[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9575-S9576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        THE UNITED NATIONS AT 50

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, 50 years ago this week in San 
Francisco, the U.N. Charter was opened for signature. After some 9 
weeks of negotiations, as World War II was drawing to a close, 
representatives from 50 countries unanimously adopted the charter. On 
the 24th of October 1945, the charter came into force, and the United 
Nations was effectively born.
  During this, the 50th anniversary year of the United Nations, I am 
deeply concerned that, rather than celebrating its endurance, we are 
witnessing a disturbing series of attacks upon it. Ironically, these 
attacks come at a challenging time for the United Nations. For now, 
with the end of the cold war, the United Nations has a genuine 
opportunity to function as it was intended to at the end of World War 
II.
  For many years, a constant Soviet veto in the Security Council 
effectively neutralized the United Nations. Between 1946 and 1970, for 
example, the Soviet Union vetoed Security Council actions more than 100 
times before the United States even cast its first veto.
  But the United States chose to persevere within the existing U.N. 
framework. Even when casting their votes in 1945 to support 
ratification of the U.N. Charter, Senators recognized the challenging 
agenda faced by the United Nations in the years ahead. Senator Mead, a 
Democrat from New York, offered the following admonition:

       The Charter is not a key to utopia. Words written upon 
     paper have no power in and of themselves to alter the course 
     of events. It is only the spirit of men and nations behind 
     those words which can do that.

  Today we continue to face the question: What kind of spirit do we 
wish to guide our discussion of the United Nations in 1995?
  There are two sharply contrasting directions in which our discussion 
of the United Nations can proceed. One is tantamount to withdrawing 
U.S. support from the United Nations by constantly searching out ways 
of undermining and weakening the institution. Unfortunately there are 
legislative proposals before this Congress which would move in this 
direction. Alternatively, we could apply our energies toward ensuring 
that the United States plays a key role in reforming and strengthening 
the United Nations as we prepare to enter a new century. I strongly 
believe that the hope of building a peaceful and prosperous world lies 
in choosing the latter course.
  There have been times in our history when Americans believed that we 
could go it alone and simply ignore conflicts and problems originating 
in other parts of the world. Indeed, isolationist sentiment succeeded 
in preventing the United States from joining the League of Nations at 
the end of World War I, despite the fact that President Woodrow Wilson 
was its leading architect.
  Those who labored in San Francisco and elsewhere to create the United 
Nations half a century ago learned from the mistakes of their 
predecessors with respect to the League of Nations. Parties to the 
initial negotiations at Dumbarton Oaks on establishing a United 
Nations, and to later preparations in San Francisco, insisted, for 
example, that the U.N. organization recognize the reality of great 
powers by granting significant authority to a Security Council. In that 
Council, the United States and other major powers were given the veto 
power--thereby ensuring that the United Nations could not undertake 
operations which United States opposed. In recognition of the 
leadership role taken by the United States in building the United 
Nations, New York was later chosen to serve as U.N. headquarters.
  Ensuring responsible U.S. engagement within the United Nations in 
1995 remains nearly as demanding as in 1945. Much of the advice offered 
by Senator Gurney, a Republican from South Dakota, to his Senate 
colleagues in 1945 rings true today:

       . . . let me caution that after our almost unanimous vote 
     for the Charter today we cannot merely sit back and feel and 
     say, ``Everything is fixed now, everyone is safe.'' No; our 
     people are entitled by their sacrifices in this war and 
     others to more than that. We and all other nations must give 
     the Charter organization the all-out support of all our 
     people--sincere, honest support, continuing for years to 
     come--in order that this world organization may be a growing, 
     living instrumentality, capable of handling world problems in 
     a fair and effective way.

  Even as we mark the United Nation's first 50 years, we must look to 
the challenges of a new century. In past decades, others designed the 
United Nations, drafted the charter, passed the enabling legislation, 
and persevered throughout the cold war. The task facing us in this 
decade is to assist the United Nations to adapt to the end of the cold 
war and to a new century. The need for a United Nations remains clear, 
for, as Madeleine Albright, the U.S. representative to the United 
Nations, has commented:

       The battle-hardened generation of Roosevelt, Churchill and 
     De Gaulle viewed the U.N. as a practical response to an 
     inherently contentious world; a necessity not because 
     relations among states could ever be brought into perfect 
     harmony, but because they cannot.

