I was going to say it's a great pleasure to be here today. This is my first visit to the Humphrey Institute. Which from it's very Inception did seem to me a very fitting Monument for a man whose commitment to education and science has proof tools for problem solving and democracy. Are known to a good many of us here if indeed not to all of us. My own regard the Hubert Humphrey and my relationship with him are a matter of record recorded in actions and in words. I was recruited as a Humphrey volunteer soon after my arrival in Washington in 1950. I married into a circle whose principal social activity was to gather in alternative living rooms and discuss how he would Humphrey could be elected president. I worked for him and presidential and vice presidential contest primary secondary National and elections from 1960 through 1976. Traveling like a camp follower from convention City to Convention City from Los Angeles to Atlantic City to Chicago to Miami. all geographical landmarks in a quest never realized Our goal never achieved Humphreys presidency the fact that Hubert Humphrey did not become president does not of course mean that he failed as we all know or should know he was a colossal success. No more. No more does the fact that he did not become president mean that the time spent working to that end was lost. seeking without finding and working without achieving Are acceptable human activities? Peculiarly suited I sometimes think to the human animal. peculiarly relevant to a discussion of the problem of the United Nations today the United Nations embodies a thoroughly American Dream The dream of establishing world order an International Peace through an organization devoted to those ends. William Penn wrote of just such an organization in 1693 In an essay, he called toward the present and future. Peace of Europe. The dream of universal World legal order was integrally related throughout our history the other side of the coin really to George Washington's well-known admonition that we should steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign World. Especially Washington said permanent alliances with the people. We knew most about those Europeans who's toils of Ambitions rival ship interest. He warned us particularly against Lyon alliances Washington believed caused Wars instead of bringing. Peace. The preferred instrument of the American dream of peace from the beginning has been very different. It has been a universal organization. Inclusive not exclusive Universal not partial devoted to the interests of the whole not to the interests of particular Nations that has been the American dream. The League of Nations was of course our first serious experiment with the effort to bring into being such a democratic World Order Woodrow Wilson gave eloquent expression to this dream in speech after speech. Which speeches by the way were absorbed by the young Humphrey and his father's name his sister Frances whom I'm sure good many of you know said she was certain that Hubert Humphrey had had the 14 points read to him by his father before the age of 10. We all know what happened to the dream of the League of Nations that particular vision of one world found it next powerful expression in the Atlantic Charter. Speaking to a joint session of Congress on March 1st. 1945 President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the Yalta Conference had been a success because it's spelled quote the end of the system of unilateral action, exclusive alliances and spheres of influence balance of power and all the other expedience which have been tried for centuries and have always failed. We propose said Roosevelt to substitute for all that a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will have a chance to join. This Universal organization on which Roosevelt based his hopes for peace was of course none other than the United Nations. Two-and-a-half trouble decades and won World War after the League of Nations had failed their met in San Francisco 282 delegates 1444 assistance 1589 members of the international Secretariat. 2636. Journalists. 2252 Army and Navy AIDS. 800 Boy Scouts 400 Red Cross workers. 188 Telephone and Telegraph operators. In the search for a permanent world order out of that meeting came the charter of the United Nations which brought into being a new organization explicitly dedicated by all the signatories to the peaceful resolution of international conflict to the preservation of human interest. and to the promotion of Economic Development The United Nations was shaped by the assumptions on which it was based those assumptions are both interesting and important if one wants to understand the organization first, it was assumed that the members of the United Nations would be peace-loving and democracies second. It was assumed that one could and should apply in external Affairs the principles and procedures of liberal democracy. It was assumed that violence could be superseded by reason. That war could be superseded by peaceful discussion that what was reasonable and right would be determined by majority vote just as the equality of persons leads to one man. One vote The Sovereign equality of Nations should lead to One Nation one vote Above All Above All the charter of the United Nations assumes that peace should be the Principal value of international relations. As I may say reason should be the Principal value of Education. As Brian urquhart who was the distinguished long time under