collective security provisions of the UN Charter, and requesting it to report to the 38th General Assembly. The resolution was approved without a vote in Committee on December 8 and adopted by the Assembly on December 16, also without a vote. (Resolution 37/119.)

As it has for the past few years, Romania introduced a draft resolution entitled "Development and strengthening goodneighborliness between states." The draft, inter alia, (1) reaffirmed that good-neighborliness conformed with the purpose of the United Nations; (2) deemed it appropriate to clarify the elements of goodneighborliness as part of a process of elaborating, at an appropriate time, a suitable international document on the subject; and (3) invited governments to communicate their views on the matter to the Secretary General. The draft resolution, approved in Committee without a vote on December 9, was adopted without a vote by the plenary on December 16. (Resolution 37/117.)

In explaining why the United States joined the consensus on the resolution, the U.S. Representative noted that his Government firmly believed in the concept of good-neighborliness and the need for all states to comply with existing international norms of behavior in dealing with their neighbors. However, he made clear that the problem was not the lack of an international document on goodneighborliness, but the lack of respect for international obligations undertaken by all UN member states as enshrined in the UN Charter.

Questions Relating to Information

The Committee on Information, a 67-member standing committee of the UN General Assembly,15 has a mandate to oversee UN public information activities; to coordinate information activities with UN specialized agencies, such as UNESCO and the ITU, which have operational responsibility for communication and information questions; to promote the establishment of a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO); and to make recommendations to the General Assembly. The United States was able to join the consensus on the Committee's moderate 1982 report and recommendations to the General Assembly.

The United States was disappointed that the Special Political Committee ignored that consensus and drafted a resolution, in

15 Members of the Committee in 1982 were Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, and Zaire.

troduced by Colombia, on questions relating to information which contained unacceptable budget add-ons and political content. The budget add-ons continued the trend toward growing UN public information budgets. The resolution also failed to adequately address the need for better evaluation and management of these activities. Other unacceptable features included a call for a survey of private media coverage of Middle East developments, which the United States could not accept because it infringed upon media independence. The vote on this draft resolution, taken in Committee December 2, was 105 to 1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (Israel). The vote in plenary, on December 10, was 131 to 1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (Israel). This was the second consecutive year in which the United States had voted against the information resolution in the General Assembly.

In its explanation of vote, the United States said that it could not support further budget growth in public information activities. These activities would benefit from cost-effective management, and the identification of priorities. The United States also said that UN public information activities must be pursued in an objective, nonpartisan way if they were to be credible, and that they must support the free flow of information. Finally, the United States opposed the implied restraints contained in the resolution on the freedom and independence of the private media. (Resolution 37/94 B.)

The United States joined the consensus in both Committee, December 2, and in plenary, December 10, on a separate draft resolution, which, among other things, commended the work of UNESCO's International Program for the Development of Communication, a vehicle for exchanging information about and promoting assistance for improvements in developing country communications. The United States supports the Program, which can deliver real benefits to developing countries if it continues to operate on a pragmatic, non-ideological basis. (Resolution 37/94 A.)

Part 2

Economic, Social, Scientific, and Human Rights Affairs

Chapter III of the UN Charter established the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as the principal

organs of the United Nations responsible for the issues covered in Part 2 of this report. ECOSOC's limited membership (54 countries), however, has led the developing countries to prefer the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies-where they enjoy their maximum voting strength-for substantive discussion and action on international economic issues, especially those directly related to development. As a result, the General Assembly has created entities (described in this part) for substantive discussion and action on international economic issues, especially those directly related to development. These include the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the proposed global negotiations. Agreement on the conditions for global negotiations has been difficult to achieve, and they have continued on an informal and sporadic basis.

The General Assembly and these entities constitute an important element of what has come to be called the North/South dialogue between developed and developing countries, which proceeds on the bilateral, regional, and multilateral planes. The North/South distinction between developed and developing countries, however, tends to mask the significant differences within each group and to overlook the high degree of economic interdependence that exists between developed and developing countries.

The General Assembly, in its regular sessions, is organized into seven committees. The Second Committee is responsible for economic and financial affairs and the Third Committee, for cultural, humanitarian, and social matters. Most issues considered by the Committees are forwarded by ECOSOC, but some are introduced initially to the General Assembly for consideration.

ECOSOC consists of its plenary body; five regional economic commissions; eight functional commissions; and a varying number of subcommissions, standing committees, working groups, and expert groups. The regional economic commissions and many of the other bodies are covered in this part.

