What disturbs us about this resolution is the patent disregard by the non-aligned for the Camp David Accords which, in our view, offer the best hope yet for peace in the Middle East. The non-aligned and others say they believe these negotiations will not result in a political settlement. Such an attitude can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The critics and opponents of Camp David have been quick to damn that approach, but so far no one has even tried to come up with a realistic alternative. Their action on this resolution is in no one's long-term interest, particularly the Palestinians'. We are, therefore, deeply concerned about the negative impact this resolution is likely to have on the current stage of the peace negotiations. Obviously, peace must take precedence over polemics. Curiously, although the Third World states like to take pot shots at the United States, Israel and Egypt on the Middle East negotiations, they have been very remarkably quiet on issues involving the U.S. and the USSR on their bilateral arms control negotiations on SALT, on chemical warfare or the comprehensive test ban negotiations. However, they have become rather impatient in wanting to be included in disarmament negotiations. One of the great frustrations for both of us is that far too many delegates make unnecessarily long-winded statements during the so-called debate, and U.N. procedures contribute to what have often seemed monotonous and tedious discussions. There is no shortage of vitriolic verbal attacks by one state against another, and obviously the targets of such blasts cannot control what others think or say in the General Assembly. While it is better to suffer a verbal attack rather than an armed invasion, such procedures do tend to quell the spontaneous give and take and friendly chiding so familiar in committee sessions on the Hill. Despite all its shortcomings, the U.N., as it has been said before, is still the only show in town. As we said in our last report, the Assembly has played an important role in developing international treaty law, thereby making possible the efforts on the Iranian crisis in the Security Council and taking our case to the International Court in The Hague. This fall, the Assembly adopted several new conventions the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Against Hostage Taking, and on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies plus a Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. All had U.S. support. Besides backing these activities, the U.S. can and often does define an effective mutual interest with Third World states, our Western allies and even the Eastern bloc. For example: 1. Under U.N. auspices, the Secretary General convened a pledging conference on emergency relief for Kampuchea (Cambodia). Mainly supported by the Western states and a number of Asians, this conference raised over $210 million in cash and kind. The Soviets, however, denounced it as a plot to aid the deposed Pol Pot regime. Subsequently, the Assembly debated the political causes of the situation in Kampuchea, and with U.S. support, adopted an ASEAN-sponsored (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) resolution by a vote of 91 to 21, with 29 abstentions. This measure appealed to all states to provide urgent humanitarian relief to civilian populations, condemned the foreign invasion and Occupation of Kampuchea (a point on which the non-aligned remain particularly adamant) and called on the Secretary-General to help settle the conflict and explore the possibility of holding an international conference on Kampuchea. The ASEAN move, with U.S. support, successfully blocked debate on a Soviet-Vietnamese. resolution on the subject. 2. Soviet and Western cooperation produced at least two successful results. On the Indian resolution to expand the Security Council from 15 to 19 members to make room for more Africans and Asians, the U.S., the U.K., France and the Soviet Union worked jointly and successfully behind the scenes to persuade India not to press for a vote. As a result, the question was debated and then dropped. On the Libyan resolution aimed at eliminating the veto, the U.S., our Western allies and the Soviets threatened to walk out of the debate and withdraw from the Special Committee on Charter Review. However, before Libya's resolution was brought up, the Finns introduced one of their own urging members not to vote for Libya's proposal. The upshot was that the Assembly endorsed the Finnish move and Libya's lost. 3. The U.S. met its rather modest objectives in the debate on the scale of assessments when the Assembly affirmed the decision of the Fifth Committee to maintain a 25% ceiling on U.S.-U.N. contributions. (According to the prior principle that contributions should be based on ability to pay, the U.S. contribution would be 29% of the U.N. budget.) The General Assembly also fixed a minimum level of .01% for the least developed states and provided that a number of other states, mostly Western, increase their contribution, bringing it more in line with their capacity to pay. We learned a great deal during our three months at the U.N. It was a stimulating, thought-provoking, frustrating, eye-opening and sometimes enjoyable experience. But we look forward to being back in Washington, where reality is more prevalent. Shortly after Congress reconvenes in January, we plan to prepare a full report on our assignment in the hope that you will find it useful. B. With best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year. Ben Rosenthal Larry Larry Winn Jr. What disturbs us about this resolution is the patent disregard by the non-aligned for the Camp David Accords which, in our view, offer the best hope yet for peace in the Middle East. The non-aligned and others say they believe these negotiations