secretary-general of the United Nations put it in a recent book the charter describes the system for maintaining peace and security which quote assumes that all governments will play the roles assigned to them those involved in disputes will Avail themselves of the means available in the charter to settle disputes peacefully if they fail to do this the members of the United Nations under the guidance of the security Council will take a series of steps designed to persuade them to do so the government concern will heed and obey the injunctions of the council and if in the end the threat to peace persists the security Council led by its permanent members will in apply enforcement measures ranging from economic sanctions to military action in order to restore International Peace and security. a Secretary General Perez de Cuellar acknowledged in his quite remarkable first annual report to the United Nations on the United Nations The United Nations just doesn't work the way it was expected first. Nothing is more obvious than the failure of the mechanisms designed to resolve conflicts and preserve. Peace. We have lived during the decade since World War Two through an XT dingley tumultuous violent period in an exceedingly tumultuous violent century. At the moment, I presume you know as well as I am not sure what all of you know, but I presume you know, as well as I that there is a very bloody war that is Raging just now in Iran and Iraq some 100,000 casualties have already taken place in that warm. Those are human beings killed there, by the way. At this moment a terrible military repression continues in Afghanistan where some 110,000 Soviet troops seek to break the will of a stubborn traditional people and in Cambodia where Paul Potts murderous Utopia claimed more than 3 million dead. That murderous Utopia has been succeeded by an exceedingly harsh Vietnamese repression and occupation. We have just lived through the bloody experience of the war in the Falklands. We have just lived through the bloody experience of the invasion and occupation of Chad and we are now witnessing devastating violence. Recently in Lebanon currently in El Salvador and Angola and elsewhere in the world. It is indeed as Hannah. Aaron has said a terrible century. Obviously, we have not collectively found a way to keep the peace to settle disputes peacefully or to prevent the recourse to force. Secretary General Perez de Cuellar is report noted that some of the conflicts Chad for example, or Syria's attack in Northern Lebanon have never been brought before the security Council. Others have been brought before the security Council only to have action blocked by Vito permanent members Afghanistan and kampuchea are examples still others have been acted upon by the security Council only to have their actions ignored the war in Iran Iraq, the Falklands conflict the war in Lebanon are examples. The secretary-general posed the question which in fact concerns presumably all of us who care about peace. The question is one what went wrong with the plan and to what can we do about it? What went wrong? First of all certain general rules may be formulated. the first general rule Is that a good many nations some portion of the time seemed to prefer some good to peace? Syria for example preferred control of Northern Lebanon at the point that it bombarded that helpless civilian population the Soviet Union prefers control of Afghanistan. and Vietnam prefers control of Cambodia Iran and Iraq seem to prefer Mutual destruction. Two-piece Argentina preferred the Falklands at the moment. They moved five to seven thousand troops in Israel preferred to move out the PLO and so forth. Second General principle. Is that a good many nations? When they think they have a reasonable chance of winning. prefer no action to Security Council action It's very interesting to observe the iran-iraq conflict in this case when Iran was. Losing Iran was interested in bringing the dispute to the security Council. Once Iraq seems to be getting the worst of that war in Iraq becomes interested in bringing the dispute to the security Council something like that happen with Argentina in the Falklands Conflict at a certain point when they move the troops in but I thought they could simply take the islands. They had no interest in Security Council action at a later point when it was quite clear that they had lost or were losing. They brought the case eagerly as it were clamoring to the security Council people tend to come to the security Council when they think they are losing or about to lose sure a general principle, which unfortunately one must formulate if one is seeking to understand this subject. Is that short range advantage? Is all too often preferred to peace. Similarly in the domain of Human Rights the area on which Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey both worked so hard it was assumed that Nations agreed on the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that they agreed that these were Universal human rights, which should be respected and that their abuse would be condemned by all. It was assumed that Devotion to Human Rights would be the guiding passion of Nations and it in as they sat in for example, the Human Rights Commission, which is meeting right now in Geneva in the third committee and in the other un institutions devoted to human rights promotion. there are there are some Curious practices which have developed some very curious practices