independent for a few months or years, and that they ought to wait a while. I think that would be a mistake. I think it helps them to come in and I think on the whole it is a good thing for the U.N. Mr. SELDEN. I am glad to have your views although I do not necessarily agree with you. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Barry. Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, it is a great pleasure to have you with us. We have known of your reputation long before you were Ambassador to the United Nations, and it certainly is a good thing for the U.N. and our delegation that your able abilities have been harnessed. I want to say that I have never, as a person, worried about the extension of franchise either in this country or on a world basis. There is a great salvation usually when the franchise is extended. It certainly was that way when we extended it to women in this country and when we got rid of the property qualifications for the right to vote. It has not been detrimental to the Nation. I assume that same principle would be sought on a world basis. As other nations are able to stand up and be counted and organize themselves into a society, it would not hurt the world body of mankind. With regard to the United Nations, I don't want to spend very much of my limited time on the financial side. The reason for this is that even the $100 million represents only about $1 out of $500 that this Nation has given away or loaned since World War II toward the development of a better world which is presumably the aim of all nations. I would like to ask you where do you feel the United Nations could better implement or get a greater understanding of the fact that this Nation had to struggle for its independence, that this Nation is the leading nation of the world that stands for freedom, that all these things that we are called, imperialists and so on, by the Communist bloc have tended to destroy our image with the neutral or nonallied nations and to a certain extent with some of our friends. Is there anything the United Nations could do better than they are doing now to create an image to show that we are the nation first and foremost who struggled for our freedom and thereby are more interested in everyone else's success in this direction? Mr. PLIMPTON. We certainly emphasize that every single chance we get, Mr. Congressman, in the United Nations. After all, we were the first anticolonialist. The struggle, surge toward independence, first manifested itself in this country. We don't hesitate to remind, and remind to the extent of constant repetition, all nations of this fact in speeches and in consultations with the delegates, especially of the newer countries. I myself think that our public image should be very much stronger in this area. I think that there is not very much more that we at the U.S. delegation can do about it except keep hammering away. Mr. BARRY. I deplore the fact that we call it the Fourth of July celebration instead of Independence Day. We call it the Fourth of July when we ought to be pronouncing to the world that it is Independence Day. We ought to do away with the Fourth of July celebration and call it Independence Day. What is the United Nations doing on Independence Day? Are you having a tremendous gathering in the U.S. delegation and inviting every other member to it, and perhaps a big banner calling it “Independence Day"? Mr. PLIMPTON. I don't think we have enough money to do that, sir. I don't think we are producing a celebration on July 4. Mr. BARRY. I commend it to your attention. I know you might have to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Since we are being attacked for other than what we are, why wouldn't next Wednesday be a good day to celebrate in this direction by asking your friends over for a visit, if nothing more? I read in the newspaper yesterday this is the second year that throughout the world our embassies abroad will not be celebrating Independence Day because of lack of funds. I believe that use by President Kennedy of money from the contingency fund for Independence Day celebrations in the embassies would be a justifiable backing up of the billions of dollars we have been pouring out to the rest of the world in order to show all the people of the world that freedom is what we stand for. It seems to me to remove the symbolism of our Independence Day is a very poor policy indeed. I deplore it. I heartily commend to the attention of the State Department a recommendation to the President that he use part of his contingency fund and wire every embassy throughout the world authorizing Independence Day celebrations on Wednesday. Let the rest of the world realize again that as the first nation to break away from tyranny, we abhor tyranny wherever it exists in the rest of the world. I wish also to ask you one final question. If we were to give this $100 million, do you not believe that we should no longer be the country to absorb any temporary deficits of the United Nations? Would it not be in order for someone else or myself to propose an amendment to the Mutual Security Act prohibiting the use of the contingency fund of the President for further