Support of the United Nations, our leaders earnestly proclaim, is one
of the cornerstones of American foreign policy. I confess to being more
interested in whether American foreign policy has the support of the
United Nations.
Here, again, it seems to me that our approach to foreign affairs
suffers from a confusion in objectives. Is the perpetuation of an
international debating forum, for its own sake, the primary objective
of American policy? If so, there is much to be said for our past record
of subordinating our national interest to that of the United Nations.
If, on the other hand, our primary objective is victory over Communism,
we will, as a matter of course, view such organizations as the UN
as a possible _means_ to that end. Once the question is asked--Does
America’s participation in the United Nations help or hinder her
struggle against world Communism?--it becomes clear that our present
commitment to the UN deserves re-examination.
The United Nations, we must remember, is in part a Communist
organization. The Communists always have at least one seat in its
major policy-making body, the Security Council; and the Soviet Union’s
permanent veto power in that body allows the Kremlin to block any
action, on a substantial issue, that is contrary to its interests.
The Communists also have a sizeable membership in the UN’s other
policy-making body, the General Assembly. Moreover, the UN’s working
staff, the Secretariat, is manned by hundreds of Communist agents
who are frequently in a position to sabotage those few UN policies
that _are_ contrary to Communist interests. Finally, a great number of
non-Communist United Nations are sympathetic to Soviet aims--or, at
best, are unsympathetic to ours.
We therefore should not be surprised that many of the policies that
emerge from the deliberations of the United Nations are not policies
that are in the best interest of the United States. United Nations
policy is, necessarily, the product of many different views--some of
them friendly, some of them indifferent to our interests, some of them
mortally hostile. And the result is that our national interests usually
suffer when we subordinate our own policy to the UN’s. In nearly every
case in which we have called upon the United Nations to do our thinking
for us, and to make our policy for us--whether during the Korean War,
or in the Suez crisis, or following the revolution in Iraq--we have
been a less effective foe of Communism than we otherwise might have
been.
Unlike America, the Communists do not respect the UN and do not permit
their policies to be affected by it. If the “opinion of mankind,” as
reflected by a UN resolution, goes against them, they--in effect--tell
mankind to go fly a kite. Not so with us; we would rather be approved
than succeed, and so are likely to adjust our own views to conform with
a United Nations majority. This is not the way to win the Cold War. I
repeat: Communism will not be beaten by a policy that is the common
denominator of the foreign policies of 80-odd nations, some of which
are our enemies, nearly all of which are less determined than we to
save the world from Communist domination. Let us, then, have done with
submitting major policy decisions to a forum where the opinions of the
Sultan of Yeman count equally with ours; where the vote of the United
States can be cancelled out by the likes of “Byelorussia.”
I am troubled by several other aspects of our UN commitment. First--and
here again our Cold War interests are damaged--the United Nations
provides a unique forum for Communist propaganda. We too, of course,
can voice our views at the UN; but the Communists’ special advantage
is that their lies and misrepresentations are elevated to the level of
serious international debate. By recognizing the right of Communist
regimes to participate in the UN as equals, and by officially
acknowledging them as “peace-loving,” we grant Communist propaganda a
presumption of reasonableness and plausibility it otherwise would not
have.
Second, the UN places an unwarranted financial burden on the American
taxpayer. The Marxist formula, “from each according to his ability
...”--under which contributions to the UN and its specialized agencies
are determined--does not tally with the American concept of justice.
The United States is currently defraying roughly a third of all United
Nations expenses. That assessment should be drastically reduced. The UN
should not operate as a charity. Assessments should take into account
the benefits received by the contributor-nation.
Finally, I fear that our involvement in the United Nations may be
leading to an unconstitutional surrender of American sovereignty. Many
UN activities have already made strong inroads against the sovereign
powers of Member Nations. This is neither the time nor place to
discuss the merits of yielding sovereign American rights--other than
to record my unequivocal opposition to the idea. It is both the time
and place, however, to insist that any such discussion take place
within the framework of a proposed constitutional amendment--and not,
clandestinely, in the headquarters of some UN agency.
Withdrawal from the United Nations is probably not the answer to
these problems. For a number of reasons that course is unfeasible.
We should make sure, however, that the nature of our commitment is
such as to advance American interests; and that will involve changes
in some of our present attitudes and policies toward the UN. Let
the UN firsters--of whom there are many in this country--put their
enthusiasm for “international cooperation” in proper perspective. Let
them understand that victory over Communism must come _before_ the
achievement of lasting peace. Let them, in a word, keep their eyes on
the target.