243. Editorial Note

On June 26, 1985, Secretary of State George Shultz delivered an address before the United Nations Association of San Francisco, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and the World Affairs Council of Northern California in San Francisco. Shultz’s remarks were delivered on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the promulgation of the United Nations Charter. He began his address by analyzing the “goals” and “difficulties” of the United Nations, in addition to “its weaknesses and its strengths.” He then turned to the role of the United States within the United Nations, specifically the responsibility of the United States in helping the United Nations achieve its stated goals: “For years, the United States failed to take the United Nations seriously. Disillusionment with the way the organization seemed to be evolving led us, in a sense, to withdraw. When the United Nations failed to meet our sometimes excessive expectations—when the successes we enjoyed in the first years after the birth of the United Nations began to fade—we began to lose interest in the institution.

“We were right to fear that the United Nations was heading in the wrong direction. But we were wrong to believe that there was little or nothing we could do to turn it around. Perhaps the lofty goals originally proclaimed for the United Nations made us overlook the more limited, practical aims that the United Nations could achieve, if we continued to play a forceful role.

“As a result of our withdrawal, we failed to take part in the ‘party system’ that was developing inside the United Nations. While others worked hard to organize and 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 our ideals. Indeed, we began to lose sight of the UN’s importance as a place to promote the principles of freedom and democracy. We often acted as if another nation’s behavior toward our values and interests inside the United Nations was not relevant to its relationship with us outside the organization.

[Page 1072]

“Our withdrawal from the United Nations, in spirit if not in fact, itself was a disservice to the original goals of the Charter—goals which we, after all, had played a major role in articulating here 40 years ago. By turning away from the United Nations because of its obvious failures, we neglected our duty to do the hard work needed to achieve what could be attained. In the process, we were not only failing to promote progress in the United Nations, we were taking a short-sighted view of our own national interests.

“For the truth is, despite its failings, the United Nations has a unique influence on global perceptions. The United Nations defines, for much of the world, what issues are and are not important and of global concern. Cuba worked hard in past years, for example, to have Puerto Rico on the agenda of the General Assembly as a problem of ‘decolonization’ to embarrass the United States and to create a problem where none exists. Other states, in order to avoid such embarrassment, try to keep off the agenda such subjects as the repression in Poland, the Libyan invasion of Chad, the downing of the Korean airliner, and the Rangoon bombing. The constant assault against Israel in the United Nations is part of an effort to delegitimize the Jewish state and to evade the necessity of peace.

“As Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick has said:

“‘The decisions of the United Nations are widely interpreted as reflecting “world opinion” and are endowed with substantial moral and intellectual force. The cumulative impact of decisions of UN bodies influence opinions all over the world about what is legitimate, what is acceptable, who is lawless and who is repressive, what countries are and are not capable of protecting themselves and their friends in the world body.’

“When other nations wield influence in the United Nations, when they can pass resolutions with the sole intent of harming other nations, when they can shield themselves or their friends from criticism—even for flagrant violations of the Charter—they accomplish two things:

First, they build a reputation as useful and influential friends, outside as well as inside the United Nations.

Second, they make a mockery of the Charter itself. For what can the Charter mean if violations of it cannot even be denounced within the United Nations?

“On the other hand, when the United States cannot protect itself or its friends from unfair attacks in the United Nations, we appear impotent, hardly a useful ally. To quote Jeane Kirkpatrick again: ‘UN votes affect both the image and the reality of power in the UN system and beyond it.’

[Page 1073]

“What all this tells us is that the United States must play a forceful role in the United Nations to protect our interests, to promote our democratic values and our ideals, and to defend the original principles of the Charter. We cannot let our adversaries use against us, as a weapon of political warfare, our own devotion to international law and international cooperation. We should use these instruments ourselves as they were intended—as a force against aggression and against evil, and for peace and human betterment.

“Today, we are doing just that. The United States and its representatives make clear to other nations that we take their votes and the decisions of UN bodies seriously and that our bilateral relations with other nations will be affected by their behavior in international forums. We now participate actively, confidently, and vigorously in the political process as it has evolved inside the United Nations.

“But above all, we continue to proclaim proudly our values and ideals and those of the Charter. We are working hard to lead the United Nations back to its original goals, to make it a major positive force in world affairs. As our new Ambassador Vernon Walters said here 2 days ago, we will not:

“‘. . . abandon the effort to achieve the original vision. Our goal remains the strengthening of a world order based on reciprocal rights and obligations—both among states and within states. We remain committed to the capacity for freedom.’

“The true lesson of experience, therefore, is a lesson of continued hope. The United Nations has done important work; there is much it can do to help the world maintain peace and improve the human condition. Progress toward the goals of the Charter has been possible where idealism and realism have been harnessed together.

“The failure of the United Nations to meet all its lofty aims is no cause for despair. We should continue to set high goals that inspire us to work harder and to persevere.” (Department of State Bulletin, August 1985, pages 20–21) The complete text of Shultz’s address is ibid., pages 18–21.