Toward a new world; Future of the United Nations, part two

Or take their ability. It has a certain unity of purpose to destroy Israel. But how can it possibly be helpful in bringing about peace in the Middle East so long as Israel itself is not a member or takes itto OG and ctl possibly be helpful in settling disputes in the South and Southeast Asia. So long as states like India and Burma and Indonesia and Malaysia do not belong and we can go on the Warsaw Pact is a military alliance between a country and communist countries of Eastern Europe it may serve a useful purpose from a communist point of view. But it cannot be helpful in setting settling any of the great problems that beset the modern world. Now let me say just a word about NATO in this connection. The obvious limitations on NATO's action become apparent when one recalls the elementary facts of European geography. The UK is in the ATO but Ireland isn't France and parts of the globe belong but not Spain Norway and Denmark are in but not Sweden or Finland. Italy and West Germany are members but not Austria or Switzerland. Turkey and Greece but not Yugoslavia. This partial roll call of

states I think demonstrates some of the economic and political limitations inherent in the NATO's system. The fact is that very few of the big issues which have had their focus in other regions of the world can be resolved within the Natal framework. Dutch differences within the Asian Portugal's troubles in Angola Belgium's role in the Congo. The complex of problems in the Middle East. These are all cases which found their way into the broader form of the United Nations for very obvious reasons even problems like Algeria and Cyprus which don't extend beyond neato members were handled by the United Nations. Why. Well because in the case of Cyprus which involves Greece Turkey and the U.K. NATO's efforts to settle the dispute proved futile because Greece thought she could get more support and the United Nations so she took the case there. Nor was NATO a proper form to resolve the Algerian problem. Any attempt to use NATO's for such purposes would have stirred up bitter resentment among the African Asian countries and would have made

this the solution much more difficult to come by. We've got to remember that the United States is a world power and we cannot confine ourselves to any one region. So the UN is of great importance to us. We must draw our political support from more than just the narrow confines of the NATO's circle one hundred twenty three votes in the United Nations. And we if we are going to appeal to that organization with our program and our policies we have to get votes far beyond the limited NATO's circle. And as a world power we can't afford to be so close that in a fight with any one region that we tend to lose our touch and relationship with the other regions of the world. Now there's another possibility in this connection that one ought to talk a little bit about and that is the possibility of the development of greater unity among the free world countries within the United Nations. The three nations I think will find it essential to insert their policies and programs far

more than they have in the past. If we are to preserve the integrity of the U.N. and promote its overall objectives in behalf of world peace now it really is quite discouraging sometimes to go to the United Nations and compare what is happening now with what happened 10 or 15 years ago. The Russians and the communist countries have obviously learned a lot about parliamentary tactics. And I'm I'm sorry to say that some of our friends don't send their best people to represent them in the United Nations. I have tried and my colleagues have tried at times to get people to support us on the floor of the General Assembly to lead a fight that we thought was was worth leading. And it's awfully hard to get good people to stand up and make a good case for a policy in which you're interested. And I'd like to see more of them put forth their really very very best efforts. And France in particular has been a difficult element in this

free world equation general doesn't believe in anything like super nationalism and he's taken a very dim view of the United Nations. This is made it extremely difficult for us to move ahead as I think we ought to be able to with with a full steam of the of the free world and the organization I think holds important benefits for the West. It is for example the most influential force in the world working to give validity to those rules of conduct and international relations for which the West has traditionally stood and clearly are highly developed countries have a vital stake in law and order and human progress in this presumably is what the United Nations is for and still more important the U.N. offers the only viable alternative is the old colonial system providing as it is opportunities for peaceful just and continued cooperation in the working relations between the new countries and the former colonial powers in the Congo West area in Angola and Mozambique are all cases

in point new relations have to be established between the former mother country the Metropole and the colonial area. And if given a chance the U.N. is in a far better position to help with this than any other organization or grouping of states that I can think of. There's just one further thought I want to make to you boys too about the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations. It has not been able to bring the big powers together on a cooperative basis as we had hoped it would. But it has been fairly successful in keeping them apart. By stopping little wars. It has helped to prevent great power confrontations. This was true in connection with Indonesia and Greece and Palestine and Kashmir and Korea and Lebanon Suez in the Congo in any of these cases the United States could have acted alone because we had the power to act alone or the Atlantic community could have acted alone. But basically the situation called for an international response which only

an organization like the United Nations could possibly give. And in a sense I don't think the Atlantic community countries or Western European countries of so-called free world need to be pessimistic about their prospects in an enlarged United Nations because together they have both the diplomatic talent and the political influence they need to split the Asian African vote any time they choose to do so on an important issue. And there are two basic reasons why I think this is so in the first place as I have emphasized the Afro Asians have not been able to evolve a common. Core of ideals that might bind them together in their quest for peace they haven't been able to develop a platform on which they can all stand. The vast differences between them that divide them make agreement on fundamentals exceedingly difficult. In the second place the Western European the free world nations especially the United States United Kingdom and France have a wide network of bilateral and multilateral ties with scores of countries all over the world. We've got we've got you know