have developed in the UN Human Rights bodies. All too often human rights and the rhetoric of human rights are used less as a goal than as a political weapon all too often the persons who invoke them. I fear like some persons here today are using that rhetoric in the effort to expand their own control rather than the effort to expand the domain of freedom. A very curious record has been developed in the United Nations human rights bodies. I don't know whether you're aware. For example, that although it is generally agreed. I think by all serious students of the subject that some 3 million people died in Pol pot's murderous Utopia. Those the government of Cambodia never became the object. The government of Cambodia never became the object of a human rights action inside the United Nations. I think it's generally understood by persons interested in the subject that EDI mean ran a very effective slaughterhouse in which several thousands people were being killed a week for a period of several months. But Edie, I mean Uganda never became the object of a human rights action inside the United Nations. Israel has been the object of more human rights violations. I suppose than any other single country in the last decade. We look in the United Nations human rights bodies. For example, a human rights violations of Arabs on the West Bank and let me say we should be concerned about all human rights violations, but we look at West Bank Arabs human rights violations, but we don't look at the destruction of the Baha'i people in Iran. We look at human rights violations in Argentina, but we don't look at human rights violations in Cuba. We look at human rights violations in El Salvador, but we do not look at human rights violations in Suriname. A very interesting pattern has developed. Asian and African states, which are are apparently very effectively protected against any kind of Human Rights action inside the United Nations. So our members of the Soviet Bloc. Latin American nations Israel, and the United States have no such protection. The explanation for that lies in the political organization of the United Nations. Both resolving conflicts in the United Nations and protecting human rights and promoting development all turn out to be a function of the political organization of that body. The Libyan complained of last week was an interesting example. in that complaint Some 20 there were some 26 speakers. 24 of whom spoke in support of Libya what happened? I had a feeling we had some allies of Libya here. The key to understanding political actions in the UN is to understand first of all that representatives of nations react and vote and debate. With very few exceptions not as individual Nations, but as members of blocks. They react very much like parties in the legislature. They're wide range of kinds of political bloc's in the UN. There are the geographical blocks. For example, like the organization of African Unity the oau there is the EC the our 10 good European friends. There is the Islamic conference that unites some 42 Muslim nations. There are overlapping alliances the big overarching groups, for example, the non-aligned movement which began its meetings today in India the N am so called the g77. There are alliances among the blocks and these alliances are formed very interesting bases. One of the most interesting alliances is symbolized by that obnoxious praise Zionism is racism that praise whose meaning I did. that meaning that phrase whose meaning I did not understand until I had been at the UN long enough to learn to understand the block system symbolizes the alliance of the Arab nations of the oau of the Islamic conference and the oau What what the Arabs joining the Africans on all questions relating to South Africa and the Africans joining the Arabs on all questions relating to Israel. The blocks operate very much as I said like cohesive disciplined political parties in A legislature. The blocks tend to extend conflict it is through the blocks that conflict is both extended and organized. The blocks involve it's through the blocks. For example that Nations and southern Africa or South Asia. Let's say develop a stake a political stake in for example, the West Bank settlements question. It is through the blocks that solidarity is developed with entities that exist. In fact only inside the UN context. They blocks not only extend and organize conflict. They also incorporate conflict in an ongoing ideological debate. Those ongoing ideological debates are broad indeed Global. They are there are of course the very broadest the East-West debate. There is the north-south debate. There is the Zionism racism debate the D colonialization debate. Third consequence of the blocks is that they tend to polarize political discussion within the United Nations at the same time that they organize conflict. They also polarize it. It is the blocks which tend to endure to distort in the most dramatic ways the real world outside the United Nations. The question about whether what is the relationship between relationships inside the United Nations and outside the United Nations do those relationships reflect reality. It seems to me that they reflect reality very much like mirrors and a crazy house reflect reality. They both reflect something that's there and they distort it elongating it broadening it making it short and fat tall and thin whatever. The consequence of polarization and idealization of conflict in the UN is that rhetoric