STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of legislalation to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.

On October 7th of this year, Oman, formerly known as the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, became the one-hundred thirty-first member of the United Nations. Its population is 750,000.

The average population of the 131 member nations is approximately 20 million. Excluding the eight largest nations-India, Soviet Russia, United States, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, and now, Communist China-the average population is somewhere in the neighborhood of nine million.

I'm going to cite some interesting statistics which relate my home state of Alabama to the general make-up of the United Nations. In Alabama, after redistricting, the perfect population will be 492,023 for each of our State's Congressional Districts. This means that our average congressional district will be larger in population than 11 countries in the U.N. Jefferson County is larger in its population than 15 countries. In fact, the State of Alabama has more people than do 49 members of the United Nations! Yet each nation, regardless of size, has the same vote. For instance:

There are two nations-Qatar, an Arab Sheikdom with 100,000 people—and the Maldive Islands, with a population of 104,000, which have double the voting strength in the U.N. General Assembly of the United States of America. Both Qatar and the Maldive Islands are considerably smaller than the population of the City of Montgomery, Alabama.

In March, I said in a weekly newspaper column: "If we are to remain in the United Nations, we should demand, first and foremost, that all member nations be allocated votes in direct relation to population and financial support. Secondly, only those members current with their dues should be allowed the privileges of the membership such as voting, participating in debate, etc. For the United States, paying the bills is virtually our only 'privilege'."

With this information in hand, let's get down to the crux of the morally and financially bankrupt institution known as the United Nations.

To say that I was "shocked," "dismayed," or "disgusted" at Free China's expulsion from the U.N. would be an understatement. The result of the vote was shameful.

On the other hand, however, I can truthfully say that my good friend and former colleague in the House, Ambassador George Bush, fought for American principles with all of his energies. For his, as well as the other American representatives' actions, I have only one reaction-Pride! They fought against overwhelming odds, if I may, against a stacked deck.

Before the vote came, I wondered: "How much of its moral, legal, and fiscal integrity is the United Nations willing to sacrifice in order to admit Communist China to membership? Now we know...

It is not the admission of Red China that brought about the shocker. The Communist giant with its 800 million people-give or take 50 million-could not indefinitely be denied a voice in world affairs. What bothers and disgusts me is the way the U.N, betrayed its ideals and broke its own rules to make the seating of Peking possible.

Throughout, Peking stubbornly refused to accept a seat as long as the Taiwan government of Chiang Kai-shek was a U.N. member claiming to represent all of China. Chiang insisted on his claim-so something had to give.

What gave were the ethics of the majority of nations in the world organization. Bowing to the stubbornness and potential power of Red China, and making no attempt to achieve a compromise, they gave the heave-ho to Chiang's Republic of China-a founding member of the U.N. which had always served the organization faithfully and well.

They resorted to this action by cynically overriding provisions of the U.N. Charter in a manner which not too many people appreciate.

Did you know that the General Assembly, under the U.N. Charter, can agree to admit a member only on recommendation of the Security Council? And that this rule was blatantly ignored because Taiwan, then a member of the Security Council, unquestionably would have vetoed the idea.

Did you know that, under the U.N. Charter, a member can be thrown out only if it has "persistently violated" the Charter principles-and that no such charges were even raised against Nationalist China?

And did you know that, under Article 18 of the Charter, it is stated categorically that any expulsion automatically requires a two-thirds vote as an "important question"-that the United States therefore should never have had to battle for such a vote?

I didn't know and maybe you didn't-but the delegates did, and they ignored their own laws of operation as an instrument of presumed justice and world harmony. They did it cruelly, unethically, illegally, and with dancing in the aisles when the United States lost its showdown vote.

We lost the "important question" resolution by only four votes. What hurt was to find such nations as Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden denying the Republic of China membership. Those countries mentioned voted against us, as did most of the 42 member countries in Africa, which is where most of the emerging new nations are located. At least Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey had the decency to abstain on the "important question" resolution before switching sides on the substantive resolution after the game had been lost.

It is sickening to consider the fact that our loss was the result of a doublecross from those nations which had promised to help us in our support of Taiwan. Nations we have saved in wars, have protected and helped financially in peace, openly showed their delight in helping to slap us in the face when they doublecrossed us on the vote or spinelessly abstained from voting.

Altogether, 54 of the countries which participated in the voting are recipients of U.S. handouts. This may give us fresh insight into the old truism that Good Samaritans are rewarded only in Heaven, that never a good deed goes unpunished, or as Shakespeare has Polonius saying in Hamlet: "Neither a borrower, nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend."

