Basic HTML Version
----------------------~------------~------~in~
mcqualities and redress existing in·
ju.stices, malee it possible to eliminate
tbe widening gap between tbe devel·
oped and tbe developing oountries and
ensure steadily aocelerating cconomic
and social development in
peace
and
ju.stice for present and future genera–
tions."
Confereace BustlDC
Turoing oow to the South's secood
major weapoo, rhetoricf the Third
World bloc. with commilitist help, has
beguo puuing biz:arre new twists on gJo..
bal problems through a series of famous
world conferences.
The tirst was tbe United Nations Coo–
fereoce oo tbe Human Environment,
held in
1972
at Stockholm. Ratber Iban
participating in a meaningful discussion
oo ecological
a~~d
enviroomental prol>–
lem.s. tbe Third World tested a new
dogma: the developed world bad gotten
rich by polluüng the environmeot. and
now the rich pollutel$ waoted to
fr~
•
the rich·poor inequality into a status
quo, using "concem over ecology" as an
excuse 10 preven! development in lhe
poor Soutb.
Next carne the United Nations World
Population Conference beld in
1974
at
Ducharest. Here tbe
doctrin~
was pro- •
mulgated lhat the developed world was
auempling to !oist off population
con–
trol
on
the developing nations
as
a
means of keeping tbem in a subservient
posttion. The term "populatioo prob–
lem'" was a s-i.nister mis:nomer for what
was
reaUy a policy of genocide, m.ade
necessary by excessive consumption of
resouroes in the developed world.
Shortly lhereaf\er tbe Wodd Food
Conference, held in
1974
at Rome,
reacbed !he conclusion lbat lhe world
food problem was lhe oreatlon and re–
sponsibility of the rich. As such, lhe ricb
were duty·bound
lO
take aU necessary
steps 10 alleviate iL The
1975
oooference
on the lntemational Women's Year, in
Mexioo City, ma de lhe same accusa–
tions.
•
Tbe United Nations itselfbas evolved
into the pnmary sounding board for the
Th11d Wo rld bloc. The developing na·
tions hold a solid majority in the 138·
member organi.z.ation. Ever since tbe
early
1960s,
when !he emergence of
many new nalions created tbe Third
World majority in the U.N., !he United
States has found hel$elfon lhe defensive
in the Security Council and
bo
tbe Gen·
eral Assembly floor.
The
Nonb's Counterweapoary
Marching into the teeth of producers'
associations and political rbetoric, wbat
weapons
does
lhe developed world have
witb wluch
10
defend itself! lndeed,
sbould al even bolher to mu.ster
a
de–
fense?
A responsible developed nation, such
as tbe United Ststes, must iodeed con·
oidcr bow much validiÍy there is to the
Third World oonteotions. Tbougb sorne
arglle olherwise, the developed world
WI!I!K I!NDTNG OCTOBJ;!R 18. 1975
canool morally ignore the pligbt of !he
paiofully irnpoverislied nations. Tbat.
bowever,
is
merely ao argumeot for for–
eign aid. But tbat brings up the ques–
tions: How much aid? Whom sbould it
be giveo to? What $lrings should be at·
tached? Those are all complex qucstions
to be answered by our eoonomic and
political experts.
Al present, there is a forceM anl\·
foreign-aid wave washiog through both
1he U.S. public and the Cb!'gress. In
part this is a response
10
the bar:sb aceu·
sations from lhe 'l"hird World. fn part it
reliects lhe ioelfectiveness of most for·
eign a id. But, if we in lhe U.S. are boo–
est, we will probably have lo admit lhal
we baveo't tried very hard to make our
aid effective. Most of it bas been
mili·
tary
iD
nature. Much of it bas been di·
rectcd to locatiOIU where it v.lould be
most politically effective ralher !hao
most misery-alleviatiog. Fioally, our
besilancy lo extend more assistanee is
probably due, as much as anything,
lo
the eft'ect inftatioo and recessioo bave
had in malcing us uneertain about our
own economic future.