will not result in a political settlement. Such an attitude can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The critics and opponents of Camp David have been quick to damn that approach, but so far no one has even tried to come up with a realistic alternative. Their action on this resolution is in no one's long-term interest, particularly the Palestinians'. We are, therefore, deeply concerned about the negative impact this resolution is likely to have on the current stage of the peace negotiations. Obviously, peace must take precedence over polemics. Curiously, although the Third World states like to take pot shots at the United States, Israel and Egypt on the Middle East negotiations, they have been very remarkably quiet on issues involving the U.S. and the USSR on their bilateral arms control negotiations on SALT, on chemical warfare or the comprehensive test ban negotiations. However, they have become rather impatient in wanting to be included in disarmament negotiations. One of the great frustrations for both of us is that far too many delegates make unnecessarily long-winded statements during the so-called debate, and U.N. procedures contribute to what have often seemed monotonous and tedious discussions. There is no shortage of vitriolic verbal attacks by one state against another, and obviously the targets of such blasts cannot control what others think or say in the General Assembly. While it is better to suffer a verbal attack rather than an armed invasion, such procedures do tend to quell the spontaneous give and take and friendly chiding so familiar in committee sessions on the Hill. Despite all its shortcomings, the U.N., as it has been said before, is still the only show in town. As we said in our last report, the Assembly has played an important role in developing international treaty law, thereby making possible the efforts on the Iranian crisis in the Security Council and taking our case to the International Court in The Hague. This fall, the Assembly adopted several new conventions the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Against Hostage Taking, and on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies plus a Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. All had U.S. support. - Besides backing these activities, the U.S. can and often does define an effective mutual interest with Third World states, our Western allies and even the Eastern bloc. For example: 1. Under U.N. auspices, the Secretary General convened a pledging conference on emergency relief for Kampuchea Occupation of mes ་ particularly adamant and called on the Secret ir 11 settle the conf and explore the boss b... international conference on Kampuchea. The ASEAN move, 411 resolution on the sect. 2. Soviet and Western cooperation produced at least y successful results. On the Indian resolution to expand the Security Come from 15 to 29 members to make room for mys Africans and Aslans, tre C.S., the U.k., France and the Union worked countly and successfully behind the scenes persuade India not == ress for a vote, As a result, the I'16+ was debated and the cropped. On the Libyan restlution aimed at eliminating the yake, U.S., our Western ...es and the Soviets threatened to wir of the debate and wizeraw from the :pecial Committee 73 Review. However, sedre Libya's resolution was brought Finns introduced one their own urging member fot Libya's proposal. The unspot was that the Asserbly ordinand Finnish move and as lost. 3. The .5. met its rather modent objective on the scale of assessments when the Assembly affir of the Fifth Commzee =0 maintain a 25% ceiling contributions. According to the prior princip should be based on as to pay, the US. 29% of the .3. pudget. The General Agerphy minimum level of . for the least developed L that a number of otser states, mostly Wester, contribution, bringing it more in line with t 1 434 APPENDIX VII STATEMENTS BY REPRESENTATIVE ROSENTHAL UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS Press Release USUN-90 (79) Statement by Congressman Benjamin S. Rosenthal, United Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my government's support for the valuable work done by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. I would like to announce my delegation's cosponsorship of the draft resolution introduced by the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. United States scientists have actively participated in the work of UNSCEAR since its inception in 1955, together with eminent scientists from other countries, in an effort, which in our view, constitutes an excellent example of international scientific cooperation. We welcome the UNSCEAR report before us, contained in document A/34/322, and note the importance of the topics under consideration by the Scientific Committee, such as, population exposures from natural radiation sources, from the work environment and from nuclear power production, and the genetic effects of radiation. In the United States, there has been increased interest and public awareness about the effects of radiation, especially low level radiation. We are confident that UNSCEAR's work will help to fill some of the gaps which still remain in our knowledge in this area. The Committee's decision to consider the interaction of ionizing radiation with other agents is worthy of commendation, since this important area has not previously been addressed in detail. We look forward to UNSCEAR's comprehensive report which will be presented to the 36th session of the U.N. General Assembly. It is because of the importance we attach to UNSCEAR's work that the U.S. delegation regrets to note that UNSCEAR remains without a permanent Secretary to direct the work of the Committee and the UNSCEAR Secretariat. We urge that this important position be filled as soon as possible. |