able relationship with all nations, including those outside the close partnership of close allies. Our interest in the newly developing areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America-many of them newly independent, some of them feeling "uncommitted" in the rivalries of the great powers-is in their independence, their freedom, their chance to meet their own aspirations for their own futures. Some of them call themselves neutral. But they are not caught up as innocent bystanders in a great struggle between Washington and Moscow. They are themselves the issue these peoples and their future. The great world struggle we keep talking about is between two concepts of the future world order: the picture of world revolution offered by the Communist countries and the more revolutionary and far more attractive picture sketched out in the Charter of the United Nations, especially in its opening sections. On that issue, there can be no neutrality for independent nations. The issue is between those who want an authoritarian world and those who want a world order in which independent societies with free institutions cooperate with each other by consent. The Communists have announced and are pursuing a doctrine that is simply incompatible with the U.N. Charter. As a matter of "scientific" prediction, they have proclaimed that their kind of world is bound to come into being. But their doctrine has largely been rejected by the peoples of the world. Forty-four countries have become independent since 1945-two of them only yesterday and not a single one has joined up with the bloc against the charter. Whenever, in the United Nations, this ultimate question of communism versus the charter is posed, it turns out that there are not any neutrals on this subject. The issue was posed when the Soviets tried to substitute a three-man "troika" for a single Secretary General after the death of Dag Hammarskjold. For this proposition, the Soviets have failed to recruit a single vote outside the Communist bloc itself. The United Nations is in a financial crisis today because the great majority of its members, including the United States, have combined to make the charter operational, to put the United Nations as an operating organization into situations that threaten, if they are not calmed down, to break out in little wars which spread all too easily and rapidly into big wars. The United Nations works hardest at keeping the peace in the most intractable situations, those which have defied settlement through bilateral diplomacy or within regional groupings. The U.N.'s operations are therefore bound to seem difficult at best. The problems it tackles sometimes seem in the short run insoluble. The Middle East, Kashmir, and west New Guinea have been active objectives of U.N. concern for more than a dozen years now. The international peace watch in the Gaza strip has been there for 6 years. And in the Congo, where the largest international operation has been mounted, we are not yet out of the woods. The stubborness of these most difficult peacemaking tasks is frustrating-for the peoples concerned, for the U.N. membership at large, and perhaps especially for the American people, who have set great store by the U.N. Charter as a symbol of the peaceful world order that is the ultimate objective of all American defense and foreign policies. A part of this frustration is a feeling that we are doing too much and that the rest of the world community is doing too little to make peace operational. And it is true that some members of the free world are not yet living up to their obligations, and are far behind in their payments for the Middle East and Congo operations. It is true that the Soviets-because they do not yet believe in the charter they signed-do not think these operations serve Soviet national interests or the interests of the world Communist movement. With this judgment I think we can agree. An international enterprise must first of all be international; it is not for the United States to carry the full load. In your hearings, the committee has naturally examined the delinquencies and arrearages of many U.N. members. But it is worth remembering also that Virtually all countries do pay-not always promptly-their share of the U.N.'s regular budget; Without benefit of our example and our leadership, 12 countries have already purchased nearly $26 million worth of U.N. bonds and 29 more have publicly announced their intention to purchase an additional $41 million. New Zealand has added herself to the actual purchasers, and Afghanistan and South Korea have publicly announced their pledges, since the listing on page 6 of your committee print went to press. To staff the U.N.'s various peacekeeping missions, 54 different countries have contributed personnel to serve in the world's danger zones. Fifteen of these are nations which didn't even exist as nations before the Second World War. And in the U.N.'s nation-building role, 75 countries are contributing technicians to work in 125 different countries and territories this very year. So the United Nations is an international enterprise-it just is not universal as yet. It cannot be universal until all the free countries see the value to them of an international peacemaking capability. As long as the Soviets see their national interests as world disruption rather than world development, as long as they believe (correctly) that U.N. operations cut across their designs for world domination, we can hardly expect the Communists to approach the financing of the United Nations with great enthusiasm. But we certainly should not measure our national interests by theirs. We certainly should not say, because the Soviets are not doing their part to develop a civilized world order, we will also refuse to do our part. It would be a great bonanza, indeed, for the Soviets, if their refusal to pay for world order were to persuade Americans to do likewise. It would be a great and dreadful irony if Soviet attempts to frustrate the U.N. made Americans feel so frustrated with their own efforts to build a world organization that we quit trying. Starting yesterday, the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations can be carried on only with funds loaned to the United Nations by governments under the arrangements adopted by the General Assembly last winter. More than one-half of the U.N.'s membership has already made the decision we are now debating-to participate in this stopgap financing scheme. But the crucial decision now rests with the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation before you will give that community a short breathing space, during which it has to develop and adopt a permanent system of financing, one