As regards the bond issue, whatever statement is being made that this is not establishing a precedent cannot be regarded as more than wishful thinking.

When an act is performed, no matter what words are put in the report, it does mark the first step on which precedent is established. I cannot express too strongly my feeling that the time is long overdue in the United Nations when it must set its financial house in order.

I am not sure that this "blood transfusion" is necessarily the best way to meet the present need for drastic financial reappraisal and revision of United Nations finances.

May I express again my great pleasure at seeing you here.
Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, do I understand correctly that the payment of the bonds, namely, the principal and interest, would be made on the same basis in the regular budget as the loan the United States made of $65 million for the construction of the buildings of the U.N., which is now being paid for from the regular budget, and would the payments be on the same ratio?

Mr. PLIMPTON. Exactly the same treatment; yes, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. One other question. You were speaking of the 52 Afro-Asian nations that are members of the U.N. There now are two powerful blocs on the continent of Africa, the Casablanca group and the UAM, the African Malagasy Union. Generally speaking, how do these two groups vote in reference to the U.S. position at the U.N.? Mr. PLIMPTON. Speaking very generally, the Casablanca powers tend to be very, very, very neutralist in the sense that they-well, they tend to veer somewhat on the Soviet Union side of neutralist.

The UAM group, on the other hand, although it in a sense is neutralist, tends to veer quite strongly on the U.S. side of neutralism. Mr. MURPHY. Do they follow the French position?

Mr. PLIMPTON. Very much; yes, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, sir.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Gallagher.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, we seem to go round and round on this one particular point. Perhaps it might be well for the record to contain it once more, that the World Court decision, the declaratory judgment that we seek, affects arrearages only. The bonds are necessary for the continuation of the U.N. operation in the future.

Is it not true that these matters are two matters related to each other, yes, but independent of each other?

Mr. PLIMPTON. Completely independent.

Mr. CHAYES. Could I add also just to keep the whole story straight that the World Court opinion, however it comes out, will not affect the validity of the bonds any more than it will affect the need for the money. The bonds will be valid whatever the World Court decides.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I think that is an excellent point to put in the record at this time, because there are some who favor the United Nations who have some reason to feel that we should postpone meeting this problem until such a decision is made.

The World Court is not noted for the expedition with which it hands down its decisions, therefore in any event we are required to meet the problem at this time.

Mr. Ambassador, would the failure of the bond proposal, if Congress did not approve of it, leave the United Nations with any alternative other than bankruptcy and dissolution, or with the United States having to finance by contribution and therefore deprive some of the members of the United Nations of their desire to share in the burden of financing, which can only be done by the bond mechanism? Are there any other C, D, or E alternatives available as suggested by a member of the committee?

Mr. PLIMPTON. I don't see any, Mr. Congressman.

Perhaps as a footnote I suppose one could just call a complete halt to the Congo and the Gaza strip operations? That would just save money from now on. It wouldn't take care of the present obligations.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Would not the calling of a halt of the Congo and Gaza strip operations in effect be serving notice that the United Nations will no longer be in a position to take on this sort of obligations which are really peacekeeping operations?

Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the United Nations.

Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes.

My colleague points out, and it is absolutely true, that that would mean that the Soviet Union has accomplished indirectly what it has been unable to accomplish directly, namely, to call a halt to these peacekeeping operations.

Mr. GALLAGHER. This really has been the bone of contention within the United Nations itself?

Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes.

Mr. GALLAGHER. As to whether we should maintain peacekeeping operations.

Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes. The Communist bloc has opposed the Gaza strip peacekeeping operations and opposed the Congo operation, because it has had the effect of keeping the Soviet Union out of central Africa.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Is it not true that the side of freedom, the side that we champion, has been well served by the United Nations?

Mr. PLIMPTON. I think it definitely has; yes, sir. It has preserved freedom and independence, especially for the new countries.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Is not the refusal of the admission of Red China, the stabilization in the Congo, and the defeat of the troika proposal all victories for the cause of freedom? Are they not extremely adverse to the Communist cause?

Mr. PLIMPTON. They are extremely adverse to the Communist cause and extremely favorable to the cause of freedom for which we stand. Mr. GALLAGHER. Is this not a time when these very accomplishments have in reality well served our national interest?

Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you.

I have no further questions.

Mr. JUDD. Leave this off the record.

Chairman MORGAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Chairman MORGAN. On the record.

Mr. JUDD. What do you think of a proposal made by a lady in my district, which I have discussed with the executive branch, to have the U.N. issue something like our war savings bonds, but call them peace savings bonds, in various denominations; or even savings stamps to build up until a person had enough to get a $25 peace savings bond. She is active in churchwork, has a wide acquaintance throughout the country, and she is convinced there would be millions of dollars come in from rank-and-file people who would take delight in contributing $25, $50, or $100 for peace bonds to help keep the United Nations. going and assure better hopes for their children's survival, and so forth. This must have been discussed in the Government. Has a position been taken on it?

Mr. PLIMPTON. My understanding is that our Treasury Department didn't like the idea of direct sales of bonds by the U.N. to citizens. And so far as the U.N. itself is concerned, there may have been some reluctance to get into the kind of operation that would be involved there.

Mr. JUDD. I realize that. I do not suggest that as a substitute for this, but as a supplement to it.

Chairman MORGAN. Would you yield?

Mr. JUDD. Yes.

Chairman MORGAN. A Member of Congress has requested to appear before the committee and testify along that line.

Mr. JUDD. I don't think it ought to be just cavalierly waved aside. I know governmental agencies don't like to bother with individualsand I suppose the U.N. is the same. But it has real merit, not only from the standpoint of the money received, but from the standpoint of the greater feeling of participation that would result. In politics, if you get somebody to give a dollar for your campaign, you know he will vote for you and talk for you. He has an investment in you.

I think people would like to feel closer to the U.N. than they do. This would give them a personal stake in its success, and a sense of usefulness in being able to contribute directly toward its work. I think there is more merit in the idea than might seem to be the case at first glance.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I would like to concur with the gentleman. I have a bill introduced to this effect.

Mr. JUDD. You have?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes.

Mr. PLIMPTON. I think it is worth serious consideration. I would like to correct one impression which Congressman Hays had. I don't remember the figure that he used. But he said that there were, I think he said there were 60, or something like that, nations in arrears on their regular budget. I think he

Mr. HEFNER. Thirty.

Mr. JUDD. It is on pages 12 and 13. There are 30 in arrears on their regular budget.

Mr. PLIMPTON. Yes. I want to comment on that. He is quite correct. There are 30 as shown on pages 12 and 13.

However, I do want to point out that as indicated on page 12 that 92 percent of the 1961 budget has been paid, and that the charter gives. what is sort of a 2-year period of grace in the payment of the ordinary budget. Like a good many insureds, some of the governments seem to be taking advantage of that period of grace.

As also indicated on page 12, once you get back of 1 year, it is 99 percent paid up.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning. (Whereupon, at 12: 40 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, July 2, 1962.)