Basic HTML Version
Shultz, so that we continue to Jive
in "a world of sovereign nations, of
competing interests and clashing
philosophies."
Speaker after speaker in San
Francisco praised the world body for
its part in preventing the ultimate
disaster, an all-out nuclear war.
But the U.N.'s chief goal, as
expressed at the very beginning of
the preamble to the Charter- "to
save succeeding generat ions from
the scourge of war"-has not been
realized. According to Canada's per–
manent representative, Stephen
Lewis, the world-"this lunatic
world," he called it- has been
wracked by 154 conventional wars
since 1945, affecting 71 countries
and resulting in 20 million casual–
ties!
Looking back from today's reali–
ty, it is indeed difficult to compre–
hend how much hope was pinned
upon the United Nations in 1945.
But one must understand the set–
ting for what one author called "the
cosmic overselling of the U.N."
The worst war in human history
was drawing to a close, leaving 60
million dead in its wake. Further,
the memory of the rejection by the
United States Senate of the Ver–
sai ll es T reaty-which rejection
kept the United States out of the
first world body, the League of
Nations- was still fresh in the
minds of many. There was a certain
amount of guilt expressed that had
the United States played a role in
the failed League, perhaps, just
perhaps, the second global conflict
could have been prevented.
Big-Power Rivalry
The United Nations, however,
quickly became a very different
creation than the one its most ideal–
istic supporters had hoped it would
be.
From the onset the burgeoning
big-power rivalry between the
Unitcd States and the Soviet
Union , cmbracing two competing
visions of world order, dominated
the affairs of the United Nations,
especially the Security Council.
The only time the United
Nations was able to marshal an
effective collective security force to
counter aggression- by Nor th Ko–
rea against South Korea in 1950-
occurred while the Soviet Union
Oc tober 1985
had taken temporary leave of its
seat in the Security Council.
Moscow learned its lesson and has
stayed put ever since, ready to casta
veto-as do the United States and
the other three of the "big five"-to
thwar t any move considered to be
against its own interest.
The U.S.-Soviet rivalry exists to
this day and was evident in the San
Francisco assessment conference.
The new U.S. permanent repre–
sentative (ambassador) to the
U.N., Vernon A. Walters, deliv–
ered a blistering attack against
T he Soviet Union, of course, has
worked diligently, aJI admit, to find
favor among the many poorer, new
T hi rd World members.
Moscow quite obviously likes the
United Nations of today-far more
than when the U.S.S.R. was out–
numbered in the early days when
the United Nations was an organ
essentially promoting liberal U.S.
and Western values.
And , as far as human rights were
concerned, said Mr. Oleandrov ,
"the Soviet Union has a very good
record." The most impo r tant
Outmá ñned, underpowered United Nations peacekeeping forces confront difficult
s ituations. Tbis Frencb soldier is attached toa U.N. unit in southero Lebanon.
what he charged was a blatant dis–
regard for human rights on the part
of the Soviet world.
The Soviet delegate, Deputy
Permanent Representative 'Vsevo–
lod L. Oleandrov, defended his
country's role i n the United
Nations. T he Soviet Union, he said,
since 1970, has used the veto in the
Security Council far less than the
Western powers.
Mr. Oleandrov praised the devel–
opment of the U.N. and especially
its g rowth (up from 51 charter
members to 159 states today).
"The United Nations," he said, is
called "ineffective in the West,
never in the East." He claimed the
General Assembly "is in good
hands" because of the role played
by the developing nations. He took
great exception to an earlier U.S.
con tention that the U.N. had
become nothing but a "theater of
the absurd."
human rights, he claimed, are those
guaranteed by the Soviet constitu–
tion- the right to work ("no one is
unemployed in the Soviet Union"),
the right to a home ("no one is
homeless in the Soviet Union") and
the right not to be hungry ("there
are no hungry people in the Soviet
Union").
Secretary of State Shultz, in his
remarks, promised in so many
words that the United States will
do more " politicking" of its own
from now on.
The United States, he said, had
"failed to take part in the 'party sys–
tem' that was developing inside the
United Nations. While others
worked hard to o r ganize a nd
influence voting blocs to further
their
interests and promote
their
ideologies, the United States did not
make similar exertions on behalf of
our
values and ideals....
"Politicking is a fact of life in the
3