Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 303; United Nations: Future Endangered

From the United Nations in New York National Educational Television presents the WGBH TV production. This is Eleanor Roosevelt prospects of mankind. Produced in cooperation with Brandeis University. At the United Nations last year. Dog shows stress the United Nations unique role in avoiding armed conflict. The late secretary general said the special need and the special possibilities for what I hear a call for the United Nations diplomacy have been demonstrated in several recent cases such as Suez and Gaza. Lebanon and Jordan Laos and the Congo. A study of the records of the conflicts to which I have just referred shows how it has been possible to use the means and methods of the United Nations for other purposes. I have indicated. In all cases whatever the immediate reason for the United Nations initiative. The organization has moved so as to forestall developments which might draw the specific conflict openly or actively into the sphere of power bloc. It has done

so by introducing itself into the picture sometimes with very modest means so as to eliminate a political economic and social or military action. Those words were spoken by dog old in August 1960. In recent years the United Nations has been gaining in its power to act effectively. No longer simply a form of international debate. It was on the way to becoming a dynamic instrument of government. This was the hope of dawn showed no doubt the office of secretary general but the concept of strong executive action the United Nations went into action in the Congo but it sent troops not armed for military action but a peace army. Now the shoulder is no longer there. The organization is wrecked by ideological divisions and problems of geographic distribution. Some members are refusing to support the Congo operation. Others are concerned with the rising nationalism in their own country. The election of moutons seems to promise hope for the eventual resolution of these conflicts and a continuation of the leadership to which dog

Marshall gave his life. Here with Mrs. Roosevelt to discuss the prospects of the United Nations. Our Harlem Cleveland the assistant secretary of state in charge of United Nations affairs formerly the dean of the Graduate School of Public Affairs at Syracuse University and editor and publisher of the report her magazine as Job India's permanent ambassador to the United Nations has been a longtime representative of his nation at international conferences and former ambassador to Turkey and Japan. Stanley Hoffman professor of Government at Harvard specializes in international law and organization and French politics born in Vienna he was reared and educated in France. William Frei is the United Nations correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and the author of books on the UN Charter and disarmament. He will assist Mrs. Roosevelt in directing this discussion. Today to discuss the United Nations present

and its future. And so I would like to begin since one thinks immediately of the secretary general asking you Mr. Secretary what your feeling is about the role of the secretary general. Now the secretary general of the United Nations is a very different. Kind of position for what it was during the League of Nations when. The secretary wasn't affecting group for preparing papers for meetings. Nowadays especially during the commercial era. The secretary general has become a. International executive. He is set up under the charter not as. A person who depends from. The assembly or the Security Council but as is a separate organ of the charter itself. And. The secretary it has in fact developed some very significant executive

operations which now run to several hundred million dollars and employ thousands of people and have their impact felt all over the world. So I think you have to make a distinction in the United Nations between the kinds of issues which give rise to lot of debates but no action. And the kinds of issues which. Give rise to important actions which often don't give rise to very much a lot of debate. On the first category. You have such items as nuclear testing on the second that you have such very important executive operations as the Congo that impressive group of peacekeeping machines in the Middle East through a supervisory organization of Palestinian refugees the United Nations emergency force. This is really quite large business and it

doesn't represent the kind of machinery that. Can settle big power disputes. Not yet anyway. It can settle a lot of other disputes. And it's therefore of prime importance to all parties is large enough. To have a vigorous. Executive. Secretary general. Anything to add capacity to say well most of what happens to Cleveland has said either to the president his idea of four to six inches going to be. That is to say the sort of rule that he should perform. And that of course may be a good deal of argument with him. But we've got to be careful we are dealing with the secretary general. As an office or as an organ under the charter of the United Nations. And he cannot have more authority and he ought not to do less than what the charter

envisages. The charter talks of the secretary general. The chief of Officer of your organization. That means that if the Security Council takes a decision well he's got to administer it. I would like to use the word execute so much in the sense of an executive heading because it's not the executive in the executive bodies of the United Nations Security Council and perhaps in a more limited way in the General Assembly. This has not yet been asked and the decisions that implement the decisions of the of these bodies and in implementing naturally that is a considerable scope for his discretion but he cannot stray away from the end it off the Adye or I should say of the Security Council decisions and things like that in practice on the job John I wonder whether it is true that the secretary general. Acting under Article 99 which tells him to report on matters to the Security Council and the General Assembly. Whether in fact he doesn't

find himself. Investigating situations prior to any. Specific authority. Putting presences of the United Nations into. Areas so that he can better perform his constitutional function of reporting to the. To the essentially legist. I think you're quite right he has got the right to report in situations of danger not to be charged. But I wouldn't use the word investigation. Investigation is a very specific word. It comes within the function of the Security Council. What it does is he uses his diplomatic qualities he uses his power of contacting various heads of state some foreign ministers and now there are some facts and situations in order to report to the Security Council. But I would again say that's not the role of the security secretary general to take any kind of decisions or to take initiatives beyond what is necessary for him to be able to report and keep the United Nations fully informed. As the

