February 11, 1971
Page 2612
THE SOVIET UNION, THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, last year the member countries of the United Nations joined in celebration of the 25th anniversary of that organization. In the addresses of their representatives to the General Assembly, the members pledged renewed support and effort toward increasing its vitality in its next quarter century.
The United Nations did not survive 25 years by remaining the organization created in 1945. It adapted to cope with new challenges. It created new procedures and new machinery in its efforts to deal with a diversity of problems and crises as affairs among nations took new forms.
If it is to become all that we hope it can be, the United Nations must continue this evolution.
In this context, I would draw the attention of the Senate to an article which appeared in the Foreign Service Journal of December 1970, entitled "The Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Nations." The article was written by Prof. Richard Gardner, professor of law and international organization at Columbia University. It is significant, I believe, that the article was drawn from the text of a paper presented by Professor Gardner to the Soviet Academy of Sciences in June 1970. Both we and the people of the Soviet Union can profit from its wisdom.
In the course of the article Professor Gardner suggests a number of organizational and procedural changes for the United Nations intended to increase its effectiveness and to enable it to cope with contemporary international problems.
Problems are arising that require international cooperation of an unprecedented scope, and Professor Gardner deals with a number of these, such as development of the resources of the ocean and exploration of the solar system, controlling the world's burgeoning population and enriching the standard of living for our human race, as a whole. In each case he offers serious proposals for change.
Of particular interest to me was Professor Gardner's argument that the protection of our environment must be the responsibility of all peoples and coontries, and that only through international cooperation can we fulfill our role as guardians, not exploiters, of our natural heritage.
The 1972 Stockholm conference should be an important step in this direction. We should also seek opportunities to work with the Soviet Union on environmental questions. Cooperation in this nonpolitical area would have a useful effect on our relations generally.
Professor Gardner's article is a thoughtful, provocative, and important document which deserves serious study. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection; the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
THE SOVIET UNION, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED NATIONS
(By Richard N. Gardner).
I believe, in the words of the Soviet memorandum submitted to the UN General Assembly on September 26, 1969, that the strengthening of international security requires a fresh collective effort, fresh initiatives, and fresh action." What are needed, of course, are not just rhetorical declarations by the General Assembly, but concrete actions by our two countries and others and specific steps to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations.
Concrete measures to strengthen international security will require a new approach by both our countries. Perhaps I can best summarize the approach I have in mind by, recalling the following exchange of views which I had at the UN several years ago with a member of the Soviet delegation.
"You believe," I remarked to him, "that history will demonstrate the superiority of your system, and that rotten reactionary regimes will fall into Communism like so many ripe apples. Although we disagree with your view of history, we certainly do not contest your right to hold it. And if you wish to place some baskets under the tree to catch the apples when they fall, we can't object to that either. But don't shake the tree and don't try to pluck the apples off it!"
To which my Russian friend made what I thought was a very fair reply: "Very well," he said, "we won't do those things, but don't you Americans go around pasting the apples up either!"
This exchange, it seems to me, highlights the central problem. We shall never have peace and security as long as some countries claim a right to assist revolutionary forces in other countries under the banner of "wars of national liberaton," while other countries claim the right to aid established governments under the doctrine of individual or collective self-defense.
The world urgently needs a policy of noninterference in internal affairs of others, scrupulously observed by all states, large, middle, and small. This means that American power should never be used to prevent a people from choosing the government it wants even if that is a communist government. And Soviet power should never be used to prevent a people from choosing a government. it wants even if that is a noncommunist government.
In other words, we should both permit the political and social systems of other countries to develop under their own momentum, without outside interference. We should be prepared to accept history's verdict about the comparative merits of our two systems for other countries and not try to "help history along."
You may ask at this point whether the United States is prepared to accept such a policy of mutual non-interference in the affairs of other countries. I believe the answer is yes. I would draw your attention, in particular to the significant statement by Under Secretary of State Elliot Richardson before the Soviet-American Convocation in New York last month in which he called for a policy of reciprocal restraint by our two countries.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union have recently experienced the perils of over- involvement in third areas. As you know very well, the American people are anxious to end the Vietnam war and avoid military intervention elsewhere. The current trend in American opinion in favor of disengagement offers a great opportunity to the Soviet Union – not an opportunity to alter the balance of power unilaterally at our expense, which would be a very risky and unwise policy, and certain to provoke an American reaction, but rather, an opportunity to work with us for mutual disengagement and political settlements in our common interest.