tends to become harsh? And problem-solving is lost sight of in the pursuit of very short-range political advantages. The question which was posed for me today. Has the United Nations outlived its usefulness? One of the two living signatories of the charter of the United Nations is Carlos P romulo. Romulo says of the UN. That there are in fact two United Nations that there are the United Nation. There is the United Nations of the independent agencies. The human rights. They refugees unhcr UNICEF World Health Organization who ILO FAO the independent agencies devoted to humanitarian and scientific Work World intellectual property that deals with patents International telecommunications unit the international atomic energy agency so forth Romulo points out that virtually no one denies that these organizations are valuable and successful that they do important humanitarian work for which almost anyone would be proud. For example, the abolition of smallpox almost no one has a vested interest in preserving smallpox. They are tuberculosis. Or the control of nuclear proliferation, which is a goal worth working for not one yet achieved. the problem the problem in the United Nations occurs with what romulo calls the second United Nations, which is of course the United Nations of the general assembly and the security Council. the at the problem-solving level the problem with should confront all of us. Who are prepared to affirm and work toward the goals enunciated in the charter? Is to bring the ideal. Into some closer bring the real in the some closer Conformity as it were with the ideal to achieve our ideals. We need to return the United Nations to its basis in reality. To bring the United Nations in the closer Conformity with the ideal requires restoring its linkage with the real there is not much doubt that the real interests of the vast majority of Nations at the Turtle Bay certainly including the United States. Our peace democracy and development. They are self-determination self-government precisely the goals which inspired the founding of the United Nations. Only greater realism can lead us closer to these ideals that inspired this very Human Institution. It seems to me that what is required at the UN above all is understanding that it is a political institution. It's a political institution which works very much like a legislature. It's a political institution in which politics is played. I must say it's civilized politics compared to some other forms him. They And what is required for Effectiveness? There are precisely the political skills. Is which blend pragmatism? And idealism to achieve problem-solving which Hubert Humphrey so effectively symbolized and embodied all his life. In order to achieve our ideals at the United Nations. We need to be better politicians. It is in fact a goal worth working toward. And if we succeed so much the better. It will be in fact a better world, and if we fail we will have spent our lives in a worthy task. Thank you. These will be a composite questions because there's so many questions but we'll put several categories together wouldn't it be better if the people of El Salvador for the people of El Salvador if the u.s. Sent economic rather than military aid and how did the present government of El Salvador gain power and how does it maintain it? I would be very happy to answer this question. The United States in fact sends a ratio of three times as much economic as military aid to El Salvador. and second and they by the way, they need that economic aid very badly because there were very poor country to begin with and because the key Points in their economy. The infrastructure is being systematically destroyed by gorillas second. How did that government come to power? The government which exists in El Salvador today headed by president magana was formed directly on the principles of parliamentary democracy on the basis of the elections of last March 29. on Now look I don't know how much you know about the politics of El Salvador. Not much. I fail. The fact is that there are a lot of very coercive people around who are trying to use violence to deny the people of El Salvador an opportunity to vote and in a most extraordinary in a most extraordinary turnout some 85% of the people of El Salvador stood for in lines for hours and hot sun. Even being shot at by gorillas and that was being shouted at a lot in order to vote out of that came a constituent assembly which comprises 60 seats. I thought you were interested in the government of El Salvador. There are 60 seats in the constituent assembly of El Salvador 24 of those who held by Christian democrats 19 are held by the arena Party 9 are held by the PCV and the remainder by smaller Splinter party's president magana who happens to be a professor of constitutional law by profession is a compromise kind of president who was elected on the basis of a coalition. on the law of the sea the UN has probably never sponsored so long and so important a negotiation is that why did not the United States signed the law of the sea treaty? And when is it going to let me just say two things about that one is that I don't have any responsibility for the law of the sea. We have a special delegation. We have a special delegation who is responsible for all negotiations and Articulation and so forth the principles with regard to the law of the sea, it's I am in no sense an expert on it. I would just point out that even if we had signed it it would have to have been ratified by our Senate and I don't know anybody who thinks it would have been. So the question is twofold for people who are interested in u.s. Adherence to the law of the sea one is when will the treaty be signed and to is when will it be ratified? Why does the United States takes such a Negative stance in the UN on disarmament? We don't fact is we take it very positive stance in the UN on disarmament. We take a very positive stance in the UN on disarmament. And as a matter of fact, we took more initiatives and which were successfully adopted during the special session on disarmament to so-called SSO D2 than any other single nation fact. Do you foresee any reason? That might prompt serious consideration on the part of the United States to consider its withdrawal from the UN and if so, how would that process get started? No, I don't see I just don't foresee any such possibility. I don't think that's a feasible alternative for the United States in the Contemporary world. Just want this one has to be addressed to you in your capacity as a Cabinet member and member of the National Security Council because it's not exactly a un question. If a Euro socialist government comes to power in Germany after the elections this Sunday and the Pershing to missiles are not allowed to be deployed will how will the u.s. React to this Finland ization? Well, we will we will respect the national independence of our allies and their right to decision that is of course that is of course the difference between allies based on consent and alliances based. In fact on just muscle, you know, ultimately in politics. There are two methods. There's the method of violence and the method of consent the method of violence seeks to coerce and to intimidate and the silos and the method of consent seeks to persuade. build consensus And work together all our alliances are based on the method of consent not a violence and the I think the answer to the question follows from that one more one more of these questions and let me say that there are really just a lots of interesting questions here and I'm going to give the rest of them to Jean Kirkpatrick to read on the airplane going home. The Secretary General the Secretary General has proposed that the UN strengthened its peacekeeping activities. What do you think can be done in this regard? And how one thing we're doing right now is is meeting regularly in the security Council about once a week to discuss conceivable possible institutional reforms procedural reforms and policy reforms policy initiatives, which might be taken the United Nations has some successful peacekeeping experience not only in back of it, but also contemporarily it for example has successful peacekeeping operations in Cyprus right now and in the Gaza Strip, The Universal operation in southern Lebanon while it certainly is not as successful. It's successful. It just doesn't it can maintain peace and love Bonanno, but but it's been successful in the pacification of the area of its responsibilities. The problem is to find ways to narrow differences rather than exacerbating and polarizing them and working together to try to to try to promote peace sure, but to find mechanisms the point about promoting peace, of course is that it requires not shouting about but working out and that's what we're trying to do right now. We have just a few minutes for live questions from the floor will start on the side. Bello it out, Miska Patrick as you know, so well Amnesty International Human Rights Commission of El Salvador the American civil liberties Union and other human rights organizations. Will you stop please I'd recognize this gentleman over here. You'll get your turn. Go ahead. Go ahead lets you get the wrong impression. I suspect that the majority of the people in this Auditorium in the next national election would elect a Democrat rather than a Republican and I would like to know whether or not you as a Democrat would be willing to as elegantly eloquently represent a democratic foreign policy. Hopefully, it would be different than the Republican Party policy in any subsequent Administration. assuming that a democratic Administration Asked me to represent it in an arena in you know, in areas with policies, which I could in conscience agree. Of course, I've spent my life as an active Democrat. Let's be clear about this. That's over there. Oh, wait a minute. I was Madam Ambassador, how do you feel about recent United Nations efforts on the part of the third world to censor news coming out of that region by claiming that the capitalist corporations have presented a biased View and they should decide on the reporting stature of those Nations. Yeah, well, you know what the problem with that kind of what is basically confiscatory regulation is of course that it also discourages the kinds of Investments which promote development and so they're all it's sort of ultimately does not encourage economic growth Economic Development and increased living standards. I think what has to be that's a again an instance of any sort of discrete problem solving and what has to be found is a Formula which provides the maximum contribution of investing companies in the economic well-being of the country in which they are operating compatible with its own decisions that it's worthwhile to them as a company to continue to invest I think that but that's it. Again. It's a pragmatic problem which has got to be worked out on a very sort of single