United Nations presence. I think that's a rather debatable point. What does it mean. You can send an offset to any country any state the member states country. That is perfectly all that but it doesn't give the security of any diplomatic representation in United Nations presence and that to me excuse me just a minute but you speak of the secretary general as implementing the decisions of the General Assembly as Security Council. But in practice over many years haven't we found that the Security Council is paralyzed by the veto in the general assembly is fragmented into political blocs such that it's very difficult in practice for them to reach clear cut decisions for a secretary general to implement. And isn't it in just such situations that the secretary general must take it upon himself. Do you know. Well really to make policy where it has not been made for him. But I think that is precisely in those kinds of cases that we see how difficult and how ambiguous his position as he has to interpret resolutions which are

very often very ambiguous because they have lost after many compromises between about 100 nations and this he simply has to do because there is no other authority that can do it. But at the same time he can be effective it seems to me only if a number of conditions are met the conditions which do not depend on him or the United Nations couldn't be a force in the areas that Mr. Cleveland has mentioned. Only if you do have a case in which the big powers have decided more or less implicitly that they are not going to turn this case into an active Cold War test. Secondly if there is anything that the majority excuse given that a fight of the Congo. It seems to me that it does stay certainly an intrusion of the Cold War because it doesn't stay away from any place but it is certainly being felt at a much lower level of intensity. And that to say the situation in Berlin Similarly in the case of the Middle East in both 56 and 58. But then I think it seems to me that you also need in order for a secretary general to be effective something

like that constituency a majority to back him or at least a majority to back his interpretation. And finally what you also need is an international civil service which is composed not off to put it bluntly are spies of the various blocs but international civil servants who of course come from certain areas but are not there in order to limit anti-dog the secretary general saying one word I think I should like to make it clear that we are as much in favor of having a strong secretary general capable of acting rather than he needs to act. And we have rejected the division of his authority and all that kind of thing. But let us be quite clear that Mr. Fry gave the give expression to this view which is held in some quarters. That was to the Security Council is better like this. And second it must do several things. I do not subscribe to that view. The secretary can only do as much as he is expressly or by

implication authorized by the organs of the United Nations. And if he tries to do more than that as Hoffman has said he may get into serious trouble. Now Mr. much is concerned we all know of his very high diplomatic qualities. We have very great regard for him and the entire body of the United Nations. And by and large he got. He certainly got it the functions of the post as it were by his dynamism and his initiative very much harder than one would have expected a few years ago. But one ought to remember that it is precisely in situations where he took a great deal of initiative that he and the organization got into very serious difficulties. I don't want to go deeply into that but that is why we have to strike a balance between so many factors here. I think when John when we speak of secretary general having gotten into very serious difficulties we're saying that the trouble that he ran into was evidence that he was in business. Evidence that he was doing something

about real problems in the world rather than just talking. I think he says Excuse me this thesis is not entirely valid. Historically either because there was one instance in which the secretary general took initiative without actually waiting for a meeting of the Security Council or General Assembly namely in Laos in 1959 I believe it was and I think I would argue that constitutionally he is not subject only to the orders of the other bodies of the assembly that under the charter. Unlike the secretary general of the League of Nations secretary general of the of the U.N. is an organ of the charter. He is responsible to the charter not to the secretary and to the secretary general is not the order of five points on August 6 General Assembly security and the secretary and he said that you are quite right. No I don't. If you want to if it's the kind of idea that general shouldn't be that is not very much to dispute. I don't think it should be a very strong capable person capable of taking action. But let's not forget that we are bound by this instrument to which all nations have subscribed. Or that

this instrument is an adequate or not. Well that's a different question. But let us not make a mistake I think it's a big mistake to say that when everything is paralyzing the United Nations should do it. He simply does not have the authority to do it. And you can't arrest him with something without creating trouble for him and his personal trouble I don't mind so much. But without shaking the foundations of the whole organization that's what has been happening the last. And we have to be careful. We've got to strike a balance between so many factors. It seems to me in this connection that the cause of the mystifying example loss doesn't really support his thesis. But one of the pieces of ambassador of John on my own. Because once it became clear that both the United States and the Soviet Union were going to fight it out for a while in laws but United Nations presence dissolved like a piece of sugar in a cup of tea. In fact this is exactly what the United Nations cannot do. I was not contending that the human shield was successful and now unfortunately he was not. Because both the Soviet Union and the United States and others opposed his initiative.