It seems that the delegates who voted against the United States resolution to make expulsion an "important question" took full leave of their propriety and sense of fairness. This double standard, unfortunately, permeates the organiza

tion. For the first time in its 26-year history, the United Nations voted to oust a nation, a nation which represents 14 million free people. Certainly, an extremely dangerous precedent has been set. A precedent which will, in my opinion, return to haunt the U.N. Lord Palmerston, who lived from 1784 to 1865, said it years ago: "England has no permanent friends. She has only permanent interests." History has a way of preserving the truth.

The "important question" vote, as well as the financial inequities placed on the United States by the U.N., is all too characteristic of U.N. policy. Therefore, I felt it necessary to introduce legislation which will limit U.S. contributions to the U.N. The United States of America has been more than generous in support of U.N. activities, even in the face of affronts to American principles. The United States is contributing more than $321 million to this year's activities-more than one-third of the entire U.N. budget. If they choose to pay at all, the remaining 130 member nations make up the balance.

Of the 59 United Nations members which voted to expel the Republic of China on the "important question," 51, yes, fifty-one, have received U.S. foreign aid. They received $47,617,000,000. That's forty-seven billion, six-hundred-seventeen million dollars.

It is also interesting to note that the U.N. is $233 million behind in dues collection and other assessments from its members. The Soviet Union owes nearly $114.5 million, and the rest of the Communist bloc owes the U.N. another $31 million-meaning that the world Communist front owes nearly $150 million to the organization which just voted to accept another huge Communist country. Is it realistic to have one nation-the U.S.-paying a third of the costs of a body that supposedly represents all the nations of the world, and allots each member equal voting rights?

I believe this legislation will hit the U.N. with a reality it has overlooked. America is not going to be a patsy for this international body of Communist propaganda. In other words, we are giving notice to the United Nations that Uncle Sam is sick and tired of being "Uncle Sugar." If such a bill become law, the U.S. will, in the future, pay only its fair share of dues, bearing the same ratio to the total budget of the United Nations and its affiliated agencies as the total population of the United States bears to the total population of all the member states of the United Nations. In effect, this would lower U.S. contribution from its present 33 percent to an equitable 5.9 percent or a savings to the American taxpayer of more than 250 million dollars. There is no reason why we should contine to be intimidated by U.N. policy.

After all, one of the most basic flaws in the United Nations is its pompous misnomer, together with the phoney concept that its name implies.

There is no real unity in that glass-faced Tower of Babel on New York's East River because the Communist members have only on underlying aim--the ultimate domination of all free nations.

Communism is a kind of ruthless religion in which compromise of any sort isat most-only temporary. Since freedom means the right to take varying views, non-Communist nations are automatically incompatible.

So there is indeed an enormous, built-in advantage here for the forces which seek to destroy democracy. I don't know how, if ever, freedom and communism can bridge the chasm between them, but it won't be through the U.N. in our lifetime.

I have never had much, if any, confidence in the United Nations. My reaction initially-and I believe the reaction of most Alabamians-was: well, it would be our gain if the U.N. were to break away from the tip of Manhattan-slip into the East River-and sink. I also thought, perhaps facetiously, that we ought to pull out, lock, stock, and barrel, just pick up our checkbook and go home.

This was my emotional reaction. A rational reaction tells me that the U.N., despite its many shortcomings and abuses, still embodies an ideal of all mankind-the hope that somehow all the nations of the world may yet be able to get together in peaceful co-existence.

Right now, the ideal of a United Nations is far from realization, notably in the U.N. itself. Yet, the glass-faced edifice on the East River is still the tangible symbol that the hope persists-and it must be supported despite its flaws for that reason.

We cannot pull out of the U.N. To do so would be a small-minded and vindictive as the recent debacle at the U.N. We must continue to work for justice and harmony, however bitter the occasional fruits.

All the same, there is no reason why this country should have to continue paying its disproportionate share of the financial tab. A realignment must come-it is certainly long overdue.

What is overdue more than anything else is a change in the notion that the U.N.-either now or in the foreseeable future-can remotely become a true entity of nations.

It ought to be called something like the World Forum, which is all it basically is, anyway, and stripped of all its pretension to authority and punitive powers. Every viable nation in the world, from Taiwan to Rhodesia, should automatically be entitled to membership and the right to air their gripes, troubles, and opinions.

Get rid of the idea that the U.N. has any kind of police authority.

Get rid of the structure which makes it an arena for power plays and double

crosses.

Let the U.N. face up to the fact that its most useful function should be as an international steam valve-and nothing else.

What we would have then would be a whole lot better than what we've got

now.

Finally, the nations-large and small-that perpetrated the melancholy affair will do well to ponder how their actions will alter the attitude of the United States, to which many of them are indebted for their mere existence.

For more than a quarter of a century, the United States has provided the strength, enlightenment, and treasure that has contained communistic imperialism. By great sacrifice, including the blood of her young manhood, the United States has made it possible for millions of people to choose their own way of life. No other nation in the world today can replace the United States' role, a fact which should bring sobriety to many a capital.