If such a policy of mutual noninterference is to work, it will require a much stronger UN capability for peacekeeping and peacemaking. For in specific situations there will be factual disputes as to what the people of a. country want, and whether there is actually intervention from outside. There is no really satisfactory way to resolve such disputes except through an international agency which can patrol borders, supervise elections, and verify compliance with non-intervention norms.
UN peacekeeping efforts, while imperfect, have made practical contributions in the Middle East, Cyprus, the Congo, and Kashmir. Both the Soviet Union and the United States have a common interest in using the UN to contain local conflicts that might draw in both our countries and trigger a nuclear war.
If we are honest with ourselves, however, we have to admit that neither the United State nor the Soviet Union is presently doing what it should do to strengthen the UN as a peacekeeping agency. Indeed, there is a widespread suspicion at the UN that the two superpowers want to keep the UN weak, so they can divide up the world between themselves without interference. But a two-power hegemony, based on spheres of influence, will not be acceptable to the rest of the world, nor does it serve the best interests of our two peoples.
What can our two countries do, in specific terms, to strengthen the UN's capacity for peace keeping and peace making?
First, we can make better use of the peace keeping machinery that already exists.
We should work together in the UN for a settlement of the Middle East conflict that will take account of the reasonable interests of all the countries in the area, and back such a settlement up with a UN force under a Security Council mandate so that the force could not be removed without the concurrence of all the Council's Permanent Members.
We should support the neutralization of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia under UN guarantee, with a UN peacekeeping force, to verify the cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of all foreign forces, the inviolability of borders and the carrying out of free elections. The Soviet Union, as Cochairman of the Geneva Conference, could take a historic first step toward this end by reconvening the Geneva Conference machinery.
Second, we should take joint initiatives to strengthen the UN's peace keeping machinery. Such initiatives should include a $100 million Peace Fund, with substantial contributions from both the US and the USSR, to liquidate the UN's deficit and provide a modest sum for future peace keeping emergencies.
I note with interest that the letter of Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko to U Thant of April 29, 1970, calls for the increase in the role and efficiency of the Security Council as the organ upon which the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security is conferred. In implementation of this point in your Foreign Minister's letter let us now agree on guidelines for peace keeping operations undertaken by the Security Council. These could provide for a committee of the Council, consisting of the "Big Four" and troop supplying countries to advise the Secretary General on the conduct of each peacekeeping operation, while preserving sufficient operational control in the Secretary General to assure peace keeping effectiveness. We should also agree that members of the Council should support financially those operations which the Council carries out consistently with these guide lines.
Third, we should develop new UN machinery for fact-finding and mediation.
There is a need for procedures for peaceful settlement that can provide a cooling-off period for the fever of controversy to subside, that can mobilize opinion behind a reasonable settlement and that can enable international agencies to take responsibility for outcomes for which the parties themselves cannot take full responsibility.
A new UN panel should be created of persons who could be drawn upon for fact-finding, mediation, and other kinds of assistance in the dispute-settlement. Its members should be chosen at least in part by means other than nomination by national governments with a view to each individual's personal qualifications.
It would be unrealistic for the time being to expect UN members to agree in advance to accept the judgments of third parties in all cases in which they were involved. But it is not unreasonable to ask UN members to agree in advance to accept the process of fact-finding or conciliation, reserving the right to challenge the facts found or settlements recommended by members of the panel. This would be a modest, but important, step forward toward a more civilized world peacemaking system.
Fourth, we should initiate joint studies of more far-reaching measures to transform the UN into a more effective instrument of world order.
Such studies should begin on a non-official level with conferences and joint studies by scholars and scientists from the US and USSR. The "Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations," negotiated by our two countries in the Zorin-McCloy talks of 1961, contains the following paragraph:
"7: Progress in disarmament should be accompanied by measures to strengthen institutions for maintaining peace and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. During and after the implementation of the programme of general and complete disarmament, there should be taken, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security, including the obligation of States to place at the disposal of the United Nations agreed manpower necessary for an international peace force to be equipped with agreed types of armaments. Arrangements for the use of this force should ensure that the United Nations can effectively deter or suppress any threat or use of arms in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Since that paragraph was negotiated, there has been no serious or sustained discussion between Soviet and American citizens on what changes in the UN would be necessary to make substantial progress toward disarmament possible. Let us begin a serious dialogue on this subject as soon as possible.
