Herbert W Armstrong

Wednesday, December 19 marked two significant events. The first involved the formal signing of the agreement ceding Hong Kong to China (details in our December 7 report). On the same day, the United States made it official that it will definitely leave UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — as of the end of the year, citing evidence that hoped-for reforms in the world body failed to sufficiently materialize. Regarding the first event, here is how it was described over the UPI wire service, datelined Peking, December 19:

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang today signed a historic agreement transferring capitalist Hong Kong to communist rule in 1997. The accord, which will end nearly 150 years of British colonial rule in the world's third largest financial center, was signed by the two leaders at 5:30 p.m. (4:30 a.m. EST) during a nationally televised ceremony in Peking's Great Hall of the People. ... Among the more than 400 guests in the Great Hall to witness the signing was paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, who considers the reunification of Hong Kong with China his crowning achievement....

Thatcher, who is on a six-day global tour that will include a meeting with President Reagan in Washington, earlier met for an hour with Communist Party Chief Hu Yaobang, who described the signing as a "red letter day."... Thatcher replied she was surprised an agreement on Hong Kong could be reached after only two years of negotiations. "I never thought we should be able to achieve it in the two years that Chairman Deng Xiaoping set for us because there was so much to be done in detail," she said. "I'm very pleased that the people of Hong Kong have themselves accepted the agreement."

In an earlier meeting, Premier Zhao Ziyang assured Thatcher that China would honor the Hong Kong accord "in every respect."... He told Thatcher the concept of "one country, two systems" — allowing Hong Kong to retain its capitalist lifestyle for the first 50 years of communist rule — was the result of "lengthy thought and consideration by the Chinese government."

An ASSOCIATED PRESS dispatch of the same date added the following comments:

Although the takeover terms generally have been welcomed, many in Hong Kong question China's ability to deliver on its promises in view of the tumultuous 1966-76 Cultural Revolution and other political upheavals since Communist rule began in 1949.

But Zhao assured the British leader: "In the years to come, China will implement this agreement in every respect. China will do so and I am convinced the British side will also do so.... We always mean what we say. What we say to the world counts and we have always adhered to the agreements we have signed internationally."

Zhao termed the pact "a major event in modern world history," conducive to peace in Asia and the world and opening a new chapter in Chinese-British relations. He praised Mrs. Thatcher's "vision and statesmanship," and accepted an invitation to visit Britain next summer. British officials, meanwhile, said Queen Elizabeth II is likely to visit China in the second half of 1986. She would be the first British monarch to travel to the world's most populous country.

Zinhua [China's official news agency] quoted Mrs. Thatcher, who arrived late Tuesday for a 36-hour stay before flying to Hong Kong and Washington, as telling Zhao: "I thought it was of extreme importance to come even for a short visit because it is such a great occasion and a historic occasion."

To a great degree, Britain had no choice but to seek the best deal it could regarding Hong Kong. Whereas the heart of the colony's area (Hong Kong island and Kowloon across the harbor) were acquired by cession from China in 1841, the colony quickly outgrew itself. Additional, much greater territory was acquired under terms of a 99-year lease in 1898. This terminates in 1997 and Peking has long said it would never renew it. The original Hong Kong without the "New Territories" section, where so many of the residents live and where new industrial growth has gone, simply would not be viable.

Significantly, the reversion agreement was signed in Peking, not London, signifying the "winner" in the deal. It is an axiom of international relations that where official events take place, or where international meetings are held, is a sure sign of the relative power or prestige, or both, of the parties involved.

UNESCO Pullout: U.S., then Britain, then...?

As mentioned at the beginning, the United States has made it official that it would not retract its earlier decision, reached last year at this time, that it would leave UNESCO effective December 31, 1984. With its departure, Washington also withdraws its 25% budget appropriation. This money will instead be allocated to three other organizations, one international, two national, that the U.S. feels will better use the money.

Great Britain, a few days back, also gave a one-year notice of withdrawal, effective the end of 1985. Several other Western nations are sympathetic to the U.S. and U.K. moves, and may or may not follow suit. In fact, 24 nations have demanded reforms inside UNESCO. Their leverage should be great since only eight nations pay 72% of the agency's bloated budget.