In short, we should not be looking for
excuses to wilhhold aid, but for ways to
make it elfective.
As
lhe worlcl's rich, we must formu·
b.te a pbilosophy ooocerning the se–
verity of disparities of wealtb wbicb
we
wíiJ tolera te.
Jo
tbe United States. it
has
only been in lhe last two decades that
we bave adopted !he pbilosopby lhat all
citiuns sbould be insured at least a
min·
imum subsiSteoce. But we bave not yet
extended that reasoning to lhe rest of
the. world. Globally, our position is more
lalsst: falrt,
hands olf.
Westem ldeals Revlslte4
Thcre is much more, however, that we
sbould do. A cenain amount of redistri·
bution may be morally imperativo, but
!he creed of redistribution
as
r~giously
jueacbed by !he Tbird World is ·not !he
power ofsalvation for our planeL
lo
an
era wben the life-style and basic
organizaúonal principies of our culture
are being questioned by others, it is time
tbe "Westero democncics" reevaluate
Íbe meaning of théir political experi·
ence. Our política! heritage is that ofthe
American and French revolutions. Ou.r
traditiOOS Of private OWOe1$bip, free
cnterprise, and lawful personal aceumu·
lation of weallb
(l.e,
capitalism) are
based on such ideas of ¡x¡litical and per–
sonal freedom.
At present, this heritage is being chal·
lenged because- it
has
oot solvcd prob–
lems elsewhere in the worlcl But we did
nol adopt our system because it was
billed
as
the solution to all problems, in–
cluding everyone else's. We opted for it
becau.se it offered individual$ the oppor·
tunity 10 devise tbeir own solutions as
tbey, not someone else, saw fit.
For most ofhistory, men lived in situ·
ations where "migbt makes rigbL" The
polilical organization of !he world was
in tbe form of monarchies, theoeracies,
.,
oligopoUes, and dictator:sbips - systems
wbere trulh was defined by lhe powers
that were. Galileos were humiliat ed.
witches were bumed, aod beretics were
sentlo Devil's lslaod or Siberia.
-
Out social organizatioo, built on the
twin pillars of democncy and capital·
ism, was devised
lO
eUminate the shroud
that the all-powerful state threw over
human potential. The central purpose of
our experiment was not to eliminale
poverty of lbe stomacb, but to insure
againsl poverty of the human spirit; not
lo elirninate disparity ofmaterial posses·
sions, but lo eradicate tbe disparity of
power wbere one man
can
acquire
weallh by foroe. In sbort. we should oot
claim tbat our sy&tem
wiU
solve a
U
trou–
bles everywbere, but ralher we sbould
claim that our system worlcs reasonably
well in resist.ing tyranoy.
N~:
A Feared Spokesman
fortbeWest
John
Scali,
fprmer U.S. Ambassador
to the U.N., decried tbe "tyranny of the
majoril:(." More and more the Tbird
World bloc seems
lO
think that if it can
become a umajority"
-
if
it
can
ac:quire
lhe necessary political and eeonomic
muscle - then it can deJine what is
uuue~
and
64
good, almost at
whim.
Wben tbe majority says, for example,
lhere's no food and population crisis
(only a crime of over-<>Onsumptioo in
!he developed world), lhat's a step in !he
direction of
a
new dark-age meotality.
The developed world has oot yet re·
sisted lhat tendency with the foroe and
eloquence it must. In world opinion, !he
view of 1he rich is a
minorlty.
Tbat ne–
cessitates,
u
U.N. Ambassador Daniel
Moyniban put it, that the United Slates
go "into opposition" and vigorously de–
fend its position. "lt
is
time," writes
Moyni.h.an in
Commenrary,
"that !he
Ameri!ln spokesman came to
be
feared
in international forums for the truths he
migbttell."
