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 U.N.’s other policy-making body, the General Assembly. Moreover, the U.N.’s working staff, the Secretariat, is manned by hundreds of Communist agents who are frequently in a position to sabotage those few U.N. 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 U.N.’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 U.N. and do not permit their policies to be affected by it. If the “opinion of mankind,” as reflected by a U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N.; 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 U.N. 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 U.N. places an unwarranted financial burden on the American taxpayer. The Marxist formula, “from each according to his ability …”—under which contributions to the U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. 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 U.N. Let the U.N. 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.
Aid to Communist Governments
There is one aspect of our policy that is offensive-minded—in the minds of its authors, anyway. Its effect, unfortunately, is exactly opposite to the one intended.
Some time ago our leaders advanced the theory that Communist satellite regimes would, with our help, gradually break their ties with the Soviet Union and “evolve” political systems more in keeping with our notions of freedom and justice. Accordingly, America adopted the policy of giving aid to Communist governments whose relations with Moscow seemed to be strained. And that policy gave birth to a slogan: “America seeks the liberation of enslaved peoples—not by revolution—but through evolution.” Under the aegis of this slogan, we are sending hundreds of millions of dollars to the Communist government of Poland, having already given more than a billion dollars to the Communist government of Yugoslavia.
In my view, this money has not only been wasted; it has positively promoted the Communist cause. It has not made Communist governments less Communist. It has not caused Communist