that spreads the responsibility to all the members but does not place the future of the United Nations in the hands of those who would wreck it rather than build it. To them, to the Soviet Union and its inarticulate and subordinated friends, we then can say: In company with all peoples who want to be independent, we are helping to build broad institutions for peacekeeping and nation building. We hope you will cooperate in this effort-because the alternatives are too dangerous, too fruitless. Come and join the United Nations, this charter that you signed. You speak of revolution: put your hands to the most revolutionary force you have at your disposal, a simple decision to live at peace with the rest of the world. Meanwhile, for our part, let us demonstrate with a U.N. loan that we can overcome the frustrations that are always the leader's lot, and write another chapter in the consistent and bipartisan support of the United States for the United Nations. Chairman MORGAN. We have the Secretary of State waiting in the other room to appear in executive session. We will make arrangements for you to come back and finish up at a later meeting. The committee will take a 2-minute recess and proceed in executive session. (Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the committee proceeded in executive session.) 86138-62- -10 PURCHASE OF UNITED NATIONS BONDS TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m. in room G-3, U.S. Capitol, Hon. Thomas E. Morgan (chairman of the committee) presiding. Chairman MORGAN. The committee will come to order. The committee meets this morning in open session on S. 2768, to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the purchase of U.N. bonds and the appropriation of funds therefor. Our witnesses this morning are the Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Honorable John J. McCloy, former adviser to the President on disarmament and former U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. Gentlemen, it is a real pleasure to welcome you both to the committee. You both have been before the committee on previous occasions. I am sure you know our procedure here. I suggest that you both read your statements and then the members can direct their questions to either one of you. Mr. Ambassador, you may proceed first. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, FORMER U.S. Mr. LODGE. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on the bill to authorize the President to purchase $100 million worth of United Nations bonds. I do believe that this appropriation, as part of a vigorous U.S. policy to put the United Nations on a sound financial footing, would serve the national interest and I say so for these reasons: 1. The United Nations faces many dangers, including unremitting Soviet hostility and a tendency of other countries to flout it whenever it suits their convenience. But inadequate funds is the greatest single danger to its continued existence at this time. The fact that only a few nations are in arrears on their payments to the regular budget does not alter the other fact that failure to provide enough funds for the great peacemaking activities of the United Nations in the Gaza strip and in the Congo would drastically destroy its influence and its value and would make the world an infinitely more dangerous place. Also, if the United Nations activities were suddenly to cease, the expense to us-as well as the danger-would be such as to make the proposed appropriation seem small indeed. Financial support is thus a crucial test in 1962. 2. The continued existence of the United Nations is a vital American interest. World stability would be much less without it (which is surely one reason why the Soviet Union continually harasses it)and the United States is vitally interested in a stable world. Specifically, when the United States came to the defense of Korea in 1950, we were much aided by United Nations support. During my service as U.S. representative, the United Nations played a vital part in bringing about a cease-fire and withdrawal at the time of the dangerous Suez crisis and the creation of the United Nations forces in the Gaza strip has converted that area from an explosive to a quiet one. When I was there not long ago the Arab and the Israel farmers were farming right up to the line. Before that there had been murder and rape and everything else. It also confirmed our action in Lebanon in 1958-a decision of great value. And the creation of the United Nations presence in the Congo has so far prevented that country from becoming a bone of contention between the great powers with the great danger of world war which such a confrontation would entail. 3. The United Nations must not be largely supported by the United States. Senator Vandenberg well said that if the United States paid most of the bills and the other member states did not pay their share, it would mean that other members did not consider that their membership was valuable-which in turn would mean the United Nations would eventually be without value for the United States. This has been one reason in recent years for our American effort to bring about-and a successful one, I may add-a steady diminution in the percentage which the United States pays of United Nations expenses. In the future, the United States should clearly confront United Nations members with the solemn decision as to whether or not they-the members-want the United Nations to continue. No one must think that we will in the indefinite future pick up the check and make up the deficit. It is well to be patient and generous and 1962 is not the time for the final showdown. But eventually no nation can continue to evade its responsibility to the United Nations. For its own sake the United Nations must not become dependent on any one great power. 4. The proposed bond issue is a good way to handle the United Nations financial crisis because it has already been agreed by the authorizing resolution that the interest and amortization are to be covered by the regular United Nations budget. All nations have paid these regular budget assessments reasonably promptly. The financing of the proposed bond issue out of the regular budget means that our American share of these repayments will be about 32 percent. It seems to me an ingenious and constructive way of handling the matter. 5. With respect to arrears for the Gaza strip and the Congo, the 16th General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to determine whether these assessments were "expenses of the organization" and therefore binding obligations on the members. If a favorable Court decision is received, these assessments as well as those for the regular budget-unquestionably |