However what he was attempting to do was just to strengthen the kind of naturalism which the United States now has as its national policy to attempt to promote and which we would now regard as a very good solution if we could get it. I think there's a there's an angle of that. Of the secretary general's presence abroad or the UN's presence abroad. That can be very important in these sort of guerrilla warfare situations. And that is that it can provide a tripwire. For. Making sure that the world knows about it and worries about breaches of the peace. If for example there were a U.N. presence in a country whose. Local government officials are being systematically murdered by by guerrillas coming in from across the way. A tripwire observer group of this kind could.

Publicize each one of these cases. And I think that we we all probably still underestimate the great value. Of. Public attention being focused on even relatively small incidents. Sometimes the public attention can be a little bit alarmist as it has been in some of the fighting in the Congo where if you have one shot fired and really gets fired around the world and you say that I really do not quite understand. With all due respect Mr. Cleveland if the contending parties or the Security Council agree that the U.N. should go there or not there was a very fine thing indeed. But does he want the U.N. to go against the wishes of one of the other contenders simply kind of eavesdropping operation. I'm afraid if you do that you bring the United Nations and the security agencies in a very great deal of trouble. As you know I find my for that matter if I might finish this evening with regard to the cold. There's no question. And we have been great

opponents of the Congo action. The United Nations is a big supporter of Mr. Hammond himself. But the difficulties that he encountered were heading to the situation. If the Secretary-General gets involved in the very deep political context of the country and here mind you he had the authority of the Security Council. He is misunderstood by one side or the other. And then you really weaken his position because after that the concept of an international impartial Smithson. So these are the difficulties which we must bear in mind before we advocate a great extension either through the charter or nationally or by practice or whatever it is. Of the functions of music. This a promise that the United Nations should act only on the basis of consent. It would it would follow Mr. Ambassador that the United Nations should not have done what it did and by getting the word tempted really to end the secession of your time it would also follow that the United Nations should take no active make no active effort to inhibit a suppression of Katanga by the

central government. Now I feel sure that those objectives are not the objectives of your government. Well I might I don't know if you are going on to the Katanga situation. I could say a good deal about that but I'll leave that for the time being. Taking what to Mr. Price is just a matter of illustration. Now the question is not what the United Nations should do if we were discussing that. I would have a whole range of proposals for them and to it. The important question to bear in mind is what it can do. That is where we should we should concentrate attention and the kind of thing we think is wholly justified by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council of the 14th July 9th June 16 and the 21st February 1961 is absolutely justified. And if there is going to be an argument I'm prepared to give my reasons for it. But I would leave that for the time being since we are on the question of the role and functions in sector today as well. Well I was just going to ask a question I wondered whether a

United Nations presence in a country did not sometimes mean that it was there is somewhat of a safe guard that the secretary general could send someone with the consent of the country. Of course. Not. Only so that he could report back. But so that the. Elements in the country would know. That there would be. And. How would you do that. I mean. And that in itself is somewhat of a restraining influence. Which might be accepted by the secretary general in order to get a better report. But at the same time. He does have an obligation to try. To keep his peace. Well it is possible at times that might be in his mind but I think this is a ruse when the finances are agreed that you can have very good function. For example immediately functional The U.N. is always always there. And Mr. Marshall

you know in many cases performed behind the scenes didn't come out with the first very important functions of conciliation and mediation. And that is property of the function of the United Nations. I mean this is nothing it is nothing against the charges. But to establish a presence. As you call it I think that prisons can do very well. If that idea can be fulfilled by asking the U.N. chief officer of the U.N. There were there is a technical assistant director all the information chief to make reports that can be done in that way. But. To establish a presence I submit without. The consent of the parties consent of the country consent is important of course. It doesn't want that the United Nations should really do some snooping in this country that is important it's also important to get the consent of the important parts consent. In that case of course these functions can be very useful and it would have been useful in past so I would if I may say so with respect I agree with your main thesis. That the media read the behind the scenes functions even the reporting reporting not with a view. To

inviting any punitive action or just keep the Security Council members and the General Assembly and for situations that could be very useful for which you like to see that's done in Berlin. Where I to talk about the big powers particularly the leader everything and I think that's probably the answer to that. The president of the United Nations in Berlin could only be the result of first a a an agreement among the four powers but that no exercise. Control there. But I think that the the whole concept of a United Nations presence which can be fully flexible can be one man commuting from Geneva to. See Olympio in total for example. From time to two three or four times a year. Ranging all the way up to. An Indian brigade and

