser. Do eithe r of the other witnesses want to comment on 

tha t ?

Dr. Evans. ,

Mr. E vans. I thin k Ambassador Scali has made a good point. The 

position I took about 15 years ago was that there must be two Chinas 

in the U.N. because it seemed to me that the U.N. should recognize the 

fact of a prolonged realistic situation, and it seemed to me there are two 

Chinas and the U.N. ought to recognize the facts rath er than try to 

spin out doctrines of sovereignty being undecided and tha t sort of 

thing. I agree with Ambassador Scali tha t it is too bad tha t the Assembly threw out the Republican Government of China.

I think it is just as fai r to have two governments in China as it 

is to have two Germanys, which we have come around to. I think 

it would be fair to have two Koreas and two Vietnams in the U.N. 

without prejudice to the unification later of those countries.

I thin k we must recognize the situation as a fact, and I thin k t ha t 

we should stand on the ground which Thomas Jefferson stood on— 

he laid down two principles for recognition of a government: One, 

that it was able to maintain itself or gave promise of being able to 

maintain itself; second, tha t it would agree to fulfill its inte rnational obligations.

We have departed from those principles in the past, beginning with 

Woodrow Wilson, who said he would not recognize a government that 

doesn’t come into power by democratic methods. Well, we abandoned 

that a long time ago, and we have tried to introduce certain other 

criteria later on.

The United States took the position for a while tha t communist 

China should not be recognized because i t fought a war against the 

United Nations. Well, that is a new principle. Germany and Ita ly 

and Japa n could also be said to have fought a war against what called 

itself in those days the United Nations, afte r Jan uary 1, 1942, at any 

rate. And still they were welcomed back.

So I think tha t was a fallacious argument.

Ambassador Scalt. I would just like to make one additional comment, Mr. Chairman, and tha t is tha t in the present situation one 

must hope th at as a result of the Shanghai communique of 1972 th at 

we can proceed to normalize our relations with the People’s Government in Peking, and that the People’s Government in turn and the 

government on Taiwan can have the kind of friendly discussions that 

will eventually lead to a peaceful solution to this problem.

Mr. Fraser. Mr. Morgenthau, you referred to the personnel hiring 

in the U.N. Secretariat and pointed to the inordinate number of Arab 

citizens who have been employed. In relation to the Third World, the 

Arab community of nations is still a fairly small proportion if one 

takes the entire Third World. Is there evidence that the fact that 

there may be an inordinate number of Arab citizens employed by 

the Secretariat has been a factor in any of the political decisions of 

eith er the General Assembly or any of the other U.N. bodies?

48-890— 75- 3
30

Mr. Morgenthau. It is very difficult to say what goes into the making of a decision of a collective body, but the coincidence of the two 

facts, of certain decisions of the General Assembly and of the onesided staffing of the Secretariat, gives one food for thought. I mean 

there is no wTay of proving any proposition one way or the other. It 

is in the nature of things.

Mr. F raser. Ju st as a follow-on question, is it likely—or maybe the 

Ambassador knows—tha t if one looked at the T hird World in general 

as to whether they are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Mr. Morgenthau. The Third World is underrepresented.

Mr. Fraser. Underrepresented ?

Mr. Morgenthau. Is underrepresented, I would say.

Mr. Evans. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word about an international secretariat, since I headed one for several years, tha t of 

UNESCO, and it operates under the same general principles as the 

Secretariat of the United Nations. Tha t is, all the staff members are 

sworn to put the interests of the organization above that of th eir own 

nations.

Member states are asked not to try to influence members of the staff 

or to put pressure on them, some words of tha t kind. And I found 

in UNESCO—I have never been on the staff of the U.N., so I can’t 

speak of tha t—it was easy to develop a genuinely international spirit 

in the staff if there was strong administration and if there was fair 

administration, and if people were trusted to talk to their governments without fear of reprisal.

When I first appointed a number of Soviet citizens to the staff, 

some of the employees came running to me and said:

Well, these chap s report all the time to the Soviet Embassy.

I sa id:

Well, I have seen a lot of the Americans go to the American Embassy and 

a lot of the Frenchman talk to the Fore ign Office and a lot of the British talk 

to t he ir Foreign Office.

I sa id:

I like that. I thin k it is a wonderful thing for them to keep in touch with 

their governments because we don’t hav e any secrets here, so wh at they will 

tell them will be in our favor more th an ag ain st us.

and I welcomed this kind of relationship.

But on the question of loyalty to the organization as against their 

government, there was very little that I could discern that wasn’t 

loyalty to the organization. Now, one of the great values, however, of 

geographical distribution is tha t all of us are bound by our cultural 

upbringing. This may not be a national thing. It may be a Western 

culture, advanced nation culture, a Moslem culture, or whatever it may 

be. So tha t from the standpoint of g etting a good mixture of world a ttitudes in the Secretariat, it is very important to have geographical 

distribution, and I know that it is impossible to have it be completely 

fair.

We have got a lot of formulas fo r it. Some is number of bodies, some 

is a combination of bodies plus grades, how high one is in the hierarchy. I never was able to find anything that was entirely suitable. There 

are always problems of geographical distribution.
31

For instance, in my time in UNESCO the Indians and Pakistanis 

were more overrepresented than most any other country, but I dicln t 

consider it a distortion of our program. And it doesn't necessarily 

result tha t there is a distortion in the number of the stall’. I suppose 

the greatest distortion of the stall might be the pressure of so many 

Americans at the U.N., since so many of the clerks are Americans. 

The Americans are overstaffed in the United Nations, just as they were 

understaffed in UNESCO, and the Frenc h and British overstaffed. I just want to make these few remarks. I don't thin k that the loyalty 

or competence of the staffs of these organizations is among their great 

problems.

Mr. F raser. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. Buchanan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join in thanking our distinguished witnesses for their 

very valuable testimony and say if John Scab's degree of wisdom is typical of tha t of the fourth estate, we are in much better condition 

in this country than I thought we were in the quality of our re porting 

and editorial comment.

Ambassador Scali. Mr. Congressman, if I may, I think it is.

Mr. Buchanan. Now, I think Professor Morgenthau in his very eloquent way, and our colleague Lester Wolff also, have succinctly pointed 

up some of the deficiencies of the U.N. organization and some of the 

reactions th at I thin k are shared by a great many people in this country to those deficiencies.

Personally I don’t really care whether a U nited Nations organization is good, bad, or indifferent. I am not sure what 1 think about th at. 

I tend to agree with Winston Churchill about democracy being the 

worst form of government except for all the other kinds, and I am not 

certain th at I thin k any government is pa rticu larly much more than a 

necessary evil.

There might be more peace, less war, more progress, and certainly 

less confusion if we just did away with all the governments there are, and the same may be true of the U.N. organization. There certainly are 

problems where the wealth and strength in the world are not 

adequately reflected in the way the voting is structured, for example. 

But regardless of the degree of purity or goodness or badness of the 

U.N. organization, I think the real point for American citizens is: do 

you believe that this is an instrum ent within which we can work to 

serve those purposes in the world and to reach for those goals in the 

world that we believe to be right, an instrument that is more valuable 

to have th an not to have, and if this is the case, will our interests be served, for example, by cuttin g our budget contribution to the U.N. 

organization in response to tha t which we consider either wrong or 

downright out of step with the charter of the U.N. ?

Ambassador Scali. Well, Congressman Buchanan, first of all. tha nk 

you for your remarks. I am not sure I have an answer yet to what the 

considered Government position should be tha t we propose to the 

Congress on the steps tha t should follow since last December. The 

actions that were taken during the 29th Assembly were ones which, i f 

not unprecedented and were at a minimum in some cases unconstitutional and did violate the charter—I spoke up on December 6 on behalf of our Government to say we regarded this as a very serious
32

ma tter and th at it eroded the purpose and prestige of the charter and, 

indeed, the support of the American people who demand a sense of 

fairplay when we consider complicated problems.

We do not expect to win every battle, but we want to know what 

the rules are, and we wish to expect that the results be determined by 

who best carries out the rules and who has the most logic on his side. 

We have taken an action as a result of the wisdom of Congress in denying funds to UNESCO.

I recognize that this amounts to an illegal action and it is against 

international law, because we have accepted under the rules and the 

Founding Articles of UNESCO the obligation to meet all the assessments tha t are levied on us. But I am not going to sit here and tell you 

that you were wrong.

T think that the action that was taken despite some other interp reta ­

tions, was at least partly a political reprisal against a member state. 

I fully recognize that there is a history involved in the UNESCO 

matter where Israel could with some justification be accused of looking 

after the monuments which we're of importance to Jews and perhaps 

not sufficiently paying equal attention to the Moslem and Arab 

monuments.

Mr. Evans. And Christian, Mr. Scali.

Ambassador Scali. Well, if you will just permit me to finish that, 

I was going to get to that.

Mr. Evans. Excuse me. I beg your pardon, sir.

Ambassador Scali. We recognize that Jerusalem is of great importance to all three religions and that the Pope has spoken up about 

the need for increased Israeli attention to some of the shrines which 

are of importance to the Catholic religion. But I am not sure tha t at 

this particular time tha t the action th at was taken did not reflect a 

degree of vindictiveness against Israel for the October war, nor do I 

believe that the action that was taken will necessarily lead to the kind 

of remedial action which I and others would like to see.

And so I say t hat, of course, the U.S. Government will seek in keeping with the action of Congress to persuade the Executive Board to 

resolve this m atter in friendly conversations with the Government of 

Israel, and I would hope th at we can go on from that point, because I 

do believe that UNESCO continues to perform an important international purpose, and I am also very much alarmed at the alienation 

of much of the intellectual community in the Western World, and 

indeed many of the opinionmakers, this kind of action in this kind of a 

setting because I do not believe that any agency in the United Nations 

family should be made a tool of political reprisal.

Mr. B ucttanan. I think where I have problems is in deciding when 

by our actions we are actually helping to effectively combat unacceptable acts within the U.N. or when we are simply taking actions that, 

in the long run, are against our own interests. I would again ask, do 

you feel that we should cut our share to the U.N. budget, tha t we 

cut our funding?

There will be substantial pressure, I assume, in the Congress for 

that to be done, or there may be. I am really interested even in the 

present context if tha t appears to be something tha t is going to serve 

our national interest.
33

Ambassador Scali. Let me make clear I am not proposing, advocating, or indicating in any way tha t we should give less to the U.N. system and its family of agencies than we have in the past. Let’s go with 

this as starters.

I strongly suspect, however, that we may be getting some advice on 

this from Members of the Congress, and 1 will tell you, as I say now, 

that we are legally committed under international law in most of the 

United Nations agencies of which we are a member, to provide the 25 

percent which all countries believe should be our maximum share, and 

I would think tha;t in areas such as the United Nations development 

program, for example, that there is ample reason for increasing our 

assistance.

I also think that it would be wise and indeed perhaps indispensable 

to increase the amount to be set aside for UNRRA, the agency which 

looks after the Arab refugees in many camps of the Middle East, so 

I want my position to be clearly understood.

Mr. B uciiaxan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser. Does any other witness want to comment on MrBuchanan’s questions?

Mr. Morgentiiau. I might comment on two points: F irst, the point 

of contributions. I would advocate that the United States fulfill its 

legal obligations, but do nothing beyond them. The kind of generosity 

we have shown in the past, I think, would lend itself now to misinterpretation if we were to continue it.

You should do what you are legally required to, but no more. As 

far as the action of the UNESCO is concerned. I have in front of me 

excerpts from the reports of the highly qualified archeologists who 

were sent to Israel to repo rt to the Secretary General of UNESCO 

and who came back with reports most flattering to the Israeli Government, and the Secretary General of UNESCO has supported in an 

article in Le Monde last November those reports afte r he had left 

office. So there is very little , if any, evidence th at there is any factual 

basis for the actions which UN ESCO has taken.

Mr. Evans. Mr. Chairman, I am not qualified to know whether the 

excavations Israel has made are in substance right or wrong. The only 

thing that I was trying to indicate was that Israel had refused to accept the views of the UNESCO General Conference, its Executive 

Board, and its Director General as to the legality, of what they were 

doing. T hat was the only point. Under the conference a t The Hague 

in 1954 and the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property 

in Time of Armed Conflict, no country may excavate for archeological 

purposes in an occupied territory. The merits are irrelevant.

Mr. Buchanan. I think the kind of question tha t disturbs me is 

simply this. Our obligation isn’t due until Ju ly of 1975, but if we 

haven’t paid it by April 30, 1976. we lose our vote, and then we can’t 

represent our interest or anybody’s interest. W ithout in any way feeling anything other than the strongest disapproval of the. action taken 

by UNESCO. I wonder whether this is the most productive response 

for our country.

Ambassador Scali. Mr. Congressman, if I may. you bring up a most 

important point, because Israel has not proposed in any way to cease 

or end its contributions to UNESCO. The United States, as I under-
34

'stand it. would be the only one which would indicate a desire to do so. 

I would favor a full and active and continuing membership in 

UNESCO so that as part of the 40-man Executive Board and with 

the leadership of the new Director, Mike Amphiol, we can work out a 

reasonable compromise on this. There is to be a meeting of the Executive Board, if I recall correctly, on May 5 in Nairobi, and hopefully 

this matter can be considered anew at this high level.

Mr. Buchanan. I wonder about the exclusion of Israel from the 

regional group. I wonder if you would comment op that.

Ambassador Scali. I find this decision th at was taken by the Executive Board, which to me is of the most questionable legality because 

in the past, even though it has been difficult to become a member of a 

regional group because it, in turn , depends on the membership, tha t 

I find myself more deeply disturbed by this. There are no set guidelines for determination of the composition of regional groups. Normally. the determination is essentially geographic and rests with the 

other members of the geographic area concerned.

This is the practice in the U.N. itself. For example, Cuba has n ormally occupied Latin American seats, bu t in recent years when it could 

not get Latin American endorsement, it has on at least one occasion 

occupied an East European seat with the consent of the East 

Europeans. Another example is Turkey. When this was enlarged in 1957, one 

of the regions specified was “Western European and Othe r.” The 

“Other,” with the agreement of the West Europeans, was to cover 

states eithe r not following natu rally into or not acceptable to any 

other regional group. Included in the first category were Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, and in the second, South Africa and Israel. 

However, Israel has never wished to be considered a Western Eur opean in th at sense and has not participated in th at group in the United 

Nations itself, preferrin g to be accepted as a Middle Eastern or Asian, 

but so fa r unable to achieve this.

The history of the Western European group is, however, not necessarily relevant to UNESCO. For example, UN ESCO has a European 

group both includingWestern Europeans and Eastern Europeans unlike any other body. I t rests with UNESCO to determine its own policies with respect to regional groupings. However, on the key vote that 

we are ta lkin g about here, if I recall correctly, the General Conference 

on *21 November denied an Israeli • motion to include Israel in 

UNESCO’s European regional group, 38 yes, which included the 

United States, 44 no, and 33 abstaining with 31 absent.

And UNESCO has recently emphasized regional conferences of all 

other member states not in the regional group, tha t is. the United 

States and Canada were each for the first time included in the E uropean regional group. That is an overly long explanation and it is very 

complicated, but I find this the kind of action tha t is the kind th at I 

would more deplore than the other where I believe tha t there can be 

some kind of case made for whether Israel did or did not do all it 

could to protect the religious monuments.

Mr. Fraser. Do any other witnesses have a comment on tha t 

question ?

Air. E vans. Mr. Chairman, jus t a legal point of minor character. 

Although Israel is not a member of the regional group according to
35

this vote of UNE SCO—and there is some question whether Eu ro­ peans couldn’t go ahead and ask them to join their regional group. I haven’t looked into the legality of that —every member state has the rig ht to send a representative to any UNESCO meeting and if they aren’t a full p articipant, they can be represented by an observer. I will 

give you an example. I want to emphasize the point tha t Israel can still attend any UNESCO meeting, whether it is in the region or not. And the United States has frequently done that. 1 represented the United States a t a meeting of A frica n national commissions in Uganda on one occasion. I wasn't a regular participant, neither was the Soviet representative who sat by me, but we were there as observers and we were asked 

toward the end to make a few remarks.

Mr. Fraser. Mr. Morgenthau.

Mr. Morgenthau. I don't think I have anything else.

Mr. Fraser. Mr. Bonker.

Mr. Bonker. Mr. Ambassador, of course, any world legislative body 

by its scope and complexity will have its share of problems, and in my short I weeks in the Congress I have received a great deal of mail about the United Nations, most of which urges that we leave the United Nations. But 1 am concerned th at in your December 6 statem ent and your testimony today, which is shared by others on the panel, that referred to by Mr. Morgenthau as the moral perversion and degenera­ tion of the United Nations, that we are reaching a point where we must seriously analyze whether or not we should stay in the United Nations. In fact, Mr. Morgenthau said tha t the United States ought 

to consider seriously the withdrawal of its supp ort from the United 

Nations if these reforms aren’t adopted or if they fail. I would like to know, No. 1 do you share that view? Do you feel that the matter is so serious that the United States should consider withdrawing from the United Nations; and, No. 2, is the United States developing a program of very specific steps that we could take to make 

it more palatable for the United States to stay in ? Now we have ju st gone through basic reforms in the Congress tha t would have appeared impossible a few months ago, and I am not suggesting tha t we reform the United Nations, but I am wondering if there is a realm of possibility to make it more responsive to the 

United States.

Ambassador Scali. Mr. Congressman, thank you.

I am aware of the kind of mail tha t you are receiving, too, and I find it somewhat uncomfortable to be embraced bv those who say, let us pull out of the United Nations, because tha t has never been my position, is not my position now, nor will it be in the future. In my December 6 speech I said very firmly and very clearly, I thought, th at I am not proposing tha t the United States turn its back on the United Nations because we have lost a series of battles. I said in my Boston speech, reversing the current trend tow ard division and confrontation in the United Nations does not depend on our efforts alone, however. I am convinced tha t we must walk the extra mile to 

overcome suspicion. We are not the guardians of the status quo. We are proud of our heritage as a revolutionary country which seeks to promote freedom.
36

Some may question whether the flame of liberty burns as brig ht as we 

approach our 200th birthday. We must demonstrate by our actions 

tha t it does, that we remain dedicated not only to freedom, equality and 

human dignity, but to a more just world.

I have pledged the United States to promote this new spirit of constructive compromise in the United Nations, but others must join us if 

we are to succeed. I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Bonker. Thank you.

Mr. F raser. Mr. Gilman.

I hope the witnesses will respond to any questions whether directed 

to them or not.

Mr. Moroentiiau. If I may say a word, I agree with the Ambassador as far as the present is concerned. I would not commit myself, if 

I had to make any decision, for the future. I could visualize a situation in which I would regard it to be against the interests of the United 

States on moral grounds to continue support of, or even membership 

in, the United Nations. I would also say there is a difference between support and membership. You can separate yourself, you can play an inactive role and 

remain a member, and you can forego membership altogether. As f ar 

as the future is concerned, I would keep the threat of American disengagement from the United Nations over the heads of the leaders of 

the new majo rity and would expect a beneficial result from such a 

political action.

Ambassador Scali. If I could just add something to that. Mr. 

Morgenthau. I believe t hat it must be understood by all members of 

the United Nations that when I spoke out on behalf of our Government on December 6 that I was not making any threa ts to withdraw, 

but tha t I was expressing a profound sense of disillusion at some of 

the extra-legal, unprecedented, and illegal actions that had been taken 

and it was meant as a friendly warning tha t we would hope that the 

excesses that we had witnessed in the 29th session would not be repeated because if they were, in any reassessment the record of the 

United Nations afte r these words had been said, would have to he 

taken into account, and indeed I would expect tha t Congress perhaps 

would be very strongly advising us in what direction to move.

Mr. Bonker. Do you anticipate that the 30th session will be similar 

to the 29th ?

Ambassador Scali. Congressman Bonker, I can’t tell you. I have'in 

the pa st several weeks expressed a complete readiness to begin the kind 

of intensive discussions which I would hope would precede compromise, accommodation, and conciliation. It now depends on whether 

the modern and responsible leaders of the Third World recognize this 

as a sincere invitation to engage in this kind of dialog.

I am hopeful tha t some are beginning to recognize this and tha t 

they understand that the United States is prepared to come to the table 

with a desire to find the kind of solution tha t all can accept, but the 

answer to tha t will not be known for several months yet.

We have a special session of the Assembly which is to begin about 

September 1. one which will again be chaired bv President Bouteflika 

in advance of the regular Assembly session, which will begin about
37

September 21, so there is much work ahead of us in the vaj of

consultation. . • ■ £ These will be confidential and I hope conducted in a sp irit ot com­ promise, but I can't forecast righ t now where we are going to go ex­ cept tha t I do detect an improving spirit and increasing readiness, 1 think, to discuss responsible as against doctrinaire solutions.

Mr. Evans. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say tha t from much more fragmentary evidence than Ambassador Scali has, I think that he is correct in his analysis, tha t there is a disposition to mellow a bit. I was talking with one African chief delegate a few weeks ago at a private party and he said they had gone too far and that they were going to take, as f ar as his group of countries are concerned, a more 

moderate stance in the future. Now one swallow doesn’t make a summer, but the delegate s remarks point in the same direction, and I think he spoke for several west 

African countries.

Mr. Fraser. Mr. Gilman.

Mr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I w ant to join my colleagues in welcoming you here and thank you for your expression of opinion, particularly I would like to add my compliments to the many tha t you received. Ambassador Scali, for your succinct statement before the U nited Nations, which I think reflected not only your thinking but the thinking of the Amer­ ican public, and I know it certainly reflected the thinking in my own region where, if I were to take a vote today, there would be, instead of the usual minority interested in criticizing the U.N. as in days gone by, there would be a strong majority seeking our Nation's removal 

from the United Nations. You have talked of the tyranny of the ma jority and you note that we have been a host country and have been a substantial financial con­ trib utor and an active participant. You have aroused a great amount of debate in the U.N. and hopefully have aroused it to such an extent 

tha t they took a good inward look*. Do you see some hope for refrom ? Do you see any movement toward reform? Not just a hope for reform, but do you sec some actual re­ form with regard to structure and voting and their manner of consid­ eration of some of the major issues that are before the United Nations ?

Ambassador Scali. Mr. Congressman, thank you very much for your 

comments. I am ho ping more for a change in attitude than I am for reform in the actual rules a nd/or charter of the organization. One of the resolutions tha t was passed by the current Assembly was to ap­ point a 42-nation ad hoc committee to consider changes in the structure of the United Nations. As you undobutedly know, the United States and Britain, Franc e and, believe it or not, the Soviet Union, are all on the same side on this. Tliev believe that the current charter is a pretty good one and tha t particularly as it delineates the powers of the Security Council with the righ t of the permanent members to veto. The question. I think, basically before the House then would be whether within the existing rules we might not find opportunities to streamline some of 

the existing procedures.
38

For example, let’s ask the question: Is it necessary fo r every independent specialized agency to exist as a separate entity now, almost 

29 years afte r the United Nations was formed? Can there be a merger 

of some of the activities? Can, for example, the new proposed United 

Nations University take over some of the training and educational 

functions that are" now being performed by some other agencies, indeed, by many agencies with the result th at there has been overlapping?

But the answers to this, I think, are going to come very slow because 

it is mostly the view of the nonalined and the Thi rd World countries 

tha t the veto is obsolete and outdated and that if we wish to reflect 

the real world as it now exists with at least 138 members, perhaps the 

Security Council should be enlarged from 15 to 26, whatever it is, 

with some other countries, including some of the Thi rd World countries also being given veto rights.

As I indicated we take a pretty dim view of any changes of the 

Security Council structure, but perhaps as we discuss this and as we 

seek to provide a new spirit of compromise tha t we can find ways 

within the existing structure to make improvements. And I m ight add 

one other point, and as the Middle East crisis hopefully subsides, 

with God, good luck, and skillful diplomacy all playing a role, and 

we move on to the next stage and the Middle East ceases to be such 

a highly inflammatory area, and as the economic earthquake caused 

by the sharp ly increased oil prices becomes more manageable, per ­

haps within this special environment in the United Nations there 

can also be a mellowing of language and a readiness to believe th at 

we are all facing the same problems and what we are seeking are 

compromises acceptable to all.

Mr. Gilman. Professor Morgenthau, do you see any need for a structur al change ?

Mr. Morgenthau. No. I don’t see any, especially as the increase 

in the membership of the Security Council, I think, would be a 

calamity. The League of Nations followed that path and it was one 

of the reasons for its downfall because once you have a Security 

Council composed of 20 or 25 members, i t is no longer manageable, 

and the veto is, of course, the protection of the vital interests of the 

great powers or the so-called great powers and is not going to be 

abolished.

Mr. Gilman. Mr. Evans.

Mr. Evans. I thin k there is a way to change the Security Council 

slightly without increasing its membership, and tha t is to develop 

the principle tha t, say. Japan, Brazil, Nigeria or India might be 

elected repetitively among the elected groun but not be among the 

permanent members with the veto. Now Mr. "Rogers, as Secretary 

of State, in making a speech to the General Assembly, once noted 

that it was too bad Japan was not a permanent member of the Security 

Council. Some of us have studied that and thin k that something 

.along this line could be done without amending the charter. You 

just change the rules somewhat.

T believe it can be done by changing the rules and not force such 

a state off after one election, but maybe elect it twice and then m.avbe 

rotate it off. Mv organization of World Federalists believes that 

eventually we ought to deal with the problem of reflecting power
39

tha t Professor Morgenthau has mentioned so well by having in add i­ tion to one state, one vote, a second body comparable to the General Assembly but with only advisory powers to begin with, tha t y.o uld 

be more reflective of population, but w ith certain limits on maximum representation, and certain minimums on population, so that you would get something closer to a population body. You would still want to keep the body small, maybe 300 menihcis or 600 members or something of that kind. And let it be a subsidiaiy body to the General Assembly, not with as much power, but get a reflection of opinion based on population rather than on indiyidu.il

states. The situation would be parallel to the Senate of the I nited States and the House of Representatives. One is on a one-state tw ovote basis and the House is on a population basis, but I don t see the organ of the U.N. sharing power the way they do in our Government.

Ambassador Scali. Mr. Gilman, I just wanted to add—and Dr. Evans jogged my memory on this—that the United States has come out publicly in favor of adding Jap an to the Security Council and continues to hold that position. My comments were directed mainly at the difficulty tha t would be involved once we open the whole question of adding, for example, even one member which we want, namely, Japan, and the almost interminable hassle that would ensue as we sought to come up with a new W.A. membership t hat would be better reflective of the power realities of the world today. So I was just expressing a rather skeptical view about the ability, during this go-round at least, to come up with either a Security Council structure t ha t would be substantially different than what we 

have had.

Mr. E vans. I really wouldn’t argue very strongly on that. It is a difficult problem, and it needs some very careful weighing before a 

decision is made.

Mr. Gilman. Gentlemen, first we witnessed Ar afa t’s appearance at the U.N. and then we heard the U NESC O decision ousting Israel and now we are reading some comments about the possibility of unseating Israel in the U.N., do you see that as a very real threa t ?

Mr. Evans. It has never even occurred to me.

Ambassador Scali. I have heard of no such move. I doubt that the Arab countries would be so extreme as to seek to expel Israel. T 

would like to poin t out that it is highly unlikely that Israel would be expelled from the United Nations as long as the United States 

has a veto.

Mr. Morgenthau. I would agree with that. I have no judgment as to the likelihood, but I am certain under the present conditions tha t the move could not succeed so long as the United States is a member of the Security Council with the right of veto.

Mr. Gilman. Mr. Evans, would you care to comment ?

Mr. Evans. I never thought of the issue. I think, in thin king of it. that there is iust no possibility of this, even aside from the veto. I don’t think the Russians would want to do it even.

Ambasador Scali. Excuse me. Could I make one additional com­ ment? As you know, there was a move to expel South Africa and it was stooped bv the triple veto of the United States, Britain and-----

Mr. Evans. France, wasn’t it ?
40

Ambassador Scali. It was France. All three of us expressed our 

very stern opposition to apartheid and hoped South Africa coidd 

change, but as a constitutional matter we felt it would be easier to 

exert influence on South Africa so long as we kept it in the United 

Nations and held its feet to the fire of what international public 

opinion was like.

Then as you know, there was a move taken to bar South Africa from 

participation in the current Assembly and this had carried by an 

overwhelming vote. We believe tha t this was an intralegal action 

and. of course, voted against it, but the point was South Africa was 

barred from the Assembly, so the graver danger might be tha t a 

group of countries might seek to bar Israel from participation in 

a session of the General Assembly.