Fifth, we should make the UN universalwith membership for mainland China and Taiwan, the two Germanys, the two Koreas, and the two Vietnams.
I believe US public opinion is moving rapidly in favor of universality of UN membership, and that this will soon be reflected in our official policy. Our Soviet colleagues should not interpret US efforts to bring mainland China out of its isolation as an unfriendly act toward the Soviet Union. Rather, they should see it as a necessary measure for effective peacemaking on a global scale.
Agreement by the Permanent Members of the Security Council would be needed to secure the admission of East and West Germany, North and South Korea, and North and South Vietnam.
But the seating of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan as successors to the membership of the Republic of China could be achieved by a vote of two-thirds of the General Assembly and by the procedural majority of nine in the Security Council, thus bypassing a possible veto by the Taiwan regime. Of course, the Security Council seat would be assigned to the People's Republic. The seating of all these regimes could be done in a way which did not prejudice the possibility of unification by peaceful means.
While it is true that the problems of the two Germanys, the two Koreas, the two Vietnams and the two Chinas are all different, a "package deal" on all of them would make it easier for many countries to swallow their opposition to the seating of one or more. Such a bold step would give the United Nations opportunities it now lacks for assisting peaceful settlements in Indochina and Korea, as well as elsewhere, would open new channels of communication between the two halves of these divided states, and would enhance the long-term potential of the organization for dealing with such global problems as development, population and environmental defense. New steps should also be taken to encourage Switzerland to seek membership, in recognition of the diplomatic as well as financial resources which the Swiss could make available.
If the twenty-fifth General Assembly is not prepared to seat these states immediately, it could at least appoint a committee to study how universality of membership might be achieved. The committee could provide an opportunity for the United States and the Soviet Union to reassess their positions. It could also recommend interim steps toward universality – the adherence of all states to multilateral conventions and invitations to all states to participate in such UN meetings as the 1971 Stockholm conference on the environment.
Sixth, we can work together to reduce the gap between voting power and real power in the United Nations.
One measure already under consideration would be to offer "ministates" associate membership in the organization with the privilege of circulating documents and addressing meetings, but without the privilege of voting and the burden of paying a share of UN expenses. Hopefully some of the "ministates" already in the United Nations as well as those that are expected to apply for membership could be persuaded to accept this new status.
Even with such an arrangement, however, there would still be a great disparity between voting power and real responsibility for implementing UN decisions. This problem exists even in the Security Council where, despite the Charter stipulation that members be chosen with regard to their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security, six of the ten elected members currently pay the minimum .04 percent toward the expenses of the organization. The members might well consider some formula under which five of the ten elective seats could be reserved for ten middle powers (e.g. Japan, India, Italy, Brazil and the UAR), which would thus be guaranteed a place on the Council for two out of every four years.
In the General Assembly, where the disparity between voting power and real power is even greater, more use could be made of small committees (e.g. a Peacekeeping Finance Committee of 21) in which the large and middle powers would have a greater proportion of places than they have in the Assembly as a whole. To make such a committee system fully effective the Assembly would have to agree that resolutions could be adopted only when they had been approved both by the small committee and the General Assembly – in effect a bicameral arrangement. More fundamental – and probably incapable of adoption in the short run – would be a system of dual voting (double majorities), under which certain kinds of resolutions would be considered adopted only when approved by the regular two-thirds majority including a majority of the large and middle powers.
It is frequently argued that no reforms along these lines will be possible, since they require the approval of the small countries which now have the voting majority. Certainly such reforms will not be easy. But they may not be impossible if the small nations can be convinced by our two countries that the reforms would result in a United Nations more effective ... on matters of interest to them – and that in the absence of such reforms the major powers will increasingly bypass the organization on matters of substance.
The whole world has marveled at the heroic achievements of Soviet and American cosmonauts in outer space. As the two great space powers, it is natural that we should take the leadership in space cooperation. By cooperating under UN auspices, we can assure other countries that their interests will be fully protected, and we can encourage cooperation from other countries helpful to our space programs.