in the Congo over and over 5000 men. And I'm having a little bit of difficulty Ambassador John reconciling that Indian brigade in Congo with what seems to me a rather reluctant. Approbation of the U.N. presence. I do. It seems to me that this is the great invention of our time in the field of building peacekeeping machinery. And that. It depends crucially as often as indicated on the integrity of the Secretariat itself and the fact that it is really operating to all of us and not for anyone. I'd like to have that idea. I don't think there is an inconsistency in my point of view. We have been strong supporters of the UN in the Congo we support the competition those operations without qualification. We've got a brigade of troops there as you have observed. But. What. Has happened in the Congo besides the sportsbike point. How did you get into

the camp. By the unanimous vote of the Security Council 11 hands went up I was in that meeting. It was a very historic decision. This is this was this was an action of magnitude would we have not been contemplated before. Because that after naturally the Security Council. It's a good result has had to make into a partition and had to make do. With the best possible interpretations and views that that he could. And by that and I said that those operations haven't been very successful. The our support of the current operations and of the U.N. action that he's not. Doesn't really invalidate my point. That is to see if you have a mandate. Secondly within the terms of that mandate that we just had to have a second let's you and I myself as an administrator about 30 years of service in the service of my government I know that and perhaps you know the same and that the chief had in the city of

office at 30 years ago has when you are younger than myself I can see that you sick and that he have a lot of latitude in that he said adding a second moderation that the chief had missed and all the basic policies you have got to be adopted by the consumer. That was my only point is the fact that there is a certain danger in building up too much of hopes in the possibility of stationing U.N. presence all over the world because essentially at least until now a U.N. presence has consisted of sending a fire brigade. This is effective it seems to me only when two conditions are met. First of all that there will be a failure. On the other nations have been extremely unwilling until now to send five brigades preventively it might be too bad. But this is not exactly a new phenomenon in diplomacy between sovereign states. And secondly it can be effective only when the maniacs on the scene. What I mean is that these fire brigades have a way of feeling and the effect of not being sent when you

are dealing with a fire in which the super powers are involved. Because in that case either the fire brigade gets lost or else up the United Nations refrains from sending one because he doesn't want to destroy his own future usefulness. And this is why it seems to me that in the Berlin case it's in the interest of the United Nations itself that it left. First the big powers deal with it and do not intervene before some agreement has been reached. You seem to be examining some different world from the one. When I look out. As a matter of fact. The world is full of United Nations presences in situations where the purpose is preventive. There are a good many more there are there not big ones but precisely they're not the big ones because they don't need to be big because there is a pervasive role being played. And secondly the pyromaniacs have just simply been on the scene in the Congo. The Soviets and some of their friends have

been assisting with. Kashan some one to one separatist group another separatist group in the Katanga has had a certain amount of assistance from the outside. The place is full of pyromaniacs which is precisely why the Indian Brigade and the other troops there have been required in this situation and have been useful in tamping it down to the extent that it's been done that would have been a dreadful donnybrook I think that was not the same word but just looking at it I think we're slightly more lost at some of the UN forces of preventive now they are trying to prevent future explosions. But if they've been sent in after an explosion had already started. And sometimes I would argue especially in the Middle East in case the explosion might have been prevented. First of all if the UN had been alone. Secondly of course the pilot mid-next are wrong everywhere. But there's a difference between simply sending some money or perhaps even some transport planes to one faction at a great distance

and it's quite a different thing of having a massive number of tanks a very large number of guerrillas actually fighting in an area. So this mix if there is a limit beyond which the U.N. with its present capability simply cannot go it would be unrealistic the U.N. doesn't have any can't send Nigerian troops to patrol the the border between East and West Berlin. Why not. Maybe the Nigerians would want to go. Well that's one reason but other than that it's right. And who would pay for and so forth. But the the wouldn't in that case you really would have to have consent of the of the of the people concerned. But most of the executive operations of the United Nations do not in fact require the consent of all the big powers. Very actively at least the Soviets have not in fact. Participated effectively either in the

peacekeeping operations of the Middle East or in the Congo operation. And yet those operations have survived. They voted for one or two resolutions for reasons in the case of the Congo that still escape me. But they haven't really effectively participated in it. They don't participate in the whole range of economic and social activity. They're not members of some of the specialized agencies yet they survive without and they are UN organizations. Isn't the real reason why the Soviet Union voted against its own will. Really in the Congo that the African nations and with the help of some of the Asians including the Indians got together and really twisted their arm exerted a great deal of pressure. Now. I would wonder if we could we might not discuss for a moment why don't the. Asian countries do this kind of thing more often. Why don't they make better use of this