I would think it highly likely tha t the United States would oppose 

this with all of its diplomatic resources and th at in view of the worldwide furor tha t was caused even bv the ejection of South Africa from 

the current Assembly tha t this would not be a device that would necessarily commend itself.

Mr. Frasf.r. Mr. Bingham.

Mr. Bingham. Jus t on that point, I might say if that were to occur, 

I think there would be nothing more calculated to bring down the 

1 nited Nations and to give encouragement to those who were calling 

for the United States to withdraw from it.

Ambassador Scali, I would like to join in commending you for 

your statement of December G and to say th at I agree with practically 

everything that you have said here today. I think it might be worth 

noting that while others have agreed with what you said on December 

G, it is also important to note th at you made a number of comments 

about positive aspects of the United Nations in your testimony today, 

and I think those are also to be noted.

On the matter of voting in the General Assembly, it seems to me it 

might be useful to get a little clarification on tha t point. I notice tha t 

my colleague. Congressman Wolff, said:

Bec au se ea ch na tion is giv en one vote, a tw o-thi rd s m ajo ri ty ca n he ob ta in ed 

fr om na tions re pre se nting a sc an t 10 per cent of th e to ta l po pu la tion re pre se nte d 

in th e U.N. By vir tu e of th is, th e Gen er al As sembly h as pa ss ed m ea su re s th a t do 

not c on form t o th e re ali ti es of th e world si tu ati on.

Isn ’t it true. Ambassador Scali, that the majority which was so 

painful to us on many occasions was probably in proportion to population or perhaps even larger because it included India, Pakistan, 

China, the Soviet Union, and all of those states?

Ambassador Scali. Yes.

Mr. Bingham. So it is wrong to suggest, as did Dr. Morgenthau, 

tha t the mini-state problem is the same thing as the problem of the 

majority in the General Assembly. I t is the fact tha t these huge countries with the large populations are with the small states. Is n’t that so?

Ambassador Scali. Yes, sir, tha t is true. In almost all of the cases 

in the past Assembly the resolution tha t we opposed and which we tried 

so strenuously to block did represent a majority of the people and the 

fac t that you do have a vast majority representing less than 10 percent 

of the population doesn’t necessarily mean automatically whatever decision they come up with will be one of the objectives, although unhap pily it seems to work out quite often.
Mr. Bingham. 1 was rathe r perturbed by Dr. Morgenthau’s remarks 

about the overrepresentation in the Secretariat of these Arab states. Would you comment on that, Ambassador Scali, on page 5 of Dr. Morgenthau’s statement ?

Ambassador Scali. Yes; I am familiar with the recent report that was made on that which alleged tha t the Secretary General was sub­ ject to enormous pressure and th at he usually gave in to the views most effectively propounded. I am not so much concerned about the num­ ber of Arab nationals who are members of the National Sec reta riat. We have to remember that the United Nations is 29 years old. The principle of geographic distribution is becoming more and more recognized, but it has not been enshrined as a precept to be followed a t all times and that early in its formation mostly Western Europeans were in the leading roles, and so I think it inevitably and completely natu ral that representatives of other regions now7

 seek to have some of 

their figures moved into the Secretariat. As a matter of fact some of the Lebanese, for example, that he men­ tioned are men that I know who are remarkably objective and I think this also applies to some of the other Arab members. So a man’s nation­ ality does not necessarily reflect how objective an d/o r how competent 

he can be. It has been said tha t the United States perhaps is overrepresented. Perha ps tha t w’as tru e—I am sure that was tru e in Dr. Evans’ day. As a man who has recently consulted the statistics, Doctor, I can assure you it is not true now’. As a matter of fact, tha t is one of my unending tasks, it seems, to go to the Secretary General a nd/or an U nder Secre­ tary or two, and to remind him that there is a highly qualified American who should be considered for a?, y, and z post and sometimes I 

am successful and sometimes I am not and, as a matter of fact, 1 am pleased to see tha t there are more members of the Third World, L atin America, and Asia tha t now’ can fit within the Secretariat on the ir 

own qualifications.

Mr. Bingham. Congressman Wolff also referred to the fact—and I don’t know’ whether his figure is correct—that the O PEC nations only pay a combined total of 1.28 percent of the budget. Do you anticipate that this year according to the standards that th at are usually applied tha t some of the oil-producing nations will pay a substantialy lar ger 

proportion of the U.N. budget ?

Ambassador Scali. I am not familiar, and perhaps I should be, 

with Congressman Wolff’s figure. It sounds about right. I will just say as a principle tha t I think that the newly wealthy countries at a time when they have added $65 billion to their treasuries in 1974 by selling the same quantity of oil tha t they did in 1973. should very seriously consider increasing the amount of resources that they make available 

to the United Nations system.

Mr. Evans. Air. Chairman, might I add a point to that ? The com­ mittee on contributions, which fixes the percentage each country shall pay to the budget, makes tha t assessment every 3 years. Now7

 my 

memory is that they made a new assessment at the time that we reduced from some percentage or other down to 25 percent about 2 years ago. So I imagine in about a year they are going to work out a new allocation scheme, and they will automatically take into account
42

tlio gross national product of all member countries, and these changes 

will undoubtedly be reflected.

Mr. Bingham. Wouldn’t it be in order for the Secretary General, as he normally does, to appeal this year to nations to make voluntary -contributions to help with the very severe budgetary deficit th at the 

United Nations suffers?

Ambassador Scali. Congressman Bingham. T would be very happy 

to relay your suggestion to the Secretary General.

Mr. Bingham. I would hope with your endorsement.

Ambassador Scali. I would think tha t there would be no reason 

why the OPE C countries should wait for an assessment conference 

to increase their voluntary contributions.

Air. Evans. May I add, Mr. Chairman, tha t the Secretary General 

has made very strong appeals to them to help out with financial con­ tributions in regard to the food problem and I think they have made some significant contributions, but I am not familiar with the exact 

figures.

Air. Fraser. I f the gentleman would yield, T think I heard one or 

the AVorld Bank economists say tha t the O PEC countries had to have 2 percent of the world's GNP and as a result of the world’s higher prices are now gettin g 4 percent. Tha t indicates the order of 

magnitude involved.

Air. Bingiiam. One final question: Do any of you see any prospect 

of moving toward weighted voting in the General Assembly ?

Air. Morgentiiau. I don't see any possibility. I mean this question 

lias been examined very thoroughly by academics for 25 years and it is just not possible, because whatever qualifier you use, it is going to disadvantage certain countries drastically, which are not going to 

agree to it. If you take the population standard, that would mean that India and China would have an overwhelming vote in international organi­ zations, which other nations, certainly the Soviet Union, wouldn’t accept. If you take the gross national product, it would lead to an overwhelming preponderance of the highly industrialized nations at the expense of the so-called Thi rd AVorld. There is simply no uni­ versally acceptable standard by which you can establish weighted 

voting.

Air. Evans. Air. Chairman, might I add though that there is another alternative which is being used to some extent and that is weighting the representation from groups of countries. Now we are all familiar with the fact tha t there is a law of the sea conference tha t was held in Caracas and will meet again the end of March in Geneva to try to finish its work, and one of its projects is to set up an authority within the structure of the United Nations to regulate the exploitation particularly of the deep seabed minerals and to some 

extent regulate other matters rela ting to the use of the seas. It has been proposed tha t the representation with each country one vote should be rigged so as to reflect the interests of the fishing nations, the interests of the industrial nations who are able to exploit seabed minerals, the interests of the land-locked countries, and perhaps other groups of states, so th at the voting there would be in proportio n to the grouping of states with each state, as I say, having one vote.
43

So this kind of thin g is being considered. And there is weighted vot­ ing in the Bank and the Fund, but as Dr. Morgenthau says, I don t think tha t principle of weighted voting with one country given inore weight in voting tha n another is feasible for the General Assembly. It might be feasible for some of these subagencies, but the weighting of the groups of states, the middle states, the poor states, the land­ locked states, the coastal states, the g reat industrial powers could be—- even the League of Nations had some bodies, at least one body which took account of the 10 highest industrialized nations way back in those days in the makeup of some of their activities. So I thin k this is worth exploring.

Mr. Bingham. Than k you.

Mr. F raser. Mr. Lagomarsino.

Mr. Lagomarsino. Mr. Scali, back for a moment to the support of the United Nations and its suborganizations, how are the contributions computed? What factors are taken into consideration?

Ambassador Scali. Well, this begins with the fact that in 19 <2 after a long campaign the U nited States succeeded in getting its p er­ centage reduced from the average of 31.5 to a statutory 25 percent which, as a matter of fact, Congress mandated and made i t very clear that it would not provide more than 24. The contribution of each member country is based on its ability to pay. In other words, on its relative national wealth, national income or per capita income times 

population. The U.S. gross national product currently represents approximately one-third of the entire world’s wealth. Thus were the United Nations to apply its normal criteria to the United Stdtes, we would be expected to pay something over 30 percent of the United Nations’ regular budget in 1972. However, the United States succeeded in having the U.N. adopt a resolution reflecting maximum assessment which can be charged to any member, let alone the United States, to 25 percent an d this had the effect of reducing our contribution.

Mr. Lagomarsino. What is the contribution rate of the Soviet 

Union ? Ambassador Scali. I think it is about 11 percent, isn’t it?

Mr. Evans. I thin k 12, but I am not sure.

Ambassador Scali. Well, roughly 11 percent.

Mr. Lagomarsino. And are they paid up at the present time?

Ambassador Scali. Well, they are delinquent on assessments which they claim represented, in effect, voluntary contributions to operations of the kind th at they did not believe in, such as some of the peacekeep­ ing forces. I think they are something like $180 million behind, but let’s leave that figure open. They are substantially behind in assess­ ments which they have declined to pay because of an objection to them in principle. Some of the Western countries are, too, for example.

Mr. Lagomarsino. What happens in a case like that? Do we just fo rget about it ?

Ambassador Scali. No. We keep sending them bills.

Mr. Lagomarsino. Do we charge interest ?

Ambassador Scali. We keep reminding them and there is actually on the books a regulation by which if you are in arrearage for x

number of years, that your vote can be taken away from you. How­ ever, the United Nations has never found it in its heart to do this.
44

Mr. Lagomarsino. Dr. Morgenthau, in your statement—and Congressman Bonker referred to this also—you say,

T he U ni te d S ta te s ou gh t to co ns id er se ri ous ly th e w ithdra w al of it s su ppor t 

fr om th e U ni te d N at io ns only a ft e r it s re fo rm t hro ugh th e u se o f A m er ic an po wer 

and inf luen ce has de fin ite ly faile d.

Would you care to comment on what you had in mind with regard 

to what power and influence we should use and in what way ?

Mr. Morgenthau. Well, of course, I cannot give you an exact prescription about how American power and influence in the United Nations ought to be used. I only wanted to point to the fact that we are 

not helpless in the face of what has happened recently in th e United 

Nations and that we ought to exhaust our resources to change the situation before we resort to more radical methods.

Mr. Lagomarsino. Ambassador Scali, what are the views of the 

United States in regard to the continued mandate of peacekeeping 

forces in the Middle East? I understand tha t mandate is about to 

expire. Do you expect it will be renewed ? I guess you have to divide 

the question with regard to the Egy pt-Israe li border and the SyrianIsraeli border.

Ambassador Scali. To separate the combatants on both the Syrian 

and Egyptian fronts represented one of the im portant achievements of 

one of the United Nations’ actions within a matter of weeks after the 

lighting stopped in 1973. The mandate, which goes on for 6 months, 

has been extended twice. It is due to be reconsidered by the Security 

Council at the end of April.

The first to be studied will be tha t of the Egyptian front, and then 

the Syrian front. We have every intention of seeking a renewal of that 

mandate because no matter how successful or skillful Dr. Kissinger 

is—and we all wish him well in his personal step-by-step diplomacy— 

there will be continuing need, we believe, for peacekeeping forces 

the Middle East until there is a lessening of the tension and the kind 

of agreement that both sides can have confidence in.

Mr. Lagomarsino. Do you expect the Security Council will go along 

with the extension ?

Ambassador Scali. I suspect that the amount of debate and the 

difficulty we have will be directly related to the amount of progress 

tha t has been made in achieving this next stage of the problem, 

withdrawal.

Mr. Lagomarsino. Is the Soviet Union and its Eastern—well, I 

guess we don't know yet what th eir position is going to be, but do you 

have any idea of what their attitud e might be at this point?

Ambassador Scali. In the past the Soviet position has remarkably 

paralleled tha t of the Arab governments.

Mr. Lagomarsino. Remarkably ?

Ambassador Scali. Yes.

Mr. Lagomarsino. I have no furthe r questions.

Mr Fraser. Dr. Morgenthau, I would just like to pursue one point 

and then we will close the hearing.

on stated that the United States should honor its legal obligations 

with respect to the assessment, dues or payments under the U.N. 

Charter, but tha t is all tha t we should do. I understand from what 

you say then that you believe we either should reduce or eliminate
45

our voluntary contributions, but I want to see ju st bow far you would 

propose that that should be done. Would tha t be fo r UNESCO or for the whole family of voluntary 

activities?

Mr. Morgenthau. T would take a very close and critical look at 

our voluntary contributions and would reduce those where the reduction would have a direct political effect, where i t would be a kind of 

visible demonstration of our dissatisfaction with the actions of 

UNESCO. I would regard this as a political weapon which has to be 

chosen on political grounds.

Mr. Fraser. But your recommendation would run to the v oluntary 

add-ons to the UNESCO budget. You are not th inking of the development program ? . . . .

Mr. Morgenthau. No, I would certainly not th ink of humanitarian 

programs which have a justification all by themselves. I mean I would 

not play politics with food or with development funds.

Ambassador Scali. I f I may add to th at, I recognize the principle 

that Dr. Morgenthau is suggesting. I thin k it is one th at should be 

considered, Dr. Morgenthau, but I suspect tha t we would find on 

close study tha t most of the voluntary programs are humanita rian 

programs. For example, the UNDP, the United Nations development 

programs, where last year we appropriated $90 million: UN ICEF , 

where we gave $15 million and where Congress in its wisdom decided 

to give $18 million because it is a fine agency and it works very well. 

There is IAE A, which is voluntary. That is $2 million.

There is UNRKA, where we gave $14 million, and so it was a subtotal of $125 million, and then in addition to tha t, there were another 

$31 million as, for example—$16 million for U NF AC IP.

Mr. Morgenthau. I was tryi ng to state a general principle. Obviously I am not qualified to go into the details and say here we 

can cut off $1 million, here $2 million.

Ambassador Scali. No, but I unde rtand the principle tha t Dr. 

Morgenthau is propounding here. I thin k it is one th at is of a kind 

that should be studied because I believe t ha t after having said what 

we did on December 6th, we must make it clear that we mean what 

wo say.

Mr. F raser. I invite any of the witnesses to make any last comment 

which they may feel would round out their testimony.

Mr. Evans. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to round out the testimony except to say that in the World Federalists, which is interested 

in strengthening international institutions and supporting the rule 

of law and helping solve conflict situations, we have had a good deal 

of hope for the success of the policies or a good many of the policies 

tha t Secretary Kissinger has been following recently. I think we ought 

to applaud the general stance tha t Ambassador Scali has outlined 

today in dealing with the United Nations and UNESCO problems; 

and on the confrontation with the oil-exporting countries I thin k a 

lot is to be said for Dr. Kissinger’s insistence on a step by which, first 

of all, the consuming countries would consider their position and then 

go into a general conference with the exporting countries and try to 

come to some agreements that won’t jeopardize industrial civilization 

and won t pull down the structures th at eventually the exporting countries will have to have in order for them to have a good life.

48 -8 9 0— 75------ 4
46

I think the moderate way in which he is approaching this matter 

deserves our public applause. I am not qualified to go into some of 

the questions about Turkey and Cyprus and some of these points, but 

this general overall policy of detente w ith the Soviet Union and increasing relations with mainland China while m aintaining our relations with Taiwan, tha t sort of thing, I think, deserves sup port and 

applause.

Ambassador Scali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I would 

like to close by just recalling the words that the British Ambassador, 

Mr. Richards, said at the annual meeting of the Pilgrims of the United 

States in New York on Janua ry 22. lie summed it u p:

Our task is to show th at the interest of the developed and the developing are 

complementary, not antagonistic. All must understand the realities which limit 

the possibilities for action and all must make a deliberate attempt to find the 

common interest and to act on it to a point where all can see tha t they gain 

as well as give.

And to that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add my personal 

view and my profound belief that it is not the radical extremists of 

either of the left or of the right that will draw the blueprint for tomorrow’s more just world.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. F raser. I want to thank all of the witnesses. We have been 

presented with an enormous amount of wisdom and insight. We really 

appreciate it and you have been very helpful to the subcommittee.

Mr. Evans. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Morganthau. Thank you, sir.

Ambassador Scaij. Thank you, sir.

[Whereupon, at 4 :30 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene 

at 2 p.m. of the following day, Wednesday, February 5, 1975.]
REVIEW OF THE 1974 GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE 

UNITED STATES POSITION IN THE UNITED NATIONS

W ED N ESD A Y , F E B R U A R Y 5, 19 75

H ouse of R ep re se nt at iv es ,

C om m it te e on F or eign A ff a ir s,

S ubc om mit te e on I nte rn ati onal O rg an iz at io ns ,

}Vach ing ton, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m. in room 2255, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Fraser (chairm an of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Fraser. The subcommittee will come to order. This afternoon we continue the second of our hearings which con­ sist of a review of the 1974 General Assembly and the U.S. position 

in the United Nations. Yesterday we heard from Congressman Lester Wolff. Representative from New York; Hon. John Scab, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; Prof. Hans Morgenthau of the New School of Social Re­ search in New Y ork; and Mr. Luth er Evans, president, World Fe deralists, U.S.A. This afternoon we are honored with three distinguished witnesses whose knowledge and understanding about the United Nations and 

some of the specialized agencies is unmatched. Ambassador Charles W. Yost, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations will be our first witness, followed by Hon. James Leonard, president of the United Nations Association of the U.S.A. and formerly with the State Department, and someone T first met who was heading our delegation at the arms control talks in Geneva. The thir d witness is Rosemary Ginn, chairman, U.S. National 

Commission for UNESCO.

We are delighted to hav’e you here.

Ambassador Yost, why don't you proceed, sir.

STA TEM ENT 0E HON. CHA RLE S W. YOST, FO RM ER U.S. AMBASSADOR 

TO TH E UN ITE D NAT IONS

Mr. Yost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a new written statement to submit. I have already, I believe, placed in the record my article in the New Rep ublic1

recently which dealt with the events in the General Assembly that 

have caused criticism.

1

 See ap pe nd ix, p. 89.

(47 )
48

T would like also to put in the record, if you will be so good, another 

article which T wrote a little earlier which appeared about the first of 

the year in the Saturday Review, called ‘‘The United Nations WasNever More Real Than Today,’’ 1 have made copies available to the 

sta’ff.

Mr. F raser. Without objection, we will include that in the record .2

Mr. Y ost. Then 1 would like to make simply a brief oral statement 

which strikes some of the principal notes in those articles, and then be 

open to questions.

The first point that I would like to make is that I th ink all of us tend 

to personalize the United Nations a little carelessly. One sees in the 

press that the U.N. has done this or tha t or the U.N. has failed to do this 

or that.

We are all aware tha t the U.N. is not a supergovernment. It is 

merely a very loose association of sovereign states, so what tha t really 

means is tha t sc number of states in this, that, or the other body of the 

U.N. have expressed this or th at view. If the U.N. didn’t exist, presumably those states would have the same view and would behave in the 

same way, though it might not be as dramatically registered on our 

fron t pages because they wouldn't have cast votes in the U.N., I think 

it is important to recall that this is the fact.

The second point I would like to make is that most of the criticism 

which we have heard in the last few weeks has arisen from the action, 

votes, in the General Assembly, I am sure the subcommittee is aware, 

but I would like to remind everyone tha t the General Assembly, except in very limited budgetary and administrative matters, has no 

binding powers. It is merely a recommendatory body and all of its 

resolutions merely recommended.

It is, however, a useful sounding board because it enables us among 

others to know how the rest of the world is feeling and it does, as I 

said a moment ago, dramatize the views of great numbers of governments and people around the world in a way that would not otherwise 

take place.

Adiai Stevenson used to say tha t w hat the United States needs most 

is a hearing aid, and in a way the General Assembly is a useful hearing 

aid because it brings to our attention what others are thinking.

But the real work of the U.N. is done, as you are certainly aware, in 

other organs. Responsibilities of the U.N. for the maintenance of peace 

and security which are limited but significant, are performed by the Security Council where we have a veto. Eighty-five percent, roughly, of 

the budget, the total budget of the U.N. and its whole family of 

agencies, goes for the economic and social matters which are handled 

by a whole series of agencies like the Monetary Fund, the International 

Bank, the W orld Health Organization, Food and Ag ricultural Organization, the Development Program, the Environmental Program, the 

Population Program and so on.

And finally, work is done by the Secretary General largely through 

quiet diplomacy behind the scenes which we rarely hear much about.

So ,the reality of the U.N.—and in this respect the U.N. is like the 

proverbial iceberg, most of it is under th e surface and the real work 

is done largely under the surface. These above-water manifestations

2

 See app end ix, p. 92.
49

tha t have attracted so much attention are significant as expressing the views of governments but not significant as to concrete, binding action 

by the United Nations. Now, let me address myself briefly to the particu lar subjects that were discussed in the General Assembly and that caused the recent criticism. There was a great deal of talk about the tyranny of the majority because this new majority, which has taken shape in the General Assembly over the last 15 years with the near completion of the process of decolonization and creation of a very large number of new states, has given the so-called Third World a majority in the United Nations. On many matters they do not vote as a block but on certain matters on which they feel strongly they do vote as a block, 

and th at leads to a majority action. Also, I emphasize, except on procedural matters, merely a recom­ mendation. But I do think it is only fai r to recall tha t through the first 15 years of the United Nations the majority was made up by friends and associates of the United States, the Western Europeans, the Latin Americans. We had no scruples at all about mobilizing that majority to adopt very controversial resolutions which we favored, despite strong objection from the minority who claimed their needs 

were not adequately taken into account. I cite Chinese representation, the representation of the North Ko­ reans, the famous argument over the application of article 19 to the Soviets and the French. I do thin k tha t we should not be too self- righteous since we behaved in exactly the same way when we had the 

power to do so. Now, the specific issues tha t caused the criticism were three in number. Fir st was the Charter of Economic Bights and Duties, which the Mexican delegation has been presenting for some time and which was fiinally adopted by a vote of 120 with 6 against and 10 abstentions. Tha t is a rather substantial vote. We objected and our 'grounds for objection may be reasonable. We thought there weren’t adequate provisions f or compensation when property was nationalized. We thought there was too much encouragement of the formation of raw materials cartels. But the fact tha t 120 states felt so strongly tha t they overrode those objections indicates that we have got a real problem. It can’t be swept under the rug and the fact that it was brought dramatically to our attention is probably an invaluable thing. This represents, of course, the long-standing resentment of most of the less developed countries at what they consider to be inadequate assistance by the developed countries to their development, what they consider to be un fair terms of trade, which of course have inspired the oil producers to raise the ir prices so astronomically, and what they consider to be in many cases unfair practices by the multinational 

corporations. So, again, this is a fact of life and while we may regret it. I don’t thin k we can legitimately object to their expressing this view. The second subject that aroused the most concern was th at of the vote on South Africa. There the vote was 91 in favor, 22 against, and 19 abstentions. This was. I think, an improper action in the sense tha t it deprived the South African delegate of his seat in this Assembly even thouffh one could hardly claim that his credentials from the South 

African Government were incorrect.
50

However, this reflected, of course, the hitter frustration of most of 

the nonwhite members over many, many years who have voted repeatedly for stronger action against apartheid in South Africa. I 

may say in many cases the United States has voted for these resolutions, but when it came to the application of sanctions or to the expulsion of South Africa we have balked and vetoed it.

So this vote, I think, represents an unwise but a not unnatural expression of deep and prolonged frustration at this violation of basic 

human rights.

Some have claimed the vote was a violation of the charter. I don't 

think it was a violation of the charter, though it followed certainly 

a procedure that is objectionable.

But when one speaks of violation of the ch arter in regard to southern African problems one must recall tha t the U nited S tates through 

the Byrd amendment has violated the decision of the Security Council, for which we voted, imposing sanctions on Rhodesia. This is in 

fact a violation of the charter. So once again we are not in a wholly 

sound position ourselves.

The final and most controversial issue was the treatm ent of the Pa lestine Liberation Organization. Again, T thin k this was unwise. This 

is the first time, except in the case of Ili s Holiness the Pope, when a 

representative not of a government was allowed to take the podium 

in the General Assembly and in this case was given almost the treatment of a chief of state.

I say it was unwise but once again the vote was 105 in favor. 

4 against, and 20 abstentions. Now, tha t is three-quarters of the 

membership.

Again, one must recognize that this was an expression of a very wild 

sentiment from those who think liberation organizations in general 

need more dignified treatm ent tha n they have always received and 

who thin k in this particular case the Palestinians have for 25 years 

been badly treated by the internatio nal community and that amends 

are owed to them.

More important, I think, this represents the fact that whether we 

like it or not, and we may not, tlie PLO has now become a fact of 

life; it has become an inescapable fa ctor in the Middle E astern equation. The fact tha t this was b rought home to us by something that 

happened first at Rabat and then at the United Nations, is not all 

a bad thin g because i t warns us that the Palestinians can no longer 

be ignored, tha t if we want, as we do want, a settlement in the Middle 

East, a just settlement, tha t they are a factor tha t must be taken 

account of.

Finally, about the Generally Assembly, let me point out tha t even 

from a purely U.S. point of view, action in this General Assembly 

was not all bad. We got some very controversial questions decided in 

our favor.

The Cambodian and the K orean votes particu larly were very hotly 

contested and we won, and I may say we d idn't take much account of 

minority views there. We were very happy to have a slim majority 

with us.

On a more constructive note I thin k one must recognize tha t there 

is a growing feeling on the part of both the old majority t ha t we used
51

to lead and the new m ajority which has emerged in recent years that this really isn’t the best way to conduct business. While I am sure we will continue to have from time to time these lopsided votes on con­ troversial matters that we won't like, I do notice the beginning of a tendency, which I thin k will grow, to try to reach concensus behind the scenes more earnestly and carefully than has always been the case 

in the past. I have met a number of representative of less developed countries who have indicated tha t they think this would be wise and tha t they 

are going to make the effort to do so. Now, finally, I would like to say a few words, which are elaborated on in the article in the Saturday Review t ha t I asked to be p ut on record, as to why I thin k the United Nations and our participation in it continue to be very much in the U.S. national interest. After all, we hear constantly nowadays the talk of world interde­ pendence which means if it means anything that a great many more things are going to have to be done by a large number of nations working together tha n have been done in the past. In fact, most nations working together. Tha t being the case, it would seem only logical to work through the institution where most nations are rep ­ resented and which already has a whole series of agencies and pro ­ grams dealing with most of these economic and social problems th at we have somewhat belatedly recognized can be vital to our nationl 

interest, as well as the interest of others. In the absence of trying to deal with them in a collective fashion between developed a nd developing countries, between the consumers and the producers of raw materials, we do ris k having a very serious confrontation over a period of years between the two which could be jus t as damaging to our interests as the cold war was for many years. If we can avoid tha t by not weakening but strengthening the U.N. and its whole family of agencies where all of us are members, and seeing that it does more of the job rather than less of the job, I think we will be serving the national interest of the United States as well as 

the cause of rationality in international relations. I need only mention not only the old responsibilities which we have long recognized were centered in the U.N., those of peaceful settle­ ment and peacekeeping—and the United Nations has demonstrated in the last few months its continued capacity to perform a very useful service in peacekeeping in the Middle East—but we have this whole range of new problems in which the U.N. has been very active in the last year or so, has not in many cases produced solutions, but has produced the beginning of a dialog and in some cases effective action. We have had year before last, the setting up of the U.N. Environ­ ment Program in Stockholm. We had last year the U.N. Food Con­ ference in Rome. We had the Population Conference in Bucharest. 