UNESCO is the largest of 17 UN-related agencies (meaning they have separate budgets and directorships). It was founded in 1946 to share the Western industrial states' ideas and know-how with the developing nations. Reducing world illiteracy was a major objective. Over the years, however, UNESCO, like the UN itself, has changed, especially as it has added new members from the decolonized Third World. It has grown from 20 to 161 members (three more than the UN itself) and has taken on a decidedly anti-Western, specifically anti-American tone. It has initiated politically controversial measures such as the "New International Economic Order," which would amount to the forceable transfer of wealth from the industrialized capitalist countries to the developing world, possibly through a "tax" on the former. UNESCO is also pushing the "New World Information and Communication Order" under which journalists would be licensed by the governments they wish to report from, easily leading to widespread censorship of news reporting.

Significantly, the liberal Western news media have generally excused or justified UNESCO's excesses — until it came to the proposed curbs on journalists. In his December 17 column, George F. Will commented wryly:

Its wide-ranging attack on democratic decencies went on without hindrance, indeed with democracies feeling obliged to foot the bill, until it committed the tactical blunder of suggesting a "new world information and communication order." It had in mind the regulation of journalists. At last the rascals had gone too far.... It was one thing to revile the United States, but to be disrespectful of journalists...well, I mean, the nerve!

It is not just the overt anti-West hostility that has caused Washington and London to rethink their respective memberships. Two additional factors are these: First, the overall approach of UNESCO's Director-General, Amadou Mahtar M'Bow, formerly the Minister of Education of the West African nation of Senegal, and secondly, UNESCO's Paris headquarters is top-heavy with high-living bureaucrats, whose expenses eat up the agency's budget. Here is a commentary from the December 24 issue of US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT:

The 63-year-old ex-schoolteacher from the poor African nation of Senegal portrays himself as a champion of the have-not nations of the Southern Hemisphere — and a victim of racism and of plots mounted by the industrial north .... Most of UNESCO's 3000 employees were in the field a decade ago, laboring to reduce illiteracy and save ancient treasures. Now six employees work in the Paris headquarters for everyone in a developing nation, and three of every four budget dollars go to staff operations. As one staff member said of M'Bow: "He is inclined to give jobs to his family and friends. That is normal in Africa."

Earlier this year, the U.S. Government Accounting Office asked UNESCO officials for an accounting of expenditures in recent years. Shortly after the request, six fires erupted in one day in the UNESCO archives in Paris.

The great power personally wielded by Mr. M'Bow (who can also show great charm) reflects the shift in power in world bodies from the Western world (the majority of the founding members) to the African-Asian-Arab Third World bloc, heavily influenced, in turn, by the Soviet Union and its Communist allies, who purport themselves as champions of the underdogs. Here is an analysis from the May 9, 1984 INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE:

The imposing figure of Amadou Mahtar M'Bow ...stands at the center of the UNESCO storm.... Mr. M'Bow has the automatic majority of the Africans and most other Third World powers behind him regardless of what he does.... "You attack M'Bow and the African delegations will rise like one man against you," a delegate said ....

Even anti-M'Bow sources think it improbable that the African­ Asian-Arab majority would permit him to be forced out by U.S. pressure. "They would see it as 'knuckling under to colonialism' and they will never do it," a diplomat said, adding that the Soviet bloc would come down heavily on the Third World side. Another diplomat pointed out that if Mr. M'Bow steps down at the end of his second mandate in 1987, he will be replaced by another African or Asian. "It is unthinkable that a European will again become director-general, " he said, adding that because Mr. M'Bow was the first African to become head of any UN agency, he is thus a symbol of pride and international power for the region.

Mr. M'Bow, it should be noted, has not been accused of any personal wrong­doings. (For a more thorough analysis of this agency, interested readers may want to read the excellent article "Why UNESCO Spells Trouble" in the October 1984 READER'S DIGEST, U.S. edition. It was written by Owen Harries, formerly Australia's ambassador to UNESCO.) It is believed that the main reason that so few officials come forth from within UNESCO to expose its shortcomings is that they fear they would lose their jobs. If you were the ambassador from Mauritania, for example, earning $60,000 or more, enjoying expense-account dinners at Maxim's or Lazerre's — you wouldn't want to go back to your famine-and-poverty-wracked homeland, would you?