reservoir of power which is available to them. M. Jacques for example. Why haven't the Afro-Asian nations. Exerted some pressure more effective pressure on Mr. Khrushchev to stop them from this hideous poisoning of the atmosphere are fresh admonitions are trying very hard that exerting pressure and exerting pressure on. And in the process of that being grossly misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented. What Candy what can the fruition conditions do. They really have no military part of a face to face with a situation in which the big powers have declared. Or at least you see that they indicate what the United Nations General Assembly might say. They are from God own reasons defense and what might be going to explode and numerous monstrous weapons of this kind. What can be done there. What about what weve said. Ambassador John what weve said is that if the if the General Assembly wants to be practical about this

thing it should it should ask the parties concerned the parties that have the capability of conducting nuclear tests to get together and to make an agreement that it has enough teeth in it so that it works. You know we had it's been demonstrated that in a general resolution after all Soviets voted twice for moratoria resolutions like the Indian resolution this year and it doesn't seem to have very much effect on it. So what we now need is is a treaty with what we're prepared to sign the treaty on this subject. Now tonight tomorrow morning or at any other time. Well that I know that so far as we are concerned most African nations are concerned not entirely in agreement that this thing should be. Bound by some international obligations through a treaty or something like that it is too. Ambassador Wilson in the new resolution which would have practically made it possible to have a new inspection in that.

No no we have never said that. Actually the resolutions that have been passed in 1959 and 60. Day if you wish to see the resolutions they say they retreat that it is essential to have a suspension of nuclear test and an effective international control of the Internet because the system that led to let and come to the no we haven't we haven't tried to explain that to them in he says that appeals to the big powers. I'm talking about resolutions last year for lost that they should add to the treaty as soon as possible. And they should continue their voluntary suspension of test appeals to them to continue their voluntary suspension of test these ideas with resolutions last year. The situation is different because the suspension had the voluntary moratorium has been broken. Now this also is our. We are calling the resolution of 1997 at 60. What does that mean. We stand by that that resolution then some default. Nobody in the United Nations can say that that

doesn't exist but it. May be ineffective is not our fault ineffectiveness is due to the fault of some other people whom we can't control every day. Then in the last Latin-American amendment now which says which makes it more there's a reason for these speeches and what we want is a treaty. What is the one the treaty binding international obligations but we cannot agree that until that treaty takes place the test would go on without restriction. Now the treaty may take one and if it is tomorrow all of us will be very glad with that part becoming operative William. But who knows how long the treaty will do the United States then you get a solution out say we should have it. But if you analyze it further what you were saying is that we should have a treaty of your terms with reasonable. I don't know. I'm not going into that at present. The Russians say we should have a treaty now in terms. So we are left in this very unsatisfactory position that there may not be a treaty or if it comes about. It will take a very long and all that we say that during that period. Please do not explode

these bombs. What do you mean a distressed American public opinion so greatly ambassador was that India appeared to take the same moral attitude toward a 50 million tonne equivalent of a bomb and a few thousand ton bomb. No I don't think that's correct. We haven't gone folks didn't say very much of anything when Khrushchev started this off in September the reaction of Belgrade was very mild very weak kneed and then he then he multiplied his injury with with this insulting and arrogant procedure. And in the Arctic and the reaction in the U.N. was again rather mild. Your government did speak out rather rather gently about it but many of your colleagues in the actuation bloc said absolutely nothing whatever whether grouping all test together as if they were like No mystified I might say that there's a lot of misconceptions of your moral authority.

No no sacrifice at all. You have been consistent. Belgrade conference declaration with a declaration to his twenty four countries that do not have to give the signature of 24 countries you can get it just as one country wanted a difficulty. Just as for example the United States and I dare say not always satisfying the declaration by the 40 NATO countries that they would like it in a different way and some other country would like it differently. But it is quite incorrect if I may say so that the reaction in India has been the reaction of our press release statement at the conference that was televised and I believe many people saw that you must categorical condemnation of the the breaking up of this moratorium. Then our prime minister has been making statements right now for this summer feature appeared in the papers. Our delegation has expressed in very strong tone saying we deplore we condemn this is just not what you are saying is that you should speak more strongly against the Soviet Union then you speak against the United States because the magnitude of the bomb is

different. They are just 50 here just about 10 or five. If a thing is bad and we think it's bad why would somebody else modify if it's morally wrong it's bad. What is the use of making the distinction that something is less bad or something is more likely really don't understand it. I think there is a slight distinction because when that they've been very unwilling to meet we have made no case and yet we still only in the ground. There is a great difference in the fact that. And I think you have to acknowledge that the face tests were made by Mr. Khrushchev not so very much by the Soviet Union but certainly the present they say twins are done simply to intimidate because they cannot. As far as I understand it any military they are ready to lead.