We have the Law of the Sea Conference still going on. In all of these respects we see precisely the sort of action bv the world community that we should want to encourage. So if under these circumstances, because we are offended by some votes on politically sensitive matters in the United Nations, we should diminish our sup­ por t of all of these international institutions, which are working in our interest just as much as in everybody else’s, we would certainly be
52

cuttin g off our nose to spite our face. I very much hope that we don t 

do so.

Finally, let me add tha t I would hope tha t our support would not 

diminish but would increase and not only our political support but 

our financial support. It is not, as one would sometimes gather from 

reading articles in the press, any astronomical sum. The total budget 

of the entire U.N. family of agencies is only about $1.3 billion which 

is approximately the cost of a single Trid ent submarine. The U.S. 

contribution to this total budget is about $400 million, which is less 

than half of the cost of the New York City Police Department.

So one can hardly say th at these sums are excessive in coping with 

this vast arra y of problems of global interdependence. I hope tha t 

that will be the conclusion of the Congress and the American people.

Thank you.

Mr. Fraser. Thank you very much, Ambassador Yost.

With the agreement of the witnesses, we would like to have each of 

the panel members give their statement and then proceed to the 

questions.

Ambassador Leonard.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LEONARD, PRESIDENT, UNITED 

NATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE U.S.A.

Mr. Leonard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know, Mr. Chairman, tha t you and a number of members of your 

committee are very well aware of what the I .X. Association is, but 

if I may make just a brief statement for the record on t ha t subject.

Our object is to disseminate information on the United Nations and 

on other international bodies, to encourage support for a constructive 

U.S. role in these bodies and to encourage a more effective role for 

the U.N. itself in dealing with world problems.

I am very grateful, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to discuss 

attitudes in tins country toward the United Nations.

I have a prepared statement. If I may, I will go through most of it, 

although there are some parts which are so very closely paralleled 

with what Ambassador Yost has just said th at I will perhaps just ask 

you to enter them in the record, if tha t will be appropriate.

Mr. F raser. Without objection, we will do that.

Mr. Leonard. I should make it clear, Mr. Chairman, tha t I am not 

empowered by the members of the United Nations Association to speak 

for them. Many of them have expressed their views in individual letters or in resolutions of their local chapters, and I will be glad to make 

these available to the committee.

I know of no way to be sure authoritatively what the American 

people are thinking about the United Nations at this particu lar 

moment since there lias not been, so far as I know, any current national 

sampling of opinion to which one could point. We do, however, in our 

organization attempt to keep in touch with American opinion toward 

the United Nations, and I lielieve there is a considerable amount of 

evidence for the judgments which I will offer you.

My basic proposition is the following: The people o f the United 

States continue to support the United Nations. They feel tha t its 

existence and its activities are very much in our interest. Many Americans, in fact, would like to see it strengthened. But there are many
53

Americans who have been disturbed and unhappy over various dev elopments last fall, particularly in the General Assembly and in theGeneral Conference of UNESCO. What is the evidence for this basic assessment ? F irst of all, there was a scientific poll of American attitudes toward the United. Nations published last July and conducted by the Ha rris survey. I his survey found that a substantial 76 percent of the U.S. public agreed with the characterization that the U.N. is '"worthwhile. This was a notable rise from the supp ort which had been given the I .N. in a comparable 

survey in 1970. A large number of Americans felt, however, that the organization was doing only a “fair” or even a “poor” job on one of its most im por­ tan t tasks, working for peace in the world. When the work of the organization was looked a t area-by-area, the evaluation of the Am eri­ can people was generally positive, as indicated by the following quota­ tions from the summary released by the Harris s urvey:

By 73-percent yes to 14-percent no, A mericans agree t ha t the U.N. “provides a forum for open, honest discussion between nations.'’ The concept of brin ging countries togethe r to tal k out differences is widely felt to be a healthy process.

I am quoting from what th e H arris survey itself said about its poll.

By 65-percent yes to 17-percent no they also feel th at the U.N. is “helping the poor countries develop the ir economies.” Such aid to underdeveloi>ed n ations on the p art of the U.N. ha s always been popular with the American people. By 64-percent yes to 22-percent no they cre dit the world body with takin g positive steps to keep th e peace in th e Middle E ast and elsewhere. Although highly controversial, the U.N. has served as a med iating and, at times, occupying forc e 

in Middle East peacemaking measures. The proposition th at “today's problems require intern ational action that only the U.N. or other intern ational agencies can tak e” is agreed to by a lopsided G3-18 percent. Clearly, the public would like to see such inte rna tional efforts 

strengthened rather than weakened.

And that, of course, Mr. Chairman, is just the point that Ambassador 

Yost has just made. Despite the disappointment and even the anger of many Americans over specific developments last fall, I know’ of no evidence tha t these positive attitudes werc«sharply altered. In fact, we have some evidence 

to the contrary. First, financial support from American business firms for our organization, in spite of difficult business conditions, has been somewhat stronger than a year ago. Second, there has not been any sharp change in the level of our membership. A few chapters have reported numerous resignations, but overall I believe our losses have been quite limited. Third, the letters from individual members and the resolutions from our chapters have almost unanimously urged tha t the United States stay in the United Nations and work to make it stronger and more 

effective. Fourth, we have some 150 national organizations associated with us. A number of them have expressed their views directly to the U.N. or to the U.S. Government on recent developments, but not one of these organizations has withdraw n from its affiliation with us, and a certain number have responded to a recent appeal to them for financial support with small contributions beyond their normal dues.
54

I have tried, Mr. Chairman, to read everything I could find in the 

way of editorial opinion throughout this country, myself, about the 

United Nations. Some of it has said quite bluntly tha t we should 

reduce our support for the organization or even get out of the U.N. 

The great majority of this editorial comment has, however, been 

directed to urging the U.N. to cease the various practices which the 

editorial writers felt were improper, and to become a more effective 

instrument fo r peace and justice.

Tt seems to me, therefore, Mr. Chairman, t hat the basically positive 

attitude of the U.S. public toward the United Nations has remained 

firm. I t is combined with a rather realistic perception of the weaknesses 

in this structure which nations have so far built to manage relations 

among them.

r believe, Mr. Chairman, tha t the public wants the United States to 

help strengthen this structure. Among the evidence for this conclusion 

I would cite the following: The many thoughtful resolutions and letters which have come to us or to our attention have urged reform rather 

than U.S. withdrawal. A considerable amount of the negative criticism of the U.N. is directed to its weaknesses, to its inability to prevent 

wars from breaking out, and to the fact th at its resolutions are often 

disregarded.

The United Nations is never, so fa r as I have observed, criticized for 

being too strong or for interfering in the internal affairs of this country or in the execution of our foreign policies. There are fairly frequent criticisms of the costs of the United Nations, but these criticisms are generally uninformed and assume that what the U.N. does 

can be done cheaper, rather than urging tha t the U.N. only do a part 

of what it is now doing.

I'he members of this committee are well aware tha t similar criticisms are constantly directed by the American people at our Federal, 

State, and city governments.

Finally, I think the American public has correctly seen that global 

problems such as food, population, energy, environment, oceans, the 

spread of nuclear weapons, and other security issues all require global 

management. The public sees that global management means either 

the U.N. as it exists at present or as it would have to be reinvented if 

for some reason we were to discard the present structure.

I then, Air. Chairman, turn in this prepared statement to the causes 

of concern of the U.S. public which are just exactly what Ambassador 

Yost has just cited.

First, and most important, was the decision of the General Assembly to receive Yasir A rafat and then to give observer status to the 

FLO. Whatever may be the eventual judgment of history on the justice or the wisdom of these actions, I believe they have been judged 

by the “attentive public” in this country to be unjust and unwise. I am 

told tha t these actions evoked an unusual flood of mail directed to the 

I ’.N. Secretariat—some 8,000 letters, almost all of them negative. The 

U.S. Mission and our organization also received mail which was predominantly hostile. And many of o ur UNA chapters adopted resolutions deploring these events.
bo

Second, I would cite the actions of the UNESCO General Confer­ ence last fall. I recognize that the actual situation underlying these UNESCO actions was complex and unclear. I fran kly do not th ink it 

was well reported in the American press. Many Americans think that Israe l was expelled from U NESCO and were outraged tha t that could happen. Even though Israel was not expelled but was denied admission to the European Regional Group, as the United States had been denied for many years, the various acts of the General Conference were clearly unwise and designed to punish 

Israel. Many letters, editorials, et cetera, have cited these UN ESCO actions along with those related to the PLO as evidence that the U.N. is behaving in an im proper fashion. Third, there was the suspension of South Africa from the 29th General Assembly. Reaction to this development was less clearcut than in the preceding cases. The action itself was almost certainly illegal, but many supporters of the United Nations can understand the exas­ peration of the African states over the unwillingness of leading pow­ ers, particularly the United States, to support meaningful pressures on South Africa. Many U.N. supporters recall the long U.S. disregard for the principle of universality in the case of China. Moreover, many Americans are reluctant to lecture the Africans on legality at a time when the United States is clearly disregarding its cha rter obligation to respect the Security Council prohibition on im­ porting Rhodesian chrome. Thus, the South African affair lias been a reason, but a ra the r secondary reason, for public irritation with the 

last General Assembly. Finally, there are various actions of the Third World majority in the U.N. on economic issues, particularly the resolutions of the Sixth Special Session last spring and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties passed this fall. These issues are not widely understood and they are only occasionally cited in protest letters, resolutions, and 

editorials. In a way. this is regrettable, since the incipient cold war between the Third World majority and the developed countries who form a A erv wealthy and powerful minority in the U.N. is an extremely im­ portant and basic problem. This cold war, which seems to be replacing the old cold war between East and West, has much to do with our lack of success in the U.N. on other issues, such as, for example, mustering 

political support fo r Israel. I think these are the elements of current dissatisfaction and yet of basic strength in the U.S. public attitu de toward the United Nations. Your letter didn’t specifically ask me, Air. Chairman, what to do about this but if I may I will just offer a brief comment. The U.N. is a basically political organization. It has many technical elements like the World Hea lth Organization, the Food and Agriculture Or­ ganization, but at its core in the General Assembly, the Security Coun­ cil, the Economic and Social Council, and other plenary bodies it operates much like any other political body. The General Assembly is not a lawmaking body like the House of Representatives but its resolutions do oyer time have a certain effect on events, greater or lesser according to circumstances.
56

Like other political bodies, it is imperfect. Some of its members do 

not truly represent their constituents but act at time on behalf of 

special interests or even out of personal motives. But in a broad way 

a U.N. vote tells us something about world opinion. I thin k recent 

U.N. votes are telling the United States that it is time to rethink some 

of our basic policies and positions.

I will not try to go into detail, but will only say tha t I think tha t 

U.S. policies in the economic field, which were cited more specifically 

by Ambassador Yost, or in many cases our lack of a clear policy, have 

led a large number of governments of the Thi rd World to approach 

each issue at the U.N., whether it is economic or political or legal or 

technical, with something of a sense of grievance toward the United 

States. Thus, a certain number of votes on the P LO question were, I 

believe, cast for reasons which had little to do with Israel, but quite a 

bit to do with the U.S. position in the world.

I know it is difficult for Americans to believe tha t with our truly 

generous record—and our generosity is widely acknowledged—there is 

any good reason for other countries to be suspicious or resentful of us. 

But if we can approach this matter with an open mind, analyze the 

situations which lie behind these dissatisfactions, and try to do a serious job of mobilizing political supp ort for constructive, creative solutions to world problems—as we just did at the recent World Food 

Conference—then we can transform the United Nations into an instrument which serves our interests and the interests of people everywhere 

even more effectively than the present imperfect but very worthwhile' 

structure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. F raser. Thank you very much.

Tha t was an interesting speech. The third witness is Rosemary 

Ginn, chairman, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO.

STATEMENT CF ROSEM ARY GINN , CHAIR MAN, U.S. NATIO NAL 

COMMISSION FOR UNESCO

Mrs. Gixx. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Congressladv and Congressmen, I am Rosemary Ginn of Columbia, Mo. I am the chairman 

of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO.

May I thank the chairman, his colleagues and his staff for inviting 

the U.S. Commission to be represented at these hearings. It is a 

thoughtful gesture on the committee's part and I wish to take this 

opportunity to express the Commission's appreciation for this 

courtesy.

My remarks will be limited to the specialized agency of the United 

Nations, UNESCO. I leave to more expert witnesses the broader 

questions of the United Nations which concern this committee. Yet 

it is understood tha t the problems within UNESCO are problems 

which are present in the United Nations, and could perhaps constitute 

a threat to the well-being of the entire U.N. system.

I propose to describe the U.S. Commission and its work, the actions 

taken by the general conference of UNESCO—which have prompted 

the recent restrictive legislation by the Congress of the United
57

State s—and the potential loss to the U nited S tates which may result 

from th at action. .

The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and its work: I he 

U.S. National Commission for UNESCO is a congressionally authorized advisory and inform ation body of 100 members, appointed 

by the Secretary of State. Sixty members are nongovernmental organizations interested in, or related to, the fields of UNESC O’s concerns—education, science, culture, and communications. Forty members are individuals, 25 of them appointed from various levels of 

Federal. State, and local government, and the remaining 15 are meml>ers a t large. I am a member at large. The list of the membership 

of the Commission is in your hands.

The Federal Government is replete with many citizens' advisory 

Indies some of which do advise, and others merely concur. The U.S. 

National Commission for UNESC O is truly an adviser to the U.S. 

Government.

Fo r example, much of the American environmental policy which 

played a decisive role in UNESCO and at the Stockholm environmental meeting had its origins in the U.S. National Commission for 

UNESCO. The Commission held in 1969 in San Francisco what is 

generally regarded as the first national conference on the environmental crisis.

Later the Commission developed and put forward an American 

position on UNESCO's approach to the environmental problem, a 

position which today underlies the international organization’s basic 

policy, called “Man and the Biosphere.”

The U.S. policy for UNESCO pertaining to international women’s 

year was developed by the leadership within the U.S. Commission 

for UNESCO and its task force on IWY.

The Commission has also advised the State Department on other 

import ant rnatters, among them such things as the use of satellites 

for education and culture—a most critical international policy item— 

and on equally vital matters of public concern such as the role of 

education in the drug abuse problem.

The Commission is responsible, along with the UNESCO liaison 

office at the United Nations, for information about UNESCO in the 

United States. One of our most recent publications is “UNESCO 

and the U.S. National Intere st” of which you have a copy.

In addition to its advisory and informational functions, the National Commission also conducts broad program activities in fields 

of vital interest to the American public, such as energy conservation, 

drug abuse control, environmental education, learning centers for 

disadvantaged American children, and others.

I cite the works of the U.S. Commission, not so much to sing the 

praises of an organization of which I serve as chairm an, but rath er 

to give examples in which UNESC O-related Commission endeavors 

are beneficial to U.S. interest.

Now may I turn to the actions of the 18th session of the General

r,f>nA r

f

n c e o f UNESCO held in Paris, October 17 to November 

2 3 .19 14.

I attended this conference as a member of the U.S. delegation, and 

UNE SCO TM 1

 TM a ViC e c h a i r m a n o f t h e U.S. Commission for
During the general conference, more than 500 resolutions in the 

fields of education, science, culture, and communications were acted 

upon. 'Phe United States put forw ard a number of these. In most instances we were successful in obtaining their adoption. However, in 

what proved to be the most un fortunate issue of the general conference—the resolutions directed against Israel—we were unsuccessful. 

For it was the United States which led the efiorts to prevent passage 

of these resolutions and we were unable to muster enough votes to 

defeat them.

With regard to these resolutions, however, there has been much misinformation and misinterpretation about the actions taken by the 

general conference.

There were two resolutions passed at the heart of the controversy 

in UNESCO. The first one dealt with the preservation of monuments 

in Jerusalem. The second one was concerned with the application of 

Israel to join the European regional group.

The Jerusalem resolution originated within the Commission I II of 

the General Conference on UN ESCO's cultural programs relating in 

particular to the preservation of historical and cultural monuments, 

such as Jerusalem , Philae, Nubia, and others.

This resolution was the outgrowth of prio r resolutions in the United 

Nations and UNESCO, calling upon Israel—and I quote from the 

resolution:

. . . . to des is t fr om an y ar ch eo lo gi ca l ex ca vat io ns in th e ci ty of Je ru sa le m 

an d fr om any mod ifi ca tio ns of it s fe a tu re s or it s cu lt u ra l an d his to ri cal ch aracte r, p art ic u la rl y w ith re gar d to C hri st ia n and Is la m ic relig io us sites.

To the U.S. Government, the Department of State and the U.S. 

Delegation, the Arab-Moslem dr aft resolution went beyond the limit 

necessary, because it involved a specific sanction against a member of 

state and we viewed it as a far reaching and discriminatory act unwarranted by the circumstances.

During the preparation for the debate and vote on this resolution, 

there was concerted action and vigorous opposition by the Dep artment, of State, the U.S. permanent delegation to UNESCO in Paris, 

the U.S. delegation to the Conference and the other countries which 

supported the position of Israel.

Most of the Western European countries, a large number of Latin 

American states and other members joined in voting against the sanction on Jerusalem. The resolution was actually passed by less than a 

majority, 59 in favor, 34 against and 24 abstentions.

In regard to the second resolution concerning Isra el’s membership 

in a region, I refer to a statement published in the Jan uary 1975 issue 

of UNESCO Courier given by UNE SCO Director General Amadou 

Mah tar M’Bow on the resolutions relating to Israel. It is of the greatest essence tha t you read this statement with the greatest of care. Nfy 

time limitation does not grant the opportunity to go through it in detail, but it contains facts which you must have in your deliberations, 

and it, too, is in your hands.

I quote from the attached M’Bow statem ent:

Israel has neither been ousted from UNESCO nor from any regional group 

within the organization. Israel continues to be a member of UNESCO as one of 

the 135 members sta tes,. ..
59

and Israel can participate as an observer, as it lias done in the past, at 

any regional conference of ministers no m atter where it is held.

Israel also continues to be listed for elections to the executive board in group I. Western Europe, on the same footing as Au stralia, Canada, the United States 

of America and New Zealand.

As a footnote, the committee should know that the United States 

and Canada had expressed interest in being a pa rt of a regional program group for nearly 10 years before they were admitted, while 

Israel had expressed interest for only 1 year.

May we now consider the reaction of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO in regard to the action of the General Conference.

It is clearly spelled out in the resolution unanimously passed at 

the annual meeting which was held in December of 1974. It is included as an attachment to this statement. The resolution sharply deplores the action of the UNESCO General Conference, condemns the 

political turn which it has brought to UNESCO, and urges the Director General of UNESCO to seek ways of mending the breach that 

has come within and without the organization.

Next among your documents you will find my statement listing some 

of the losses the U nited States might sustain if the United States were 

to withdraw from UNESCO. Such withdrawal, I am convinced, 

would result in a whole catalog of disadvantages to the United States, 

to many of its institutions and organizations, and to a large number 

of private citizens who have individual interests in UNESCO and 

benefit from their various associations with its work.

For instance, withdrawal would deprive the American scientific 

community of its major facility for international cooperation research 

and development. It would deprive vast numbers of individuals and 

nongovernmental organizations of the cheapest and most efficient instrument available intern ation ally for the conduct of their exchange 

affairs. It would cut us off from much of the essential pioneer work 

being undertaken internatio nally in the vital field of solar energy. It 

would place us outside of similarly vital work UNESCO is conducting in the environmental research and monitoring sectors of the world 

environmental crisis.

These are but three o r four of the essential losses the United States 

would sustain if we were to be divorced from UNESCO, and they 

and others are amplified in the attachm ent which I have included, 

and this, too, is among your documents and I hope, sir, tha t this as 

well as all of the attachm ents which I have offered can become a part 

of the record.3

Mr. Fraser. Without objection, we will incorporate as many of 

them as appear to be appropriate in the record.

Mrs. Ginn . Thank you.

Gentlemen, I have reviewed the U.S. Commission and its work, the 

relevant actions of the General Conference of UNESCO, and what 

in the U.S. interest would be lost in our refusal to continue as a member of UNESCO.

I would be remiss if I did not call to your attention the new D irector General of UNESC O. He is M. Amadou Mahtar M’Bow, a dis3

 For m aterial submitted by Mi's. Ginn, see pp. 97-103.
60

tinguished black scholar from Senegal and the first African to head 

a U nited Nations specialized agency. He is deeply concerned with the 

management and revitalization of the organization. His is the Third 

World voice of moderation and reason. We worked hard to get him elected and now he needs our support. The U.S. Commission for UNESCO is grateful for your concern.

We believe that the Congress does not wish to harm UNESCO, but *

recognizes the presence of vital long-term interests of the United States involved. I t is our hope th at you will determine that the best course for the United States is to make possible a continued strong particip ation in UNESCO. This brief presentation can only bring you the barest outline of the 

factors in this determination, for the Jerusalem question has been a part of our world heritage for thousands of years. Whatever additional information and assistance we may provide for you we are ready 

to serve. I think perhaps the lesson we might learn from this experience is 

tha t the United States, instead of turnin g away, should do more to involve our American people in the quiet good works of the United Nations system, particula rly the educational, scientific, and cultural 

organization, UNESCO. The U.S. National Commission is most appreciative of th is opportunity to appe ar before you and I gratefully acknowledge your 

thou ghtful interest.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. F raser. Thank you very much, Mrs. Ginn.

Let me ask you, if I may, I will direct this to the whole panel, what is your understanding of the effect of the amendment as adopted by 

the Congress la st fall? You are familiar with the provisions?

Mrs. Gin n. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fraser. What do you understand its effect to be, both in terms 

of whether it affects voluntary or assessed contributions and what 

would be required in order t hat th e withholding of funds come to an 

end or not take effect ? »

Mrs. Ginn. Would either of you gentlemen care to answer?

Well, you must understand that I bring you a total curbstone opinion. I speak only as an individual who has read the amendments 

and in my opinion the effect is tha t the United States is refusing to pay •

its legally accepted assessment to UNE SCO and t ha t under the pres­ ent statement tha t exists in that amendment there is no money under that source or any other tha t can be used for UNESCO or anything 

related to UNESCO.

Mr. F raser. That prohibition would apply both to the assessed payment as well as the voluntary contribution ?

Mrs. Gin n. It is my understanding, sir. I don’t know tha t the re has 

been a legal opinion given by anybody on tha t but that is my 

understanding.

Mr. Fraser. I think I understood tha t our payment is due around 

April or sometime this spring.

Mrs. Ginn. Shortly, yes.

Mr. F raser. Shortly.

Mrs. Ginn. Yes.
61

Mr. F raser. There was a contingent provision. That is, it said until 

or unless the President makes a finding that UNESCO will stay within the charter, or something of that kind.

Mrs. Ginn . Yes.

Mr. F raser. What do you understand the practical effect of tha t to be ? What would the President have to find in practical terms in order 

to avoid the prohibition ?

Airs. Ginn. Well, it appears to me—and of course it is very difficult to empathize oneself into the position of the President—but he would be required to make a judgment on the actions of the General Con­ ference, which of course is a body which has adjourned, and he woidd be required to say that they had—I assume it was the understanding of the Congress th at different results to the specific resolutions which caused the problems would be placed in force, namely, in regard to the Jerusalem resolution, and this of course having been passed bv an autonomous body at the General Conference would be very difficult to do and very difficult for the President to ascertain tha t it had been 

done.

Mr. Fraser. In other words, your understanding is that the Presi­ dent in effect has to be able to report tha t these resolutions or actions 

have been rescinded or reversed ?

Mrs. Ginn. That is my understanding of it, sir. Or at least it may be tha t it says that positive steps have been taken to assure that 

UNESC O is doing thus and so.

ISIr. Fraser. So it might be prospective in nature, however. I t may 

not necessarily require revision or reconsideration of the action-----

Mrs. Ginn. Of course that would be a matter that the Congress would have to determine, what positive steps would mean insofar 

as their needs were concerned.

Mr. F raser. E xcept I think this is a Presidential determination, not 

one tha t Congress makes. I don’t mean to press you on it but I was just wondering what understanding you had of the effect of the language.

Mrs. Ginn . Well, the effect is pretty devastating.

Mr. Fraser. Are there ways to your knowledge in which assurance 

might be created that these kinds of actions won’t happen again? The Chief of the General Conference isn’t going to pass a resolution 

tha t it doesn’t like-----

Mrs. Ginn. Well, sir, in the democratic process you have to accept the decision of a majority in any kind of situation and I can't see any way tha t UNE SCO could determine that there might not be other resolutions on other subjects which might not be entirely to our liking , just as Ambassador Yost I am sure would have the same feeling about 

the General Assembly.

Mr. Fraser. Let me turn to the question here of the natu re of decisions by the UNESCO Conference. For example, with respect to the exclusion of South Africa from the last General Assembly, my impression is that there is a rather strong argument to be made tha t this exceeded the authority of the General Assembly under the charter; there was no proper legal basis for such an exclusion. So one can argue tha t the Assembly exceeded its powers and thereby puts the whole adherence to the rule of law’ at some risk.

48-8 90— 7!
62

Can it be argued that any of the actions of the UNESCO Conference 

exceeded their authority ?

Mrs. Gix x. I don't know th at you could say tha t they have exceeded 

their authority. They created a wedge between UNESCO and one of 

its member states and this, of course, is the greatest damage th at it does 

to the institution itself.

Mr. E raser. In other words, what you are saying is that what they 

did wasn't necessarily a violation of the provisions under which they 

operate, but rathe r tha t it reflected perhaps more of a political judgment on the part of members which is not presumably an appropriate 

consideration to come into force in UNESCO.

Am I close to the problem ?

Mrs. G ixx. Yes, tha t is pa rtially it, but you must remember that it 

was a cumulative attitude and if this resolution were out of bounds 

and were illegal, so were all of the others that have been passed since 

1967 upon which this one was based.

Mr. F raser. No. Well, I gath er from what you say you don’t think 

what they said was illegal but it may have been improvident in that 

it injected a political issue.

Mrs. Gixx. I agree. I cannot thin k it was illegal but it was 

improvident.

Mr. Fraser. Because it brought in political considerations which 

presumably are not a function of the UNESCO undertaking.

Mrs. Gixx. Correct.

Mr. Fraser. I wonder if the other witnesses would comment on this 

question. Is this comparable to the exclusion of South Africa?

Mr. Yost. I really haven’t studied the UNESCO action closely but 

my view from what I know about it would accord with yours. The 

UNESCO action was of somewhat a different character.

There was nothing illegal about it but it was unwise, unwise pr imarily to introduce political questions into this organization which 

is supposed to be nonpolitical dealing with quite different sorts of 

problems.

Mr. F raser. Mr. Leonard.

Mr. Leonard. I have not heard a suggestion anywhere tha t the 

UNESCO action was in a strict sense illegal, but rath er as Ambassador 

Yost said, improper in introducing elements which don’t belong in 

deliberations of that body.

Mr. Fraser. Well, how can the President give assurance tha t this 

won't happen again ?

Mr. Leoxard. I have not studied the amendment, the provision of 

law in anv detail. In fact. I don't think I have really read it verbatim. 

But it is my understanding that it is very, very difficult for the State 

Department and the President to find th at UNESCO is coming into 

compliance with the provisions laid down there in such a way that 

they can certify as the amendment requires.

Mr. Fraser. Finally, I have the impression th at the days when the 

plague was prevalent, when we have had other highly contagious 

diseases, that one of the remedies was to burn the houses down, but 

there was good reason for that.

My own impression is a little bit that the U.N. is more like a piece 

of chopping the head off the messenger who brings the bad news, that
63

the U.N. forum provides the place in which we get the bad news th at 

some of our policies don't seem to be well thought of in the world community and therefore we attack not th is problem but the organization 

which produces the opportunity for those views to be made public.

Mr. Yost. I would think that is very much the case, Mr. Chairman. 

As I see it, in regard to the disputed resolutions, it wasn't really the 

U.N. that was acting in a particular way. Tt was 90 or 100 or whatever 

number of governments expressing a view which we happen to strongly 

disagree with. It was the ir view. The fact th at it was reflected in the 

U.N. doesn't change the situation on the ground.

Mr. Fraser. If we destroy tha t United Nations, does that give us 

assurance that we will have altered the views of the nations that don’t 

seem to agree with our views ?

Mr. Yost. Not at all, and they would no doubt behave as they see 

fit-----

Mr. Rosenthal. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. Chairman, by way of being the devil’s advocate, i f you eliminated the forum, then those views would not get the public attention 

tha t they get under the auspices of the U.N. In other words, these views 

are amplified to a grea ter degree than if they were unilaterally proclaimed by any one nation.