ties and ties of alliance and allegiance with 42 different countries. And the French have with a number of countries in the British pulling together. We could draw a tremendous amount of political support from these countries if we could only agree upon the policies and the objectives that we were to pursue. But unfortunately the free world has been characterized not by unity and determination but by a diversity of views as the thing that we brag about very often. But I think it can be overdone. The free nations I think could also do much to help strengthen the United Nations peacekeeping machinery bolster its economic and social work and put U.S. U.N. finances on a much sounder basis. This man is philosopher says that the trouble today is that the communist world understands unity but not liberty. While the free world understands liberty but not unity eventual victory he says may be won by the first of the two sides to achieve the

synthesis of both liberty and unity unity. Finally there's a fifth possibility which lies in the shifting of the balance of power back once more from the General Assembly of the United Nations to the Security Council where it started originally. This in effect we have suggested to the Russians in connection with the long controversy that we've had over contributions to the United Nations. We would agree according to this in all issues relating to peacekeeping or UN forces to give the Security Council the first opportunity to deal with the matter also something more to say about the apportionment of expenses because you know that the communists of the Soviet Union has said it's unconstitutional to have a general assembly dealing with these problems. Interestingly enough they did. They brought the Middle East situation recently to the attention of the General Assembly which which I think should've caused them to look up some of their earlier remarks about the role of the assembly in connection with the peacekeeping activity. Whether the

Russians will agree to this sort of situation to again put more emphasis upon the Security Council to reduce the importance of the General Assembly remains to be seen. But the idea demonstrates our deep concern anyway about the growth of the General Assembly and its power. Meanwhile the Soviet Union's position remains returned to the charge to return to the charter and the charter means the Security Council shall have all these problems in force and with the Soviet Union and the great powers would have a veto with respect to peacekeeping operations their policy line I think is as hard as it ever was nor peacekeeping operations except within the framework of the Security Council. Up until now the United States has insisted on keeping the door open for assembly action if need be. And recently Ambassador Federico announced the Soviet Union would make a modest contribution towards the work of the United Nations. If the Cold War should abate and we hope it will one day there may be a new

opportunity for the UN to make a real contribution to the cause of peace. Now I've talked a little bit about some of these alternative ways I've talked about weighted voting possibility of according to each day voting power more commensurate with its strength and prestige and influence in the world. Talk about the possibility of creating a concert of the free nations have talked about more greater reliance upon regional agencies instead of the United Nations. I've discussed briefly the possibility of strengthening strengthening for the world unity in the United Nations. And briefly a comment or two a return to the Security Council. There are other alternatives we could go back for example to the old system of the 19th century that result of them and wars and rumors of war. We thought we were getting away from when we created the United Nations. Or we could move toward a world federation. And this some people see the only hope for peace and yet the

prospects for moving ahead this way in this direction certainly don't seem very great if the Soviet Union and other countries aren't willing to give the United Nations a little bit of sovereignty. And I don't see how we can expect any of them to give to a world government all of their sovereign authority. Now what about the future Gladstone once said that the task of statesmanship is to discover what God Almighty has in mind for the next 50 years. This is a task which is a little beyond us and even if I could foresee all of it you might have some divergent views. That reminds me I mean also of story I like to tell. I don't think I told it when I was here before. In any case you've rather forgotten. Is the story of a school teacher who wanted to demonstrate the awful effect of alcohol on a living organism. So she brought into her classroom two glasses with three fingers of whisky and one of them three fingers of clear

water in the other and she took a fisherman put it in the clear water and it kicked up its heels and swam around had a good time. She took it out and put it in the whiskey and it curled up and died. She said What lesson do that teach you. Well I know said one little boy in the front row. It teaches me that if you've got worms you will kill Oh. I really told that story to get across the point that we may look at things differently. What one considers to be a lesson another one doesn't. So that if you will bear with me a few remarks about the future please keep that difference in mind. As as we look at the future it is very obvious to me that certain conditions that made possible the success of the United Nations in the Congo and the Suez and the Lebanese crisis will no longer exist. It is doubtful for example if the United Nations ever

again has a secretary general with the courage and the imagination and the wisdom of the hammer soul to guide his destiny who thought does enable patients and while diplomat with a great deal of experience but it is asking a lot to ask anyone to feel that hammer still shoes and I say this because after some of the things that happened in the Suez and Congolese crisis it became big apparent that if anyone who sat on the secretary general's chair was going to keep the confidence of both east and west he would have to tread very carefully indeed perhaps much more carefully than Mr. Hamil show did. It is also doubtful if the Security Council or the General Assembly will ever again issue the kind of general instructions that they gave to Mr. Hammer show. When the Suez crisis broke out you remember they couldn't agree in the Security Council or the assembly on the precise instructions that they were to give the second you know. So they just authorized him to do what was necessary to set up a United Nations

force. And he took advantage of this authorization and and did a very good job indeed. And when the Congo crisis came he was authorized again for the same reason because the assembly the body that was supposed to the Security Council the bodies that were supposed to issue the instructions in the form that the principals couldn't agree upon upon the fundamentals. So they just had to turn it over to the secretary general and that of course resulted in the in the slogan let the diag do it. This was done because it had to be done. And Mr. Cameron was quite willing to put his neck on the block in order to further the cause of peace. But it did not. I think it did place perhaps too much authority in the hands of the secretary general. And in fact it was really unfair to him. And as a result he did what he thought was necessary. But by 1961 he had become person unknown Gravatt of the Soviet Union. They were not inviting him to their diplomatic functions. They did not recognize him they had no dealings with him whatsoever. And I think if he had not been

killed in the airplane accident the 1961 he would probably have been forced to resign some time after that for he had ceased to retain the confidence of both the east and the West and he felt it was necessary for him to do this if he were to make a really effective contribution to the work of the organization. There's another factor that won't be the same. That is the voting majority the veil of the prevailed in the assembly will never again of course be possible today with a clear majority of Asian African countries with the voting power of the West greatly diminished. We can expect the assembly perhaps to end up in more stalemates or at least not to get involved in such controversial issues. That agreement cannot cannot be reached the Middle East crisis in which neither the United States nor the Soviet Union could command it two thirds vote I think demonstrates this point. As as we look to the future there are several things we might be able to do to strengthen the organization and thus help with the Chivas great purpose. And as I was

scratching my head thinking about this in my study this is last week I had to admit that I couldn't think of any great panacea. I suppose if I could Mr. Johnson would be asking me to come in. I do serve as a member of the advisory committee to the State Department on United Nations affairs and I happen for some reason also to be on their advisory committee on Middle Eastern affairs. But I must say I cannot think of anything startling or new or fresh or different to say about this problem at this particular time. There are some things we can do and sometimes you have to kind of head in the world and not overturn. Everything and everybody to achieve your objective. WE SHOULD I think encourage more foreign aid through United Nations channels. Now as you know about 15 percent of all foreign aid goes through multilateral channels. The rest is disbursed bilaterally. And you know what kind of problems we get into by giving

our aid individually and bilaterally to two separate countries. I think that we would improve our own posture in the world. I think we would get more aid per dollar because other countries would be contributing. We would improve our position in the Assembly we would strengthen the organization. If we would take that lead in a constructive program of multilateral aid through the United Nations. Secondly I think we should continue to set up continue our efforts to set up a modest standby United Nations force to help put out brush fires and resolve crises that may arise. I'm not talking about a great U.N. force powerful enough to put down aggression wherever it may bring up. This is not feasible in the midst of the Cold War in which the world finds itself. But the British the Canadians and the Scandinavian countries have all indicated their willingness either to earmark a certain number of troops or to offer facilities to the United Nations for such purposes. And even after the disaster in the Middle East we must not lose.

Especially after the disaster I mean I say we must not lose our momentum to move forward towards this this great object. Thirdly I think we should support any move to overhaul of the UN and to streamline its operations with one hundred twenty three members all of them wanting to make speeches for home consumption. The organization is becoming awfully big and very unwieldy. It is in our interest to improve the committee system to channel the unlimited debate into more constructive channels and in general to improve the operation of the United Nations. I am reminded of this point by my watch of this speech. To be a mortal need not be eternal and. My speech is approaching eternity for immortality but there is one great lesson it seems to me we have learned during the last 10 years and that is that the United Nations cannot deal successively with any major political issue we face

without at least the passive cooperation of the great powers and this gets back to San Francisco because the United Nations was built on this principle. It was stated again and again at San Francisco that the unity and the cooperation of the great powers would be essential if the U.N. were to move. Well it's a great destiny and keep the peace. And in the early days when the U.N. was a Western oriented organization as I say we had our way and the U.N. did pretty much what we wanted to do. But now that has changed and we must recognize it during the Suez crisis which is one of the UN's great achievements. The organization was able to move effectively partly because the Soviet Union acquiesced in what was going on. They didn't support it and who's asked thickly but they acquiesced. And the Congo crisis action was taken in the final analysis because the Soviet Union did not oppose what the African Asian countries wanted to do there and it is interesting to note that in the recent Middle East crisis when the US and the USSR had conflicting objectives very little was accomplished. The Soviet proposal to withdraw Israeli troops who had not accepted

and our proposal which would have tied the withdrawal of Israeli troops to an overall peace settlement was also rejected. The two great powers being at odds of this Embley the assembly decided to do nothing at all and turn the matter back to the Security Council. This one example may tend to discourage both sides from using the UN for cold war purposes. I mean while any thought of reefs restructuring our world order must wait it seems to me upon the solution of the Vietnam crisis. I thought maybe I'd get through the speech without bringing that in but I. Not the USSR has made it abundantly clear that they will not embark upon any very cooperative ventures with us so long as the United States continues its aggressive aims and designs. And I'm quoting in Vietnam now the reason for this of course is not Farsi. The Soviet Union is at the moment in keen competition. Indeed a life and death struggle with Red China for the

allegiance and the support of communist parties all over the world from the point of view of politics the Soviet Union cannot possibly ignore Vietnam. Or turn its back on her if she is to return retain her leadership in the communist world. She must continue to oppose U.S. activities in Vietnam and denounced us as an aggressor nation. I'm looking at it purely from a Soviet point of view but it seems to me that this would be my reaction if I were in charge of the Soviet Union. God forbid. The seven experts I know believe that the Soviet Union would like to find an end of the Vietnam conflict. She has many problems at home to say nothing of Cuba and the USA are in Red China as well as a crumbling of the structure of the communist system in Eastern Europe and she is convinced it would be in our interest to work a little more with the West. But so long as the Vietnam war continues we can expect a minimum of cooperation from the Soviet

Union in the period of history that lies ahead. We shall need the United Nations very much it seems to me. First because of the deep attachment of the small countries the new countries have for the United Nations especially the nonaligned countries because they have to have someplace to lean on they have no no they don't want to lean on them other countries they have no regional alliances to lean upon. It's the only place they have to lean and they consider their badge of membership in the international community and secondly because more and more of our really difficult problems are becoming global in nature and require a global solution. Just just compiled a list of the most important East-West trade and disarmament control of nuclear weapons. The whole question of human rights and all of the ramifications of colonialism economic development outer space the broader range of problems of

East-West relations and the Cold War. Now these problems and many others transcend regional boundary lines they can be dealt with only by an international organization geared to handle global problems. It is my judgment therefore that it is not in our interests but it is in the interests of world peace in the solution of some of these problems to give all the support we can to the United Nations. Meanwhile recognizing of course its limitations and its inability to cope with all of the problems that come along it. You have been listening to the Institute on world affairs a series of lectures and discussions held each year on the San Diego State College campus. At this session the principal speaker was Dr. Francis Wilcox the dean at the School of Advanced International Studies at the

Johns Hopkins University. The institute brings together noted speakers from all walks of life who address themselves to the perplexing problems that face mankind since its inception in one thousand forty three. The Institute on world affairs has attempted to examine those trends in politics economics science and culture which shaped the world in which we live. Through World War Two the Korean War the Vietnam War the Cold War and innumerable crises. It has been an open forum attracting authorities on international and national problems from around the globe. It has been a sounding board for military as well as peaceful causes political as well as moral issues scientific and sociological in congruity use racial order and disorder. Human progress and human deprivation. Indeed this institute succeeds in its objective to challenge the minds of men with a very perplexities that challenge the world. It aspires to understand world dilemma's by seeking truth through the knowledge of its

speakers. Presentations at its yearly sessions are concerned with matters of great international significance and reflect a wide spectrum of viewpoints backgrounds political persuasions and fields of specialization. What emerges from these discussions is not a clear pattern of a future world but rather a realistic background of what man portends for the world. Meeting in three week sessions each August. The Institute on world affairs sees itself as performing a very important role. It provides a free platform of open inquiry by experts and public figures can enunciate their thoughts and actions to the public. In addition to serving the community and contributing to the climate of public opinion the forum is a meeting place of active minds a place where the cross-fertilisation of ideas can calm an aide in an increased fund of scholarly knowledge. As well as possible bases for fresh agreement and theoretical coexistence. While selected themes are generally broad and often sweeping in the light of current world situations they have

stimulated authorities to speak on many subtopics which require a more in-depth treatment of the overall question addresses last approximately 50 minutes and in almost all cases are followed by open discussions with audience participants. In addition to formal lectures the institute schedules a number of panel discussions each year. As a means of benefiting from both formal lectures and panel discussions. The institute often arranges a meeting so that two successive lectures are followed by a panel discussion or so that the formal remarks of a single speaker are followed by a discussion between the speaker and other authorities on the same subject matter. Persons representing many diverse organisations vocations disciplines and backgrounds have brought their opinions to bear on the discussions of the Institute on world affairs. Official policy making process in the United States have been elucidated by Institute speakers representing high ranking offices of the Departments of State and Defense as well as members of the

legislative branches of different governments throughout the world. The Institute on world affairs was broadcast and recorded as a public service by the KGB as radio and television facility of San Diego State College San Diego California. This is the national educational radio network.