And if that is true, isn't the United Nations a mechanism that we should support.

Then, shouldn't we explore other nonwar methods of trying to deal with international disputes? Isn't the sanction against Rhodesia one of those efforts; to try, short of war, to handle international disputes? Mr. COLLINS. Any way that we can have peace in the world I would agree with you. We all want it, and I am with you on this situation in Vietnam. But now taking the most critical war situation we have, they do not take a positive position on this in the United Nations. They have never really gotten into the real tough world situation we have today. Here the United Nations takes this little independent sanction deal-and I wish we had some strong power-I wish the United Nations were a strong entity. But my appraisal is that they have been weak in their actions.

The great value of the United Nations is to be a talking forum. Mr. DELLUMS. I have no further questions.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Gross has come in since you arrived.

Mr. GROSS. I am glad to see you, Mr. Collins. I certainly endorse your resolution and again thank you for appearing.

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRASER. Our next witness is Congressman John Rarick.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN R. RARICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am thankful for the opportunity offered by this subcommittee to examine our country's policy relating to sanctions against Rhodesia. In my thinking, the entire theory of retributive punishment against a sovereign nation in the hopes of intermeddling in the internal affairs of that nation is wanton folly sought as a dignified effort to commit piracy. We are given three basic reasons for refusing to grant diplomatic recognition to Rhodesia, all of them false, as I will demonstrate.

First, we are told that we must honor the sanctions on the country which were imposed by the United Nations Organization. Let us look honestly at these sanctions, from either the point of view of objective evaluation of their validity or from the point of view of the interest of the United States.

Objectively the sanctions were either the conniving of the Soviets, manipulating the black puppets of the 42 so-called emerging nations which make up a significant and controllable bloc in the General Assembly, or they were the petulant pouting of spiteful children who are going to spit on the pie if they cannot have it to eat.

The idea that peaceful Rhodesia-nonaggressive, and with no announced threat to its neighbors-is a threat to world peace-because some other nation may make an aggressive attack on Rhodesia-is the kind of poppycock that thinking Americans are sick of hearing. Besides, too many Americans have been to Rhodesia to continue swallowing this fabrication, which has been invented for political expediency.

Rhodesia has a population of 4,670,000, while Washington, D.C., has a population of 756,510. Yet the District of Columbia police force has 5,100 men, while the Rhodesian Army totals under 4,000, with less

than 1,000 being European or white. Although the Rhodesian Army is smaller than the police force of Washington, D.C., no one has yet suggested an embargo against our Nation's Capital as constituting a threat to international peace.

Even though our treaty obligations made pursuant to our Constitution are the law of the land under our Constitution, the actions of the United Nations Organization or any of its organs, no matter how prestigious, are binding on us only if we choose to be bound.

Noteworthy, the only conceivable justification for such an act of warfare-and a declared blockade under articles 39, 41, and 42 of the United Nation's Charter is an act of warfare-is the determination by the Security Council that a target nation constitutes "any threat to world peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."

This is like saying that a solvent bank is a dangerous threat to law and order in the community because some criminal may rob or burglarize it; therefore, to preserve public peace it must be boycotted and destroyed.

In the debate relating to the imposition of trade sanctions against Rhodesia, it was not shown-nor could it be that Rhodesia was a threat to world peace.

The Security Council procedure during the debate deviated from the U.N. Charter provisions since Rhodesia was not permitted to be present and was even denied the opportunity to be heard or participate in its own trial pursuant to article 32.

Furthermore, under the U.N. Participation Act, the U.N. representatives are authorized to perform in connection with the United States in the UNO as the President may direct from time to time.

In some instances it suits our domestic political purposes or our international relations to be bound, and we ratify the UNO decree by our acceptance. In other cases, where it does not fit the policy of the United States, we have many convenient ways of avoiding the impact of UNO mandates.

For example, Israel is in violation of repeated mandates by the Security Council to withdraw within its own borders and cease its aggressive military operations against its neighbors. As a member of the Security Council, as well as of the United Nations Organization, it might be urged that we should apply the same standards to the violation of these mandates as to any other, but instead, we are aiding and abetting their repeated daily violation. Not only do we give financial support to Israel, through tax-free bonds enjoyed by no other nation, we actually manufacture and sell to the Israelis the weapons with which to continue their alleged transgressions against UNO authority.