Our two countries, working with others, have already accomplished much by way of space cooperation in UN agencies. We have concluded the Outer Space Treaty banning weapons of mass destruction from outer space and prohibiting the appropriation of space and celestial bodies through claims of national sovereignty. We have developed the World Weather Watch, a global system for gathering, analyzing and disseminating weather information. We have agreed on the allocation of radio frequencies for space broadcasting. And we have drafted a treaty on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts. I believe we can take pride in these accomplishments, which have served the enlightened self-interest not only of our two countries but of all mankind.
But can we not go further still?
Let me recall to you the words of President Kennedy in his speech to the General Assembly of September 20, 1963:
"In a field where the States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity – the field of space – there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon.
“Why ... should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, became involved in immense duplications of research, construction and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries – indeed, of all of world – cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending some day in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation but the representatives of all of our countries."
I am proud to have played a part in President Kennedy's decision to make that bold offer of cooperation. Unfortunately, he died a few weeks later and the idea died with him. Instead, for the better part of a decade, our two countries conducted wholly separate space programs, with a massive duplication of effort and a substantial waste of expenditure on both sides. Important opportunities for the enhancement of international cooperation were lost. But surely it is not too late to try a new approach in the phase of space exploration that is now opening before us.
A first step toward fuller cooperation could be the creation of a United Nations Space Institute.
The Institute, which might be located in Geneva or Vienna, would be a center for the cooperative planning of space exploration in which all UN members could be invited to take part.
Scientists from the United States and the Soviet Union and other countries could work together on such subjects as the medical problems of manned space flight. They could recommend a set of common priorities for mankind in space and a specific timetable of space missions.
Instead of both the United States and the Soviet Union putting instruments on Mars and Venus, for example, we could divide up responsibility for instrumented landings on different planets. Each such space venture would be considered part of a total UN program and every opportunity would be found to let other countries participate in the preparation of the venture and in the sharing of the information derived from it.
The Soviet Union and the United States could also establish a United Nations Space Station, a true joint venture of mankind in what most authorities now agree is the most important space task of the next decade.
Joint ventures in space between our two countries have hitherto been regarded as impractical by many people. It has been said that the presence of your astronauts and scientists at our launching sites would give you access to our rocket technology and thus prejudice our national security – and vice versa.
But technology now offers a way around this problem. Both our countries have developed the art of rendezvous and docking in space. Both of us could launch elements of a space station that could be assembled in outer space. The equipment could be agreed on in advance to assure compatibility. The astronauts, drawn not only from the United States and the Soviet Union but from other UN members, could be trained together at the United Nations Space Institute.
When other UN members, for example, Japan and European countries, develop sufficient space capabilities, they could be invited to launch additional modules for the space station. In the meantime, their scientific abilities could be used to the full in designing and producing the equipment to be launched by the US and the USSR.
A UN Space Station could be an orbiting astronomical laboratory, gathering information about the solar system and the universe beyond. It could also be used for practical earth applications – for weather forecasting, observing ice and snow accumulations, mapping ocean currents, monitoring the environment, and locating mineral deposits. One day it might help patrol troubled borders and verify arms control agreements.
Such a cooperative space program could serve the enlightened self-interest of all. The sharing of the costs of space exploration and the adoption of a space timetable geared to scientific cooperation rather than political competition could save billions of dollars which our two countries could devote to pressing domestic needs. The non-space powers, including the less developed countries, could participate more fully in space exploration. Every country would have access to information gained from space activities, for example, the discovery of mineral deposits made possible by observation from a space station. Finally – and by no means least important – significant political benefits could be realized in closer US-Soviet cooperation and a stronger United Nations.
I recall that in the course of drafting the Declaration of Legal Principles governing outer space adopted by the General Assembly in 1963 the Soviet delegation introduced the concept that the cosmonauts of our two countries should be regarded as "envoys of mankind." They will not be true "envoys of mankind" as long as our two countries maintain separate and competitive programs. Let us find ways to make these brave men "envoys of mankind" in fact as well as in name as they pilot spacecraft orbited as a joint venture of all mankind under the auspices of the United Nations.
Developing the resources of the seabed could be a highly significant joint project. The Soviet Union and the United States have the largest coastlines in the world, and the largest portions of the relatively shallow submerged area abutting the world's coastlines known as the continental shelf. We are the world's two foremost naval powers and the two countries furthest advanced in submarine technology. We are the world's principal consumers of the oil, natural gas and hard minerals which technology is making increasingly exploitable in submarine areas.