Perhaps the most significant outcome of the UNESCO affair is that, by leaving the Paris-based agency, the United States could be laying a philosophical foundation for one day leaving the United Nations — which would mean, of course, that the UN would have to leave the United States. Columnist Will has been in the forefront of conservative U.S. journalists urging consideration of such a move. In his December 17, 1984 column quoted earlier, Will wrote:

You pay 25 per cent of UNESCO's bills. For that, Paris' better restaurants and boutiques thank you. They are beneficiaries of the handsome salaries paid to the elephantine bureaucracy at UNESCO's headquarters. But on January 1 black crepe will go up in the boutiques, because that's when the United States withdraws from UNESCO. Happy New Year....

UNESCO perfectly reflects the United Nations itself, and therefore all the reasons for leaving UNESCO are some of, but not all of, the reasons for leaving the United Nations.

Last year, in a December 22, 1983 column, Will wrote:

Leaving UNESCO would be a shot across the UN's bow, a warning that there are limits to U.S. tolerance. And leaving would help Americans get used to the idea of leaving the United Nations....

In 1985, the United Nations will be 40 years old, its nature fully formed and well-known. If in 1983 the United States decides, regarding UNESCO, that enough is too much already, 1984 can be the year for weighing the costs — financial, political, moral — of continued participation in the United Nations.

The United States, in fact, threatened to leave in 1982 after Israel was condemned in a UN resolution as a "non-peace-loving state" following its military move into Lebanon. (The UN is, according to its charter, open only to "peace-loving states.") In the article "The Broken Promise of the United Nations" published in the October 1983 READER'S DIGEST, author Ralph Kinney Bennett wrote:

Only a U.S. threat to take its moneybag and leave the UN prevented such "peace-loving" states as the Soviet Union, Libya and Cuba from throwing Israel out.

That was the occasion during which America's then assistant UN Ambassador Charles Lichenstein said that if the UN decided to leave New Yock City, he and many other Americans would be down at dockside waving good bye.

If the UN left New York City, the most likely new home would be Vienna, Austria. There, a gigantic complex of buildings, known formerly as the Vienna International Center, houses the UN's second European operations (after Geneva). The facilities used by the UN (commonly known as "UN City") were built jointly by the Austrian government and the city government of Vienna in order to attract UN business. Presently a few, generally second-level UN agencies and UN-related operations have relocated there, mostly from Geneva. The UN pays a symbolic one-shilling-a-year rent.

I toured the new facilities last June. While huge, they probably could not presently house all the UN operations. However, a separate Vienna conference center complex is nearing completion adjacent to the UN buildings. This, I suppose, could be used in a pinch.

If push came to shove, the Vienna location would probably be selected over the Geneva facilities (the old League of Nations buildings). The Soviet Union would undoubtedly like the switch out of New York. Vienna is not only a neutral East-West "bridge" but is geographically close to the Soviet bloc.

Should the move to Vienna ever take place, it would indicate a significant shift in power and influence away from the United States. The U.S. has housed the headquarters of the UN ever since its ascendancy to first superpower status in 1945. Should the U.S. tell the UN to pack up, the majority of Americans might cheer — not realizing it would graphically reflect their own nation's relative decline. As Hans J. Morganthau wrote in his text POLITICS AMONG NATIONS, "the shift from one favorite meeting place to another symbolizes a shift in the preponderance of power."

This highly probable shift would also enhance the prestige of Europe and play no small role in any future ties between Eastern and Western nations in Europe.

In summary, the Hong Kong treaty signed in Peking and the possible relocation of the United Nations indicate that, prophetically-speaking, the fortunes of modern-day Ephraim and Manasseh continue to diminish. Americans, presently rolling along on a patriotic high plane, are not as aware of this fact as they should be. And as for Ephraim: "...gray hairs are here and there on him, yet he does not know it" (Hosea 7:9 RAV).

— Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau