SPEECH
U.N., a Bitter Disappointment
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their
spears into pruninghooks...neither shall they learn war anymore."
These words, written by the Prophet Isaiah and then restated by his contemporary
the Prophet Micah some 700 years before Christ, have been etched in stone
at the United Nations Plaza.
They sum up for all time the yearning in the heart of mankind for peace.
Listen to the sounds of war from Isaiah's day. The snap of the whip,
the clatter of chariot wheels, the snorts of frightened horses, the
crackle of fire, the crashing of buildings, the screams of women and
children, the cry of the dead and dying, the moans of innocent civilians
being dragged away naked and bewildered into slavery.
Above all, there was the sense of hopelessness and despair as the
achievements of decades -- even centuries -- of toil and building were
consumed in a moment before some madman's dream of empire. (The same
madman, I might add, that later generations dignify with a suffix -
"The Great.")
Do we wonder that as war grew even more terrible, more and more men
of goodwill would seek ways of peace. As we scan ancient history, we
discover that people would accept even a measure of tyranny if their
only choice was between tyranny or anarchy.
When Rome had conquered the Mediterranean world, the people accepted
Roman dictatorial rule for what they called the Pax Romana.
In the 9th Century, to gain peace and security, the European tribes
submitted themselves to the Carolingian dominion of the Holy Roman Empire
(which later historians assert was neither holy --nor Roman -- nor an
empire).
With the rise of nation states, the senseless wars between them, and
the beginning of widespread conflict over claims to newly discovered
territories, the head of the Roman Catholic Church attempted to bring
peace by arbitrarily dividing the world into two major spheres of influence
-- one given to Spain, the other given to Portugal.
Peace remained elusive, and when revolution in France brought anarchy,
there arose a 26-year-old general named Bonaparte who brought France
an illusion of stability for a season. But soon he wasted the flower
of French youth on his personal dream of empire and ultimately turned
Europe into a charnel house.
When Napoleon was defeated, the major powers met in Vienna to map out
a new Europe, which hopefully would enjoy peace. Count Metternich of
Austria, who dominated the conference, was no idealist. He recognized
the cupidity of the powers and the ever-present danger of war. His solution
was the creation of a balance of power, somewhat like what we call Detente,
under which no bloc of nations would have the strength to begin aggression
against any other bloc.
Preserving the European balance required that no European power would
be permitted to gain added strength in the New World of North and South
America.
To insure the European balance of power, Lord Canning of England persuaded
President James Monroe of the United States to issue what we know as
the Monroe Doctrine, which declared North and South America off limits
to European powers. The Monroe Doctrine was honored because it was backed
first by British power, then until the Cuban Missile Crisis, by the
power of the United States.
With balance of power politics in place in Europe and with the incredible
ascendancy of British economic power and its resulting naval power the
Nineteenth Century is considered a time of relative peace, which we
call the Pax Brittania.
The most devastating conflict of the period was not between nations
but within our own nation. I refer to the Fratricidal conflict called
by historians the "Civil War" but which those in my home state
of Virginia refer to as "The War of Northern Aggression."
Indeed the Nineteenth Century was one of great optimism. And pride...mankind
was soaring...he was inventing, producing, discovering, and transforming.
And in the orgy of self-congratulation, the intellectual and spiritual
leaders of mankind were moving from their roots.
I noted that Win Lord in his address to you in 1985 quoted with approval
a verse from the Bible, which states, "Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set."
But had not mankind at the beginning of the 20th Century proved itself
superior to its fathers? And could not the ancient landmark of belief
in man holding rights as a unique creation of God be discarded with
impunity? Could we not now embrace human peace and human progress as
an ineluctable part of our advanced humanity?
Our intellectual dreams were shattered by an assassin's bullet at Sarajevo.
Never in mankind's history had there been fought a war as horrible.
Never had there been such weapons of destruction or such loss of life.
Never has a war spawned such a bloody aftermath. An ailing president
of the United States virtually ignored the Versailles Peace Treaty while
he gave such of his strength as remained to the formation of a League
of Nations to insure a world safe from war. Perhaps it is one of the
tragic ironies of history that the punitive provisions of Versailles
paved the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II ...even
as the League of Nations was dying of impotency.
Could anyone living at the year 1900 have dreamed of the horrors of
Stalin's starvation of the Soviet Kulaks, the concentration camps and
gas ovens of Hitler's final solution, and the dehumanizing conflict
that gripped the world less than three decades after World War I?
Following the carnage of World War II, the world yearned for lasting
peace. As was the case with a feeble Woodrow Wilson who looked beyond
the immediate reality of the treaty of Versailles as he sought to grasp
the elusive goal of peace on earth through a League of Nations, once
again a terminally ill president of the United States brushed aside
the immediate reality of post-war Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
and Manchuria to seek the long range goal of lasting peace.
Perhaps this can somehow explain Franklin Roosevelt's idealistic yet
incredibly naive explanation to Winston Churchill of his concessions
to Joseph Stalin:
"I think", he said of Stalin, "that if I give him everything
I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige,
he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of
democracy and peace."
Although Roosevelt's "Four Freedom's Speech" and the subsequent
"Declaration of the 26 United Nations" on January l, 1942,
gave the impetus for the United Nations, Roosevelt did not live to see
the founding of the organization some 41 years ago. He undoubtedly would
have shared the idealistic fervor of those who hailed its creation.
The United Nations was presented to the American people in glowing
terms. In Dean Acheson's words, "as almost holy writ, with evangelical
enthusiasm of a major advertising campaign. It seemed to me," said
Acheson, "to raise popular hopes that could only lead to bitter
disappointment
the General Assembly appeared to be the town meeting
of the world."
Brief highlights stand out along the road to the "bitter disappointment"
of which Acheson spoke.
In 1950 Harry Truman activated the General Assembly to mobilize a police
action against North Korea.
In 1958 President Eisenhower broke the Anglo-French effort to maintain
access through the Suez Canal. When he turned the matter to the United
Nations, Dag Hammarskjold used the occasion to blast European imperialism;
to link Israel as a pawn of imperialism; and to extol the virtues of
the so-called Afro-Asian non aligned nations. It is instructive to note
that his rhetoric and actions were in no way directed against the Soviet
Union, which had brutally repressed freedom fighters in Hungary under
cover of the Suez Crisis.
In 1960 when Belgium began to withdraw from the Congo, civil war broke
out. The Belgian government waited for United Nations action. When none
was forthcoming, the Belgian army moved in to restore order. Then Hammarskjold
condemned the Belgians and raised a United Nations force from the non-aligned
nations. Mineral rich Katanga Province had seceded from the chaos to
form a separate state under Moise Tshombe.
In the melee that followed the United Nations forces turned on the
European settlers and Katanga. Can any of us forget the photograph in
Life Magazine showing a bullet riddled Volkswagen Beetle, a dead woman
and child inside, and a dazed and blood spattered Belgian settler raising
his head to implore his attackers or heaven itself to understand why
the United Nations "peacekeeping" forces had just done this
terrible thing to him and his family.
From this time on a new philosophy took over at the United Nations.
Right was on the side of the emerging non-aligned nations. Tribal warfare,
revolution, dictatorship, terrorism, torture, graft, murder among these
nations were glossed over. The former Western allies and the United
States became, in the words of a subsequent non-aligned leader, "the
great Satan."
The most grotesque example of the emerging morality of the United Nations
took place on October 1, 1975 when Ugandan Dictator Idi Amin, and then
Chairman of the Organization for African Unity addressed the General
Assembly.
According to one historian, when he spoke, he denounced the Zionist-U.S.
conspiracy and called not merely for the expulsion of Israel from the
United Nations but for its "extinction". The assembly gave
him a standing ovation when he arrived, applauded him throughout, and
again rose to its feet when he left. The following day the U.N. Secretary-General
and the President of the General Assembly gave a public dinner in Amin's
honor.
Amin had murdered at least 200,000 of his fellow citizens including
Anglican Archbishop Luwum. Julius Nyerere of Tanzania said, "Since Amin usurped power he has murdered more people than Smith
in Rhodesia, more than Vorster in South Africa."
Yet not once would the United Nations move either to censure him or
to prevent his rape of the loveliest land in Africa.
Since the early 1970s, perhaps in a desire to give philosophical legitimacy
to its bizarre perspective, the U.N. has brought forth resolutions on
the New International Economic Order and the Charter on the Economic
Rights and Duties of States.
The new thrust is for a world devoid of ideological differences, with
a built-in poor versus rich bias, with a New Information Order severely
restricting press freedom; and a New International Legal Order mandating
by fiat world peace as an inalienable right of humanity -- in other
words, peace at any price -- a proposal that could ultimately result
in a loss of all other human rights under a one world dictatorship.
This concern over human rights leaps into focus when we realize that
in the realm of human rights from 1980 to 1984 the Third Committee concentrated
exclusively on human rights violations in El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Chile.
Until the consideration in 1986 of Afghanistan, human rights violations
in communist countries had never been placed on the agenda of the General
Assembly or any of its committees.
This is not altogether surprising because the non-aligned nations,
comprising a majority of U.N. members vote with the U.S.S.R. an average
of about 85 percent of the time in the General Assembly.
From a business standpoint the fiscal inequity and mismanagement of
the United Nations may be its greatest weakness. The poorest countries
contribute less than one-hundredth of one percent of the U.N. budget.
Together eighty of these countries, comprising a numerical voting majority
of the General Assembly, contribute less than one percent of the U.N.
budget.
On the other hand the United States pays 25 percent of the United Nations
assessed budget, and an even larger percentage of the costs of some
agencies.
In 1983 the total United States contribution to the U.N. was $1.2 billion,
$672 million for assessed and peacekeeping obligations and $530 million
in voluntary programs.
Yet our share of U.N. Secretariat personnel amounts to one sixth, and
among agency professional posts about 12.6 percent.
Where does the money go:
In the 1984-85 fiscal year the U.N. funded 2.2 billion pages of documents.
It employed at the Secretariat alone 52,000 civil servants, which are
paid 32 percent higher than their American counterparts, will earn on
the lower levels after 15 years of service pensions 80 percent higher
than their American counterparts, and for those with rank of Under-Secretary
or above will depart after 30 years service with a $310,000 tax free
farewell bonus, plus, I understand, a generous pension.
Dean Acheson's warning has proved correct. The U.N. has led to "bitter
disappointment." It has not preserved peace, and it assuredly has
not served as a dispassionate forum for the benefit of all mankind.
Today, I propose to you a new organization of nations.
One that is based not on failed utopian idealism, but on realism.
One that is not based on the shifting sands of ideological expediency
but on the bedrock of time honored principles. A return, if you will,
to "the ancient landmarks our fathers have set."
A community of sovereign nations based on democratic institutions,
representative government, respect for the rule of law, respect for
individual freedom, private property, the basic rights of freedom of
speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of press.
Those nations which neither use terrorism against other nations nor
torture and terror against their own citizens.
I call for a new "Community of Democratic Nations" which
would be open to all nations whose governments have achieved legitimacy
because they embrace democratic processes.
When a nation was able to move from totalitarianism or dictatorship
to true democracy for a specified period of time it would become eligible
for membership in the Community of Democratic Nations.
With a new Community of Democratic Nations the artificial distinction
of first world, second world, and third world status should be eliminated.
There would no longer be East to West, and Non-Aligned. The international
institutional dynamics flowing from the anti-colonial period would be
superceded by the new reality of the emerging Twenty-First Century.
Since the member states would represent the lion's share of the world's
economic power, it would be able to use that power constructively and
efficiently for genuine development without Soviet obstructionism. Furthermore
in matters of trade, loans and credits, economic development, and military
assistance the Community of Democratic Nations could use its power to
give international support to those governments which do respect democratic
principles and promote constructive change.
An organization that would include such diverse nations as Sweden,
Costa Rica, and Japan could scarcely be called an American propaganda
effort.
I would propose that the United States reduce its funding to the United
Nations by at least $250 million and use that sum for a number of years
as seed money for the New Community of Democratic Nations. Over the
years the present U.N. could concentrate more and more on the things
it does best in the technological arena, while it continued to serve
as a place of discussion between representatives of opposing camps.
But the world would have moved in its quest for lasting peace from
an arena of failed idealism, the rhetoric of fantasy, and bitter disappointment
to a new realism which truly reflects the global struggle of freedom
against totalitarian tyranny.
|