  This sense of realism seems absent from many of the current 
discussions of the United Nations. While many rail about the 
deficiencies of the United Nations, they have not proposed a viable 
alternative to the United Nations. If we look back at the debate 50 
years ago, we see that Senators recognized the necessity of U.N. 
membership partly because they acknowledged the absence of an 
alternative.
  While the United Nations work for peace and prosperity has never been 
easy, current challenges to peace have grown more complex partly 
because the nature of the conflicts the United Nations is asked to 
address
 has changed. Complex interethnic conflicts are resurfacing after 
having been suppressed. Guerrilla warfare is increasingly conducted by 
warring factions who do not respond to political or economic pressure. 
Conflict is frequently within borders and involves militias and armed 
civilians who lack discipline and clear chains of command. Disputes 
often take place without clear front lines. The fact that combatants 
often target civilians leads to increasing numbers both of displaced 
persons and refugees.

  In an effort to address such conflicts, the United Nations has 
expanded its operational responsibilities. As a result, U.N. 
peacekeeping missions have been deployed in places like Somalia or 
Rwanda where personnel must grapple with the fact that no effective 
state structure exists. In many trouble sports, the police and 
judiciary have collapsed, and general banditry and chaos prevail. 
Government assets have been destroyed and stolen; experienced officials 
have been killed or forced to flee the country. These realities are 
forcing the U.N. personnel to reconsider their terms of reference and 
to grapple with inadequate mandates. The truth is that the United 
Nations has been asked to handle some of the most uncertain, 
intractable, and dangerous cases of conflict.
  Clearly, the United Nations must be practical about the limits of its 
peacekeeping and must not undertake efforts that will drain U.N. 
resources without achieving the mission's goals. It is frustrating not 
to be able to resolve all the many conflicts on the international 
agenda, but do we abandon the United Nations if it cannot completely 
and successfully solve every problem in our world? Few institutions 
dealing with such complex matters (or for that matter much simpler 
ones) have 100-percent success records.
  In 1945, President Truman made an observation that is relevant to the 
current examination of U.N. peacekeeping efforts. He said,

       Building a peace requires as much moral stamina as waging a 
     war. Perhaps it requires even more, because it is so 
     laborious and painstaking and undramatic. It requires undying 
     patience and continuous application. But it can give us, if 
     we stay with it, the greatest reward that there is in the 
     whole field of human effort.

  I believe Americans recognize the wisdom of President Truman's words 
and want to do their part; the United Nations is one means by which 
they can do so.
  While U.N. peacekeeping has recently been the focus of attention, 
much of the United Nations work takes place in other areas. Less in the 
spotlight are the steadfast efforts of U.N. agencies 

[[Page S9576]]
working to alleviate poverty, to slow the spread of HIV/A.I.D.S., and 
to feed and educate the world's children. Where conflict leads to 
destabilization of families and societies, the United Nations is there 
to shelter and feed refugees and displaced persons. Progress made on 
upholding international norms on human rights also stems from the work 
of U.N. agencies. Finally, the United Nations is responsible for many 
of the gains made in reducing the use of ozone-depleting substances, 
evaluating environmental impacts, and conserving biological diversity. 
These are but a few of the challenges facing the world today. Many of 
these problems have effects that do not respect national or geographic 
borders, and the United Nations offers a coherent and coordinated 
approach for meeting such challenges.
  Mr. President, whether Americans feel the responsibility of 
exercising global leadership, are responding to humanitarian concerns, 
or seeking to expand opportunities for international trade and 
commerce, the United Nations offers us a critical world forum. to 
cripple the United Nations by an erosion or withdrawal of American 
participation would be a terrible mistake. The United Nations provides 
the institutional means for leveraging American diplomatic, economic, 
and military resources in ways that enhance our vital National 
interests. Opinion surveys consistently indicate that a solid majority 
of the American people recognize the positive role that the United 
Nations can play. I hope such recognition of the United Nations value 
and importance will be demonstrated when the Senate considers U.S. 
participation in and support for the United Nations. Let us heed the 
words of warning offered by President Truman in 1945: ``The immediate, 
the greatest threat to us is the threat of disillusionment, the danger 
of insidious skepticism--a loss of faith in the effectiveness of 
international cooperation.''


                          ____________________