Wbat sort of truths? Trutbs such as
lhe fac:t that the most glaring
disparities
of wealtb lie not between the developed
and developing worlds hut between and
within ce.rtain developing oations - for
example, oil-rich Arab states (sorne wilh
percapita incomes more Iban that of the
U.S.) are inflnitely richer !han lhe In·
di.an suboontinent.
The U.S. spokesman oould expose
lruths such as that in !he past
15
years,
the Uníted Nations' record of moral
judgment has been virtually nonex·
istent. In
1973,
for instance, tbe Arabs
militarily attaeked Israel oo . Judaism's
bol.iest day. Eleven of the fifleen Secu–
rity Council members voted to oondemn
Israel as tht aggressor. Tbe U.N,
how·
ever, failed to oondemn terrorist sky–
jackings, k.ídnappings, letter bombs,
mass murder of civilians, or the mas·
sacre at tbe
1972
Olympies.
Tbird World representativos can con·
demn South Africa and
apartheúl
oo tbe
General Assem.bly 8oor, while
iD
tbe
Tbird World civil wal$ and massacres
take place seemingly unnotieed, and
lhousands of poUtic:al prisoners rol in
their cells. As aoolher example, the
Tbird World bloc staged
a
virtual
cele–
bration
0o
the U.N. floor when Taiwan
was lcic:ked out of the intemational
body, even lhougb tbe U
.N.
supposedly
is opeo 10
a
U
govemments wbo are in
clear control oftheir territory.
American spokesmen sbould find nu·
merous opportunities for poinling out
the copious amounts of Orwellian
double·thiok implicit i n the Third
World call for tbe "sovereigoly of every
· state over its -natural resources and
aJJ ·
eoonomic activilies." In actual fact, the
Third World only wants their own states
lO
have total sovereignty over tbeir re–
sources.
1t
expec:ts
otber states
(LC..
!he
developed world)
lO
give up partial sov–
ereignty over tbeir resources and 19
sbare them wilh aU.
Furtbermore, the fervcnt
cry
for re–
souree sovereignty of\en comes from
tbose wbo know that sucb sovereignty
would belp them maintain tigbt control
of lheir national eoonomies, tbus help·
ing to hold together tbeir quite disunited
and perhaps oppressive regimes.
Our represcntative sbould state lhat
socialism
has proveo to be a compara·
· tively poor means of producing oew
weallh and
a
quite ineffective way of
redistribuling it. We should preseot our
case
tbat ju.st
á
there
iS
a great deal of
trulb in lhe StatelneOI that an individual
is
respoosible for
bis
CCIOOomic circum–
stances, so
also
is
lhere considerable
trulh in staling tbat individual nations
are responsible for their owo natiooa)
cireumstances.
We sbould poiot out tbe inootÜisteocy
of the Third World call for sustained
world economic growth, accelerating de–
velopment, and greater intemational
co–
operation, on the one hand, and their
"what•s mine is mine and
what~s
you.rs
is
mine" rbetoric oo the otber.
Certainly lhere is great merit in oom–
passion and the exteiUion of aid, as op–
posed to ignoring the. sutferings of
olhers: To tbe degree lhat the central
issues of lhe debate involve !hose mo–
tives, we should responcl But the beart
of tbis particular debate
lies
elsewbere.
Tbe essential questioo is: Will
we
insist
that world problems be defined as they
rcally are, or, when it comes to such
things, will we surrender the right of
deflnition 10 any bloc witb tbe political
migbt to enforce tbeir viewpoint?
lf
we
do tbe latter, we'll oootribute little or
nolhing to thc aUeviation of world suf·
fering, but we'U bave.-cakeo a big step
toward surreodering the world to tbe
enslavement of irrationalism.
Lies
wbicb
masquerade as uulh bave
served various elites in
both
Nortb and
Soutb - but never the best interests of
manlónd.
1t
seems weU within tbe realm
of possibility for us 10 combine com·
passion with truth - work.íng to elimi·
nate poverty of the body while insuring
against enslavement of tbe human
spirit. o
•
7