All elements of the UN system primarily concerned with the issues in this section usually report to ECOSOC or through ECOSOC to the General Assembly. ECOSOC may require changes in the reports from organizations directly subsidiary to it. It is authorized only to comment on reports from other bodies (such as UNCTAD and the specialized agencies) before conveying them to the General Assembly.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

Global Negotiations

In December 1979, the 34th General Assembly adopted by consensus resolution 34/138 calling for "a round of global and sustained

negotiations on international economic cooperation for development." The resolution provided for universal UN participation in the simultaneous negotiation of major international economic issues in the fields of raw materials, energy, trade, development, money, and finance. The resolution directed the Committee of the Whole to work out the procedures, agenda, and time-frame for global negotiations to enable the General Assembly at a special session in 1980 to decide on an effective and prompt beginning of global negotiations.

Although the United States joined in the consensus, two successive U.S. administrations have maintained that procedures and agenda for the conference must be agreed before global negotiations could begin. In particular, the United States has insisted that the conference respect the integrity of the specialized agencies already existing within the UN system, e.g., the IBRD, IMF, and GATT. Our statement in interpretation, delivered at the time the resolution was adopted, covered both of these points. Also, the resolution emphasized the need to establish a new system of international economic relations, the so-called "New International Economic Order." The United States believes that a global dialogue based on the premise that its purpose is to bring about the new international economic order would be confrontational and unlikely to lead to mutually beneficial progress. In addition the resolution is not compatible with the four essential understandings subsequently outlined by President Reagan at the Cancun Summit on October 22, 1981.

He said the talks (1) should have a practical orientation toward identifying, on a case-by-case basis, specific potential for or obstacles to development which cooperative efforts may enhance or remove; (2) should respect the competence, functions, and powers of the specialized international agencies upon which all depend with the understanding that decisions reached by these agencies, within respective areas of competence, would be final; (3) should be toward sustaining or achieving greater levels of mutually beneficial international growth and development, taking into account domestic economic policies; and (4) should take place in an atmosphere of cooperative spirit rather than one in which views became polarized and chances for agreement were needlessly sacrificed.

Global negotiations were discussed during the 36th regular session. This session adjourned, however, with no agreement reached on a new global negotiations resolution. At the end of November 1981 a draft resolution attributed to General Assembly President Kittani was circulated in New York. This resolution would have convened a UN conference for global negotiations in 1982 without prior agreement on procedures and agenda. The draft was carefully reviewed by the highest levels of the U.S. Government, and on December 9 four amendments were offered by the United States in New York which would have brought the draft into line with the four essential

understandings in the President's statement at Cancun. The Group of 77 was unable to agree on a united response to the amendments or any of the other draft resolutions then under consideration. Protection of the integrity of the specialized agencies continued to be the major issue preventing agreement. It was decided on December 18 that further consideration of global negotiations should be deferred to a resumed session in 1982, pending the outcome of informal consultations to be conducted under the guidance of President Kittani.

On March 31, 1982, the Group of 77 in New York countered the U.S. proposal with a new text. This text, however, did not address the concerns of the United States about the integrity of the specialized agencies and would have convened the conference on global negotiations directly, without a preliminary agreement on agenda and procedures. The United States responded to the March 31 proposal of the Group of 77 by supporting a Versailles Summit proposal (June 56)1 which provided a sound basis for proceeding with global negotiations in a manner consistent with the principles outlined by President Reagan at Cancun. Specifically, four amendments to the March 31 draft resolution were offered as a prerequisite to moving ahead. At Versailles the United States made a major concession by agreeing that global negotiations could be launched without a preliminary conference to determine the agenda and procedures for the discussions, provided these amendments were accepted.

The four amendments represent the serious and considered judgment of the heads of state and government at the Versailles Summit meeting. The United States continues to believe that these amendments offer the best basis for proceeding: the provision which requires that any ad hoc groups created by the conference not duplicate existing forums is of particular importance. Establishment of competing forums would seriously undermine the ability of the IMF, GATT, and multilateral development banks to carry out their particular and important functions in our general effort to restore global economic health. These institutions have served the international economy well and have been major pillars of the impressive economic and social progress which the world has experienced over the past 30 years. The United States is determined to preserve the mandate and functions of these indispensable institutions.

On June 14, 1982, Canada, on behalf of the summit nations, presented the proposed amendments to representatives of the Group of 77 in New York. The amendments were acceptable to the majority of members, but a few hardliners were opposed. They obtained a Group of 77 consensus for proposing substitute language for key parts of the Versailles amendments. These revisions, however, were

1 Countries represented at Versailles: Canada, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States.