There are two key questions about these seabed resources that need early and satisfactory answers: First, what should be the width of the continental shelf in which a coastal state has exclusive mineral rights? Second, what kind of regime should apply to areas beyond the jurisdiction of coastal states? The discussions in the United Nations have so far not produced a clear answer to these questions. Instead, there has been an unfortunate polarization of views.
At one extreme, there are some UN members who want national jurisdiction in the seabed narrowly limited and who want the UN itself to carry on exploitation in the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, with most of the profits from this activity going to the less developed countries.
At the other extreme, there are some members who want to extend national jurisdiction out to the seaward edge of the continental rise, and who oppose any kind of international regime over a part of the seabed which contains valuable resources.
The first view is clearly unrealistic. There is little in the experience of the UN that suggests that it could effectively discharge this kind of operating responsibility. The know-how and the technology for exploitation of the seabed is in the hands of private companies and governments, mainly in our two countries. If the riches of the seabed are ever to get above water, adequate incentives and security of investment will have to be given those who have the ability to do the job.
The second view is no less shortsighted. The United States and the Soviet Union have only a fraction of the world's geological continental shelf. As the world's principal resource consumers, we should not be seeking a solution that puts 80 percent of the continental shelf of the world (and a similar portion of the seabed up to the continental rise) under the exclusive jurisdiction of other countries. Nor should we expect that bilateral negotiations to operate on the continental shelves of other countries will be more manageable than dealings with an international authority.
Moreover, it is only just that the technologically advanced nations and thoe States placed in the proximity of rich offshore resources by an accident of nature should agree to allocate a reasonable portion of the value of these resources for the development of the two-thirds of humanity that lives in backwardness and poverty. And it is only fitting that the Soviet Union and the United States, committed as we are to the idea that property should be employed with due regard to the community interest, should join in support of a solution of this kind.
The Soviet Union and the United States, as countries furthest advanced in seabed technology, are in a strong position to negotiate an international regime acceptable to themselves as well as other nations. A UN agency could be established to license operations by governments, public enterprises and private companies, in return for an appropriate royalty. The royalties could be channeled for world development through appropriate international agencies.
The UN agency could be established for the seabed with voting arrangements assuring an appropriate voice for all the different interests involved – the Soviet Union, the United States and other leaders in seabed technology, developed countries, less developed countries, coastal and non-coastal states and so on. The amount of the royalty could be fixed at a level that would provide adequate incentives for seabed production and a generous amount of new financial resources for the developing countries.
Such an international regime would be far superior in terms of our countries' enlightened self-interest to the scramble for resources inherent in the extension of national jurisdiction to the seaward edge of the continental rise. An international regime, for one thing, would provide safeguards against wildcatting and a system for the orderly registering of claims and settling disputes. Most important of all, it would provide for international anti-pollution and conservation measures in a vast area of the seas that might otherwise be subject to unregulated or inadequately regulated national and private activity.
If an international regime can be worked out along these lines – and with Soviet and American leadership I believe it can – we could both accept a relatively narrow boundary for the continental shelf under national jurisdiction. To be specific, the limits of national jurisdiction could be set at 200 meters or a lateral distance of 50 miles from the shoreline, whichever is greater.
It is obvious that the width of the boundary is inseparably bound up with the nature of the international regime. What is less obvious, but probably true as a matter of practical politics, is that these questions are linked to the questions of the breadth of territorial waters and fishery rights. For example, certain Latin American countries less well endowed with seabed resources off their coasts than our two countries and concerned with rich off-coast fishery resources are not likely to make arrangements in the one area without satisfaction in the other. To put it more broadly, these and other states will want to trade off acceptance of a 12-mile territorial sea boundary (which our two governments are apparently now both prepared to support) in return for some special recognition of their fishery interests beyond and some reasonable sharing in the benefits of seabed resource development.
For these reasons, there will probably have to be one international conference to deal with all these complex law of the sea questions, or at least two closely related conferences – one on the seabed and the other on the territorial seas and fisheries. The tradeoffs are now too well and widely recognized to compartmentalize these questions. Of course, if one international conference is held, the different law of the sea questions could be discussed in separate commissions, but the final compromises could be made in inter-related negotiations at the senior political level.
