Perhaps the single most important items of news concerning international organizations since my last column was the official notification by the U.S. Government late in December 1983 of its intention to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) at the end of 1984. Numerous articles and editorial pieces have appeared in the press since that time. According to news accounts the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, a nongovernmental advisory body, adopted a resolution December 16 at its annual meeting stating that continued U.S. membership in UNESCO “… is in the national interest,” but as far as the author can determine the text of the resolution, adopted by a 41 to 8 vote, has not been made public. It is my understanding that a 700-page report evaluating U.S. participation in UNESCO has been prepared and an executive summary is to be published by the State Department. From its origins UNESCO has been one of the most controversial and complex of the organizations within the United Nations system of organizations as shown in a new reference work on the Organization, Guide to UNESCO, by Peter I. Hajnal of the University of Toronto library staff. The reader's attention is directed to a review of the Guide published in this issue. Another event highlighted in the press was the failure of the December 1983 meeting of the European Council of Ministers in Athens to come to any agreement on reform of the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy and the 1984 Community budget. The meeting broke up without even agreeing on a final communique. In a statement issued December 7 the Commission of the European Community referred to the gravity of the situation but stated that “… the failure of the European Council session is not the failure of the Community, let alone the failure of a historical process that is to ensure the prosperity and strength of Europe.” (European Community News no. 23, December 9, 1983.) Another noteworthy event late in 1983 was the November 14 announcement by the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Alejandro Orfila, of his intention to resign. In a very outspoken speech, the OAS Secretary-General stated “… that the OAS has been detached from, or only tangentially involved in, many of the major issues that affect the present and determine the future of America.” (Washington Post, November 22, 1983.) At the United Nations discouragement also has been expressed increasingly at the inability of the Organization to do its first job of preserving peace. Upon his retirement from the UN in November 1983, Philippine Foreign Minister Carlos Romulo, head of his delegation since the founding conference in 1945, said “the world has changed [since then] but we have not changed enough. Human perspective is still transfixed on the precious but inadequate loyalties of home and country when it needs, at a time when men aim for the stars, to encompass at least the human family on a tiny planet, circling a minor sun.” (Quoted by Flora Lewis, New York Times, December 27, 1983.) In a New Year's message, the President of the 38th UN General Assembly, Jorge Illueca of Panama, called for an infusion “… of new energy into the machinery of the United Nations.” At the same time, he noted that our fate depends on “… human geography more than physical geography,” and he urged “… these human nucleii of diverse cultures” to come together so that “… we the peoples of the world, may strengthen our will to save mankind from the scourge of war.” (United Nations Weekly News Summary WS/1161, January 6, 1984.)
Two “Popes” to Speak for the World: The Pope and the United Nations Secretary General in World Politics