It is time we realize what other nations have known for centuries. We have no national friends-only national interests-and this fact should dictate where, how much and with whom we spend or give our money.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge this committee to report a bill to the House of Representatives which will limit our contributions to the United Nations.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, with the same placating attitude which allowed Russia three votes rather than one as they should have received at the time of the founding of the United Nations, the United States has continually condoned a formula for the U.N.'s assessment of member nations on the "ability to pay" principle which has caused this nation to be billed the lion's share of the cost of an organization which has 131 individual member nations. This formula for assessment should be changed, I believe, and replaced with the formula based on population as proposed in H.R. 11480 which I have co-sponsored.

Not only is it unhealthy for the U.N. to be so dependent on contributions of any one member nation, as it now is, but also such reliance on funds from the U.S. makes a mockery of the principle upon which the U.N. was foundedthat of the sovereign equality of all nations.

When the U.N. was just getting established, after World War II, there is no doubt that the U.S. was in a better position to pay a larger share of the budget than some of the other nations of the world which were then trying to recuperate from the enormous drain the war had imposed on their economies. But, today things have changed. Nations which were virtually bankrupt at the end of the war are among the most prosperous nations of the world now, yet the U.S. share of contributions to the U.N. has been decreased over the years to only 31.52 percent.

Personally, my opinion of the U.N. has been very low over the years based on the lack of that organization to be able to keep peace in the world. Although I realize some good has been performed by certain agencies of the U.N. and chances are more likely than not the U.S. will remain a member of that world body, there is no denying that the U.N. has not fulfilled even limited expectations of what its role should be in preserving the peace in this world. Something needs to be done soon to help that body become effective if the United States is

going to remain a member. The bill H.R. 11480 and similar bills would contribute significantly to this effort and I respectfully urge you to report favorably on this legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. HUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present a statement for the record in support of H.R. 11480 and other bills whose purpose is to limit U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations. Specifically, H.R. 11480, of which I am a co-sponsor, would effect a reduction in U.S. contributions by a formula requiring that payments be made in the same proportion as the population of the U.S. bears to the total population of the member nations. Of course, the U.S. cannot impose this formula upon other member nations, but it is obvious that the large majority of the other nations, especially those that are in arrears, would have to increase their contributions to a more equitable level. The gross inequity of U.N. financing to date is borne out by the fact that from the inception of the U.N. in 1946 through 1970, the U.S. share of the total of $9.2 billion spent by the U.N. and related agencies has been $3.8 billion or 41 percent.

It is evident to me and, I believe, to the large majority of Americans everywhere, that the United Nations has deteriorated to the point of being little more than a forum for our adversaries to carry on a campaign of international propaganda and a base from which these nations have been able to pursue their intelligence activities from within our own borders, virtually immune from U.S. laws. On the latter point, I would note that less than two weeks ago, the head of the advance party for Peking's U.N. delegation, Kao Liang, was identified as a leading Chinese intelligence agent.

Despite the beating the U.S. took as the leader of the effort to keep Nationalist China in the U.N. while conceding admission to Red China, the President, Administration officials, and leaders of Congress vowed to abide by the decision of the U.N. majority while at the same time vigorously protesting the action. If these protests-based on the grounds that the precedent-setting expulsion motion by a simple majority vote could imperil the future stability of the U.N.—are to be something more than empty rhetoric for face-saving public consumption, and if the U.N. is to become a truly effective international forum for settling rather than perpetuating conflicts, then something will have to be done to instill in the member nations the seriousness of the task and the responsibilities each must bear to justify confidence in its mission.

In my estimation, adoption of the legislation to limit U.S. financial contributions would serve two very useful and necessary purposes. First, it would serve notice to member nations that the rather casual attitude of certain nations which are now going along for the "free ride" is inconsistent with the mission of the U.N. under its Charter. Secondly, this contribution-limiting action would keep faith with the American people by demonstrating, for the first time, the serious intent of the Government to make the U.N. a more effective international peace-keeping organization. Without this action, which is perhaps the only leverage the U.S. has in this situation, the U.N. does not deserve the confidence and support of the American people nor is the continued participation of the U.S. justified. If it is felt that the U.N., as it presently exists, is the indispensable hope for world peace, one need only look around the world at the number of unresolved conflicts involving armed combat.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before this subcommittee can serve as a transition to a more effective peace-keeping forum as was intended. Failure to make such a move will surely result in a continuing decline of public confidence in the U.N. as well as a loss of respect for the U.S. It can certainly not be said to be in our national interest to continue to exercise paternalistic forbearance in the face of coalitions of nations manifesting allegiance to our ideological adversaries.