Mr. Yost. This is certainly true, Congressman; no question about it. 

But I think one can argue that if there is a situation in a particular 

area which we may dislike intensely, but it nevertheless is a situation 

which we must take into account, there is no particular reason why 

we should mind it being widely publicized.

Mr. Rosenthal. Let me give an example. When you get the picture, 

eithe r on television o r in newspapers, of A raf at approaching the dais 

and the cheering Delegates, you have institutionalized something. If 

you didn’t have tha t meeting room, th at kind of picture couldn’t be 

telegraphed around the world. You would have individual countries 

expressing their views, but when they gathered together, there was a 

particu lar expression of those views.

Mr. Y ost. Well, th at is certainly true, but I merely-----

Mr. Rosenthal. Of all the legislative bodies I have ever seen anywhere, either in this country or elsewhere, I have never seen a scene of 

that type visually expressed to hundreds of millions of people around 

the world.

We have our moments in the House of Representatives tha t one 

might look with askance at, but I can honestly tell you, in all the years 

I have been here—about 13—I have never seen that kind of a hooting, 

hollering, hysteria over tha t kind of an event.

Mr. Yost. Well, it is true, but tha t does reflect a strong emotion, 

which, as I sav, we disagree with-----

Mr. R osenthal. It is emotion multiplied by the conglomeration. In 

other words, in trying to understand why people are critical of the 

United Nations is tha t it brings together those who want an opportunity to be physically together in one view in which their views are 

amplified and given much greater expression than if they were individually expressed bv a foreign minister in a home country somewhere.

Mr. Y ost. Well, of course, these groups would be meeting in na rrower forums, such as Rabat, for example, in any case. They would get 

as you say less publicity but the same views would be expressed.
64

Mr. Rosenthal. A lso, their views get a certa in serio usness of purpose by being in that b uil din g a nd th at cha mb er, a cha mb er for which 

we have had gr ea t respect.

Mr. Y ost. I th ink, as I re ma rke d i n m y stat em en t, M r. Con gressm an, 

even the asse mbly—which I emp hasize is no t a leg islative body in t he 

sense of pass ing legisla tion , it merely m ake s rec om mendatio n—is useful 

in the sense th at it does enable us to regi ster w ha t the opinions of th e 

mem ber governm ents are. Fr om tim e to tim e we will find ourselves 

in stro ng disa gre em ent with them ju st as others do, b ut at leas t we know 

wh at the y are.

As Da g Ha mmarsk jold used to say , it is the wo rld as it is wh eth er 

you like it or not.

Mr. Wolff. W ould the g entle ma n yie ld?

Mr. F raser. Could we ]ust pe rh ap s have fu rt her response , if any , 

to Mr. Ro senthal’s questio n? Mr. Gi lm an has to leave an d he wa nte d 

to g et a question in.

Mr. Wolff. I ju st wanted to ask a que stio n of Am bassa dor Yost 

abo ut mem ber governments.

W ha t govern me nt d id Mr. A ra fa t r ep resent ?

Mr. Y ost. No, n o ; I was speaking of the members of the Gener al 

Assembly, not of Mr. A ra fa t.

Mr. Wolff. I am s orry.

Th an k you.

Mr. F raser. M r. Leonard .

Mr. Leonard. I don’t wa nt to take Mr. Gi lm an ’s time, bu t I wou ld 

like to make a fu rt her c omm ent on wha t Mr. Rosen tha l said.

He has a v alid p oin t in t hat the re are ways in which the whole s truc ­

ture o f the o rgan ization works in a negativ e fas hio n, n egati ve w ith r espect to wh ate ver reas ona ble objectives we, or oth ers, might po sit as 

bein g the reason s fo r ha vin g a wo rld str uc tur e. I could cite ma ny 

more examples, an d Am bassador Yo st could, fro m ou r own experience 

in the 1 .X.. where the pro ced ures sim ply do not serve pos itiv e objectives, but overa ll it is very much in ou r inter est to have t hi s stru ctur e 

more o r less as it is. Th ere fore we sim ply have to, in ou r mind, accept 

thes e specific losses in certa in are as fo r the sake of ha ving t he o verall 

str uc ture th at does serve o ur interest .

I t hi nk th at in time cha nge s can be made an d ref orms can be br ou gh t 

abou t. Bu t I th in k we should recognize th at those ref orms cann ot be 

bro ught abo ut at this mom ent because o f the pa rtic ul ar n atur e of the 

situ ation. We ourselves, the Wester n c ountries, set up the st ru ctur e that 

is the re and we lai d down the rules, mo del ing the m pre tty mu ch on 

our own pa rliam en tary pro ced ure s, an d now, when the y hav e begun 

to work in a way we and oth ers see as ag ains t ou r int ere st, is no t the 

moment to suggest th at those be alt ered in any very radical or impo rtan t w ay.

T t hi nk th at m omen t will come a nd we can th en, in an a tmosphere of 

con ciliatio n, wo rk out bette r pro cedures and be tte r ways o f doing the 

things th at are done there. But I am af ra id fo r the mom ent, we ju st 

hav e to sort o f duck our heads while the sto rm goes on.

Mr. F raser. Air. Gilman.

Air. Gilman. Th an k you. Air. Ch airm an . I appreciat e the op po rtunity of being called out of or der .
65

Mr. Fraser. You are in order.

Mr. Gilman. I regret that this hearing conies at a time when we 

have such an important issue on the floor and all of our time is limited today. This subject is important to us, and most of our constituents, and the validity of our continuation of our Nation’s role in the 

U.N. For th at reason, I think it is important that we explore some of 

these issues with you. With relation to the UNESCO resolution, can I ask what sort of 

an investigation was conducted by the UNESCO with regard to the 

charges leveled against Israel concerning the archeological diggings ?

Mrs. Ginn. The Director General appointed an expert, highly respected, archeologist who went to Israel and made a very careful and 

thorough investigation of the situation as he found it, and he reported 

tha t to the Director General and the Director General gave a special 

report to us in the Cultural Commission on the findings of the gentleman’s report.

Mr. Gilman. And who was the investigator ?

Mrs. Ginn. I cannot give you his name. I am sorry.

Mr. Gilman. Is that Professor Lemaire ?

Mrs. Ginn . Y es.

Mr. Gilman. Has that report been made public at all ?

Mrs. Ginn. There was a limited report tha t was available to us at 

the Conference.

Mr. Gilman. I understand th at the Lemaire report was a very fa vorable report to what Israel was doing.

Mrs. Ginn. I didn’t feel that it was unfavorable. I felt tha t there 

were some areas where he felt that they might have done some things 

differently and maybe with a little bit more care, but overall, it was 

a very fair presenlation of what he had found.

Mr. Gilman. You have read the rep ort?

Mrs. Ginn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Gilman. Based upon the report, did you feel tha t there was substance to the charges that were being leveled by UNESCO ?

Mrs. Ginn. I did n't get tha t feeling from it. It seemed to me like 

they are doing, under iiie circumstances, as well as they could, and I 

didn't have any feeling that the repo rt condemned Israel. It didn't 

praise nor did it condemn.

Mr. Gilman. And how many members voted on the UNESCO 

resolution?

Mrs. Ginn. It was not a majority. I think I gave you th at figure in 

the statement. That was 59 yes, 34 no, and 24 abstained, so you see the 

action was not really a ma jority vote.

Mr. Gilman. Thank you.

Mr. Rosenthal. When you said you couldn’t give the name of the 

author of the report-----

Mrs. Ginn. Mr. Gilman, excuse me, sir.

I want to be sure th at I have made a correct statement. The report, 

the Lemaire report which I read, was the summary. It was not the 

whole report.

Mr. Gtlman. Has anyone on the Commission seen the whole report ?

Mrs. Ginn. To my knowledge; no.

Mr. Gilman. Why is that being withheld ?
66

Mrs. Ginn. It was the position of the Director General, and what 

his reasons were for withholding it. I do not know.

Mr. Gilman. Is that available to members of this body?

Mrs. Ginn. T don't know that it would be.

Mr. Gilman. Gould you make a request for it ?

Mrs. Ginn. Yes. sir.

Mr. Gilman. And if it is available, would you submit it to us?

Mrs. Ginn . I would.

Mr. Gilman. Th ank you.

Mr. Chairman, without objection, if that report could be made part 

of our hearing.

Mr. Fraser. Tf T understand Mrs. Ginn ’s statement it was tha t the 

report did not appear to condemn Israel.

Mrs. Ginn. T didn’t have the feeling tha t it did. Now this is the 

summary report of the visit which I read.

Mr. Gilman. And tha t is UNE SCO 's investigator tha t was sent 

to Israel, an archeologist?

Mrs. Ginn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fraser. With out objection, we will incorporate it into the 

record.*

Mrs. Meyner.

Mrs. Meynf.r. I would like to thank our panelists for a very fine 

presentation and I would like to move maybe into a broader aspect 

of this and ask you what concrete measures you think can be unde rtaken in the United Nations or what concrete measures the United 

States can take within the United Nations to remove recent irritants .

Tha t is a tough one, I know, and a broad question, but I think it is 

an important one.

Mr. Yost. Well, I did mention briefly in passing that I thought 

there was beginning to develop an inclination both among the developed and developing countries to try a little harder to avoid confrontation and to work out consensus on at least some of these controversial 

matters. I would expect that to be a slow process and I wouldn’t at 

all expect that it would avoid furthe r irritants of this kind from 

time to time.

I think, as someone said, the General Assembly is a political body 

and you can expect them to act politically, but there is a recognition 

that if the U.N. is to be effective this must not be overdone. I think 

we will find among many of the more responsible people on both 

sides more of an effort to reach agreement behind the scenes in private 

discussions before resolutions are brought out and put to a vote.

Now we have got to show the same willingness, of course, and not 

follow the practice we have so often in the past of mobilizing support 

and ramming through resolutions we like over the bodies of minorities tha t object strongly. It has got to be a two-way street. But that, 

I think, is the general line tha t one should try and follow.

But I do repeat th at the more impo rtant areas for constructive work 

are not at the General Assembly but the Security Council, on the one 

hand, and the whole range of economic bodies on the other.

Th e office o f th e U.S. N at io na l Co mm iss ion fo r UN ESCO su bs eq ue nt ly info rm ed th e su bco m m itt ee th a t th e re port re fe rred to is un av ai la ble . Ho we ve r, a st ate m ent bv th e D ir ec to r 

Gen eral on Is ra el's par ti ci pat io n in UN ES CO ap pea rs in th e ap pe nd ix on p. 101.
67

Mrs. Meyner. Thank you.

Mrs. Ginn. May I offer a postscript? .

From where I sit the first thing tha t we can do is to stay there. 

That is the first thing tha t we can do t hat will make a contribution 

to solving the problem. I f we leave we have no way to work on beha lf 

of our own interests and our allies. Second, we need to offer strong positions of program leadership 

because if there was one message t hat came to us in the General Conference it was, they would welcome strong leadership in ideas and 

positions from the United States. I think that, if you don't mind, sir, tha t tha t is the crux of the 

matter to me.

Mr. Yost. Yes. .

May I, Mr. Chairman, say amen to that? I thin k the fact is tha t 

during the first 15 or maybe 20 years of IT.X. existence the United 

States adopted a very positive attitude of leadership. While we failed 

in some cases, on the w hole the 1 T.N. was quite an effective organization.

I think our supp ort and leadership has somewhat slackened in 

recent years and what we see there is partly a consequence of that.

Mrs. Meyner. Thank you.

Mr. I Leonard. If I could just add to that a quote from a speech 

Ambassador Scali made the other day. He sa id : “Even the most 

vigorous and imaginative efforts cannot insure success. But a halfhearted America can insure defeat.” It is my feeling tha t what we 

have had really is a half-hearted participation in the United Nations 

and in a whole series of United Nations bodies, and t hat is just a sure 

prescription for our coming out badly in the overall process, and my urging would be exactly parallel to that of my two colleagues here, 

tha t we go into it with a very positive approach here; tha t we give 

it the best leadership that we possibly can in a positive spirit.

Mr. F raser. Congressman Rosenthal.

Mr. Rosenthal. Ambassador Yost, when and how did our leadership slacken?

Mr. Y ost. Well, my impression is that it slackened slowly throug h 

the middle and latter sixties for a number of reasons.

In the first place, there was a great deal of criticism in United Nations’ bodies about our participation in Vietnam. This annoyed, 

angered, many of our leaders at the time and caused them to depreciate 

the U.N. and tend to do less U.S. business through the U.N. and more 

outside it.

Then, of course, the fact we did lose our easy majorities there 

with this great influx of new states from Africa and Asia which 

created a new majority meant tha t w’e had to work a lot harder. We 

didn't win as consistently as we had in the past, and that discouraged 

and upset other people.

Mr. R osenthal. Tell me in specific terms, taking into account these 

historical facts and trends, how do you correct it as of today?

You are the President of the United States. Wh at do you do, A,

b, c, n?

Mr. Yost. I n general I would instru ct the Secretary of State and 

others concerned with international affairs tha t, rather than commencing to cope with a given problem bilaterally or in some small
68

group of our close friends, in each case he should first see whether 

there is not some United Nations agency tha t might be in a position 

to deal with it. If there is, in the first instance deal throu gh tha t 

agency, whether it be the Security Council or Economic Social Council or one of the economic agencies or whatnot. Only if tha t agency 

proves to be ineffective, or if there isn’t any appropriate agency for 

dealing with tha t particular problem, such as an agreement on strategic arms, should one commence with a bilateral approach.

Now, I say th is is in general because obviously there have to be all 

sorts of exceptions.

Mr. Rosenthal. Could you give me an example where tha t wasn’t 

done and could have been done and might have made a difference ?

Mr. Yost. I think myself tha t we missed an opportunity at the 

Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly last year which was 

originally summoned to deal with the oil problem but was expanded 

to include development problems generally.

Our approach was that we must first create unity among consumers 

before we face the producers in a general dialog. Well, a whole year 

has gone by and the dialog hasn’t happened yet. We are still talking 

about it. I hope it will take place before long.

Mr. Rosenthal. And you disagree with that policy ?

Mr. Yost. Yes. My belief is that had we gone into this special session 

with determination to try to work out something between producers 

and consumers of oil and perhaps other commodities as well, obviously 

we wouldn’t have accomplished very much in those few weeks but we 

would have gotten a dialog started in a large r forum. This might have 

avoided a good many of the confrontations tha t have subsequently 

taken place. We might be now a year later, nearly a year later, with 

a common program worked out. I hope we may have such a program 

at the end of this year, but much later than we otherwise might have.

So that is one concrete example.

Mr. Rosenthal. I am just trying to thin k what the Secretary of 

State’s response would b e; probably, tha t he is having enough difficulty getting the consuming nations to agree on a program, not to 

speak of 113 nations.

Mr. Yost. I know. It is a m atter o f tactics and style and I happen 

to think that by concentrating exclusively on getting our friends to 

agree and failing to bring in the o ther side we have built up an atmosphere of confrontation which is unnecessary and which makes the 

solution of the problem more difficult.

Mr. Rosenthal. Have our bilateral relations deteriorated with, for 

example, Africa and other Third World areas and countries with 

the net effect t ha t it is more difficult for us to operate in the United 

Nations?

Mr. Y ost. As I did remark in my statement, and I think my colleagues here made the same point, we have taken less account than 

we should have in recent years of the economic needs of the developing 

countries both in regard to aid programs and in regard to trade 

arrangements, and perhaps in regard to treatm ent of multinational 

corporations. This has built up a feeling of some resentment against the 

United States which has overcome the almost universal feeling some 

years ago that we were very generous and understanding.
69

Mr. R osenthal. Wh at I am really trying to g et at is can you win 

friends and influence people in the United Nations by improving bilateral relations? For example, if you increase your economic and 

political activity in Africa, for example, would tha t create a more 

favorable climate in the voting operation in th e United Nations?

Mr. Y ost. It certainly would. You can’t expect a one-for-one response and if you tr y to tie the two together too obviously you would 

increase resentment. B ut in fact if you are following economic policies 

that the African countries felt were more forthcoming and more understanding and more helpful, this would affect their entire attitude 

toward us.

Mr. Rosenthal. And yet on another scenario, Israel had done a 

great deal in some countries in Africa in terms of technical assistance— 

in Uganda for example—and that d idn’t do much good afte r the tide 

started to turn against them in the United Nations.

Mr. Yost. Yes. There, of course, are emotional political issues involved there. As soon as anyone is able to get themselves labeled a 

liberation movement it creates an automatically favorable response 

from most Africans. They of course are most concerned with liberation movements in southern Africa, but they tend to associate them 

all in their minds.

Mr. Rosenthal. That is what I am actually getting at.

For example, can any OAU vote with us when the liberation trend 

is going the other way ?

Mr. Yost. Well, maybe not. On some issues I would doubt that they 

could. Our influence might well reach so far as to induce them to moderate their expressions and cause them to change their minds.

Mr. Rosenthal. You mean vote, but not cheer?

Mr. Yost. Maybe avoid a vote in some cases.

Mr. Rosenthal. Is it now not sort of the automatic thing to do for 

Third World countries to automatically vote against the United 

States?

Mr. Yost. Well, no. I think th at would be an exaggeration.

I have also pointed out in my statement that even in this last Assembly we were able to get majorities on two very sensitive and critical issiies: Cambodia and Korea. Obviously, a good many Third World 

countries had to vote on our side tha t way.

Mr. Rosenthal. I am curious. Why do you think they did that?

Mr. Yost. A certain number of them thought their own interests 

coincided more or less with ours.

Mr. Rosenthal. You mean there are floating coalitions tha t we 

could develop and if we had better bilateral relations we could take 

advantage of these floating coalitions as they develop?

Mr. Yost. The less developed countries vote as a block only on a relatively small number o f issues. They happen to be issues that they are 

deeply concerned with but they are a relatively small number.

Mr. Rosenthal. Do any of them vote because they feel they have to 

fo r domestic political reasons?

Mr. Yost. Sure It stems in some cases from a fairly long-standing 

resentment about these economic problems. I don’t think in most 

cases there is any strong political feeling against the United States.
70

Mr. Rosenthal. You see, because in Africa, for example, we had 

clean hands. We had not been one of the colonial powers such as 

France, Great Britain, or Belgium.

Mr. Yost. But while we have voted in general for many of the 

resolutions in regard to southern African problems tha t they feel 

so intensively about, until the recent change of government in Portu ­

gal there has been very little effect of any of those resolutions. There 

still is practically no effect as fa r as South Africa and even Rhodesia 

is concerned.

So, they don’t feel tha t we have gone anywhere nearly as far with 

them as they would like us to.

Now, we have very good reasons for not wishing to go that far. 

Nevertheless, tha t is a basic difference of interest.

Mr. Rosenthal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser. Mr. Wolff.

Mr. Wolff. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I have been reading the statements that were made prior to my 

coming in and I notice on this UNE SCO resolution on Jerusalem it 

says “The resolution originated within Commission ITT of the General 

Conference on UNESC O’s cultural programs relating in particular 

to the preservation of historical and cultural monuments.”

I wonder whether or not there were any resolutions or anything 

like that that the United States interposed prior to tha t meeting in 

1967 so far as Jerusalem is concerned. Would you know tha t?

Mrs. Gin n. Sir. m y involvement only has a history of 4 years, so 

it won’t go back far enough and I cannot tell you what the United 

States did in regard to the resolutions th at were offered from 1967 on.

Mr. Wolff. What T am getting at is. Were there any resolutions 

for the desecration of historical monuments in Jerusalem p rior to the 

situation as it exists today? As I understand it, there was quite a bit 

of desecration that took place prior to 1967. I am just wondering 

whether there were any resolutions. Maybe other members of the 

panel could comment.

Mr. Y ost. I am afraid I don’t know. I have not heard of any.

Mr. Wolff. We do know—in fact, T was in Jerusalem prio r to 1967 

and T found a great amount of desecration tak ing place on monuments 

that had great historical and religious significance, but there never 

seemed to be any finger pointed a t the perpetrators and T was wondering whether the United States had injected itself at th at time o r not?

T wilj pass that and go on to another point. Do you know whether the 

People’s Republic of China is in any of the ancillary organizations of 

the United Nations?

Mrs. Ginn. Yes, UNESCO.

Mr. Wolff. H ow about the World Health Organization? I understand that they were dismissed from the World Health Organization.

Afr. Yost. T don’t know the exact score now. They have been dropped 

from most of the U.N. organizations following the action of the General Assembly a few years ago.

Mr. Wolff. As T understand it. the General Assembly recognized the 

People’s Republic as a member. Does that mean all of the other organizations that surround the United Nations have dropped the Republic 

of China ?
71

Mr. Yost. It doesn't necessarily, but it obviously has a strong effect.

Most of them have followed the example of the General Assembly. 

Mr. Wolff. What would the panel's recommendation be on that, the

idea of the Republic of China's representation in organizations like 

the World Health Organization?

Mr. Yost. As 1 think you know, Congressman, the People's Republic 

«• of China has taken the position, rightly or wrongly, that they won't

sit in an organization with what they call the representatives of 

Taiwan.

Mr. Wolff. Suppose some organizations decide they wouldn't sit 

» with the United States?

Mr. Yost. Yes, I know. I am not defending that position. I am just 

saying it is th eir position. A fter many years of refusing to accept th at 

position the United Nations—first General Assembly with U.S. support ultimately-----

Mr. Wolff. What I am getting at is the fact that we do find political 

considerations are entering not only this situation but others as well 

with the ancillary organizations of the United Nations.

I think this is one of the areas tha t troubles those of us who have 

been supportive of the United Nations and its organizations; it is what 

some of us take exception to at the present time.

Mr. Yost. There was a feeling tha t grew over the years t hat while 

many might have wished both Peking and Taiwan to be represented, 

if tha t wasn't possible, if it had to be one or the other, it was far better 

to have the one that represented 800 million people ra ther than the one 

that represented 13 million.

Mr. Wolff. But that is in conflict with the rules of the United 

Nations.

Now, if we were going to take people and put them outside of the 

aegis of the United Nations which is similar to what happened to 

South Africa—and I don’t hold any belief for the political ideas, the 

apartheid policies of South Africa, but I find that the exclusion of any 

nation from the U.N. or attached to the United Nations is basically 

» against the purposes of those organizations.

Mr. Yost. Well, I would agree with vou, but of course the Chinese 

situation is peculiar in tha t the two (jrovernments each claim to be 

representing China as a whole.

a Mr. Wolff. T hat is true of North and South Ko rea ; that is true of

North and South Vietnam.

Mr. Bingham. No, it is not.

Mr. Yost. If the Nationalist Chinese claimed to be a separate country, then the situation might have been different, but they too claim 

that they are a part of China.

Mr. Wolff. I would like to get to one or two other points here. You 

did talk about the question of bilateral agreements being secondary 

really to trying a multilateral approach.

T wonder what success the United Nations has had with the question 

of Turkey and narcotics abuse and the question of the growing of 

opium ?

Mr. Yost. I am not sure tha t anybody has had much success with 

that. M e, in the United States, had a temporary success and then it 

backfired which I think rather emphasizes the dangers of the bilateral approach.
Mr. Wolff. But there was no real effort by the U.N. then?

Mr. Yost. I t ended by damaging our relations with Turkey rather 

senouslv.

Mr. Wolff. But was there any effort by the United Nations? By UNESCO, as pa rt of its charter,*the Agency of D rug Abuse Control, did U NESCO take any role in attemp ting to influence the situation in

Turkey? . , .

Mrs. Ginn . No. Our interest was in the educational area and the con­ cern of the young people who were abroad who had problems and how 

we could help in that kind of a situation.

Mr. Yost. The United Nations does have a narcotics program. I am not familiar with just what they did vis-a-vis the Turkish opium pro­ a-ram. I am sure they were concerned with it and just what kind of measures they took, frankly I don t know. Bu t I think often there is much to be said for handling a highly controversial and sensitive prob­ lem by veiling it in a multilateral framework rath er than tryi ng to

deal with it bilaterally. .

Mr. Wolff. As I understand, we have been trying to get the People s 

Republic of China interested in the problem. They are now a member of the United Nations and they have refused to participate. I unde r­ stand that we have also been tr yin g to get the Soviet Union involved in the whole question of international narcotics control and they have 

not joined the effort. So th at the fact is th at maybe sometimes these multilateral efforts, even with those countries who are very vitally concerned—there has been a great amount of ta lk that the People’s Republic of China have participated in an international traffic, and yet no one has ever been able to prove tha t they have participated in the traffic—but it would seem that i f any nation wants to be part of the community of nations tha t they would participate in the solution of worldwide problems, 

and international narcotics control is one of them. One fu rther element. The Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission has been quite active in a variety of areas. Are any of you familiar with any efforts of the Human Rights Commission so 

far as Northern Ireland is concerned?

[No response.]

Mr. Wolff. Well, it seems to me I have just mentioned three or 

four problems here that are situations-----

Mr. F raser. If the gentleman will yield, the subcommittee. I think, 

is making a recommendation for a study on Northern Ireland.

Mr. W olff. Well, I have not heard of it and tha t is why I asked 

the question.

Mr. Yost. I might say in general, Mr. Congressman, th at we have 

tried very hard many times, among others when I was at the U.N., to strengthen the U.N. capability to deal with human rights problems, for example to get them to appoint a Commission of Human Rights who would have some investigatory powers. But we were unable to 

do so. This is an extraordinarily sensitive issue because it is considered to affect domestic jurisdiction and national sovereignty and so on. How sensitive it is is shown by the U.S. failure to ratify a whole series of 

human rights conventions.
73

Mr. Wolff. Wha t I am leading to is the fact t ha t there are many 

important questions that have not been addressed by the United Nations and, therefore, 1 .feel that there is a very serious dereliction on the 

part of the U.N. and its organizations tha t I believe should be addressed in the question of human rights.

As I understand it when Amnesty Internationa l, which was accredited throu gh the U.N. made a statement to the effect tha t there 

were some 60 nations that were engaged in acts of torture against 

their own citizens tha t the accreditation to the U.N. was dropped.

Now, it seems to me that tha t type of situation cannot go unnoticed. 

I for one strongly believe in the United Nations but I would like to 

see it strengthened and I would like to see it address itself to the problems tha t exist in today's world ra ther than just the selected issues to 

which it seems to be addressing itself tha t are perhaps important to 

some of the nations tha t are involved. On a worldwide situation what 

can be more basic to the problems of the entire world than the question 

of human rights ?

Mr. Yost. I agree with you entirely, Congressman. I feel very 

strongly on tha t subject. But I do think we have to recognize that, 

just because people do feel so strongly that it is a m atter within their 

domestic jurisdiction, they are reluctant to have outsiders get involved 

in it. We are as intransigent as anybody else.

Mr. Wolff. Let’s get to one other point you alluded to, to the fact 

we are unhappy because the United Nations does not accept our 

positions.

Well, if you take something tha t goes far beyond our position, the 

question of international terrorism, skyjacking, and the like, here is a 

point where the Un ited Nations have failed to take any position a t all. 

This affects the world community. It doesn't affect an individual 

nation or individual state ?

I feel again tha t here there has been a dereliction on the pa rt of the 

United Nations and until such time as the United Nations directs its 

attention to these very pressing problems I am changing my position 

vis-a-vis the United Nations. Unless there are reforms initiated, I 

question how strong our support should be. There is even talk in 

some quarters of withdrawal from the General Assembly, but keeping 

our seat in the Security Council.

Whether or not this is the answer, no one can say. The important 

element to my mind is th at we do stay within the United Nations because we can probably exercise much more in the way of strength if 

we are within that body than if we are without it.

Mr. Yost. I surely agree. Mr. Congressman. I think Nlrs. Ginn made 

that point very well. We can’t improve the U.N. if we are not there, 

and we need to improve it. We need to be there and work in all its 

programs. We know it is an organization with limited capabilities. It 

is far from being as strong as I would like to see it.

T hope that it can be strengthened gradually if we and others provide the leadership and resources.

Mr. Leonard. Could I, Mr. Chairman, make a point on one point 

that Mr. Wolff brought out ? This question of human rights I certainly 

agree is one upon which a great deal more ought to be done thro ugh 

the U.N. than is. I think it is one in which there is now developing a

48 -8 90 — 75 0
74

receptivity toward initiatives in this area. I think it is one tha t leadership has to be {riven on.

Actions on this area will not arise spontaneously out of the normal 

procedures of the 1 nited Nations. It has to be given leadership, preferably by an important country such as the United States, and I was 

very pleased last fall when I saw in the Secretary of State's address 

to the U.N. tha t we were going to take an initiative in the field of 

torture, which is one of the real blots on humanity today. But to the 

best of my knowledge this initiative has not yet come forward.

I thin k within this area of human rights this subcommittee has in 

fact done very laudable work and I would hope that this would be 

followed up and that this subcommittee would work with the Executive and try to develop ways in which the United States can take 

initiatives in the United Nations of a character that has a chance of 

having some success, in a generally improved atmosphere, generally 

improved receptivity toward this whole question and in this fashion 

change the deplorable situation.

Mr. F raser. I might sav. Mr. Leonard, we have some hope th at the 

U.S. position at the meeting of the Commission in Geneva is going to 

be stronger than it has been in the past. We will find out soon.

Mi1

. Bingham.

Mr. Bingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On this matter of human rights, I agree with what you gentlemen 

have said about the importance of strengthening the United Nations’ 

role in this field. But we should recognize that one reason that the 

U.N. has not gone faster, far the r is because we would have been very 

upset if the U.N. had started to inquire into violations of human rights 

in the United States. Lord knows we have plenty of them.

I wanted to focus, if I might, on the UNESC O matter. I read 

your statement, Mrs. Ginn, with great interest and also the resolution 

of the U.S. National Commission to UNESCO which I must say I 

had not seen before and I am most interested in the strong language 

that was used in that resolution to deplore and condemn the actions 

that were taken at the UNESCO General Conference.

I was also interested to see that Ambassador Leonard in his statement characterizes those actions as clearly unwise and designed to 

punish Israel, so I don't think we are in any disagreement about the 

character of those actions—that they were politically motivated, and 

that they were most unwise and deplorable.

The only disagreement I suppose between us is as to what should be 

done about it. I notice that also in the National Commission's resolution you urged the U.S. Government to exert every effort to nullify 

the deleterious effects of the resolution by, among other things, seeking 

Israel’s immediate admission as a member of the European group and 

restoration of all UNESCO assistance to Israel.

I might say if that were done and UNESCO took that position, I 

have no doubt that tha t would put an end to the cutoff of funds that 

was voted by the Congress last year. The wording of th at paragraph, 

by the w ay is :

A cutoff of funds until the President certifies to the Congress that such 

organization, one, has adopted policies which are fully consistent with its 

educational, scientific, and cultural objectives and, two, has taken concrete steps 

to correct its recent actions of a primary political character.
75

We have not asked for anything different than the National Commission is asking for. So it really comes down to the question of 

whether corrective action will be taken by measures short of the 

extreme sanction of a cutoff of funds.

I think that is where our difference lies. T am delighted to see th at 

the National Commission has gone as far as it has.

The question here, I think, has been somewhat off the mark because 

there was a suggestion tha t you were not critical of what UNESCO 

had done and you are critical.

Mrs. Ginn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bingham. So it is just a matter of what is the best way to cope 

with it, and my question I suppose would be this: In view of the kind 

of drastic action which the Congress has taken, what reason would 

you have to suppose that the UNESCO Conference would net more 

wisely in the future given the fact tha t most of the members are 

anti-Israel.

Mrs. Ginn. Well, I would call to your attention in the statement of 

Israel by the new Director General in which he says—and I will read 

to you what he said so you will know what the new leadership of 

UNESCO believes about it.

F o r m.v own p art , as I had occasio n to sa y a t th e 18 th session of th e Gen eral 

Co nferen ce . I th in k th a t in an or ga niz at io n de vo ted to ed uc at io n, scienc e an d 

cu ltur e, we m us t av oid th os e co nflic ts wh ich ta ke on th e ch ara cte r of sy st em at ic 

co nf ro nta tion s. We sh ou ld perh ap s also av oid th e ad op tion of re so lutio ns , even 

w ith la rg e m aj or itie s, th a t co uld re su lt in deep bit te rn ess in cert ain quart ers . 

T he Go lde n Rul e fo r an as so ci at io n such as UN ES CO sh ou ld al w ay s be th e 

se ar ch fo r a co ns en su s th ro ugh pati ent an d open d ial og ue .

This, sir, represents the new leadership of UNESCO and a gentleman with a philosophy of this kind, 1 feel, sure will make every effort 

to see that such does not occur.

Mr. Bingiiam. Well, I applaud that statement, too, and I think it is 

fine, but that is not the statement of the General Conference.

Mrs. Ginn . This is true, but this is the statement of the gentleman 

who has assumed leadership at the close of this General Conference 

and whose leadership and activity of course cannot really be reflected 

until the next General Conference which will occur in 1976.

Mr. Bingham. Well, if his influence can be put in that direction 

effectively then I think actions will be taken that would make it possible for the President to certify that the necessary conditions have 

been met. and funding of UNESCO could continue.

Mrs. Ginn . May I suggest, though, tha t in the interim that the 

TTiited States has lost its opportunity to offer the positive strong 

leadership which Congressman Wolff has so ablv suggested and for 

which he has given us such good ideas; and we have lost the opportun ity to continue our bilateral contracts. We have lost the residue of 

good will because we have failed in our legal obligations in T7NESCO 

in failing to pay our assessment: and it simply lets the United States 

stand in a position of no leadership at all. which is the one thing which 

I believe we have all agreed th at we should not do unless we are carrying our share of the load.

Unless we are working to restore this and change the situation, why, 

it just takes us that much longer to achieve the goals which you and I 

both want.
76

Mr. Bingham. You say these resolutions directed at Israel have 

been going on for some time. I presume the United States has been 

doing what it could in a quiet way to correct the situation but those 

efforts were not successful; were they ?

Mrs. Ginn . Apparently not.

Mr. Bingham. Ambassador Leonard ?

Mr. Leonard. Mr. Bingham, it seems to me tha t this problem of 

T NESCO ought to be looked at in the large r context, the whole problem of moving toward peace in the Middle East; and that the unwise 

action that was taken arises out of the sense of frustration because of 

the feeling that adequate progress is not being made. Tf progress can 

begin to be made or resumed toward peace in the Middle East, which 

we all pray to God for a lot of reasons of a very much weightier character than even those involved in the UNESCO operation, then I think 

this sense of frustratio n will be in a considerable degree dealt with and 

the kind of problem encountered repeatedly here is much less likely 

to come up.

Mr. Bingham. T certainly agree with that. More broadly, I think 

this problem in the Middle East is the cause of most of the criticism 

that attaches to the United Nations itself today. There is so much 

bitterness and a total lack of balance in the approach toward Israel. 

A great majority of the members of the U.N. are either actively or 

passively anti-Israel today.

Once th at problem can be solved I think a great many of the other 

problems tha t have been plaguing the United Nations will also be 

solved. But I don’t believe that we can wait on tha t eventuality, happy 

as it would be. to try to do something about the UNESCO matter 

which does seem to be in a peculiar category. There, the organization, I 

think, by the agreement of most observers has gotten out of its sphere.

The U.N. is a political organ ization; TTNESCO is not supposd to be. 

The feeling I think in the Congress was that unless strong action were 

taken to register the fact the United States simply won’t stand for this 

type of political action, that there would be no improvement. Now, 

that is a ma tter of judgment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser. I don’t know exactly what case it is, but yesterday one 

of the witnesses. T believe Dr. Evans, indicated that there is some 

general rule that excavations of the kind going on in Jerusalem are apparen tly prohibited under some international conventions.

Did tha t factor come up ?

Mrs. Ginn. Isn't there a Hague convention tha t places the responsibility on the United Nations for guarding against changes in land as a 

result of war. and I believe UNE SCO is the Secretariat that is responsible for that, and it was under tha t kind of an area tha t they 

moved into this discussion in the first place.

There is a convention and I cannot give you the exact wording for it.

Mr. F raser. We probably ought to get the convention fo r the record 

and put it in. Obviously it is a part of the kevs.

Mr. Wolff.

Mr. Wolff. That poses another question, the question of lands taken 

by war.
77

Has UNESCO taken a position against any of the Soviet lands tha t 

are occupied and the change of some of those lands tha t have lieen 

occupied by war ?

Mrs. Ginn. That, sir, I am not competent to answer.

Mr. Wolff. I take it there are certain changes th at have taken place 

there, too, as I understand it, as well as in the question of some ac­ tivities that have been taken by Turkey with relationship to minority 

Armenian groups here. But the other point I would like to bring up is I don't share the belief of my colleague who said tha t the prim ary problem that we do- find is dissatisfaction with the United Nations solely because of the Middle East. I think there are other areas th at certainly are in contest now and the Middle East is one that has been brought to the fore. But since the point was made, are you familiar with some type of educational material of the U.N. tha t was circulated in some of the 

Arab lands of recent years ?

Mrs. Ginn. No.

Mr. Wolff. I would suggest that on that basis—and I am not tr yin g 

to put you in an adversary position—but I think it would be wise to 

examine some of the type of literature that had been sponsored bv 

UNESCO th at was circulated throughout the Arab lands exacerbating 

the problems of the Middle East.

Mr. Bingham. Would the gentleman yield on that ?

Mr. Wolff. Yes.

Air. Bingham. I heard Dr. Evans speak about this just the other 

day. As I understand it, the material the gentleman refers to was ma­ terial used in the schools by the Arab governments who control the schools and the issue was whether UNESCO should continue to as­ sist in those schools in spite of that material being circulated.

So far as I know, the material was not supplied by UNESCO.

Mr. Wolff. It was funded by it.

Mr. Bingham. No, I don’t believe it was funded by it. The issue was 

whether UNESCO should continue to assist in the educational pro­ grams of those schools even though that type of litera ture—and th at is a debatable question—but I don’t think UNESCO was fund ing or 

supplying the literature.

Mr. Wolff. Well, I have seen material that was circulated with the 

UNESCO stamp upon it that was kind of scurrilous material and I 

think—I hate to differ with mv colleague again-----

Mr. Bingiiam. I would be glad to see it, but tha t is not my 

understanding.

Mr. Wolff. There is a question as to some of the literature that was 

circulated under the aegis of the United Nations. Whether it is printed 

by them or not, I don’t know.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fraser. Ju st one other question in relation to the exclusion of 

Israel from the European group.

I understand that the United States and Canada had applied to 

be in a region group and were-----

Mrs. Ginn . To my knowledge, not really applied, but had expressed 

an interest in being part of, and their interest was not acknowledged 

and they were not accepted for almost 10 years.
78

Mr. Fraser. But this last conference they were.

Mrs. Ginn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Bingham. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one further question 

about the UNESCO matter?

I am surprised that neither your statement nor the resolution refers to what I consider in some ways to be the most objectionable of 

the Conference resolutions with regard to Israel, which was one that 

directed the Director General to undertake the supervision of education in the occupied territories in Israel which was certainly a most 

unrealistic resolution, but neither your statement nor the declaration 

of the National Commission referred to th at.

Mrs. Ginn. Well, tha t probably is a part of the analysis tha t was 

given to this resolution by the Director General who shared your concern that it was unrealistic and very difficult to be carried out.

So, I don't think tha t he nor the rest of us have had a feeling that 

there would be much of any kind of an implementation possible.

Mr. Bingham. Thank you.

Mr. F raser. Well, I want to express my appreciation to the panel. 

I must say I get the general impression that the United S tates is applying considerably higher standards in judgment in both UNESCO 

and the General Assembly th an it has applied to its own actions over 

the past years.

I think this arises out of the fact tha t many of us identified with 

the plight tha t Israel faces, with the threats to her security, but in 

terms of the international organizations involved it isn’t clear to me 

tha t we are applying standards tha t have been consistently applied 

through the years.

I don’t thin k that is for myself a basis to suggest tha t the intrusion 

of political considerations is a wise thing, but only that w’e ought ourselves to begin to adhere to higher standards consistently rath er than 

intermittently which is something I hope we do, not only on these kinds 

of issues, but on the human rights issue generally.

Thank you very much.

This has been very helpful to us and we very much appreciate all 

your time.

[Whereupon, at 4 :10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X

»

S ta te m en t of H on. P h il ip M. Crane, a R ep re se nt at iv e in C ong res s

F rom t h e S ta te of I llin o is

Mr. Chairman, I certainly apprecia te the opportunity to express my views with reg ard to the United N ations and the U.S. role in suppo rt of tha t organization. In view of recent developments these hearing s are certain ly timely and, as a result of them, it is my hope that Americans will get a clearer view of what we can expect from the U.N. a nd what we can, or should, contribute to it. When the United Nations was originated in 1945, it was thought to be the hope for futur e world peace. For Americans this was pa rticular ly true—due in pa rt to the desire to avoid ano ther world war and in pa rt to guilt feelings over our fai lure to join the League of Nations. Regardle ss of the lessons of history , America, more tha n any other nation, wanted the U.N. to succeed. Pre sident 

Roosevelt, in a manne r reminiscent of Woodrow7

 Wilson, made all types of concessions to see th at it did get sta rted and each succeeding adm inistration has 

given the U.N. extensive political and financial support. To be very blunt, without United States suppo rt, the U.N. would have collapsed, or would have been proven useless long, long ago. American dollars—over 5.1 billion of them since 1945—have kept the organiz ation going financially and American prestige has given the organiza tion what little leverage and respectability it has enjoyed to date. Unfortunate ly, recent events have demonstrated th at a majority of U.N. mem­ bers do not seem to care about such things as resp ectability, responsibility or reasonable adherence to the U.N. cha rter, to say nothing of the feelings of the nation that has been the organizatio n’s political and financial angel. There can be no justification, on the basis of the ch arter or otherwise, for granting the Palestine Liberation Organization observer sta tus at the U.N. Genera l Assembly. There is no consisten t rationale, af te r the admittance of Red China to the U.N. on the basis of “un ive rsality ” (even though this meant kicking Nationalist China out of the U.N., in direct violation of the U.N. ch arter), for suspending 

South Africa’s membership in the general assembly. There is no logic in elim inating Israel from the European UNESCO p rogram while granting the Viet Cong office space so as to improve tlieir liaison with two huma nitarian agencies of the United Nations. And the re is no justice is coun­ tenancing the expropriation, without compensation, of foreign owned property 

by any nation. The fac t th at these steps have been taken only proves what some of us have been saying for a long time. It is now pain fully apparen t that many member nations are more intere sted in playing politics than promoting peace and that, as 

a promoter of peace, the U.N. has been incre asingly ineffectual. That this is the case should not be any surprise. The league of nations had a similar problem, one th at U.S. membership in the League of Nations would not have corrected. The league did nothing, at times when action was imp era ­ tive. because member nations put the ir own paro chia l inte rests before any ­ thin g else—including the league cha rter. Now. U.N. member nations are doing the same thing: they are acting in behalf of the ir own vested interests, at the expense of both the U.N. c harte r and the higher ideals upon which it was based. For example, terror ism can contribute nothing to the cause of world peace, yet the U.N. majority is condoning it because that ma jority is eith er pa rt of, or in sympathy with, the Arab forces th at wish to extinguish Isra el as a natio n.

(79)
Likewise, aggression is alien to the stated goals of the U.N. but, since the 

Korean War when aggression was halted but not defeated, no effort has been 

made by the U.N. to curb aggression when it has occurred. When Russian armies 

moved into Hungary in 1956, nothing was done. When Indian armies moved 

into Goa in 1961, nothing was done. When North Vietnamese forces moved into 

South Vietnam nothing was done. When Russian tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia 

in 1968, nothing was done. And when Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in the 

midst of Yorn Kippur in 1973, nothing was done.

True, there have been U.N. peacekeeping forces in the Congo (which the Soviet 

Union refused to pay for) and in the Middle East. And there have been U.N. 

observers stationed elsewhere, but these forces have not kept the peace, 

through no fault of their own.

The fault lies with those nations, obviously a majority, which are quick to 

brand self-determination or self defense as aggression when practiced by free 

world nations while proclaiming the reverse is true when perpetrated by Communist or Third World nations.

And then we come to the issue of human rights. All member nations proclaim to be in favor of such rights, but when we get down to the nitty-gritty the 

same type of hypocrisy exists. Thus, we have the spectacle of an embargo being 

declared against Rhodesia and a suspension from membership in the General 

Assembly being applied to South Africa on the grounds tha t both governments 

are mistreating their people, while at the same time, absolutely nothing lias 

been, or is being, done about Soviet concentration camps in Siberia, political 

repression in Red China, the 20,000 plus political prisoners in Cuba and the 

denial of basic freedoms in all the countries behind the iron curtain. What 

is happening to personal and political liberty in the Communist world is far 

more serious and potentially dangerous to the cause of world peace and freedom that what has happened in Rhodesia or South Africa, yet these two are 

singled out. Why? Because, a majority of U.N. nations are obviously more interested in what the Communists can offer them, or in the case of the Communists maintenance of their own tota lita rian dictatorships. If all the member 

nations of the U.N. were subjected to the penalties to which some have been 

subjected, the U.N. would be a very small organization indeed.

Man is not perfect, nor is he likely to be in the foreseeable future. The same 

holds true for nations. Therefore, it is only reasonable to expect tha t men and 

nations will, at times, act irra tionally; tha t they are likely to put their own 

selfish interests before anything else; and, that they are not likely to subject 

themselves voluntarily to the disagreeable dictates of others. As a consequence, 

it is unreasonable to expect them to support a world organization unless it 

enhances their national objectives. Nor is it likely that they would be willing 

to surrender their sovereignty to such an organization.

Such being the ease, the time has come to recognize tha t the U.N. is not, nor 

will it ever be, the panacea tha t some hoped for. The record shows tha t the 

organization is not only incapable of acheiving the goals set forth in i ts charter, 

but is in complete disagreement over the definition of those goals and how they 

should be applied. In fact, the I’nited Nations is a myth, because the institution 

is neither united nor comprised of nations. There is no consensus on basic values. 

In the case of totalitarian dictatorships, no reasonable man would attempt to 

suggest that such a nation enjoys representation. All tha t is represented in 

such states is the handful of gangsters who retain control through force and 

terrorism. So. what good is the U.N. ? At best it may serve a useful purpose as 

a forum where governments can let off steam, where petty disputes can be 

discussed and negotiated, and where improverished Nations can have contacts 

tha t would be denied them if they had to rely on embassies throughout the 

world. I t represents the de facto and de jure governments of the world and gives 

them a place to make themselves heard.

For these reasons, it seems to me that each nation should contribute to its 

operation to the extent tha t it represents the people of the world. Thus, rather 

than footing over 30% of the bill as it has in the past, the United States should 

pav 5.6% of the hill because it has only 5.6% of the total population of the 

nations represented in the U.N. Furthermore, nations refusing to pay their 

share of the hill, should he suspended from membership in the U.N. until such 

time as they settle their back accounts.
81

To those who think such a position might seem harsh, let me cite a few figures. I mentioned, earlier, that the U.S. has contributed over $5.1 billion to the U.N. since its inception. The Soviet contribution over the same period has totalled only $519 million. Furthermore, the U.S. has always paid its U.N. bill on time or in advance. The Soviet Union by contrast is almost $110 million in arrears. Moreover, the U.S. is assessed the large st share of the U.N. regular budget (25%) while the Soviet, which has the second highest assessment, is charged only 12.9%. Finally, I should note that, when the U.N. gets in financial trouble, it is to the U.S. not the Soviet Union, that the U.N. turns for help. The reason I draw this comparison with the Soviet Union is because the Soviets are a major world power with more people than we have (about 50 million more), to say nothing of the fact tha t they have three votes to our one in the U.N. General Assembly and have the same veto power in the security council that we enjoy. Even when the Soviet Union was not getting its way in the U.N.—which was a long time ago—it never had to support the organiza­ tion to the extent the U.S. has and, in fact, it refused to pay much of what it 

was asked to pay. If anything, a 5.6% contribution from the U.S. is generous; afte r all we have done for the U.N., its member nations ought to allow us a free membership for 

a good while to come. Of course, no such thing will happen. Instead, the U.N. in recent years has been voting in such a way as deliberately to antagonize millions of Americans. For example, I need cite only the seating of Red China, the expulsion of Na­ tionalist China, the suspension of South Africa, the sanctions against Rhodesia, the granting of observer status to the PLO, the dropping of Israel from the Euro­ pean UNESCO program and the approval of expropriation, without compensa­ tion, of foreign-owned companies (most of which are going to be U.S. com­ panies). In addition, there is the list of things that could have been done: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and South Vietnam jus t to name a few. I could go on, but rathe r than repeat the obvious, let me jus t suggest tha t the futu re portends 

more of the same. In view of the total lack of concern by the U.N. for its charter and for the viewpoint of the nation tha t has done more than any other to try to put the ideals of the charter into practice, I am about to introduce a bill into the House of Representatives that would reduce the total U.S. contribution to the U.N. to a percentage equal to the percentage of the U.S. population as compared to the total population of all member nations. This would (1) reduce the U.S. share to 5.6% starting in 1976, (2) save the American taxpayers a t least $340 million and (3) establish the population representation standard tha t I referred to earlier. Moreover, such a standard would do justice to all nations while recognizing the fact that the U.N. has its limitations and tha t the U.S. has both recognized and 

accepted that fact. Perhaps, w’hen other nations begin having to carry their fair share of the financial load, they will be more inclined to work together for the benefit of all rathe r than at cross-purposes to the benefit of only themselves. Should such a change in attitude develop, history would record that the biggest contribution the U.S. made to the U.N. politically was the reduction of its contribution to the 

U.N. financially. For the sake of all, I hope things work out just tha t way.
S ta tem ent of t h e A mer ic an J e w is h C ong ress on t h e 19 74 Gen er al

A ssem bl y and th e U .S . P os it io n in t h e U nit ed N at io ns

The American Jewish Congress welcomes this opportunity to subm it its views 

on the recently-concluded session of the United Natio ns General Assembly and 

on the relation ship of the United Sta tes to that inte rna tional organization. From 

its inception in 1918, the American Jew ish Congress has been dedicated to the 

preservation and extension of democratic freedoms around the world. Because 

of our commitment to a just world order, the American Jewish Congress has 

been an activ e partici pan t in non-governmental organizations supp ortive of the 

United Nations.

While the record of the United Nation s in promoting the peaceful solution of 

intern ational disputes has not always been entirely admirable , there have been 

many instanc es since its creation in which the U.N. has contributed to world 

order. Even during the las t session, the U.N. served a useful function, in accordance with the historic purpose underlying its Charter, by stationing peacekeeping 

forces in Cyprus and renewing the UNDOF force in the Middle East. These are 

only two of a host of actions th at brought cred it to the i nstitu tion this year.

There have been other recent actions by the U.N., however, wrhich can hardly 

be viewed as consistent with the pu rpo rted goals of t ha t o rganizations. We refer, 

first, to the actions of the United Nations Educatio nal. Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) at its ple nary session in November, 1974, when it 

adopted a serie s of anti-Is rae l resolutions which have no conceivably legitimate 

justifica tion. Abandoning any concern with education, science, or culture and 

succumbing to the oil blackmail of Arab states, the General Conference of 

UNESCO voted to withhold assista nce to Isra el and bar her from membership in 

its Europeon regional grouping because Isra el had allegedly imperiled monumental 

and historical sites in Jerusalem . Another resolution, which was characterized 

as “crude and inop erative” by one of the witnesses before the Subcommittee 

on I nte rna tional Organizations, condemns Isr ae l’s educational and cultural activities in the occupied territo ries . Consequently, as a resu lt of a vindictive political 

reprisal directed by the Arab states. Isr ael is now the only member of UNESCO 

to belong to no regional grouping, with no right to particip ate in regional 

activities.

These actio ns were accompanied by factual allegation s which contrad ict the 

rep orts of UNESCO’s own Director-General, whose representativ es visited 

Jerusalem many times in the past several years. For example, the DirectorGeneral’s latest report, based on visits to Jerusalem in December, 1973 and 

April, 1974 by Professor Raymond Lem aire of the Roman Catholic University 

of Louvain, reaffirmed the conclusion of prio r studies that Israeli authorities 

have consistently and painsta kingly cared for all religious and historical sites 

there. Referring to the archaeological excavations at the foot of the Temple 

Mount, the report stated :

The excavations are being carrie d out by a perfectly well-qualified team 

of exp erts of various kinds, who are extrem ely attentive to all aspects and 

to all the periods of which remains have been found on the site. The same 

care is expended on the preservation of remains of the Omayyad palaces 

as on those of th e Ilerodian period.

The report furth er stated th at the excavatio ns in the Old City’s Jewish 

Qu arter were being

carried out with the utmost car e and employing the most exper t methods. 

These excavations have alread y led to discoveries of the utm ost importance 

in rela tion to the history of Jeru sale m.

The observations of the National Coalition of American Nuns are to the 

same effect: “Israel has rebuilt Jerusale m, pouring into it millions of dollars and 

more especially untold human resources. Jeru sale m is now a vailable to all faiths 

and never before have the holy places been so protected and maintained.”

(82)
83

Ironically, one of the chief sponsors of UNESCO’s condemnatory resolutions 

was Jord an, a country which, during its occupation of Jerusalem from 1948 to 

1967, destroyed over th irty synagogues (including the Hurva synagogue, built 

in 1267) and used the head stones of ancient Jew ish cemeteries for paving blocks. 

Then, UNESCO was silent. Now, a fte r Israel has resto red holy places and opened 

them to all worshippers, UNESCO manifests a n exquisite concern for the archaeo* 

logical chara cter of the city.

Some have argu ed th at the scrupulous car e the Isr aelis have taken to safegua rd the religious monuments of the Old City is not the issue at all. They claim 

instead that the fact of Israeli archaeologic exca vatio ns, not the ir methodologic 

expertise, constitu tes a violation of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Pro tection of Cultural Pro perty in the Event of Armed Conflict. I t is our understanding, 

however, that while the Hague Convention protects archaeological excavations 

it does not proh ibit them. The signatories to the Convention, including Israel, 

realized that independently-supervised digs are of vital significance in the preservation of cu ltural trea sur es.

That the UNESCO resolutions were acts of naked political reprisal is fu rth er 

evident from the m ann er in which Arab delegates ensu red th at other conference 

represe ntatives would not be swayed by the act ual merits of the case. Using 

political and economic intimidation to gain support for their resolutions, the 

Arabs prevented any possibility tha t, prior to the voting, the views of other delegates—or even the Director-Gen eral—might be considered. Indeed, delegates 

were not perm itted to study the Dire ctor-General’s report at any time during 

the deliberations.

Another series of U.N. actions evincing a sim ilar disregard for basic principle s 

of fairness were the inv itation to Yasir Ar afa t to add ress the General Assembly 

on the question of Palestine, the gra nti ng of observer sta tus to the Palestine 

Liberation Organization , and the ominously ambiguous resolution th at “recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Ch arter of the United Nations.’’ 

Among the “rig hts ” affirmed by the resolution is “the inalie nable right of the 

Palestinians to retur n to their homes and property from which they have been 

displaced and uprooted. . . .” Pa rticular ly since the resolution on Palestinian 

rights is mute on the question of I srae l’s rig ht to exist, we believe th at it enco urages the interp retation th at internatio nal body approves of the displacement 

of a member nation, I sra el, by a new, PLO-dominated state.

Never before has the U.N. g ranted such sta tus to people who repre sent neither 

a member sta te nor any state at all. Significantly, the U.N. Charte r requires th at 

non-members who wish to speak on inte rna tional disp utes must be, by definition, 

“states” and grants the rig ht of deba te only when those states “accept in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligatio ns of pacific settlement provided in the present c ha rter ” (Article 35, Sec. 2).

In no way does the l’LO meet the test of the Charte r. Fir st, it is not a sta te 

at all. Secondly, its avowed aim is “to repulse the Zionist, imperialist invasion 

. . . and to purge the Z ionist presence from Palestine,” (Article 15, The Palestine 

National Covenan t). Finally , the method of the PLO, as the world has ton often 

witnessed, is barbar ic terror ism directed at innocent civilians—Olympic a thletes 

at Munich, American diplomats in Khartoum , and Israeli children at Ma’alot. 

The U.N., of course, has failed to condemn the PLO for these killings. Apparently, the PLO is a state for the purpose of gra nting it observer sta tus at the 

U.N., b ut it is not a state for the purpose of condemning savage acts of terror.

The resolutions of the General Assembly in favor of the PLO leave in doubt 

whether Israel, a member sta te of the U.N., has a right to exist. By abroga ting 

Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis for peace nego tiatio ns in the Middle 

East, (a step consistent with the program of the PLO), the General Assembly, 

it is feared, bestowed intern ational blessings on the right of the PLO to use any 

form of violence to force Israel to yield her sovereignty. During the debates preceding these resolutions, moreover, Isr ael was the victim of procedural inequities even more app alli ng tha n the obstructio n of free discussion th at preceded 

the UNESCO resolutions. In an unprecedented action, one that made a mockery 

of the U.N. as a forum for the exchange of ideas, the General Assembly lim ­

ited Israel's rig ht of reply to one speech and a ten-minute reb uttal at the end 

of the day.

It is tempting, but mistaken, to minimize the destructive im pact of these events 

by concluding that U.N. resolutions simply mirror world opinion and do not in-
84

fluence the behavior of states or other groups. The resolutions of the General 

Assembly on Palestine and of UNESCO on Jerusalem are indeed harmful to 

peace in the Mideast. Not only do they appear to reward terrorism, but they 

polarize the positions of the opposing parties—as to Israel, by intensifying her 

feelings of international isolation and her understandable distrust for the ultimate goals of Arab states; as to the Arabs, by committing their national honor 

to extreme solutions formally endorsed by the world community. As a result, 

the flexibility of leaders on both sides is substantially reduced. The situation is 

further aggravated because many member states which might otherwise be neutral on Mideast issues are forced, by the railroading through of one-sided resolutions, to commit themselves to radical positions.

The United States should reject the view that we, in earlier decades, used 

the United Nations in a fashion similar to tha t which we protest today. While 

a majority of nations generally sided with us on international issues in the past, 

tha t majority never sought to pass one-sided, unsupportable resolutions. The 

recent U.N. actions discussed above are unique in the history of that body inasmuch as they demonstrate, on the part of the new majority and particularly 

the Arab states exercising their newly-discovered oil power, a total abandonment of legal, moral and even political constraints.

Perhaps it should not be surprising that Arab, Communist and assorted Third 

"World countries—many of them governed by oppressive totalitarian regimes— 

should show so little regard for precedural fairness and equal treatment under 

the law, principles which the United States has always assumed to be fundamental. But the fact tha t a U.N. majority has unabashedly chosen to discard 

these principles for the sake of discriminatory political attacks against Israel 

suggests that it might be appropriate for the United States itself to apply political and economic pressures, evidently the only pressures to which some countries will respond, in an attempt to inspire among member states a closer conformity to the spirit of the U.N. Charter.

The American Jewish Congress, therefore, supports the effort of the United 

States Congress to withhold funds from UNESCO until it rescinds the politicallymotivated resolutions passed at its Paris conference.1

 Further, the United States 

should urge the newly-rich oil producing states of the Middle East to increase 

their voluntary contributions to the U.N. as a gesture of good faith—particularly to agencies like UNRWA which support their fellow Arabs—without waiting for next year's scheduled reformulation of U.N. contributions.

The recent adoption of a series of one-sided, unfair, and unworkable resolutions has compromised the noble ideals of the U.N. and impaired its peace-keeping potential. We believe that these resolutions derive from fundamental imperfections in the underlying structures and procedures of the U.N., imperfections 

that demand searching reexamination if future transactions at the U.N. are to 

be materially and permanently improved.

We recognize, however, t hat this reconsideration cannot be done in haste out 

of partisa n motives. We recognize, too, that it necessarily entails the best thinking of all those concerned to restore the U.N. as a forum which is not only credible 

but genuinely reflective of the yearning for peace on the par t of all the peoples 

of the world—and we recognize that this undoubtedly will require an extended 

effort. In the interim, therefore, we urge that the member states be encouraged, 

out of their own sense of justice, to retur n to established notions of fairness and 

universality. That minimum change, at least, is imperative if the U.N. is to 

make a significant contribution to world peace.

1

 At the December 10. 1974 meeting of its Executive Committee, the American Jewish 

Congress adopted the following sta temen t:

UNESCO’s recent restrictio ns, in effect expelling Isra el from membership, represent an 

abandonment of its mandate to promote scientific, cultural and educational goals and have 

transform ed UNESCO into a crude political instrumentality .

These activities have been universally denounced. Scientists, artis ts and intellectuals 

have righ tly severed all association with UNESCO and its projects. The Senate of the 

United States and the parliaments of other nations have eith er reduced or have moved 

to discontinue all subventions of fu tur e UNESCO activities.

We believe these acts of practical pro test a re a necessary and effective reply to UNESCO’s 

demonstration of moral delinquency.
S ta te m en t of t h e E xe cu tiv e Com m it te e of t h e Commis si on to

S tu dy t h e O rg an izat io n of P eac e

As the year 1975 begins, the American Government and the American people 

are expressing serious concern about developments in the United Nations and 

the United Natio ns Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO). To lend support to these agencies—and, indeed, to the entire United 

Nations system—we desire to explain the causes for thi s erosion of confidence. 

In urging patien ce and understanding, we appeal for renewed leadership on the 

pa rt of the Exec utive Branc h and the Congress and for continued support by 

other non-governmental organization s, the media, and the public.

The Commission to Study the Organization of Peace was founded in 1939. as 

World War II was enveloping Europe. For the past 35 years, the Commission 

had endeavored to provide new and constructive ideas about building a peaceful 

world community. Its Exe cutive Committee hopes th at this Statement, reaffirming fidelity to the principles upon which the United Nations system was founded, 

will c ontribute to restoring American confidence and suppo rt.

EROSION OF CONF IDENCE

Within the past three months, a series of even ts occurred with in the United 

Nations system that caused widespread resentment, even anger, in the American 

Congress, the media, and the public. These events struck unexpectedly and suddenly—like, in the words of one observer, “a series of thun derstorms in the 

night.” One or two of these events would have caused concern, but not dism ay ; 

it was the rapid sequence of them th at caused even some of the stro nge st supporters of the United N ation s in this country to question their long-time loyalties.

1. Eight of the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council and two 

perman ent members, China and the Soviet Union, voted to expel South Africa 

from the United Nations. On the first proposal for expulsion of a Member in 29 

years, the other three permanen t members—U nited States, United Kingdom, 

and Fr ance—cast th e first t rip le veto.

2. The President of the General Assembly, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, 

rule d that South Africa could not paticipate in the cu rre nt session. No delegation asked the Secretary-General for a legal opinion on thi s matter , and the 

Pre sident’s ruling was upheld by a vote of 91 in favor, 22 agains t (including the 

United State s), w ith 19 abstentions.

3. The General Assembly invited the Palestine Liberation Organization, ns 

“the representativ e of the Palestine people” to particip ate in the plenary meetings rela ting to Pale stine. The vote was 105 in favor, 4 aga inst (including the 

United State s), with 20 abstentions. The lead er of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasir Arafat, was accorded the dignity of a Chief of Sta te when lie 

addressed a plenary meeting.

4. The General Assembly subsequently recognized “the inalienable rig ht of 

the Palestinians to ret urn to the ir homes and property”, withou t ref err ing to 

Israel at all, and acknowledged their right to partic ipa te as a “principal pa rty” 

in a peace settlement. The vote was 89 in favor, 8 a gainst (including the United 

States), with 37 abstentions.

5. The General Assembly also invited the Palestine Libe ration Organization— by a vote of 95 in favor, 17 aga inst (including the United State s), with 19 a bsten tion s—to particip ate as an observer in the work of the General Assembly 

and of other intern ational conferences.

6. During the plenary deba te on the Palestine question, the Pre sident of the General Assembly ruled th at each delegation could speak only once. This limitation on Isra el gave an obvious advantage to the 17 Arab delegations and their 

many supporters. When challenged by Israel and the United States, the President’s ruling was upheld by a vote of 75 in favor, 23 again st (including the 

United Sta tes ), with 18 absten tions.

(85)
86

7. The General Assembly adopted a Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of 

States, highly favorable to the developing countries, which included inter alia

the light of each State to “nationalize, expropriate, or transfer ownership of 

foreign property”, with compensation paid in accordance with its “relevant laws 

and regulations” but without any reference to international law. The vote was 120 in favor, 6 against (including the United States), with 10 abstentions .

8. The General Conference of UNESCO adopted three highly controversial 

resolutions, all rath er technical in character, tha t were unfavorable to Israel. 

The first—by a vote of 59 in favor, 34 against (including the United States), with 

24 abstentions—withholds assistance to Israel, which amounted to only $24,000 in 

1973-74, until it ceases certain archeological excavations in the occupied portions 

of the city of Jerusalem. The second—by a vote of 51 in favor, 5 against (including the United States), with 22 abstentions—noted “with anxiety” that the populations in the occupied territories were not enjoying their rights to national education and cultural life. The third—by a vote of 33 in favor (including the United 

States,, 48 against, with 31 abstentions—rejected Israe l’s request to participate 

in the European regional grouping for f uture activities. The General Conference 

had previously granted the United States and Canada, also non-European countries, an exception to participate in this grouping. None of these resolutions 

affected Israel’s membership in UNESCO or its right to attend regional meetings.

As a result of this sequence of events, the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador John Scali, delivered on December 6 a 

carefully considered and cautiously worded criticism of the United Nations General Assembly and the UNESCO General Conference. Without mentioning either 

South Africa or Israel, Ambassador Scali strongly warned against the “tyranny 

of the m ajority” th at was pushing through “unenforceable, onesided” resolutions 

unfavorable to the minority of developed countries, warned tha t these actions 

were endangering support of the United Nations system in the American Congress and public and in other developed countries upon whose support the 

United Nations depends, and appealed to the developing countries to exercise 

their votes with a greater sense of responsibility and realism. Similar views were 

expressed by the representatives of the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, 

and the Netherlands. These critical remarks elicited replies from a considerable 

number of representatives of the developing countries.

CAUSE S OF T H E C R IS IS

The recent quarrels and confrontations in the United Nations and in UNESCO 

have resulted from several different but closely related causes. The major political controversies have shifted, in the past decade, from an 

East-West to a North-South axis. The ideological differences between the Free 

World and the Communist world remain, to be sure; and the rivalries in the 

Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Indian Ocean, and the political and economic competition for influence in the Third World continue. However, both sides 

recognize the catastrophe that a war would bring. In the present spirit of detente, 

the two superpowers recognize tha t neither can impose its will on the other; 

hence both must maintain the peace, even while engaged in acrimonious debates 

and divisive confrontation involving the Third World. Today, the controversy over political, economic, and social issues rages between most of the over 30 developed countries—North America, Western Europe, 

Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe—and 

some 100 developing countries—in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin 

America. The developing countries range from the newly rich oil producers, 

whose rapidly expanding wealth adds for the first time some economic strength 

to the group, to the smallest and poorest areas in the world. They consider that 

the present division between have’s and have-not's is the result of historical 

injustices, and they are determined to redress the imbalance. Communist China 

and the Soviet Union, each for its own purposes, exploit the differences between 

the developed and the developing countries. The United States and other major 

powers are also involved in these rivalries. On every major issue of 1975—such 

as population, food, energy, environment, development, investment, trade, and 

to some extent human rights—the developed and the developing countries are 

diametrically opposed. The division between the developed and the developing countries is exasperated 

by two special problems: first, racial discrimination in South Africa and Rho-
de si a, and So uth A fr ic a’s adm in is tr ati on of So ut h- W es t A fr ic a (N am ib ia ) ; an d, 

sec ond, th e confl ict be tw ee n Is ra el an d it s A ra b ne ighb or s. W ith re gard to 

so uth ern Afri ca , mo st of th e develop ed co unt ri es fa vor pa tien ce , pr es su re , an d 

co nt in ui ng p ri vate and pu bl ic di al og ue ; while mos t of th e de ve loping co un trie s, 

su pp or te d by th e So viet Union , fa vor os trac is m , econom ic sa nc tio ns , an d ev en 

m il it ary ac tio n. W ith re gard to Is ra el , th e de ve loping co un trie s, ag ai n su pp or te d 

by th e So viet Union, ta k e an in cr ea sing ly in tr an si g en t po sitio n. Th ey ha ve su cceed ed in vir tu all y is ola ti ng th e United Sta te s, as a su pport er of Is ra el. W hile 

th e develop ed co untr ie s re m ai n co nc erne d ov er vio la tion s of in div id ual ri ghts , 

th e de ve loping co unt ri es hav e bec ome ob sessed w ith vi ola tions of gr ou p ri ghts 

in se ve ra l ar ea s.

D uri ng th e co ld-w ar politica l co nf ro nta tion be tw ee n th e E ast an d W est, 

th e U ni ted S ta te s had a re la ti vely ea sy tim e in ev ery in te rn ati onal fo ru m. O f 

th e or ig in al 51 mem be rs of th e United N at io ns in 1945, a t le as t 35 w er e clo sel y 

as so ci at ed w ith th e U ni ted S ta te s, only 5 w ith th e So viet Un ion , an d on ly 10 

w er e no n-aligne d. F or th os e firs t 15 ye ar s, th e U nited S ta te s en joye d co nt ro l of 

th e G en er al As sem bly an d oth er in te rn ati onal fo ru ms, a t le ast on all co ld-w ar 

issu es. W ith a li tt le ar m -tw is ting , th e U.S. D eleg at io n co uld ea sily co lle ct a 

m ajo ri ty v ote , o r e ven a tw o-t liirds vo te whe n re qu ired .

The United S ta te s did not h esi ta te in th os e year s to us e it s “a uto m at ic m ajo rit y ” in it s own nati onal in te re st s. A m ba ss ad or Sc ali wo uld ha ve do ne we ll 

to concede, in his co mmen ts on “t he purs uit of m at hem at ic al m ajo ri ti es” , th a t th e 

U ni te d S ta te s was once ab le to ke ep Com m un ist Ch ina, th ro ugh elec tio n of f avorab le cr ed en tial s co mm itt ee s and th ro ug h parl ia m en ta ry m an eu ve rs, ou t of ev er y 

in te rn ati onal or gan iz at io n ; to p er su ad e th e U ni ted N at io ns t o in te rv en e in Kor ea ; 

to sh if t pe ac ek ee ping from th e Sec ur ity Co un cil, in ca se of a veto, to th e Gene ra l Asse mbly un de r th e " U nit in g fo r Pea ce ” Res ol ut io n of 1 950; to keep di sp ute s 

be tw ee n th e United S ta te s an d L at in Am er ic an co untr ie s ou t of th e U ni ted 

N at io ns ; an d to cond em n th e Com m un ist co unt ri es re pea te dly fo r vio la ting in te rnati onal law a nd i nfr in gin g o f hu m an ri gh ts.

Tod ay th e sho e is on th e oth er foo t. Bec au se of th e li quid at io n of th e co lonial 

em pi re s, wh ich th e U nite d S ta te s fa vo re d, and be ca us e of th e fa il ure of th e 

U ni te d S ta te s an d th e oth er per m an en t mem be rs of th e Sec urity Co uncil to blo ck 

th e ad m ission of m an y ne w ly in de pe nd en t m in i- st at es , U ni te d Natio ns mem be rsh ip has in cr ea se d to 138, w it h st il l mor e mem be rs to com e. Th e more th an 100 

de ve loping co un trie s, usu al ly ba ck ed by th e 13 Com m un ist co un tries, ca n ea sily 

g arn er a tw o- tliird s vo te in th e Gen eral As sembly an d th e ne ce ss ar y m ajo ri ty 

in oth er foru ms. F o r ex am pl e, of th e 54 mem be rs o f th e U ni te d N at io ns E cono mi c 

and So cia l Co uncil, on ly 14 a re develop ed co un trie s, ou tn um be re d by 33 de ve loping co un tr ie s (inc lu di ng C h in a), an d 7 E ast ern E uro pea n co un trie s.

A TI ME FOB PAT IEN CE

Some of th e dis ap poin tm en t an d dism ay evok ed in th e Co ng res s, th e med ia, 

and th e pu blic ca n be as su ag ed by a li tt le pat ie nc e an d und er st an din g. Th e U.N. 

Sec ur ity Co uncil an d G en er al As sem bly , a fte r all, are po litica l bod ies. W hile 

th e oth er or ga ns of th e U nited Nations , UN ES CO , and th e oth er Sp ec ial ize d 

Age ncies de al w ith su bj ec ts like ed uc at io n, sci ence, cu lt ure , labo r, hea lth, a g ri ­

cu lture , co mm un ications , an d tr ansp ort ati on, th e del eg at io ns to th es e bodie s re pre se nt go ve rn m en ts, which a re po litica lly m ot iv at ed . The de le ga tio ns in all th os e 

fo ru m s pr om ote th e in te re st s of th eir re sp ec tive go ve rn m en ts, ju st as U ni te d 

S ta te s Sen at or s an d R epre se nta ti ves pr om ot e th e in te re st s of th eir re sp ec tive 

co ns titu en ci es . The fu nc tions and po wers of an in te rn ati o n al assembly and a 

nati onal le gis la tu re a re e nti re ly d if fe re n t; bu t som e of t he a tt it u d e s a nd acti vit ie s 

of t h e ir m em be rs are s tr ik in gly s im ilar .

In ev er y de ba te, w het her in a nat io nal or in te rn ati onal fo ru m , th ere a re co nflictin g in te re sts ; an d th ere are gr ou nd s fo r differ en ce on th e m er its of bo th 

side s of ev ery ar gu m en t. It is th e essence of st ate sm ansh ip to rec on cile th es e 

co mpe tin g in te re st s an d diffe ring po ints of view fo r th e comm on good, th ro ugh 

ne go tiat io n an d c om prom ise . J u s t as ve ry few de cision s of th e American Con gress 

sa ti sf y al l it s me mbers, ve ry few de cis ions of th e U ni te d N at io ns an d oth er 

in te rn ati onal or ga niz at io ns sa ti sf y all th eir M em ber Sta te s.

The les son of th e cu rr en t cr is is , •and it may prov e to be us ef ul , is th is : The 

pr in ci pal or ga ns of th e U nite d N ations . UN ES CO , an d all oth er in te rn ati onal 

or gan iz at io ns refle ct th e in te re st s an d ob ject iv es of politica lly m ot iv at ed go ve rn-
men ts, an d th us reflec t th e po litics of th e re al wo rld . In all of them , th e United 

Sta te s will en joy som e suc cesse s an d su ff er some def ea ts . (A s ev ery po litici an 

ev er yw he re kn ow s, to us e th e vern ac ula r, “You can’t w in ’em all .” ) In de ed , 

on tw o im port ant issu es in th e cu rr en t se ss io n of th e G en er al As sembly — Korea 

an d Ca mbo dia— th e United S ta te s en jo ye d successes, al th ou gh by a m ar gin of 

on ly 18 and 2 vo tes , re sp ec tive ly ; and th e So viet Un ion , Ch ina, an d th eir su pp ort ers su ffered de fe at s.

Be ca us e th e C on gress ma ke s a few m is ta kes , in t he ey es o f o ne o r an o th er g roup 

of citiz en s, th es e m is ta ke s do no t ju sti fy sc ra ppi ng th e C on stitut io n. Bec au se 

th e U nited N at io ns Genera l As sembly m ak es a few m is ta kes in th e ey es of th e 

U ni ted Sta te s, th es e m ista ke s do not ju sti fy sc ra pp in g th e C hart er. On th e 

contr ar y, th e wise citiz en , w hat ev er th e fr u st ra ti o n , will work to min im ize th e 

da m ag e of di vi sive de ba tes an d vo tes an d, whe re possible, to re ver se th e de ­

cis ions. In th e lon g run, mo reov er, th e fo st eri ng of peace, econom ic and socia l 

deve lopm en t, an d hu m an ri ghts by th e U ni te d N at io ns sy stem will de pe nd no t 

up on vo tes on spe cific issu es bu t ra th e r up on , in th e wor ds of th e C hart er, “h a rmon izing th e ac tions of nat io ns in th e att ain m en t of th es e comm on en ds .”

A TIME FOR LEAD ERSHIP

In th is cri ti cal pe rio d of confr onta tion, th e U ni ted S ta te s Gov ernm en t, th e 

pr in ci pa l fo under an d lon g-t ime le ad er of th e U ni ted Nations , m us t once ag ai n 

as su m e re sp on si bi lity fo r mak in g th e sy stem wo rk. In ou r view, se ve ra l ac tion s 

are u rg en t.

1. Our Gov er nm en t shou ld ta ke th e in it ia ti ve in co ns ul ting w ith th e oth er 

dev elo jied co untr ie s ab ou t redu ci ng th e econom ic im ba la nc e be tw ee n th e de ­

velope d an d de ve loping c ou nt ries an d en co ur ag in g a co nt in ui ng d ialo gu e be tw een 

them . A m ba ss ad or Sc ali in it ia te d th is dial og ue on Ja n u a ry 29, whe n in an 

ad dre ss a t Bos ton he ca lle d fo r “a tw o- way ex ch an ge ” in “a ne w sp ir it of 

co ns tr uc tive co mpr om ise.”

2. Our Gov er nm en t shou ld in si st up on th e pr in ci pl e of fu ll part ic ip ati on of 

al l Me mb er S ta te s in th e United N at io ns an d oth er org an iz at io ns , ev en th os e 

Mem ber S ta te s wh ose policies may be gen er al ly un ac ce ptab le.

3. Our Gov ernm en t shou ld ur ge al l U ni ted Natio ns or ga ns to re sp ec t the 

C h art er an d to ob serve “due proc es s” in bo th su bst an tive an d pro ce du ra l m at te rs , 

in ord er to av oid has ty de cis ion s an d al lo w tim e to c on su lt, to o bt ai n lega l advic e, 

or even to re qu es t an ad vi so ry op inion from th e In te rn ati o n al C ourt of Ju sti ce 

be fore ac tin g.

4. O ur Gov er nm en t should, w hile en ga gi ng in bil at er al an d region al dip loma cy 

w he re ve r ne ce ss ar y an d ap pr opr ia te , de ve lop th e pr ac tice of m ult il ate ra l diploma cy in fo st er in g th e basic pr in cipl es of th e U nited Natio ns C har te r, in av oidi ng 

ac rim on io us de bat es an d divi sive co nfr onta tion s, an d in de ve loping and st re ngth ­

en ing m ed ia tion an d co nc ili ation in th e U ni te d Nations .

5. We ap pe al to Pre side nt Fo rd an d Sec re ta ry K issing er to rea ffi rm , in deeds 

as well as in words, the de te rm in at io n of our Gov ernm en t to co nt in ue su ppor t 

fo r th e en ti re U nited N ations sy stem an d to re st or e American le ad ers hip in 

ev er y assembly, c ou ncil, a nd g ov erni ng b ody.

6. We ap pe al to th e Co ng res s to co ntinue it s le gi sl at iv e an d fina nc ial su pp or t 

of th e enti re United N ations sy stem an d to m ai nta in , an d w he re fe as ib le to 

increa se , th e con tr ib utions to U nited N at io ns pr og ra m s.

7. We ap pe al to oth er no n- go ve rn men tal org an iz at io ns an d to th e med ia to 

co ntin ue , an d w he re p ossib le to incr ea se , th e ir d is se m in at io n of in fo rm at io n ab ou t 

de ve lopm en ts in all th e ag en cies of t he U ni ted Natio ns sy ste m.

8. We en do rs e th e po sitio n of th e U.S . N at io na l Co mm iss ion fo r UN ESCO , 

wh ich , w hile cr it ic al of th e re so lu tion s ad op te d by th e Gen eral Co nferen ce , urge d 

th a t “U nited S ta te s scho lars, art is ts , sc ie nt is ts , ed uca to rs an d oth er s co nt in ue 

to part ic ip ate in UN ES CO act iv itie s . . .”.

9. We ap pea l to th e American pu bl ic to co nt in ue th eir su pp or t of th e en tire 

United N at io ns sy ste m, to rene w th e ir fa it h in th e pr in ci pl es of in te rn ati onal 

la w an d or de r, an d to wo rk, to get her w ith al l oth er peoples , to w ar d th e bu ildi ng 

of a pe ac ef ul a nd p ro sp er ou s wor ld c om mun ity .
A rticle E ntitle d “ Cla sh of th e ‘Two Maj or it ies’—W hose U nited

Na t io n s?’" B y H o n. C ha rles W . Yost, t h e N ew R ep ublic, D ecember 2 8,1974

(By Charles W. Yost)

In an address to the United Nations General Assembly in December the U.S. representative John Scali spoke bitterly of the “tyranny of the majority,” noted tha t “every majority must recognize t hat its authority does not extend beyond the point where the minority becomes so outraged tha t it is no longer willing to maintain the covenant which binds them,’’ and concluded that in consequence of recent majority behavior in the Assembly, American support of the United Nations “is eroding—-in our Congress and among our people.” Somewhat similar speeches were made on the same day by representatives of 

France, Britain, West Germany, Italy, Sweden and Belgium. What occasioned this concerted outburst of indignation by the developed coun­ tries? Their frustrations have been building up for some time but were confirmed this year by actions of the majority on these sub jects: international economic 

relations, South Africa and the Palestinians. As to the first, the assembly adopted by a vote of 120 to 6 a “Charter of Eco­ nomic Rights and Duties of States” proposed by the President of Mexico. Among the handful of negative votes were those of the U.S., West Germany and Britain, and among the few abstainers Japan, France and Canada. In other words this is a charter tha t asserts the rights of the less developed countries and the duties of the developed but does not, in the view of the latte r, adequately protect their rights or the interests of their private investors. As Ambassador Scali said : “the minority which is so often offended may in fact be a practical majority, in terms of its capacity to support this organization and implement its decisions.” On the second subject, a proposal to expel South Africa from the United Nations under procedures laid down in the U.N. charter was vetoed in the Security Coun­ cil by the U.S., France and Britain. The Assembly majority thereupon proceeded to deny the South African delegate his seat in the current Assembly on very 

dubious procedural grounds. Finally, and this action was the most provocative, the Assembly majority voted that, for the first time in the history of the organization, a spokesman not rep­ resenting a member government might participate in an Assembly debate. This spokesman, moreover, Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organiza­ tion, was accorded the honors not merely of a delegate but of a chief of state. To add insult to in jury the Israeli representative, who wished to rebut seriatim his numerous adversaries in the debate, was prevented from doing so by a ruling of the Algerian Assembly president, which when challenged was upheld by the 

majority. Coincidentally the same majority in UNESCO, the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which is supposedly nonpolitical, cut off support for regional programs in Israel on the grounds tha t Israel, in defiance of U.N. in­ junctions, is altering the physical and cultural character of Jerusalem. These were the actions that the Western ambassadors so rigorously attacked and tha t provoked such angry reactions among press and public in several countries. For example Switzerland reduced its contribution to UNESCO by 10 percent, and on December 10. 71 U.S. senators joined in declaring the PLO a 

“direct threat” to the foreign policy of the United States. Were these strong reactions justified? To some extent they certainly were. But in fairness to the Third World majority their intemperate actions, rath er than 

(89)

48- 890 — 75- 7
90

be ing match ed by eq ua lly in te m per at e W es te rn resp on ses, sh ou ld be ex am in ed 

dis pa ss io nat el y an d w ith som e pe rspe ctiv e. In ord er to do so on e ne ed s to cast 

a glan ce a t re ce nt hi st ory .

F ir st , as A m ba ss ad or Sc ali rem in de d his au di en ce , th e U.N. As sembly is no t 

a le gi slat iv e bod y. It ca nn ot en ac t law s. E xc ep t in re gar d to in te rn al pro ce dura l 

an d budg et ar y m att ers , its re so lutio ns are not bi nd in g on mem be r st ate s. W hat 

th ey are is a pu bl ic ex pr es sion of th e op in io ns of a m ajo ri ty of mem be r go ve rn ­

men ts, in man y th ou gh no t in al l ca se s re pre se nting a la rg e m ajo ri ty of m an ­

kind . As Dag Il am m ars kjo ld us ed to sa y, th e Asse mbly is “a refle ction of th e 

world as it is,” no t as we mig ht lik e it to b e. In th a t sens e it is w or th li st en in g to, 

if w e w ish no t to d eceive o ur se lves about the s ta te o f th e re al world. Adlai Steve nson once re m ar ked in th is co nn ectio n th a t w hat th e U ni te d S ta te s ne ed s m os t 

is a heari ng aid.

Secon d, we sh ou ld not f or ge t th a t from 1945 to 1960 th e o ve rw he lm ing m ajo ri ty 

in th e United N at io ns co ns isted of W es te rn Eur opea ns an d L at in American s. 

Th os e were th e da ys wh en th e So vie t Union and th e few’ no na lig ne d mem be r 

sta te s re pe at ed ly pr ot es te d ‘‘th e ty ra nny of th e m ajo ri ty .” B ut we had th en no 

qu al m s ab ou t pa ss in g re so lutio ns ov er th e ir st ro ng ob jec tio ns . Now th e shoe is on 

th e o th er foo t, an d we are c rying fou l.

The hi st or y of th e th re e issu es th a t ha ve pr ov ok ed th e pre se nt ex ci te m en t also 

ne ed s to be ke pt in mi nd .

Eve r sin ce th e les s developed co un trie s be ca me th e m ajo ri ty th ey hav e bee n 

pa ss in g re so lu tion s ca llin g on th e rich to ass is t mu ch more su bst anti all y in th eir 

develop me nt, to im pr ov e th e te rm s of tr a d e th a t ha ve unti l re ce nt ly be en hea vi ly 

in th eir di sf av or , an d to police m ult in ati onal co rp or at io ns , which th ey be lie ve 

ha ve in m an y ca se s ex ploited them . The fa ct th a t th er e has been on ly a ve ry 

mod es t resp on se to th es e re pe at ed ap pe al s ac co un ts in su bst anti al p a rt fo r th e 

re ce nt qu ad ru pling o f oil pr ices by OP EC , fo r th e w av e of n ati onali zati ons of f oreig n pr op er tie s, p art ic u la rl y in L at in Amer ica, an d fo r th e on e-s ide d re so lu tion s 

on th es e su bj ec ts a do pt ed by t he U.N. As semb ly.

As to Sou th A fric a, it shou ld be re ca lled th a t th e As sembly an d th e Sec ur ity 

Co un cil ha ve fo r m an y yea rs bee n pas si ng reso lu tion s, which th e U.S . has 

alm os t al w ay s su pp or te d an d only tw o or th re e st ate s ha ve opposed , ca llin g on 

So uth A fric a to ab an do n it s policy of apart h eid or ra ci al se gr eg atio n.

Yet pra cti call y not hin g has ha pp en ed . A pa rthei d re m ai ns as fir mly en ­

tren ch ed as ev er. Eff ort s to im po se sa nc tion s on So ut h A fric a or to ex pe l it 

lega lly are bloc ke d by ve toes in th e Sec uri ty Co uncil. The pr oc ed ura l de vice 

ad op ted to de pr iv e So uth A fric a’s del eg at e of his se at in th e pre se nt As sem bly 

was, th er ef or e, w hi le lega lly im pr op er and pol itic al ly un wise , a symbo lic ex pr es ­

sio n of long pe nt -u p fr u st ra ti o n on an is su e th a t de ep ly af fr onts th e hu m an 

dig ni ty o f a ll the n on -w hite m em be rs of th e U ni ted Nati on s.

The qu es tion s revo lv ing ar ou nd th e Pal est in e Lib er at io n O rg an iz at io n like wise 

ra is e issu es carr yin g an en ormou s em ot io na l charg e: th ere is no do ub t th a t, ju st 

as muc h of th e w or ld co mmun ity ex pe rien ce d a deep sens e of guilt fo r hav in g 

fa iled to pre ve nt th e ho loca us t of tli e Je w s, so ha ve many, p art ic u la rl y in th e 

T hir d W orld, fe lt a gr ow ing sense of g uilt fo r ha vi ng all ow ed tw o gen er at io ns of 

P ale st in e r ef ug ee s to pa ss t h eir liv es in ec on om ic sq ua lo r an d a politica l va cu um . 

A ve ry la rg e m ajo ri ty of U.N. mem be rs now’ cl ea rly feels th at, ju st as Is ra el is 

entitled to se lf-d et er m in at io n, in de pe nd en ce an d se cu re so ve re ignty, so too are 

th e Pal es tinia ns.

H ad th is prob lem been sq ua re ly f ac ed and de cisive ly d ealt w ith s om e years ago, 

it m ig ht ha ve been res olve d with in th e fr am ew ork of th e Jo rd ania n st ate . H av in g 

been ne glec ted too long, th e in it ia ti ve pa ss ed , as has been th e c ase in m an y ot her 

em er gi ng na tions , in to th e han ds of u lt ra -n ati « n ali sts an d re volu tionar ie s will ing 

to us e te rr o r to ac hiev e “li ber at io n.” O utrag eo us as te rr ori sm is. we m ust no t 

fo rg et th a t it has been used in si m il ar st ru ggle s by Fre nc h re vo lu tion ar ie s, 

R us si an s, Yu go sla vs, Is ra el is, A lg er ia ns an d m an y ot he rs , an d is even now’ a 

dai ly pra ct ic e am on g bo th Catho lic s an d P ro te st an ts in N or th er n Ir el and. This 

does no t ex cu se it but he lps ex pl ai n why it is to le ra te d. To th e gre at m aj ori ty 

of U.N. mem be rs. A ra fa t is th e fig hting le ader of an op pres sed people, an d it was 

in t h a t ca pac ity th a t he w as re cogn ize d an d h on ored .

Ev en th e m an y wh o do no t co ns id er th ese ex pla na tions an d par al le ls sufficien t 

ex cu se fo r “irr es po ns ib le ” be ha vior by th e Gen eral As sem bly wo uld do we ll to 

re ca ll th e no t in si gn ific an t ac co m plishm en ts of th e U ni te d Nations , no t th os e of 

th e d is ta n t p ast b ut th os e of 1974.
91

Valuble U.N. peacekeeping capabilities have again been dem onstrated in the Middle Eas t by the esta blishment of multin atio nal forces in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights, forces th at now play an important pa rt in mainta inin g the fragile peace in the area and tha t, if there is to be a political settlement, will no doubt be an iudispensible element in it. Moreover the Soviet Union has in this ease for the first time join ed in creating and paying for such a force and is co- cha irin g the U.N.-sponsored Geneva Conference. Through the U.N. it is thu s deeply and usefully involved in the peacemaking process. A similar U.N. force in Cyprus was helpful in prev enting last summ er’s conflict from doing even more harm tha n it did and re mains a partia l barrier to fu rth er hostilities. Even the General Assembly, so bitterly repro ached for one-sidedness, has during the past month upheld the U.S. position by narrow margins on two critic al Asian issues: the representatio n of Cambodia and the main tena nce of a U.N. 

command in Korea. Of f ar more long-range significance were three U.N. conferences held this yea r on matters of profound est import: the law of the sea conference in Caracas, the population conference in Buc harest and the food conference in Rome. It is tru e th at none of these did more than begin to resolve these problems—by defining their magnitude, by proposing and debating means of dealing with them, and by exposing clearly the disastrou s consequences of failing to cope. But had the United Nations and its family of economic agencies not existed, it is doubtful th at even this beginning would have been made. It is indeed in this economic area of urgent intern ationa l concern th at the future indispensibility of the United Nations most probably lies, even more tha n in its tradition al peacekeeping role. It is becoming ever cleare r that the s urvival of organized and civilized human society into the 21st century depends on con­ trolling population growth, assurin g adequate and accessible supplies of food, fuel and fertilizer, developing and modernizing the underdeveloped two-tliirds of mankind, rationaliz ing and stabilizing our trade and financial systems, protecting our threatene d environment. All of these a re problem s that affect all nations and their solution will, in this age of accelerating interdependence, requ ire the active cooperation of most of them. The focus of such cooperation can best be intern ational orga nizations in which almost all nations are present. To quote Ham marskjo ld again, if the U.N. did not exis t we would have to invent it. It will be simpler to preserve and improve it than to reinve nt it. But it cannot be improved with out patience, re­ str ain t. mutual accomm odation and shared lead ersh ip on the part of all 

concerned. These qualities will be requ ired both from the numerica l majority of Third World countries and what Ambassador Scali called the “practical ma jority” of those countries on whose economic, political or milita ry power usually depends whethe r U.N. resolutions are mere empty gestures or lead to consequential action. Rather than trying to reserve decision-making on these critical issues for a “rich man's club” of affluent states, the “practical ma jor ity” must, if it wishes the decisions to be car ried out, submit them at an early stage to a forum of all concerned. To the same end the “numerical majority" must forego the symbolic “triu mp hs” that so provoke and aliena te their powerful partners, must be less compliant to the small coterie of radical activists within the ir group, and must engage systematically in a fa r more per sistent search for consensus among the 

two “majorities.” Finally, however, let it be clearly remembered wh at the General Assembly is and what it is not. It is a sounding board, a spectacular global opinion poll, a “face the world" talk show. It is not a parliam ent to pass laws or coerce its 

members. When decisions need to be taken by the United Nations they will be taken, in rega rd to the maintenance of peace, by the Security Council, where th e U.S. and four others have a veto, and in regard to the c ritical issues of economic interdependence, in the specialized agencies and conferences, few of whose de­ cisions can in fact be implem ented without the suppor t of those possessing, in each case, the releva nt economic resources. My concluding piece of advice to both “ma jorities” would be th at of Talleyran d to diplomats: “Surtout, pas trop de zcle”—above all, not too much passion. 

The United Nations belongs to overyone, that is, everyone willing to live in peace 

with his neighbors.
Article E ntitled “T he U nited Nations W as Never More R elevant

T han Today,” by II on. C harles W . Yost, th e Saturday Review, 

J anuary 1975

I

The outs an di ng fa c t ab out th e U ni ted N ations to da y is th a t it is not be ing 

sulii cie ntly used . It is our g re ate st un de re m pl oy ed in te rn ati o n al reso ur ce . O ur world is ea ch year be ing dra w n cl os er to geth er by th e re ac h of mod er n 

we ap on s, th e n atu re of mod ern co mm un ications , th e ne ed s of ex pa nd in g popu la ­

tion s fo r food an d fe rt iliz er , an d th e dem an ds of ex pa nd in g co ns um ptio n fo r 

en ergy a nd raw m at eri als . Ev en th e st ro ngest and rich es t na tion s, like th e U ni ted Sta te s, are de pe nd ­

en t on oth er nati ons fo r se cu ri ty an d fo r m ai nt en an ce of living st andard s. The 

po or es t na tion s are de pe nd en t on ot he rs fo r bar e su rv iv al . Mu ch of th is in te rd ep en de nc e, man y of th ese re qu ir em en ts fo r g re ate r se cu ri ty 

an d as su re d su pp lie s, could be sa tisf ied th ro ugh th e U ni te d N at io ns if th e ca ­

pac itie s of it s or gan s an d ag encie s were ad eq uat el y used. The y ne ve r ha ve been. 

In fact , duri ng th e p ast te n yea rs they ha ve been les s us ed by th e U ni te d S ta te s 

th an ev er befo re.

II

The U ni ted N at io ns was con ceived in 1945 by F ra nkli n Ro osev elt an d Co rdell 

H ull be ca us e th ey believed th at American isol at io ni sm a ft e r W orld W ar I ha d pr ov ed co ntr ary to U.S . na tion al in te re st s. O ur isol at io ni sm co nt ri bute d to bri ng­ ing on a sec ond world w ar wh ich we oth er w is e might ha ve been ab le to pr ev en t. 

Ro osev elt an d H ul l di d no t w an t to re peat th a t m is ta ke a ft e r W orld W ar II . Th ey loo ked on a st ro ng in te rn at io nal org an iz at io n as th e be st mea ns of in ­

vo lving th e U.S. dura bly an d co ns truc tive ly in wor ld af fa irs. More over, th ey kn ew th at, w hile so ve reign nat io ns wo uld long re m ai n th e 

m ai n ac to rs on th e in te rn ati onal scene, th e old ba la nc e of po wer system ha d 

fa iled to pr ev en t tw o world w ar s an d could not be co un ted on to pr ev en t a th ir d 

an d a fo urt h. In a wor ld expo sed to nucle ar wea po ns th is pr os pe ct w as who lly 

un ac ce pt ab le.

II I

The United N at io ns syste m Ro osev elt an d H ull es ta bl ishe d w as also de sign ed 

“to ac hi ev e in te rn ati onal co op eration is so lv in g in te rn ati onal prob lems of an 

eco nom ic, socia l, cult ura l an d hum anit ari an chara cte r. " T hi s de sig n w as fleshe d ou t in succ ee ding yea rs by th e cr ea tion of a v ast network of as so ciated ag en cies in th es e fiel ds : fo r ex am ple, th e W orld H ea lth 

O rg an iz at io n, th e Food an d A gr ic ul tu re O rg an iz at io n, th e In te rn ati onal Mo ne­ ta ry Fun d an d W orld Ran k, th e In te rn ati o n al Lab or Office, th e Edu ca tional , 

Sc ien tif ic an d C ultura l O rg an izat ion, th e U.N. Dev elop men t Pro gr am , th e U.N. 

E nvi ro nm en ta l Pro gra m an d th e U.N. Popul at io n Pro gr am . In so do ing th e fo un di ng fa th ers perh aps built bett er th an th ey knew . 

W het her or no t th ey fo re sa w th a t th e wor ld wo uld th ir ty yea rs la te r be ca ught 

up in a po pu lation cr isis, a food cr isis, an en er gy crisis, a m on et ar y cr isis, a 

ra w m ate ri als cr isis, th ey prov ided th e in str u m en ts th ro ug h wh ich th es e cr ises 

co uld be de al t w ith in te rn at io nal ly . The tr ouble is. as we ha ve said, th a t th es e in st ru m ents are be ing only h alf used , an d le ss us ed by th e U nited S ta te s th an 

bv m os t oth er na tion s.

IV

T hat ha s no t al w ay s been th e case. D uri ng th e firs t tw o de ca de s of th e U.N., 

th e United Sta te s prov ided much of th e nec es sa ry in sp irat io n, le ad ers hip an d 

reso ur ce s. Mo st of th e ag encie s list ed ab ov e w er e se t up a t our in it ia ti ve. Ev en 

now we co nt in ue to ha ve more influ en ce in th e U.N. th an an y oth er sing le 

na tion .
93

However, during the past fifteen years U.N. membership has grown much more numerous and diverse. There are now 138 members of which over JO are so-called non-aligned countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The U.S. therefore is no longer able to obtain U.N. approval of action which does not have wide support among the non-aligned. Sometimes resolutions are pushed through the Assembly which we strongly disapprove. However, it is important in this connection to emphasize two points.

j First, the United Nations is not a world government. Far from it. It is an association of sovereign states with significant but strictly limited powers. Its General Assembly acts by majority vote but, except in budgetary and admin istra­ tive matters, can only recommend. Its Security Council can decide on action 

to counter threats to peace, but in the Council the U.S. and four other permanent members have a veto. The U.N. cannot therefore dictate to the U.S. nor to anyone 

else. Second, the United Nations reflects the world as it is. Whether or not this is a sensible arrangement, there ure more than 130 independent nations. e cannot ignore them or get along without them. A war in the Middle East, for example, threa tens peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and lead to an embargo on 

our vital oil supplies. Examples could be multiplied. We must in the interests of our own security deal with everyone else and we can usually do that best through an organiza­ tion where most everyone else is represented. Our Government in recent years has not. seemed to understand this simple fact. It has talked a great deal about “a structure of peace” but has neglected the structure which is already there, the one we ourselves created. What our Government has been talking about for the most part is the old balance of power. It has tried to pour the new wine of a global society into the old bottles tha t served Metternich and Bismarck in Victorian times. It has based its so-called “structure of peace” on fleeting personal relationships rath er than on established and durable international institutions. That strategy simply 

will not work in the 1970’s. V

The members of the United Nations, when they signed and ratified its Charter, conferred upon its Security Council “primary responsibilities for the mainte­ nance of international peace and security.” Yet it has been the habit of most states, particularly the great powers, to seek security unilaterally or by mili­ tar y alliances, and to turn to the Security Council onlj’ at the last moment when war had already broken out or was imminent. Under these circumstances it is no wonder the Council sometimes “fails.” In 1971 the great powers, including the United States, resisted for months 

s efforts of the Secretary General and others to bring the developing conflict between India and Pakistan before the Council. When war broke out, to no one’s surprise, the U.S. Government publicly blamed the U.N. for failing to stop it. By using the U.N. as a scapegoat for its own mistakes, our Government unjustly and irresponsibly damages the U.N.’s public image and weakens its public support of the United States. There have unfortunately been far too many examples of such behavior. The United Nations has not yet been provided by its members with the powers and resources to prevent all wars, but it has prevented many and it could prevent more. It can do so, however, only if the impending conflict is submitted to it for judgement and action in time, before public passions and military momentum have reached the point of no return. The Security Council needs a standing watchdog committee, like the Environment Program’s world weather watch, to survey accumulating storms threatening the peace, to con­ ciliate and mediate among those nations responsible and, if necessary, to bring them to the Council before, not after, the bell tolls. Similarly, when cease-fires have been imposed and wars temporarily stopped, members of the Council must not simply put the issue on ice and hope i t will stay frozen. It rarely does. War has been stopped four times in the Middle East, three times in the Indian subcontinent, three times on Cyprus, but each time, since the basic issues had not been settled, it soon broke out again. Its members must enable the United Nations not only to stop wars but to make peace, peace tha t will be definitive and durable.
94

VI

The U.S. G ov er nm en t has disp laye d a si m il ar in cl in at io n to de al w ith th e 

ne w prob lems of econom ic in te rd ep en de nc e th ro ugh ad hoc blocs, in w hi ch on ly 

co ns um er s are re pr es en te d, ra th e r th an th ro ugh U.N. bo dies whe re ev eryo ne is.

It pra ct ic al ly igno re d th e sp ec ial session of th e U.N . G en er al As sem bly on ra w 

m ate ri als la st April, fin all y pre se nt in g a u n il ate ra l pr op os al th e day be fo re ad ­

jo ur nm en t. I t h as us ed th e ro st ru m of th e U.N . to bera te th e oil pro du ce rs but 

ra re ly i ts ch am be rs to n eg ot ia te w ith the m . v

O ur Gov er nm en t has du ring re ce nt y ears sy st em at ic al ly ne glec ted th e vital 

in te re st s of th e vast m aj ori ty of nat io ns in th e T h ir d W orld. O ur ai d pr og ra m 

has been st ea dily de clin ing in vo lume an d scope, an d w hat re m ai ns has been 

ov erwhe lm ingl y fo r th e benefit of a few cl ie nt sta te s like Sou th V ie tn am an d 

So uth Korea . It is no t su rp rising , th er ef ore , th a t th e m ajo rt iy of po or nat io ns 

at re ce nt U.N. co nferen ce s, su ch as thos e on th e la w o f th e se a an d on po pu la tion , 

see med un re sp on sive to owr i nte re st s. Coo pe ra tion is a tw o-way st re et .

In ge ne ra l our Gov ernm en t has av ai le d it se lf to a minim um de gr ee of th e 

op po rtuni ties which th e U.N. sy ste m offers fo r de al in g w ith glob al pr ob lems which 

cri tica lly co nc ern our nat io nal in te re st s. The follo wing a re some of th e p ri nci pal 

way s in which we co uld do so.

V II

1. The U ni ted N at io ns could an d sh ou ld pl ay a mu ch more ac tive ro le in th e 

pe ac ef ul se ttle m en t of in te rn ati onal dis pute s which m ig ht oth er w is e le ad to w ar .

Si gn ifi ca nt m ea ns of do ing so are pr ov id ed in th e C hart er an d ha ve been fu rt h e r 

developed in U.N. pra ct ic e ov er t he past 2 5 ye ar s. F a r too o ften th es e m ea ns h av e 

no t been used a t all or ha ve been us ed too la te to pre ven t war . Ce ase-f ire s are 

no t enough. No co nflic t is ev er se ttle d u n ti l a dur ab le pe ace, ac ce pt ed in good 

fa it h by th e part ie s, has been ag re ed an d im plem en ted.

2. The United N at io ns could an d sh ou ld , under U.S. lead er sh ip , pl ay a muc h 

mor e ac tive role in peacek ee ping , th a t is. in pl ac in g fo rc es or ob se rv er s be tw ee n 

co nten di ng p art ie s until pacific se ttle m en ts can be ma de. W he n th e U.N. has bee n 

au th or iz ed to en ga ge in pe ac ek ee ping , as in th e Congo, Cyp ru s an d th e M id dle 

Eas t, it ha s usu all y succeeded, but Iwith la rg e an d sm all nat io ns st ill too of te n 

pre fe r unil ate ra l adven tu re s to m u lt il ate ra l pe ac ekeeping .

3. Th e pro li fe ra ti on an d bu rd en of ar m am en ts , bo th nucl ea r an d co nv en tio na l, 

is one of th e g re ate st th re ats to glob al se curi ty an d prog ress. The w ast e of 

re so ur ce s is en or m ou s an d inex cu sa ble. No ne of th e big po wers is suf fic ien tly 

us in g th e s ev er al U.N . co nferen ce s an d bo dies ch ar ge d w ith neg otiat in g lim itat io n 

an d re du ct io n of ar m am en ts . Con ve ntiona l arm s co nt ro l is be ing al m ost en tire ly 

ne gle cte d. The se pr ob lems ca nn ot be reso lved ex clus ively in side th e U.N ., but 

neit her ca n th ey be res olve d ex clu siv ely ou tsid e.

4. The second gre ate st th re a t to m ankin d’s fu tu re is th e pre ss ure of gro w in g >

po pu la tion on fini te an d di m in ishi ng re so ur ce s. Pop ul at io n gr ow th is mai nl y 

occ ur ring in th e un de rdev elop ed co unt ri es an d on ly they ca n co ntro l it, thou gh 

develop ed countr ie s ca n help. Th e U.N. has fo r se ve ra l yea rs ha d a Pop ula tion

Pro gr am an d in 1974 has held a Pop ula tion Co nferen ce . Pro gr es s a t th e C on fe ren ce w as m ea gr e be ca us e of a de ba te am on g p art ic ip an ts as to w het her e conomic 

de ve lopm en t or po pu la tion co ntro l sh ou ld co me fir st. Thi s w as po intle ss. Eac h is 

es se nt ia l to the o th er . Th ey m us t go f orw ard to ge th er .

5. The mo st vit al n atu ra l reso ur ce is foo d. C ri ti ca l sh or tage s, lead in g to widesp re ad fa m in e are lik ely to oc cu r w ithin th e nex t year or two. The U.N. ha s 

also he ld a W or ld Fo od Co nfere nc e th is ye ar . As th e le ad in g pr od uc er an d consu m er of man y st ap le foo ds, th e U.S . has an in te re st in he lpin g to ex pa nd food 

pr od uc tion in co un tr ie s w ith ra pid popula tion gro w th an d. as th e n at io n w ith th e 

la rg est foo d co ns um ptio n an d la rg est food su rp lu se s, an ob lig atio n to co n tr ib u tin g to all ev ia te fa m in e wh en it occurs. B ot h of th es e ta sk s ca n be st be carr ie d 

ou t th ro ug h im part ia l U.N. agencie s.

6. At th e sp ec ial As sem bly session th is y ear th e U.N. be ga n to or ga ni ze mea ns 

of de al in g w ith glo ba l ra w m ate ri als pr ob lems. F or th e mos t part , ho we ver, 

pr od uc tio n, m ar keti ng an d co ns um ptio n of su ch m ate ri als co nt in ue s to be 

unp lanniH l an d un re gu la te d, to le av e pro duce rs an d co ns um ers al ik e a t th e me rcy 

of up s an d do wns in su pp ly an d price, to ri sk w id es pr ea d eco nomic d is aste r an d 

ra pi d de pletion of ex ha ust ib le reso ur ce s. Su ch pr ob lems can be effecti ve ly met 

only by in te rn ati onal ag re em en ts in which al l or mos t nat io ns part ic ip ate , such 

as thos e th e U .N. ca n prov ide.
95

7. Sub stan tial increme nts to essential world supplies may be found in the 

sea and seabeds. At the same time unrestric ted national completition to exploit these resources could lead both to the ir early depletion and to serious international conflicts. The U.N. has held this year a conference on the Law of the Sea, which will be continued next year. Progress so f ar h as been disappointing, 

partly because of a lapse of leadership on our part. It is in the vital intere st 

of all nations, larg e and small, to ensure th at the conference nex t y ear succeeds. 8. The world monetary system is in gre at disarray. There is no prese nt assurance it can cope with the str ains produced by global inflation and the sudden accumulation of huge new paym ents surpluses and deficits. Common action 

in and through the Intern ational Monetary Fun d offers the best prospect of 

avoiding widespread economic depression.

9. It will be impossible to obtain the cooperation of the underdeveloped coun­ tries in resolving problem s of population, food and raw materi als unless the 

rich countrie s contribute much more substantially to their economic development. The experience of 25 y ears has shown th at this contribution can be made with less political involvement and emb arra ssment thro ugh mu ltilate ral programs. The U.S. must expand the volume of its development assistance and direct a larger proportion of it through such U.N. agencies as the World Bank 

and its affiliates, the regional development banks, the U.N. Development Pro ­

gram, and the releva nt U.N. specialized agencies.

10. Mankind has only ju st learned th at its environment is not indestructible 

and th at irrev ersible damage to it is alread y occurring. Since much of the en­ vironment is inte rna tional, its protection also must be. At the Stockholm Conference in 1972 the U.N. esta blished an Environ men tal Program which monitors 

emerging dangers to the int ern ational environment, advises governments what is occurring and assists them in preve ntive action. This Pro gram deserves strong 

U.S. support. Finally, what is the cost of all this to the U.S. and others? The tota l ann ual budget of the U.N. and its whole family of agencies is only $1.3 billion, less tha n half of one percent of the U.S. budget, no more tha n the cost of a single Tr i­ dent submarine. The U.S. c ontribution to the total U.N. budget is approximately $40 million, less than half the cost of the New York City police. This would 

hardly seem extravag ant for an organization with these vast responsibilities, 

which Adlai Stevenson called “the last best hope of man kind.”

VIII

We live in a world of nation s which are politically independ ent but otherwise more and more dependent on each other, in many cases for secu rity and even 

survival, in all cases for economic stability and progress. Under these circumstances a strong intern ational organization, capable of 

peacemaking, peacekeeping and control of armame nts, equipped to deal with 

global economic and environmental problems, is more and more in the national 

inter est of every nation, including our own.

Such an intern ational organization , the United Nations, has existed for n early 

th irty years but has never been used to anyw here n early its full capacities. There 

are many ways in which the U.N. can and should be improved, but it cann ot be 

improved if it is ignored or neglected. In thi s era of inescapable interdependence among all nations, rich and poor, 

stro ng and w^eak, right and left, an ins titu tion embracin g all of them, given 

power and means to cope with problems and avert dis aster s threatening all of 

them, is more and more indispensable. The United States, in the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt and Adlai Stevenson, 

in association with all our fellow passengers on this small and frag ile planet, 

must seize the opportu nities the U.N. ofFers to meet those problems of the 1970's 

and 19S0’s which are insoluble by any other means.
Letter F rom R obert Y. Gromet, M.D ., W orld F ederal Autho rit y

Com mittee, to Congressman D onald A. F raser, Dated F ebruary 1, 

1975, in S upport of a F ederalized U nit ed Nations

Dear Congressman Fraser: Unable to testify in person a t your forthcoming 

hearings, I hope this letter stating my views will be included in the Hearing 

Report.

I trust tha t during this bicentennial celebration of our independent nationhood, when we recall our own experiences under the weak Articles of Confederation which compelled us to invent our more perfect federal union, we have 

achieved enough maturity not to contribute further to the weakening and possible destruction of the United Nations until we replace it with a more responsible and effective federal structure.

But while we keep this United Nations system afloat for the present, let us 

move full speed ahead to develop a more perfect world union.

To this end, I urge that your Committee recommend tha t the United States 

participate in the forthcoming Charter Review Conference which was voted by 

the United Nations General Assembly this last December. (The United States 

most foolishly opposed it.)

Further, I urge tha t your Committee be constituted a Subcommittee on United 

Nations Charter Review and funded to undertake documentation, research and 

drafting of a World Constitution for a federalized United Nations, with popular 

representation in the General Assembly (based on one or more formulas of 

weighted representation) and with world laws enforceable on individual world 

citizens. This involves the pooling and transf er of authority over world affairs. 

National governments, including our own, have more than enough to do to cope 

with national affairs.

At long last, I want to see our Congress take this signal initiative in harmony 

with our historic record in developing the world’s first effective federal system.