It has been suggested by some critics of our very elastic interpretation of our obligations to the United Nations Organization that the Rhodesians would fare better if there were more Rhodesians voting in New York. I offer no opinion on this idea.

Nor is Israel the only such example of our highly variable standard. Red China is actually at war with the United Nations Organization or with the United States, if you desire to pierce the thin veil of illusion. Remember Korea-the U.N. condemnation of Red China as an aggressor nation in 1951. Yet recently the Nixon administration announced relaxation of trade and travel restrictions and reportedly

will back a two-China U.N. seat to the prejudice of our U.S. ally of long standing-Nationalist China-thus having the effect of rewarding aggression.

The President also indicated he would like to visit Red China. Perhaps he intends to use his visit to negotiate ending the war in Koreaa war which is interrupted by a shaky cease-fire with U.S. casualties continuing whenever it suits propaganda purposes for the Reds.

The President can take comfort by hiding behind the sanctions imposed on Rhodesia by claiming U.N. cooperation. Red China and Israel have both been condemned as aggressors but without U.N. imposition of economic boycott. So Rhodesia, it can be said, remains saddled with sanctions differing from other U.S. action which require positive action by Congress under its exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

The obviously intended thrust of the U.N. sanctions, participated in by the foreign policy experts of both national parties, was to placate the British Government in their expectation that the new revolutionary government of Prime Minister Smith could be toppled in a short period of time. The sanctions must then have been intended as a temporary political expediency to internationally embarrass the Rhodesian politicians and to encourage a "created poverty" in the hopes of stirring dissension and dissatisfaction among the Rhodesian citizens.

That U.N. sanctions have failed is self-evident. Rhodesia continues as a free republic. U.N. members, including the Soviet Union, trade with Rhodesia whenever trade in strategic materials such as chrome and petalite is deemed necessary to their nations' interest.

As a second reason suggested for continuing sanctions, we are told we must not offend the United Kingdom by granting recognition to a former colony whose independence does not meet with approval of the British Government-neither with the dictates of the Labor Party formerly in power-nor with the Conservative Party presently in power.

There may or may not be a good reason for being the rubber-stamp endorser of British colonial policy. If there is, it has never even been suggested to the American people nor to their representatives in the Congress, must less explained to any of us. I, for one, have had enough of the British willingness to fight to the last American, whether in Rhodesia or elsewhere. I believe the majority of the American people share this view.

We do not find our British brethren anywhere near as solicitous of our feelings as they desire us to be of theirs. While Americans die in combat in Vietnam, ships flying many of the flags of the British Commonwealth sail in and out of the port of Haiphong, trading with the enemy and supplying him with the necessary materiel for his slaughter of Americans. And this, even though Britain is also a signatory of SEATO. Despite the threat to the United States from the presence of Soviet missiles and missile bases in Castro's Cuba, our Canadian friends, a nation of the British Commonwealth, carry on a sustaining trade with Havana.

For 5 years the Government of Rhodesia has demonstrated that it is here to stay as a stable and responsible government. Nor do even the British suggest a desire to violently overthrow the existing govern

ment to restore colonial rule over Rhodesia. Both British parties when in power have always announced that they intend the Rhodesians to have home rule and self-government-the opposition by the British royalty and political leaders is simply that they would prefer a political group of their choosing to be in power in Rhodesia in order to help the political future of Great Britain.

For the United States to continue sanctions behind the smokescreen that Rhodesia is but a token rebel government which ought to remain subject to the sovereignty of British is to perpetuate the myths and superstitions of unreality.

Our British friends plead for our cooperation in recognizing their plight because they are helplessly outvoted in the U.N. by the black racist regimes in Africa, many being their freed former colonies.

Britain and the United States have a combined population of over 250 million, while the population of all of Africa is just over 355 million. Yet, while the United States and England have two votes in the U.N. General Assembly, the Africans have 41 votes. In fact, under present composition, two-thirds of the U.N. could represent 10 percent of the world population.