specific basis concrete basis Middle Island front I wish you clarify something where she was only the briefest mentions in our local papers recently the recent United UN resolution. The United States is the only country that voted against a resolution to prohibit the exportation of hazardous chemicals and although they do not quote you precisely apparently you said something to the fact the United States is the world's largest exporter of such chemicals and I fail to see the moral rationale for permitting the United States to export chemicals to foreign countries, which are prohibited in this country because there are hazardous. Let me just I don't want to I don't want to try to either finesse I think out in that question, but I will tell you that that was a quote. That was a decision made by. The tech made by branches of our government who made judgment about the some specific technical aspects of that enormously large Omnibus resolution, by the way, most other countries didn't vote for that. Most of the countries who who are exporters. In fact abstained. That's we we not infrequently vote. No, when a lot of the rest of the developed world abstains. And the reason we do that as a kind of a general principle is that we prefer Clarity quite frankly. That's but I do not it's a little like the law of the sea question, you know, let me just say the UN deals with all the subjects in the world and all the countries in the world and there is no possibility of anyone even Department of government like the Department of State much less an individual and the u.s. UN Mission having expertise on all of them almost all of the The chemical the Telecommunications the engineering Etc kinds of decisions are in fact made by technical departments in our government and so is that one little mr. Patrick is you know, so well Amnesty International the American civil liberties Union the Human Rights Commission of El Salvador and other human rights organizations have documented massive human rights violations committed by the regime in El Salvador, since it came to power in 1979. My question is since the United States supplies, the guns the bullets the advisers and the other wherewithal to maintain this bloody repression. Doesn't that make our government and you and everyone who Advocates that policy guilty of complicity in those crimes. I'll tell you what, I think it makes. That's like saying doesn't it make every person it was a member of the anti-war movement guilty or complicitous of the 200,000 political prisoners in labor and re-education camps in Vietnam today. All right. Okay. What it what is what is what is what is moral responsibility for policy? What is moral responsibility for policy? You can't have it both ways. You can't be responsible for the devastation that you happen to be focused on at the moment and not responsible for the devastation. That is no longer fashionable to focus upon. I would be very happy to talk about. Human rights violations in El Salvador's I've done quite a lot of studying of El Salvador and I would be very happy to discuss it. This is but not really quite in those kinds of those kinds of terms. It is a fact as I have written. Let me say that the government of El Salvador traditionally like the government of most of the Central American countries, except Costa. Rica has been a autocratic military dictatorships have been a series of military dictatorships, which were essentially dominated whose policies were dominated by a relatively few very wealthy people in a society in which most people were miserably ill-housed ill-clad with ill-fed. They It has a tradition of high political violence that tradition has characterized it over the last hundred and fifty years. In fact, they political violence is never in my opinion justifiable at me say political violence is never anything but very unfortunate for the people who suffer under it. This is just like coercive behavior in the hall. Like this is never justifiable if I may say so The fact is that there is a guerrilla War raging in El Salvador and a great many people are being killed and that Guerrilla War has been raging since roughly 1979 and a good many people have been killed during that period and that all kinds of people have been killed, you know, men and women and children and and soldiers and gorillas and civilians and we have two kinds of questions. It seems to me one question we have Relates to the moral issues involved for the people of El Salvador because we cannot be indifferent to that and the other question which we have relates to the u.s. National interest because we also can't be indifferent to that. I believe that well, let me just say that our government has made along with the governments of Honduras. Costa Rica Panama, Venezuela, El Salvador Bailey's Etc have made very clear that we support a settlement which would involve an end to the exportation of arms and to the region by all parties. Withdrawal of military advisers trainers of whom there are some 7,000 Cubans now in Nicaragua from of all parties from the area. And in an internal reconciliation within countries and within the region, we do not believe however that it is clearly or obviously either moral or in the u.s. National interest. For us to Simply. Stop supplying Aid to the government while large quantities are very sophisticated military weapons are being supplied by the Soviet Union and Cuba to the other side. We got time for me. I think Thank you very much. Bye bye.