temporary loans to the United Nations? Let someone else be the banker, if we meet 50 percent of the present obligations accruing out of the bond indebtedness that has been raised. Mr. PLIMPTON. First, Mr. Congressman, if I may say one thing. We are not giving this money. This money is being lent. We firmly expect it will come back. Again I think the point of view you have in mind is definitely a constructive and a sensible one. I would think, however, that it would not be too helpful to make inflexible the position of the United States. I am sure that all of us are convinced that the United States should not be regarded as the ever-flowing source of funds every time there is an emergency. Mr. BARRY. I think we would be more highly respected, sir, if we let it be known, at the time we do this thing, that we no longer are the banker for the shortage of funds that the U.N. may have in the future, because, as has been so eloquently stated by other members of the committee, the United States is weary of being taken for granted. This would be one generous way of saying no, so far as the future is concerned. This would be the time to do it, would it not? Mr. PLIMPTON. Again, sir, I really think that it would be questionable wisdom to put U.S. policy in a straitjacket. I think that policy principles we ought to have and do have, But it seems to me that to constrict our discretion without knowing the facts that are going to come up would be a little bit doubtful. Chairman MORGAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, if I may be permitted this observation. I never did like rigged juries and boards of arbiters. I would like you to make it crystal clear that it is not the thought of the administration, nor the policy of this Government, to buy with our aid in their development the independence of the representatives from these new nations to the United Nations. Do I make myself clear? Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I go along 100 percent with that. Certainly we do not and should not in my mind try to purchase with aid nor impinge on the independence and on the self-determination of other countries. I quite agree. Mr. O'HARA. I appreciate, Mr. Ambassador, these hearings will be read not only in our own country but other countries. I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea from some of the questions asked that it is the policy of our Government to give aid, and in return for the giving of that aid to expect countries always to vote at our command. Am I correct in that, sir? Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes, sir; quite correct. Mr. O'HARA. Mention has been made of countries voting in bloc. I have talked to many African leaders. I think their thinking is much along our democratic way of thinking. But they do not want to be members of a bloc subject to the dictates of anyone, whether it is our bloc or the other bloc. Have you any comment to make on that, sir? Mr. PLIMPTON. I certainly want to make the comment that that is a very accurate observation on your part and I agree with it entirely. Mr. O'HARA. Let us get to Africa. How many African nations have already pledged their support to the United Nations bond purchase? The names of the countries who have already purchased or pledged their contributions? Mr. PLIMPTON. Two nations, the Sudan and the Togo, have already bought bonds. Five others Mr. O'HARA. Let me stop you a moment there. How long have they had their independence? Mr. PLIMPTON. I would think the Sudan must be about 5 years. Togo about 2 years. Mr. O'HARA. Here is a nation that has had its liberty for 2 years. It can't be in too prosperous a condition and it has already purchased bonds, is that right? And the Sudan, with independence slightly longer, has made its purchase. Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes. Mr. O'HARA. Now, will you proceed? Mr. PLIMPTON. Five other nations have publicly announced pledges of a total of $1,885,000. Ethiopia, which of course has been independent for quite a long while; Liberia, whose independence goes back to President Monroe, if I am not mistaken; Nigeria, which is brandnew; Sierra Leone, which is hardly out of the cradle, symbolically speaking; Tunisia, which is maybe 2 or 3 years old. Those five have, as I say, agreed to buy $1,885,000. Nigeria, a million dollars worth. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador. You would find in that a significance; would you not? Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes, sir; a significance that these African countries are aware of their responsibility, aware of the fact that the United Nations means something to them, and they are willing to back it up with money. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, sir. Mr. Ambassador Mr. PLIMPTON. I just wanted to call your attention to what my associate points out, that, namely, Liberia has bought 22 times as many bonds as its theoretical assessment percentage would indicate; Ethiopia, twice; Nigeria, 221⁄2 times; and Tunisia, almost 5 times as many bonds as they would have if they just followed the ordinary assessment percentage. Mr. O'HARA. Instead of pointing to the fact that Russia has bought no bonds, and the countries alined with Russia have bought no bonds, we get more to the point, do we not, by placing emphasis on the fact that these new emerging nations in Africa have purchased and quite a number of them? Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes, sir; I think it is a very hopeful sign and one that should be emphasized. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Ambassador, as I see it, you have exhausted every other possible means of financing. Unless we raise this money the United Nations is in great danger, probably of being put out of business; am I right in that? Mr. PLIMPTON. It is certainly in great danger; yes, sir. Mr. O'HARA. Then the question that I have to resolve in my mind, and I think it is pretty well understood by the American people, when we are voting billions of dollars for military purposes will we hesitate in contributing $100 million to keep intact the only bridge to peace that we have? Am I too much simplifying it? Mr. PLIMPTON. No, sir. I would point out we are lending it and not giving it. I think this is like many things in life, Mr. Congressman. You are presented with alternative A. You look at it and there are things you don't like about it and you wish it were a little different. And then you look at alternative B, which is what happens if you don't do alternative A. When you have had a good hard look at alternative B, I think what one tends to do is choose alternative A. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Ambassador, I couldn't go home after this Congress adjourns, asking my constituents to return me to the 88th Congress, and say to them, "I voted for billions of dollars for the military and I didn't vote for $100 million to keep alive the last best hope of peace that we have." Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. It has been heartening to have you here. Mr. PLIMPTON. Thank you, sir. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Whalley. Mr. WHALLEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ambassador, it would be interesting to know how much the United States has contributed over and above its regular assessment since the time that the United Nations was organized. I don't know if you have that figure or not. If you don't have, perhaps you could give it to the committee. Mr. PLIMPTON. I think we will have to supply that figure. It is all in the documents. But it would be a question of pulling them together and doing a little addition. (The information is as follows:) Voluntary contributions by the United States to special programs of the United Nations and the specialized agencies, calendar years 1946–62 [In thousands of dollars] United Nations Emergency Force---. United Nations Operation in the Congo, military United Nations Operation in the Congo, economic_. United Nations Children's Fund__ United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Special Programs--- United Nations Expanded Technical Assistance Program_ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees- United Nations Hungarian Refugee Program__. United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency United Nations Refugee Fund__. United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East_ United Nations Special Fund___ 6, 225 92, 903 5, 333 16,000 289, 668 71, 015 World Health Organization, special programs for community water supply, malaria eradication, and medical research__ 20, 175 1,039, 433 Total, 1946-62, inclusive_____ 1 Includes airlift of $1,192,000 not charged to the United Nations. 2 Includes airlift of $10,318,000 not charged to the United Nations. 3 In addition, in 1961 the United States donated 76,000,000 pounds of dried skim milk. 4 Includes $1,000,000 for UNESCO educational aid to Africa and $2,800,000 for preservation of Nubian monuments. Mr. WHALLEY. The second question is, Does the United Nations operate at all in Laos? Mr. PLIMPTON. My understanding, sir, is that there was a United Nations special representative there as just what I think is called a presence of the United Nations. I don't think he ever fulfilled any active function. The peacekeeping functions, such as they have there, have been in the hands of an International Control Commission composed of Canada, Poland, and India. Mr. WHALLEY. Why wouldn't the United Nations handle an affair like Laos? Would it be too big and too expensive, or was the decision made that the United States would handle it alone? Mr. PLIMPTON. I think that our Government felt that it could better be handled by the United States itself, so to speak, in conjunction with the Geneva agreements. There is quite a lot of background here. The thing hasn't been in the United Nations I think for quite a good many years. The United Nations has just never voluntarily got into it, and no one has asked it to get in. As far as the United States is concerned, it was handled in another way. Mr. WHALLEY. I think the general feeling of this committee is the fact that the rest of the United Nations takes the United States for granted, feeling that they want to have the benefits of the U.N. without paying or accepting the responsibility. |