The oceans, which cover some three-fourths of the surface of our planet, have received less popular attention than outer space, but their wise management is vital to the future of humanity. Let us seize the fleeting opportunity that now exists to protect and develop them through global cooperation.
Protection of the human environment is a logical area for Soviet-American cooperation in the United Nations. Our two countries cover vast areas of the world, and we are the two most advanced countries of the world industrially and scientifically. Therefore we have special responsibilities and potentialities for leadership in preventing the destruction of man's natural environment.
Both our countries have become concerned with environmental problems within our borders. We are both coming to recognize, I believe, that the problems of pollution and environmental degradation are not problems unique to either market economies or socialist economies. They are the result of a singleminded pursuit of growth and material satisfactions without sufficient regard to the quality of life. We must both change our value systems so that clear air and water and open spaces have at least equal importance to steel production and GNP.
Of course, some measures to protect the environment can be taken by individual nations acting alone. But there are parts of the environment that do not belong entirely to any one nation – the atmosphere, the sea, lakes and rivers bounded by more than one nation, migratory animals – whose effective management requires international cooperation. Even the management of the environment within the confines of a single nation may benefit from the sharing of national experience.
Moreover, there is growing recognition that how a nation deals with its national environment is no longer its own exclusive concern. The political map of the world is divided into nation states, but the world is a single system from the point of view of ecology. Air, water and soil pollution in one country can quickly affect its neighbors. The progressive poisoning of the oceans and the atmosphere could make our entire planet uninhabitable. All mankind depends on the same scarce and relatively shrinking resource pool, and therefore has an interest in the wise husbanding of resources wherever they may be located. Moreover, nations concerned with their competitive position in international trade may be reluctant to accept the additional costs of anti-pollution measures unless their foreign competitors do the same.
For all these reasons, the international community will be increasingly involved in environmental issues – even those that have hitherto been regarded as "domestic." Indeed, the most powerful impetus to international cooperation may now come from the urgent necessity of new trans- national measures to protect the global environment.
Our countries have already cooperated on environmental problems in such agencies as the Economic Commission for Europe, the World Health Organization, UNESCO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the International Maritime Consultative Organization. But opportunities for even closer cooperation will arise in two important meetings which lie ahead – the ECE Conference on the Environment in Prague in 1971 and the UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1972.
What specific measures of cooperation could our two countries propose at these meetings? Let me suggest some possibilities:
We could propose that the UN undertake a massive program to educate the world's people, particularly political leaders, on the problems of the environment; that it sponsor joint research efforts and studies; and that it finance the training of specialists to handle environmental problems.
We could propose that the UN organize a world-wide observation network, using satellites of the Soviet Union and the United States, as well as terrestrial devices, to monitor the world's environment on a continuing basis, and we could urge that the UN operate a service for the evaluation and dissemination of this information for all nations.
We could support the negotiation of international agreements providing for firm antipollution and other environmental commitments so that nations accepting their environmental responsibilities suffer no competitive disadvantage in international trade.
We could insist that multilateral aid programs be carried forward with due regard for their environmental implications, and we could encourage the application of environmental safeguards in bilateral aid. .
Finally, we could support the establishment of a UN Program for the World Heritage. Such a program would include scenic, historic and natural resources now in danger of destruction whose survival is a matter of concern to all mankind.
Obviously, each nation should be free to decide whether or not to nominate a property within its territory for inclusion in the program. At the same time, the community of nations should be free to decide whether or not to accept it.
Countries whose resources were included in the program would gain the advantage of international advice and financial aid in their development with consequent benefits to their economies as a whole. And the world community would be in a position to safeguard unique and irreplaceable resources – Venice, Angkor Wat, some of the great wildlife reserves of Africa – in which all mankind has a common interest.
I believe there is a particularly urgent need for Soviet-American cooperation in international research on environmental problems. For example, some scientists say that our planet will eventually be rendered uninhabitable by the increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Others say that DDT and other wastes could seriously impair the oxygen-making function of the oceans. Just how serious are these problems and just what should we do about them? Can we find an acceptable substitute for DDT? Can we develop new technology which limits air and water pollution without stunting economic growth? Our two countries are the world leaders in science and technology. We have an opportunity – I would even say a duty – to take the lead in a global research program to find the answers to these questions.
Since environmental problems are global problems, it is only right that they should be dealt with in the United Nations. But the UN is not yet effectively organized for this purpose. With the existing UN pattern of functional specialization there is a danger that ecological interrelationships will not be adequately considered. For example, FAO voted recently to continue use of DDT; but this question needs to be looked at by a group whose thinking is not mainly focused on agricultural productivity. Moreover, environmental questions need to be considered in the UN at a higher level of decision-making than is presently the case.
It would be useful if, in advance of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, our two governments could consult with one another on the organizational changes in the UN that are necessary to make it a really effective world authority for environmental defense. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of such possible consultations, but I do wish to express the doubt that the proper solution lies in the creation of yet another specialized agency, which would only compound existing problems of coordination.
Instead, I believe we should seek a solution through the strengthening of the UN's central machinery for coordinating and directing the work of the existing agencies. For example, we might create a new expert Commission on Science and the Environment, composed of the world's most eminent scientists, to deal with environmental as well as other scientific problems.
We might change the committee structure of the General Assembly so that a Committee on Science and the Environment replaces the largely inactive Special Political Committee. And we might create a strong new secretariat unit under an Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary- General to support this new work.
I have no fixed views on these organizational details; what I do feel confident about is that our two countries should work for a strong organization at the center which can make a harmonious and effective environmental effort out of the present piecemeal and often competitive activities of the different UN agencies.
The world population problem is supremely critical. The threat to man's future from unregulated population growth is now widely appreciated in both our countries. We have only to recall that it took hundreds of millions of years, from the beginning of life on earth until the beginning of this century, for world population to reach 1.5 billion, that this number doubled to 3 billion in the first 60 years of this century, and that it is likely to double again to 6 billion well before the end of this century. If present trends continue, world population will reach 12 billion by 2010, at which time many of our children and grandchildren will still be alive and probably cursing us for having allowed the population problem to reach such devastating proportions.
Population growth is a world problem, but it weighs particularly heavily on the prospects of the less developed countries. In many countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the population is doubling every 20 or 30 years. The population of Latin America, which is about 250 million today, will reach 600 million by the year 2000. The figures for population growth in the principal countries of Asia between now and 2000 are even more frightening: India, 500 million to 1 billion; Indonesia, 120 million to 280 million; China, 800 million to at least 1.2 billion.
For many years neither the Soviet nor the American governments were prepared to recognize this problem. In a General Assembly debate on population in 1962, President Kennedy authorized me to make the first statement of an American official offering U.S. assistance in family planning to developing countries both bilaterally and through the UN. The Soviet representative in that debate expressed doubt that population growth was a serious problem or that UN action was appropriate. Since then, however, the Soviet Union has taken a more positive attitude toward international cooperation in this field.
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me emphasize that I am not an exponent of what you call the "neo-Malthusian fallacy” – that population control by itself is a solution for the problems of the developing countries. I fully agree with Professor Y. N. Guzevaty and other Soviet scholars whom I have read on this subject that population control is not a substitute for necessary changes in the political, economic and social structures of developing countries or for large transfers of capital and technical aid from the advanced countries. I do say, as he does, that without programs of family planning the efforts of most of the developing countries to raise their living standards significantly will bier doomed to frustration. I also believe that, quite apart from its adverse effect on economic development, world population trends are dangerously overloading the natural environment, undermining the stability of the social order, and breeding tensions that will increasingly erupt into international as well as domestic violence.
I would go still further: I believe that the rate of population growth is now so great – and its consequences are now so grave – that ours is the last generation that has the opportunity to limit population growth on the basis of free choice. If we do not make voluntary family planning possible in this generation, we will make compulsory family planning inevitable in future generations. Surely that is an outcome we would all wish to avoid.
What can our two countries do about this urgent problem?
To begin with, we can take the question out of the area of ideological controversy and work together in the UN and elsewhere to emphasize the need for sound population policies on the part of all countries, regardless of their political or social systems. In particular we must explain to certain developing countries that the question is not simply the absolute size of their population in relation to their land area, but the rate of their population growth and the demands it imposes on their countries for more food, schools, housing, health facilities, and so on.