This well actually I fully agree. I think there is no justification at all for the explosion of the 50 or the 30 or 20 men get involved with any don't understand. I mean is this something which pollutes the atmosphere. And from my point of view it's worse in one sense that all these explosions are really some kind of. A glorification of violence which I don't like. I'm not saying that this is all wrong this is taking humanity into very broad channels and nations have ended losing their perspective. How can you live with all of this what really the world doesn't know the onset the purpose or purpose is precisely to pollute the political atmosphere whatever it may be. I mean it's bad. We think it's better to have no hesitation in saying that. But I also agree with you but I'm not a scientist and the effects of an underground explosion in the matter will fall out on the side may be affected. That too is maybe less. But the point is I mean we have face to face with the situation. The Soviets have exploded. We deplore the United States that was

brought here about four underground but they have given notice in very clear terms. They are also going to have a series of explosions in the in the situation facing us. And we really the African nation is weak the small nation has no power. We can only talk in the United Nations. It comes to enforcing anything we can do and we are in a very very difficult position. We are being misunderstood by all sides and this is what these people do not understand that the military necessity and everybody says we are doing it for the defense of the world. Is something which is to be the devil's advocate here for just a minute. Mr. Cleveland wouldnt we have been in a far better position in United States if we had not tested when Wouldn't we have been able to exploit this crime. Mr. Khrushchev to far greater impact. Would we have a responsibility or responsibility not only for our own security but a considerable responsibility in terms of the security of the whole of the communist world in the presence of an aggressive Soviet bloc.

To be ready for any eventuality with these so that as far as they as far as the weapons development aspect of testing is concerned. We were prepared to say all right quit right now when both sides were not prepared to say that we will have a moratorium during all such periods of history when the Russians dont happen to be ready to test and then we will cry to high heaven for a few weeks while they test they will have a little moratorium which is it is. But how much military was there actually in a handful of difficult underground test. Is this really worth the cost that we pay. Well so I'm so I'm told by the experts testify for me at this point. I wonder if this whole discussion doesn't really give an answer to the question that you raised quite a while ago about a lot of Asian nations can do and

also this I think brings us back to the question of what the United Nations can do. It seems to me that one of the issue at stake is an issue in which the super powers have made it very clear that they have absolutely vital interests and that their military power is involved. Not only is there very little information these nations can do but it also becomes very difficult for them to agree on the right formula. And it seems to me that this is precisely the kind of issue on which we attach too much importance within the United Nations. This is much more of a ritual than an effective action. But in those areas where the United Nations can have an effective war let's say the Middle East. Fifty six and eight. Congo 1960 and 61. In this particular range of issues from the Asian nations who are quite capable of not only resisting the pressures to which they were submitted by the superpowers but also getting sufficiently together in order to pass resolutions and even force the superpowers to get along with

them. And the president but the secretary has shown this again. The Russians did not get what they wanted. It seems to me that we really should concentrate on those issues on which the United Nations doesn't only perform the function of an arena and the function of a barometer of public opinion. But concentrate on those issues in which some effective action is possible. And once we get into propaganda debate I think that's very well said. I wouldn't make it quite an either or proposition. I would agree that the most important things for the UN to do are the things that it can do the things that it can say. But I would also say that the U.N. performs this other interesting and useful and important. Perhaps secondary functions important of of providing a place for a full airing. Of problems that are on everybody's mind and probably will fall out is indeed on everybody's mind. So I wouldn't I wouldn't exclude that. I think it's an important function. It's just that if it

makes such wonderful headlines. That we all tend to neglect to look at the things that are actually being done which because there is agreement about them not making these huge headlines may I suggest something at this point that there should be at the United Nations a full airing. Of problems on everybody's mind. Are you suggesting that the United Nations therefore should be a truly universal organization where the problems are on everybody's mind can be discussed including the problems on the minds of the Red Chinese. Do you want to read Chinese and for that purpose. No sir I don't want to read anything for that purpose because that wouldn't be there any purpose in coming in may come in his records. Pyromaniacs you're not at all sure. So the existing pyromaniacs in the organization won't mean very badly either because they might not indicate indicated at the recent party to be able to control it very well.

You know you don't think the Russians don't want to read Chinese in the UN but I think it's in their heart of hearts it's quite debatable. Then why should we help them by keeping them. Honest. Isn't it nice that we should agree on something occasionally. What do you think Mr. John. Well I think quite a lot about this subject. I have spoken before. I certainly think that they should come in. This is not a question of the coming from place. You. To be here. I think it's great to let in our organization. And the United Nations since it was conceived. I think it's a pity that they have been kept out which is a long time to come. I think the situation in the Far East is attrition addition to China. Would not have been. As difficult and controversial as it is now. What do you think it helps helps to turn the question around. A question as to whether they should it to the United Nations. To inquire whether.