Should the United States side with Britain in any issue contrary to the best interests of the United States? Britain certainly knew in sponsoring her former colonies for U.N. membership that her 55 million people would be out democratized by any "one-tribe, one-vote" theory where there was no equal representation based on the usual requisites to civilization.

A third reason advanced for continuing sanctions against Rhodesia is the concept which has been drummed into American ears for years. that there is something bad about the Government of Rhodesia and about the Government of South Africa because these nations are ruled by civilized white men rather than black masses, be they civilized or savage. A false corollary to this propaganda line is that something must be wrong with the "democracy" in these lands, since where savages manifestly outnumber civilized men, a one-man, one-vote situation would obviously result in a savage rather than a civilized govern

ment.

A recent report from UNESCO announced that 97 countries of the world have illiteracy rates of 50 percent—and in twenty countries 95 to 99 percent of the inhabitants are illiterate. And, according to UNESCO, the situation, contrary to public opinion, has grown worse in some countries.

In short, we are urged not to recognize a government using the criterion of whether or not its internal political processes are in accord with some intellectual's theories of "democracy.

Let us examine our foreign policy from this angle, and demolish once and for all, this totally inane and dishonest argument.

If we were to honestly accept this as a standard for recognizing a foreign government, we should at once withdraw our ambassadors from half the nations of the earth. Diplomatic relations should be broken at once with the Soviet Union, as well as its satellites Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and even Yugoslavia and Albania. If we listen to the complaints of certain dissidents in Northern Ireland, we might even have to withdraw our recognition of the United Kingdom because of the suppression claimed by the Irish.

Any government which resulted from a coup-or for that matter, from an election not to our liking-would go beyond the pale and diplomatically ostracized. Remember, even the caste discrimination in India can be repulsive and shocking to some.

Foreign policy pronouncements by President Nixon have indicated a relaxing if not an abolition of all trade barriers. Lately the announcement was made that trade by our country with any nation was not to be considered as approval by our Nation of that country's leaders or its domestic policies.

President Nixon defined his Nixon doctrine as:

In effect we are encouraging countries to participate fully in the creation of plans and the designing of programs. They must define the nature of their own progress. For only in this manner will they think of their fate as truly their

own.

Following the election of Allende, the Marxist-Communist in Chile, President Nixon stated:

The new Government in Chile is a clear case in point. The 1970 election of a Socialist President may have profound implications not only for its people but for the inter-American system as well. The government's legitimacy is not in question, but its ideology is likely to influence its actions. Chile's decision to establish ties with Communist Cuba, contrary to the collective policy of the OAS, was a challenge to the inter-American system. We and our partners in the OAS will therefore observe closely the evolution of Chilean foreign policy.

Our bilateral policy is to keep open the lines of communication. We will not be the ones to upset traditional relations. We assume that international rights and obligations will be observed. We also recognize that the Chilean Government's actions will be determined primarily by its own purposes and that these will not be deflected simply by the tone of our policy. In short, we are prepared to have the kind of relationship with the Chilean government that it is prepared to have with us.

On Rumania, President Nixon said:

In 1969 I visited Rumania-a Warsaw Pact country-the first visit by an American President to a Communist country in 42 years. President Ceausescu visited Washington in 1970.

Rumania takes positions on many major issues quite different from our own, but we both recognize the right of every nation to develop its own policies in light of its own interests. Therefore our differences do not preclude consultation or practical cooperation.

On Yugoslavia, President Nixon said:

In 1970, on President Tito's invitation, I paid the first visit by an American President to nonaligned Yugoslavia. We exchanged ideas on major international issues, especially on the Middle East. We broadened our ties of cooperation on the basis of mutual interest and a mature respect for our acknowledged differences. President Tito has now accepted my invitation to pay a return visit to the United States.

On Red China, President Nixon said:

We are prepared to establish a dialog with Peking. We cannot accept its ideological precepts, or the notion that Communist China must exercise hegemony over Asia. But neither do we wish to impose on China an international position that denies its legitimate national interests.

Why persist therefore in a double standard on trade with Rhodesia? If the United Nations Charter is to be given any significance, article 1. section 7 must be considered:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VII.