(96)
Mat er ia l S ub mitte d by t h e U .S . N at io na l

C om mission for U N E S C O

<2

Non-Governmental Organization Membership in the U.S. National

Commission for UNESCO

(With name an d title of re presen tative)

1. American Academy of Arts & Sciences (Dr. J. Robert Nelson, Dean, School 

of Theology, Boston University, Boston, M assachusetts 02130). 2. American Anthropological Association (Re presentati ve not appointed at 

presen t). 3. American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (Dr. Cyril C. Ling, Exec utive Vice Preside nt, American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business, 

1755 Massachu setts Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036). 4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (Representative not 

appointed at pre sen t). 5. American Association of Community and Ju nior Colleges (Dr. Richard J. Brown, Preside nt and Director, Nicolet College and Technical Institute , Room 

518, Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501). 6. American Association of Museums (Dr. Kyran M. McGrath, Director, Ameri­ can Association of Museums, 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 

20007). 7. American Association of School Admin istrators (Mrs. Barba ra A. Sizemore, Superintendent of Schools, District of Columbia Public Schools, Pre sidential 

Building, 415 12th Street. NW.. Washington, D.C. 20004). 8. American Association of University Women (Mrs. Elizabeth (K it) Wallace, 165 Marion Avenue, Mill Valley, California 04941). 9. American College Personnel Association (Dr. William Harold Grant. Di­ rector, Student Development, Auburn University, Auburn. Alabama 36879). 10. American Council of Learned Societies (Dr. H. Field Haviland. Jr.. Pro­ fessor of Intern ati onal Politics, Fletcher School of Law’ and Diplomacy, Tufts 

University, Medford, Massach usetts 02155). 11. American Federation of Arts (Mrs. Elizabeth (Betty) Blake, 3806 Beverly 

Drive, Dallas, Texas 75205).

z

12. American Field Service (Dr. Stephen H. Rhinesmith, President and Exec utive Officer, American Field Service, 313 East 43rd Stree t, New York, New 

York 10017). 13. American Folk lore Society (Representative not appointed as yet). 14. American Geological Institute (Dr. Laurence L. Sloss, Professor of 

Geology, North western Univ ersity. Evanston. Illinois 60201). 15. American In stitut e of Architects (Mr. Louis A. Rossetti. President, Rossetti Associates, 1234 Penobscot Building. Detroit. Michigan 48326). 16. American In stitu te of Biological Sciences (Dr. Joh n F. Reed, Profess or of Ecosystems Analysis, University of Wisconsin, College of Environmental Science, 

Green Bay, Wisconsin 54301). 17. American Libra ry Association (Miss Esthe r Jean Walls, Associate Directo r, Lib rary , Sta te University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 

11794). 18. American Political Science Association (Dr. Gene M. Lyons, Professor of Goverment, Dartm outh College, Silsby Hall, Hanover, New Ham pshire 03755). 19. American Psychological Association (Dr. Nicholas H. Hobbs, Prov ost, Vanderbilt University, 212 Kirklan d Hall, Nashville, Tennessee 37220). 20. American Sociological Association (Dr. Harry Alpert, Vice Pre sid ent fo r Academic Affairs, and Provost, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403).

(97)
21. Association of American Geographers (Dr. Marvin W. Mikesell, Profess or 

•of Geography, Dep artm ent of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 

60637).

22. Association of Classroom Teachers of the National Educatio n Association 

(NEA) (Mrs. Erm a Williams, 2819 Ea st Meyer Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 

64132).

23. Association of College Unions—International (Mr. Clark E. Drummond, 

Directo r of Studen t Union, Wilder Hall, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio 44074).

24. Associations of Stud ent Intern ational Law Societies (Mr. Jay A. Burgess, 

Attorney-Adviser, Nea r Eas t and South Asia Division, General Counsel’s Office, 

Agency for Inter natio nal Development, Washington, D.C. 20520).

25. Commission on Voluntary Service and Action (Mr. Jam es Neal Cavener, 

260 N inth Avenue, Upland, California 91786).

26. Council on Intern ational Theatrical Events (CINE) (Re presentative not 

Appointed as yet).

27. Fou r II Clubs (Mrs. Frances (Sue) Benedetti, 305 Seventh Stre et, NE., 

Washington, D.C. 20002).

28. General Federation of Women’s Clubs (Mrs. Helen A. Tunkis, 573 Este 

Madera Drive, Sonoma, California, 95476).

29. Intern ational Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience, Experience, Inc. (Mr. Robert M. Sprinkle, Executive Director (IA ES TE / 

U.S.), American City Building, Columbia. Maryland 21044).

30. Intern ational Studies Association (Dr. Edw ard Miles, Professor of Marine 

Studies, Institute for Marine Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195).

31. Intern ational Theatre Insti tute of the U.S.A., Inc. (Representative not 

appointed as yet).

32. League of Women Voters (Mrs. Gail Bradley, 2507 Sevier Street, Durham, 

North Carolina 27705).

33. Linguistic Society of America (Dr. Eric P. Hamp, Professor of Linguistics, 

University of Chicago, 5828 South University Avenue, Chicago, Illin ois 60637).

34. Music Teac hers National Association (Dr. Celia Mae Bryant, Professor of 

Music, University of Oklahoma. 560 Farrington Oval, Norman. Oklahoma 73069).

35. National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council (Dr. Cyrus 

Levin thal, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Department of Biological Sciences, 

Columbia University, 754 S chermerhorn Extension, New York, New York 10027).

36. N ation al Assembly of Community Arts Agencies (Dr. Mark Ross, Executive 

Director, Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa, 2210 S. Main Stre et, Tulsa, 

Oklahoma 74114).

37. Natio nal Association of Bro adc aste rs (Mr. Daniel W. Kops, President, 

Kops-Monahan Communications. Inc., 152 Temple Stree t, New Haven, Connecticut 

06510).

38. Natio nal Association of Education Broadcasters (Mr. William G. Harley, 

President, National Association of Educational Broadcasters, 1346 Connecticut 

Avenue. NW., Washington, D.C. 20036).

39. National Congress of Parents and Teac hers (Representative not appointed 

as yet).

40. Natio nal Council for the Social Stud ies (Dr. Stanley P. W ronski, Professor 

of Education and Social Science, College of Education, University of Michigan, 

513 Erickson Hall. Eas t Lansing, Michigan 48822).

41. National Council of Churches of Ch rist (Mr. William C. Walzer, Executive 

Dire ctor, Departm ent of Education for Mission, National Council of Churches of 

Christ. 475 Riverside Drive. New York, New York 10027).

42. National Council of Jewish Women (Mrs. Shirley Joseph, 50 DeVille Circle, 

Williamsville. New York 14221).

43. National Council of Negro Women (Representative not appointed as yet).

44. National Education Association (Represen tative not appointed as yet).

45. National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs (Mrs. 

Jea nne C. Squire, Secretary-Treasurer, Merrick Chevrolet Company, Berea, 

Ohio 44017).

46. Natio nal Fed eration of Music Clubs (Mrs. M. Nancy Pope, Cimarron Riverside Ranch. Loyal, Oklahoma 73756).

47. National Science Teachers Association (Dr. .Tames V. DeRose, Head, 

Science Departm ent, Marple Newtown Schools, Newtown Square, Penn.).
99

48. National Trust for Historic Preservation (Mr. Jam es Biddle, President, National Trust for His toric Preservation, 748 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, 

D.C. 20006).

49. National University Extension Association (Dr. Robert F. Ray, Profess or and Dean, Division of Extension and University Services, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52240). 50. National Urban League (Mr. Cecil R. For ster, Jr. , Vice President, Westing- house Broadcasting Lea rnin g a nd Leisure Time, 90 Pa rk Avenue, New York, New 

York 10016). 51. National Wildlife Federatio n (Mr. Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Vice President, National Wildlife Federation, 1412 16th Stre et, NW., Washington, 

D.C. 20036). 52. Nature Conservancy, The (Dr. Robert E. Jenkins, Vice President, The Natur e Conservancy, 1800 North Kent Stree t, Arlington, Virginia 22209). 53. Operation Crossroads Africa, Inc. (Mr. Jerome E. Vogel, Exec utive Direc­ tor, Operation Crossroads Africa, Inc., 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 

10011).

54. Public Broadcasting Service (Representative not appointed as yet). 55. Social Science Research Council (Representative not appointed as yet). 56. Stud ent National Edu cation Association (Representative not appo inted as 

yet). 57. United Natio ns A ssociation of the U.S.A., Inc. (Mrs. Sarah Goddard Power, 

12 Ridgeway West, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104). 58. Women’s American ORT (Organization for Reh abilita tion through Tr aining) (Representative not appointed as y et) . 59. Young Men's Christian Association, National Council of (Dr. Nicholas T. Goneliaroff, Executive Director. Intern ational Education and Cultura l Affairs, National Council of the YMCA, 291 Broadway, New York, New York 10007). 60. Young Women's Christian Association, National Board of the (Mrs. Peggy P. Patterson, 5834 Morningside Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75206).

F ederal Govern ment, State and Local G ove rnment, and Membe r-at-L arge

Mem be rs hip in th e U.S. Nat ion al Com mission for UN ESCO

1. The Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr. , United State s Senate, Washington, 

D.C. 20510 (F ede ral Governm ent). 2. Mrs. Shirley Temple Black, 115 Lake View Drive, Woodside, California 94062 

(Sta te and Local Gove rnm ent). 3. Mr. Sammy Davis, Jr., 1151 Summit Drive, Beverly Hills, Californ ia 90210 

(Member a t L arge). 4. The H onorable Robert J. Dole, United States Senate , Washington, D.C. 20510 

(Fe der al Government). 5. Mr. Richard J. Elkus, Post Office Box 432, Redwood City, California 94064 

( Member at L arg e). 6. Mrs. Lois Logan Evans, 133 East 64th Stre et, New York, New York 10021 

( State and Local Gove rnm ent). 7. The Honorable William D. Ford, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, 

D.C. 20515 (Federal Gov ernm ent). 8. The Honorable George J. Feldman, 1010 Fift h Avenue, New York, New York 

10028 (Member at Larg e). 9. Mr. Robert R. Garvey, J r., Executive Secretary, Advisory Council on His toric Preserv ation, 1522 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20240 (Fe deral 

Government). 10. Mrs. Rosemary L. Ginn, 303 West Boulevard, South, Columbia, Missouri 

65201 (Member at L arge ). 11. Mr. Waverly Glover. Certified Public Accountant, 5406 Jame stown Road, 

Springfield. Ohio 45502 (S tat e an d Local Government). 12. Mrs. K atherin e Goodwin, Assistant Dire ctor of Development, Public Broad­ casting Co., WDCN, Nashville. Tennessee 37221 (Member a t Large). 13. Miss Nancy Hanks, Chairman, National Council on the Arts, and Nation al Endowment for the Arts, 806 15th Stree t, NW., Washington, D.C. 20506 (Federa l 

Government). 14. Dr. Paul Robert Hanna , Professor Emeritus, Stanfo rd University 94305 

(Member at Large).
100

15. Dr. Robert E. Hill, Executive Dire ctor, National Center for Voluntary 

Action, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20006 (S tate and 

Local Government).

16. Miss Paula Jewell, Howard University, Office of the President, 2400 6th 

Street, NW., W ashington, D.C. 20001 (Member at Large ).

17. Mrs. Mary Neal Jones, 2400 NW. Grand Boulevard, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116 (Sta te and Local Gov ernment).

18. Mr. Jam es Keogh, Director, U.S. Inform ation Agency, 1750 Pennsylvania 

Avenue. NW.. Washington, D.C. 20547 ( Federal Government).

10. Dr. Allan K. Kuusisto, President, Hobart & William Smith Colleges, k

Geneva, New York 14456 (St ate and Local Government).

20. Mr. Arthu r Gordon Linkletter, 8530 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills,

California 90211 (Member at Large).

21. Mr. Benjamin F. Marsh, Ritter, Boesel, Robinson & Marsh Law offices,

240 Huron Street, Toledo, Ohio 43604 (S tate and Local Governm ent). <

22. The Honorable Fra nk Marsh, State Tre asu rer, Capitol Building, Lincoln,

Nebraska 68509 (State and Local Government).

23. Mr. Frank C. P. McGlinn, 729 Millbrook Lane, llaverford, Pennsylvania 

19041 (St ate and Local Government).

24. Mr. George W. Miller, Jr., Supervisor, Electronics Engineer, USACC 

Agency—White Sands, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico 88002 (S tate 

and Local Government).

25. The Honorable Emil Mosbacher, Jr. , 515 Madison Avenue, New York, New 

York 10022 (Member a t Large).

26. Mr. Lauren D. Rachlin, Rachlin and Rachlin Law Firm, 1212 Genesee 

Building, Buffalo, New York 14202 (Member a t Large).

27. Dr. G. Robert Ross, Chancellor, University of Arkansas, 32nd and University Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 (Stat e and Local Government).

28. Mr. Edw ard O. Sullivan, 51 Pondfield Road, Bronxville, New York 10707 

(Federal G overnment).

29. Miss Jayne W. Teagle, 210 Ea st 68th Stree t, New York, New York 10021 

(Member a t Larg e).

30. Mr. Lowell Thomas, 24 Ea st 51st Stree t, New York, New York 10022 

(Member a t L arge ).

31. Mr. Russell E. Train, Admin istrator, Environmental Protectio n Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 (F ede ral Government).

32. Dr. R. Miller Upton, Preside nt, Belo it College, Beloit, Wisconsin 53511 

(Member a t L arg e).

33. Mr. George A. von Peterffy, Vice P resident, Kidder, Peabody, Inc., 10 Hanover Square, New York. New York 10005 (Member a t L arg e).

34. The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, U.S. District Judge, U.S. Courthouse,

9th and M arket Streets, Philadelphia, Pen nsylvan ia 19107.
[From the UNESCO Courier, Ja nuar y 1975]

A Statement on Israel by A madou Maiitar AI’Bow, Director

General of UNES CO

Reports carried by press, radio and television on recent decisions by the eighteenth session of the General Conference of UNESCO concerning Isra el have 

frequently been lacking in accuracy and even objectivity. Two resolutions adopted by the General Conference chiefly concern Is ra el : the first refers to the composition of regional groups set up within the Organiza­ tion ; the second refers to the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 

in Jerusalem. Because the resolution defining regions with a view to carrying out activities of a regional character has been interpreted incompletely or incorrectly, it has been maintained t hat Israel has been excluded from UNESCO or denied the possibility of participating in its activities. Israel has neither been ousted from UNESCO nor from any regional group within the Organization. Israel continues to be a member of UNESCO, as one of the 135 Member States, which make up the Organization. Israel also continues to be listed, for elections to the Executive Board in Group I (Western Europe) on the same footing as Australia, Canada, the United States of America and New Zealand, which are situa ted geographically outside 

of Europe. During the eighteenth session of the General Conference, Israel, like Canada and the United States of America, introduced a dra ft resolution with a view to being included in the list of countries entitled to participate in the European regional activities in which the representative character of States is an im­ portant factor. While the resolutions referring to Canada and the United States were adopted, the one tabled by Israel was rejected by the General Conference, tha t is, by the duly accredited representatives of the governments of the Member 

States of UNESCO. Thus, Israel is in exactly the same situation it was in prior to the eighteenth session of the General Conference. It therefore cannot be argued tha t it has been ousted from anything at all; the only new fact is tha t Israel is now the only Member State not to be included In one of the regions “with a view to the execution of regional activities”, since Australia and New Zealand, at the pro­ posal chiefly of five Asian countries, have been listed in the Asia and Oceania group, while Canada and the United States (at their request) have been listed 

in the Western European group. Canada and the United States, I should recall, had requested—unsuccess­ fully—at the seventeenth session of the General Conference in 1972 to participate in the Second Conference of Ministers of Education of European Member States. At that time nobody, either in Canada, or the United States, much less in Europe, accused UNESCO of having excluded them from any regional group whatsoever. Thus, these countries have, like Israel, taken part in the conference held at Bucharest in December 1973 as observers. This possibility is open at all times to Israel should a ministerial conference again be convened in Europe. In the same way, Israel can participate as an observer, as it has done in the past, at any regional conference of ministers no matter where it is held. The second resolution “invites the Director-General to withhold assistance from Israel in the fields of education, science and culture until such time as it scrupulously respects the resolutions and decisions” of the Executive Board and 

the General Conference. This resolution is based essentially on resolutions 2253 of 4 July 1967 and 2254 of 14 July 1967 of the United Nations General Assembly and resolutions 267 of 3 July 1969 and 298 of 25 September 1971 of the United Nations Security •Council on the status of Jerusalem, as well as on the decisions of the UNESCO

(101)
Gen er al Con ferenc e a t its fif teen th an d se ven te en th session an d of th e UN ES CO 

Exe cu tive B oa rd a t it s 82nd, 83rd, 88 th, 89 th an d 90th session s. W hen it ad op te d 

a new re so lu tion , th e Gen eral Con ferenc e co ns id er ed th a t th e Is ra eli Gov ernm en t ha d no t he ed ed th e ur ge nt ap pe al s m ad e to it sin ce 1908 ca llin g on it to 

“d es is t from an y arch ae ol og ical ex ca vat io ns in th e city of Je ru sa le m and fro m 

an y mod ifi ca tio ns of it s fe at ure s or its cu lt u ra l an d his to ri ca l chara cte r, p art ic ­

ul ar ly with re gard to C hrist ia n an d Is la m ic relig io us si te s.” Noting th a t th e exca vat io ns an d w or ks wer e co nt in uing w hich it co ns id er ed su sc ep tib le of e ndan ger ­

in g th e C hri st ia n an d Is lam ic sites, th e G en er al Co nferen ce decid ed six years 

a ft e r is su in g it s fi rs t no tifica tio n, to co nd em n th e a tt it u d e of Is ra el, which it 

co ns id er ed “c ontr ad ic to ry to th e aim s of th e O rg an iz at io n as sta te d in it s 

C ons titu tion . . .”

I wish to st re ss th a t in reaffir ming al l th e pri or re so lu tions co nc er ni ng Je ru ­

sa le m th e Gen er al Con ferenc e ag ai n expl ic itly in vi ted th e D irec to r-G en er al to 

“c on tinu e his ef fo rts to es ta bl ish the effective pr es en ce of UN ESCO in th e city of 

Je ru sa le m .’”

Su ch are th e fa ct s. I hoj>e they will perm it th e ge ner al pu blic to form a fa ir e r 

an d mor e accura te op ini on of th e re so lu tions ad op te d by th e G en eral Con ferenc e 

a t it s ei gh te en th ses sio n. Sim ilar de cision s ha ve bee n ta ke n in th e p ast w ithout 

givi ng r ise to th e re ac tion s o f the se las t few w eeks.

Ther e ha s bee n re fe re nc e to th e “p olitiza tion of UN ES CO ”, as if th e ag en cies 

of th e U nited N at io ns system ha d no t in fa c t bee n bo rn of a po lit ic al dete rm in ation to foun d a ju st an d du ra bl e peace by co ntr ib uti ng to th e gen er al pr og re ss 

of hum an ity an d to stre ng th en in g unders ta ndin g an d co op er at ion am on g all 

peoples . UN ESCO is com posed of al m os t th e same Mem ber S ta te s as th e U ni ted 

Nations . Th e de le ga te s to i ts Gen eral Con fe re nc e are go ve rn m en t re pre se nta tives . 

It is th er ef ore n a tu ra l th a t th e prob lems which pert urb th e world to day sh ou ld 

find an echo th er e.

F or my ow n p art , as I ha d oc casio n to sa y a t th e clo se of th e eig hte en th se ssio n of the G en er al Co nfere nce, I th in k th a t, in an O rg an iz at io n de vo ted to e duca ­

tio n, science an d cu ltur e, we mus t av oid th os e co nflic ts which ta ke on th e ch aracte r of sy st em at ic co nf ro nt at io ns . We sh ou ld perh ap s also av oid th e ad op tion 

of reso lutio ns , even w ith larg e m aj ori ties , th a t could re su lt in deep bit te rn ess in 

ce rt ain quart ers . The go lde n ru le fo r an org an iz at io n such as UN ES CO sh ou ld 

al w ay s be th e se ar ch fo r a co ns en su s th ro ugh p ati ent an d open dia logu e.

T hat is wh y, as th e ne wl y elec ted D irec to r-G en er al , wh o had no t ta ken p art 

in th e di sc us sion s which w en t on long bef or e my elec tio n, I in dic at ed to th e 

G en er al Co nferen ce my firm in te ntion—i f so au th ori ze d—to sp ea k ou t he nc efo rt h an d whe ne ve r it is ne ce ss ar y, in ord er to tr y to reco nc ile dif fe re nt po in ts 

of view so a s to r ea ch th e w ides t po ssible ag re em en t.

I th er ef ore re gre t th a t on th e ba sis of in fo rm at io n which is to sa y th e le as t 

inc om plete an d of te n di stor te d, cer ta in em in en t pe rson s ha ve th ought fit to 

ad op t su ch un co mpr om ising att it u d es, al th ough th in kers an d sc ho la rs m ig ht be 

ex pe cted t o be mo re i nc lin ed t o disc us sion and d ial og ue .

I th in k it is appro pri ate to reca ll th a t fo r nea rly 30 year s UN ESCO has been 

en ga ge d in a v ast un de rtak in g, in it s fie lds of comp ete nce, w ith th e he lp of me n 

an d women of al l or ig in s an d al l cr ee ds fo r th e good of th e in te rn ati onal com ­

m un ity. an d th a t to da y in th e UN ESCO S ecre ta ri at it se lf men an ti wo me n from 

mor e th an 100 Mem ber Sta te s— incl ud in g Is ra e l— are join ed in a com mo n effo rt.

I am firmly conv ince d th a t it sh ou ld alw ays be po ssible fo r UN ES CO — if on ly 

in te re st ed S ta te s ag re e to work alon g w ith it —t o overc om e th e te ns io ns which 

hin der in te rn ati onal co -ope ratio n an d unders ta ndin g in it s fields of co mp ete nce. 

Rut th is pr es up po se s th a t th e no rm s an d ru le s es ta blish ed by th e O rg an iz at io n 

shou ld no t be co ns id ered a de ad le tt er ea ch tim e th ey conflic t w ith spe cific 

in te re st s.
S ta te m en t E nt it le d “W hat, in t h e U .S . I nt er es t, I s G iv en U p

I n O ur R ef usa l T o C o n tin u e A s a M em be r of U N E S C O ?”

1. UN ESCO is a m ea ns whe reby th ousa nds of A m er ic an citize ns and hu n-

■ dr ed s of pri vat e org an iz at io ns co nd uc t th eir in te rn ati o n al bu sine ss in ed uc at io n,

I science, an d cu ltur e. A pp ro xi m at el y 340 in te rn ati o n al no ng ov er nm en tal org aniza tion s ha ve som e fo rm of re la tion sh ip w ith UN ES CO . UN ES CO is a re la tivel y 

eff icient conv enien ce fo r th es e people an d in st it uti ons, and pr ov id es fa ci lities fo r

■ th eir in te rc ha ng e. I t wou ld be ine fficie nt an d vas tly mor e ex pe ns iv e fo r th em to 

co nd uc t th eir inte rn ati onal bu sine ss o ut si de o f U NE SC O.

2. In ca le nd ar year 1974, nea rly 400 American pro fe ss io nal s were off ere d sh o rt 

an d long -te rm in te rn ati o n al job oppor tu ni ties by UN ES CO . Th e U ni ted S ta te s 

is also th e sin gle , la rg est su pp lier of tech ni ca l an d sc ie ntific m ate ri als p urc hase d 

by “s of t cu rr en cy ” co untr ie s th ro ug h th e UN ESCO Co upon IT og ram . An e sti ­

m at ed 370 American co mpa nies, un iv er si ties , and pr ofe ss io na l in st it uti ons h av e 

been di re ct be ne ficiar ies of th is pro gr am in th e am ount of $40 mi llion .

3. Th e United S ta te s is purs uin g st ep s to in cr ea se scientifi c an d te ch no lo gi ca l 

co op eration with L ati n America. Th e N at io nal Sc ien ce Fou nd at io n is usi ng 

UN ES CO 's U N IS IS T I ’rogra m (W or ld Scien ce I nfo rm ati on Sy stem ) as o ne of t h e 

elem en ts in th is co op er at io n. The U N IS IS T pro gra m will ultim at el y lea d to 

a gre at de al of st an d ard iz ati o n in th e sc ientifi c in fo rm ati on field. A st ro ng U.S. 

ro le in U N IS IS T im pr ov es th e ch an ce s of th es e st an d ard s becomi ng ac ce pt ed 

w orldwi de , lead in g ho pe fu lly to in cr ea se d ex po rts.

4. A no th er ex am pl e is th e United S ta te s ef fo rt to pr om ot e glo bal co nc ern 

w ith th e hu m an en vir on m en t, wh ich it pu rs ue d st ro ngly a t th e 1972 St oc kh olm 

Co nfe ren ce. UNE SC O's M an an d th e Biosp he re I’rogr am is on e o f th e ac tive in te rnat io nal pr og ra m s no w in op er at io n an d on e which has th e su ppor t of al m ost 

all Memb er Sta te s.

5. UN ES CO 's In te rn ati o n al Geological C or re la tion Pro gra m , sp on so red jo in tl y 

w ith th e In te rn ati o n al Un ion of Ge olo gic al Scien ces, focu ses on fu ndam enta l 

pr ob lems of geo logy, w it h p art ic u la r em ph as is on effective ex plo ra tion a nd ass ess ­

m en t of n atu ra l reso ur ce s. Sin ce th e U ni te d S ta te s im jjor ts la rg e am ount s of 

m in er al s, wh ose pr ic es are co ns ta nt ly rising , an y pro gr am th a t ma y lead to ne w 

disc ov eries is in th e U .S. in te re st .

6. U.S. book pu blish in g is es tim at ed to be a $5-$6 billio n in dust ry an d A m er ica n pu bl ishe rs ex port be tw ee n $300 mill ion an d $600 mill ion in books annuall y 

(t he fig ure var ie s be ca us e th e D ep ar tm en t of Co mmerce do es no t co un t ex p o it s

4

of 250 po un ds or le ss ). The Uni ve rs al C op yr ig ht Co nv en tio n, ad op ted, under

UN ESCO au sp ices , he lp s to pr ot ec t th e in te re st of Am er ic an pu bl ishe rs . T he 

Amer ican li bra ry co mm un ity , wh ich nu m be rs 22,000 pu blic an d un iv er sity -lev el 

libra ri es an d 77,000 sch oo l libra ri es , ha ve ac ce ss to UN ES CO pr og ra m s p e rt a in ­

in g to st andard s fo r st ati sti cs an d se ri al iz at io n, co py righ t, an d book an d li bra ry

< , de ve lopm en t pr oj ec ts. Mo reov er, th e UNES CO -spo nsored B ei ru t an d Fl or en ce

Agr ee men ts fa cil it ate , resp ec tiv ely, th e in te rn ati o n al ci rc ula tion of vi su al and 

auditory m ate ri als of an ed uc at io na l, scientific, an d cu lt u ra l ch ar ac te r.

7. Some p ro bl em s are so ca st th a t no one na tion ca n solve them alo ne. Oce an ogr ap hy is an ex am ple. Ev en th e Un ite d S ta te s do es no t ha ve th e re so ur ce s to 

co lle ct all th e ne ce ss ar y data . UN ES CO 's pr ogra m s ha ve bee n mos t us ef ul in 

w or ki ng out ta sk -s hari ng a rr an gem en ts .

8. Fin al ly , w ithdra w al from UN ESCO wi ll de stro y th e web of re la tion sh ip s, 

buil t a t th e U.S. ur gi ng , w ithin th e U.S . ed uc at io na l co mmun ity an d UNE SC O’s 

ke y ed uc at io n sector. T here are se ve ra l hundre d no ng ov er nm en tal org an iz at io ns, 

in cl ud in g th e In te rn ati o n al Assoc iatio n of U ni ve rs iti es , th e W orld C on fe de ra tion 

of O rg an iz at io ns of th e Tea ch in g Pr of es sion (N EA af fi liat ed ), th e In te rn ati o n al 

Fed er at io n of P are n t Edu ca tion, W or ld O rg an iz at io n fo r E arl y Childho od E d u ­

ca tio n. an d In te rn ati o n al Fed er at io n of Mo dern Lan gu ag e Tea ch er s. Eac h of 

th es e or ga ni za tion s m ain ta in s a m ut ua l su pp ortiv e re la ti onsh ip w ith UN ES CO , 

pr ov id es ob se rv er s to co nf er en ce s, ass is ts in co nf er en ce pla ns re pre se nting th e ir 

p art ic u la r in te re st s, and se ve ring th e UN ES CO ti e wou ld is ol at e th es e h undre ds 

of U.S. e du ca tion al N GOs.

(10 3)

o