The principles of the United Nations Charter should first enter their foreign policy. The question is can be asked about many other states for many end. Well it's going to be hard it's much politics that isn't all and in any case how can you judge until they come in. How could you ask them to apply all of these to their countries or in their. International behavior at the same time refusing them all the time it's really not consistent that they could not now said because they would have to show they were striving to be a peace loving nation. Well I mean that is true. I mean if you really. I know that remarks made in the United Nations exist in several existing members different people saying these people are not like these they are not peace loving. I mean the question is how are we going to determine this. But in any case in any club the problem of ejecting the

current members is a wholly different proposition for the elected members. Yes at least at least in the case of new members it's possible to be to maintain a certain purity that may be more difficult with respect to occur and with reason not that I think that people are thinking of what happened 10 20 years ago. I mean let's leave that out for the time. And that's the controversial part and maybe the Chinese got into conflict with United Nations but how far back are we to dig. What about some members who were sitting today who are fighting the free world you see only a few years ago. Really would you disqualify them for time. I mean you can't it the lesson of history is that history must be forgotten. We believe that even with but we believe in repentance that I don't believe. I think he can come to my grave with I haven't got to go OK that's perfectly true.

It's the whole idea of repentance is derived from a set of logical concept which of course is part of the western civilization but it's not part of my life. You see I mean in my religion and all that tolerance is much more has much more at least in the end. This is something perhaps a little bit unorthodox on this particular issue of the mission of Red China of admission of new members to what I would hate to call the club. It seems to me that the question is not whether we are repentant sinners. The question is. Whether by entering the United Nations they would be capable of making those kinds of operations in which the United Nations is effective. Now it seems to me that. In the specific case of Red China for a number of years to come I'm not going to be able to wreck those kinds of operations because they don't have the power to do so yet this power belongs only to the Superboy's for the time being. But in a few years I don't know if the Chinese got very much stronger than

they might become extremely dangerous. But I would immediately add that if they would have the power it once in it would probably also have the power of becoming a major obstacle from the outside if they are quite determined to intervene all over the world if they have power to do so. And if they don't observe some of the restraints which the Soviet Union has in many areas then we are going to be in trouble whether they are in the United Nations or whether they are up to the United Nations. It doesn't seem to me that it makes that much of a difference is if you have them in or. In the present Chinese seat and you were to adopt a less sort of just theory that nothing could be done very much by the secretary general unless it's told to do so by the Security Council. And I'm sorry I didn't say that by the big powers. There has to be. I could go back. I think I misunderstood and I didn't say that. I have said that the secretary general has room for initiative depending on his personality his own diplomatic

qualities the degree of confidence he gets. But let's not make a mistake. You cannot have too much initiated because the executive power rests with the Security Council and the other organs of the United Nations. And that balance has to be struck between this exuberant initiative shall have shall I say of the secretary general and the limitations of the charter. This is all that I said if I just like to connect to you if I may say so. It just seems to me that that the. Security Council which is not nearly as bad as it was being given credit for being a few years ago. Would be. Further immobilizes. By the presence of another. Veto in the hands of a nation which by all of its objective observation of its behavior. Doesn't think the charter is any good and those who want to do anything that I might say one thing. First of all. The value of one veto is just the same as that have to be to number one.

Number two I do not subscribe to the view which seems implicit in what you have said. Which is the Soviet Union which is part of the security. Time after time when we can speak from experience. These illusions have not been passed because of lack of seven talks. That is just not exactly the same effect as a veto because if you don't get that from a divorce you're going to pass it as a different security goes. And that is because certain powers. Have got to influence and they have to bend to the same rules. So I wouldn't I wouldn't put it so easily that Russian power is responsible for the ineffectiveness of the Security Council has been ineffective and different parts of use different techniques. To make it ineffective when it doesn't suit their interest. I don't think you can really say that one particular country or one particular part has been the response. There's a very much more complicated situation. The composition of the Security Council is something which enters into this picture at present was the view of an African country that is really seems to be representative of the of the composition of the