Second, we can accelerate family planning efforts in our own countries. It is true that the population problem is not exactly the same in the Soviet Union as in the United States, nor is it the same in either of our two countries as in the less developed countries. But access to modern methods of family planning is a good thing for Soviet and American women no less than it is for Asian, African and Latin American women. Moreover, we cannot be in the position of urging other countries to limit their populations while failing to follow this advice ourselves. A Soviet-American agreement to work toward zero population growth in our two countries by the end of this century could set an example for the world and make a historic contribution to the future of humanity.
Third, we can work together for a World Population Program under the auspices of the United Nations. The UN and its family of agencies are a logical place for increased efforts to deal with the population problem. The UN can help promote a broad consensus on the nature of the population problem and on what ought to be done about it. It can help countries share responsibility for taking controversial steps that may be opposed by certain domestic interests. It can help prevent family planning from becoming an international political issue, or a subject of disagreement between national or racial groups.
A World Population Program in the UN should be financed from voluntary contributions of at least $100 million a year. The fund could be used to stimulate research into improved contraceptive methods (our two countries could cooperate with particular benefit in this field). It could finance the training of medical and para-medical personnel and it could support other elements of effective family planning programs. The fund should be administered by a UN Commissioner for Population, who would be responsible for the implementation of population projects and represent the UN in dealings with governments and in international forums concerned with population.
There is time to mention only briefly one other area of global cooperation: aid and trade measures to help the less developed countries. Surely it would be in the interest of all humanity if our two countries, the greatest industrial powers in the world, could work together more effectively to accelerate the economic progress of the less developed countries.
It is true that our political objectives may differ in certain parts of the less developed world, but I believe we have a common long term interest in the progress and stability of these areas. I realize that Soviet spokesmen have taken the position that the poverty and backwardness of the less developed countries result from colonialism and imperialism for which the Soviet Union bears no responsibility. But if this poverty and backwardness threatens your long term interests – and if it offends your sense of social justice, as it must – then should you not do what you can to improve these conditions? And should not our two countries work together in this task so far as possible rather than squander scarce resources on politically motivated and wasteful forms of economic and military assisance? Would we not see more and better development if our aid were channeled in support of projects and programs worked out by impartial and professional international agencies?
If we are frank about it, I think we must admit that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union is yet doing what it should in aid to the less developed countries. Annual U.S. aid and capital transfers have dropped to about one-third of one percent of our GNP. The annual Soviet aid effort, if my statistics are correct, is about one-tenth of one percent of your GNP. At the very minimum, we should agree to the steady escalation of our assistance efforts to triple the proportion of our GNP represented by our aid to less developed countries. In view of the anticipated increases in the GNP of our two countries, this would mean increasing our aid by four or five times by 1980, while still permitting significant improvements in the standard of living of our own peoples.
Both our countries could do much more for the less developed countries in the field of trade. A really bold policy in this field is particularly necessary, since 80 percent of the foreign exchange of the developing countries comes from trade, and only 20 percent from aid. The developed market economies of the Atlantic region and Japan should, in my view, eliminate all their restrictions on the exports of the developing countries in agreed stages over a period of 10-20 years. As part of a global program of trade development, I would hope that the socialist countries of Eastern Europe could agree to undertakings of equivalent significance in view of the different character of their economic systems. I have in mind either global purchase commitments by the socialist countries on behalf of the developing countries or the progressive lowering of the prices at which the state economic authorities offer imported goods from developing countries for sale to the consumer.
The working out of such a global program of assistance to the developing countries through measures of aid and trade would be assisted if the socialist countries could be associated in some mutually acceptable way with certain international economic agencies in which they do not presently participate. I have in mind the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, the International Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank. If full membership should prove impractical for the time being, perhaps there are ways in which the socialist countries could associate themselves with certain selected activities of these agencies.
For example, the Soviet Union might participate in the World Bank consortium for India, since all of us have a stake in India's political stability and development. If we examine the work of these agencies on a pragmatic and case-by-case basis, I am confident we could find possibilities for fruitful cooperation.
I conclude on the same basic theme on which I began. Let us focus on those things that unite us rather than on those things that divide us. Let us remember that we belong to one human family and that this brotherhood is more important than any national, racial or ideological differences. Let us constantly remind ourselves that we are fellow travelers on a common spaceship planet earth – and that we can easily wreck our ship unless we work out cooperative ways of steering it.