United Nations. And that brings us to the question of expansion of the security. Well of course. It's interesting to me when you say that certain powers act according to their own interests because this in a way is what the League of Nations. That you couldn't get anybody in the big nations to realize. That actually they come into a organization to try to bring about peace in the world. And that would have to do with that you could no longer think only of your own interest you had to think of your interest in the country and with interest if you were a great seller. Now we've got to make the same mistake. All over again. By really. Thinking primarily. In blocks of interest. Because in that case we're

going to we're going to do a great deal of harm to the United Nations and actually if we believe that I think we should we do believe that the United Nations has. The possibility of being extremely valuable to the world somehow. Even the new me who's coming in. Should be. In a training school where they would with. That thinking in truth as well. It's an important thing and I am very soon caught on to the the prevailing atmosphere of bloc voting maneuvering vote selling and so on. The country the countries that are that do the most of this type of bargaining at the moment or at least that certainly are very prominent in it. Are the French African group which sell their vote. So on many issues including notably that of the representation of red China

the surely happily or unhappily enshrined I would agree that it was unhappily the Privett the prevailing fact is that the UN does act according to nations interpretations of their own selfish interests. Sometimes those interpretations are very short range sometimes short sighted. I wouldn't I wouldn't. Set national interest off against. The UN consensus quite as much as that I don't think is rustbelt. From the United States point of view as a world power. Part of our initial interest is precisely in building that consensus. And I don't regard a process of accommodation in the United Nations by which you can build a consensus on an important matter. As. Being somehow a submission of our national interest to the interests of others. This is a form of topics. I don't even object to

to the like rolling in the vote trading business. This is the political business. In the United Nations is not something so pure and holy. It's a it's a place for politics. And there's no particular reason why Americans should believe for example that being fully familiar with politics for school boards and city councils through state legislatures in the United States Congress that somehow politics should stop at the water's edge and everything is is immutable principles that don't conflict with each other when you get abroad. And I think I would agree with that Mr. Harding. And so clearly it seems that was what happened in Cleveland. I beg your pardon. I agree with him that it's not possible for states which have national history in prison to completely disassociate themselves. From that

national policy in the national interest. But I would also if I may say some would agree with you that today there is far too much tendency. To exploit you. For a group or individual or big power interests. And I want to say that it's not the big powers alone who are doing this kind of thing. There's a great deal of exploitation going on a national interest and I think it's a kind of danger to the United Nations. I hope that the United Nations will get over. That we have improved U.S. and there would be a better balance between national interest and national interest. But I do agree with you if I may say so that this tendency for exploitation of the United Nations father for national interest is not to me. You've got something you want to say this I would think that in the future I'm afraid we're going to see even more exploitation rather than less with each new member that comes in the process will be a little bit more spectacular. It might be an aggressive move but I think it's also inevitable. This has to be in the way of politics

always the alternative to this is to have to rely on our military power and the balance of that exclusively. And it seems to me that what gives the United Nations its chance within a limited effectiveness is precisely the feat of general war which exists in the world. The fact that this fear condemns the super powers themselves in dealing with the countries of the uncommitted world or to deal with the persuasion of the worst subversion but not direct coercion and military intervention. This is it seems to me what makes every one of the groups which we find knowing that you have such a vital stake in preserving the UN as the one in which they can all come and talk and leave so to speak. The big weapons in the cloakrooms as long as this exists I think theres a chance both for the United Nations and for peace even though its not perhaps the most glamorous foundation on which to build the so-called community of mankind.

I doubt very much if nations are leaving their big weapon. In the cloak room at the U.N.. Well unfortunately we see reflections of them we see them waived sometimes it's a shoe. But the implication is that it's an atom bomb. Surely the U.N. is going through a difficult period. There will be confusion. There will be divisions will be reflections of the fear that these small countries feel that as a result of the terror tactics of the Soviet Union it's going to take a great deal of sophistication on the part of the United States public to continue supporting an organ which does not always demonstrably forward our concept of our national interest. I do hope though that we will have that sophistication and that confidence because one of these days the U.N. is going to see that it must rebuild the kind of structure which Doug hamma showed was attempting to build must recover its momentum. And when that day comes I think we will again have a strong year when we will be glad we stuck with it through the

storm. I thank you all very much for coming in to the last minute. And I want to thank Mr. Pryor I want to thank him and you Mr. Secretary and you Professor Hoffman for being with us today and I think I would say we've seen the change. And most of us seem to understand rather clearly that I hope we will avoid that. And that was really your hope will come true. I would like to say that to our next program will be a discussion of the U.S. policy in Asia and one of our guests would be Senator John. Allen Cleveland is assistant secretary of state for International Organization Affairs

William Frye as the United Nations correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Stanley Hoffman is associate professor of Government at Harvard University. Job is permanent ambassador to the United Nations from India. Next month. Mrs. Roosevelt and her guest will discuss U.S. policy in Asia. Photographs were furnished by the United Nations. This program was recorded for the facilities at United Nations television and w any WATB metropolitan broadcasting new york. This is an E.T. National Educational Television