for the whole crisis. We will hope the decision of the International Court

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Has the League of Women Voters done a great deal of studying on this peacekeeping operation? Do they support this particular phase of operation within the United Nations?

Do you visualize eventually establishing a bigger police force within the United Nations to carry out these individual problems in different countries throughout the world, if they should arise? Mrs. KENDERDINE. That is one of the problems we are going to be considering in the next few years.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Have you done any studying and come to any conclusions? My concern is whether the United Nations should stick to a forum; in other words, where you bring all these countries together to actually discuss these issues, whether the United Nations should become involved actually with people in these different countries? Mrs. KENDERDINE. As I say, this is one of the problems that we have before us and will be discussing and trying to reach some agreement on in the next couple of years. It isn't a thing you can decide off the cuff.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to compliment the League for taking a positive position on this U.N. bonds issue. I think it is vital. Again I want to emphasize that I certainly wouldn't want the United Nations scuttled. I think it is extremely important. Unless this is done there is good reason to believe it might cause the end of the United Nations.

I do want you to know I appreciate your forthright statement.
Mrs. KENDERDINE. Thank you.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Broomfield, I also pay attention to the League of Women Voters in my district.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. I am sure you, do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURLESON. Are there other questions for Mrs. Kenderdine ? Mr. MURPHY. I want to compliment you on your statement. I subscribe to the position taken by the League of Women Voters on the U.N. bond issue. I would like to call your attention to page 2 of your testimony in reference to the advantages offered by the United Nations by the purchase of the U.N. bonds. I am referring to where you state "it would put U.S. contribution on the basis of an interest-bearing loan which would be repaid by all members through regular U.N. budget assessments."

I believe you failed to mention the word "regular," which indicates from what budget the interest-bearing loan is to be repaid. I think it is important that the term "regular" should be set forth in the record, because it shows that payment is to be made from the budget that has had the greatest support by the member states.

Also there is already a precedent in which the United States made a loan to the U.N. for the construction of the headquarters in New York. This loan was repaid from the "regular" budget, so that the U.N. bonds could be paid accordingly through the same budget.

The question has been raised by some witnesses as to what would happen if the International Court of Justice rendered an adverse opinion. Testimony was given that an adverse opinion would not make any difference as to the bonds. I believe it is important to identify the budget as the "regular budget" instead of having some misun

derstanding that it might be paid from the special budgets such as the one for UNEF-Near East or the ad hoc Congo special account. Mrs. KENDERDINE. We do speak of the regular budget.

Mr. MURPHY. You did not mention it in your testimony. I am calling your attention to it because of its importance.

Mrs. KENDERDINE. I thought I did. Maybe I forgot it. I think this is one of the reasons we believe that this loan is an important one, because it would go into the regular budget and would be repaid by all the members.

Mr. MURPHY. I agree with you.

Mrs. KENDERDINE. As I understand that was the definite motionresolution of the General Assembly.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURPHY. Surely.

Mr. BROOMFIELD. There is a question: You speak so positively that this would be repaid through the regular budget. I mean, this does have to be voted on by the General Assembly, does it not?

Mrs. KENDERDINE. It has been. The General Assembly resolution that set up the bond quite explicitly

Mr. PILCHER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. MURPHY. I would be happy to.

Mr. PILCHER. I am not saying how I stand for or against, but does the League of Women Voters really believe this loan would be repaid? Mrs. KENDERDINE. Yes.

Mr. PILCHER. On what basis? How many countries haven't paid up their dues?

Mrs. KENDERDINE. There are not many countries that haven't paid up their dues.

Mr. PILCHER. How many? Aren't there 70 or 80?

Mrs. KENDERDINE. That are really behind in their dues? No.

Mr. PILCHER. The record shows there are over 70 countries behind in their dues. This whole thing is going to be based on the verdict of the International Court with lots of these nations.

Do you think that the Soviet Union and her satellites should the Court rule favorably, and the United States doesn't even recognize the International Court-do you think that the Soviet Union and her satellites are going to pay their dues for this Congo operation?

Mrs. KENDERDINE. Well, I think these are two different things. I am no lawyer. It is my understanding that this loan, as it was set up by resolution of the General Assembly, to be repaid out of the U.N. regular budget, was voted upon and agreed to in the General Assembly and that that is a different-it is not a special assessment. That this would be a regular part of the budget and is not a special assessment such as the Congo operation.

Mr. PILCHER. I was for Woodrow Wilson's old League of Nations. In the United Nations I have always been a strong believer. I believe we are just assuming something that is not going to happen. I wish we could have put the $100 million in the foreign aid bill.

As far as this loan being repaid, I would hate to have my money invested in it and expect to get any interest. I think we can just as well forget about that. If it is a good deed, it is all right.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to get the record straight.

Can we have one of the staff get the number of countries in the United Nations that actually are behind with their dues now?

Mr. BROOMFIELD. If the gentleman will yield, I think Mr. Cromer has it right here, which is on page 12 and page 13 of this report. You can look at it.

Mr. PILCHER. They are $82,400,000 behind. All those countries are in arrears as listed there, are they not?

Mr. BURLESON. That is correct.

Mr. PILCHER. Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Ceylon-well, there are two whole pages there—Philippines, the United Arab Republic, United Kingdom. But that is just a matter of whether it is worth the $100 million. But, so far as getting repaid, that is just a difference of opinion. I don't think it will be worth a copper cent.

Mrs. KENDERDINE. You don't think the vote in the United Nations is worth something? After all, if they run behind over 2 years, then they lose their vote.

Mr. PILCHER. Well, not necessarily, unless there is some cause beyond their control. They don't just say they can't vote, period. Mr. MURPHY. Yes, page 13.

Mr. PILCHER. They can always get up some excuse. It says:

A member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contribution to the organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding full 2 years.

The General Assembly may nevertheless permit such a member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of a member.

Mrs. KENDERDINE. No; but I think considering-well, I shouldn't get into what I think.

The General Assembly is certainly aware of its financial difficulties and apparently is extremely anxious to get on a more solid financial footing.

Mr. PILCHER. I agree with you. We have to be realistic. This Congo operation, that is just one. With these countries coming in just as fast as they are, we are going to have several of the Congo operations. It all depends on the attitude of these nations of whether they are willing to put up the money or not or whether a few of the countries will put it up.

I am not trying to make it hard on you or anything. I just want to state some real facts. As far as getting the money back, I don't think it will be worth a copper cent.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Nix.

Mr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that there is real merit in the position taken by the League of Women Voters. I think that too often we predicate what the United States of America might or might not do on what the Soviet Union is to do.

I don't think that should be our attitude at all. On the contrary, I think the attitude of the United States of America should reflect a determined effort toward that which is right, that which is helpful to less developed countries and to men everywhere.

As to the $100 million purchase of U.N. bonds, the United States of America in recent years has certainly lost infinitely more than that in less worthy causes. I am not too concerned with whether or not it is ever repaid, but I am definitely concerned with the preservation of the only institution which has any present hope of bringing to all mankind the one blessing devoutly desired by all-that is peace. I feel strongly that no worthy course of action has been suggested as a substitute for what the United Nations has done and might do. For these reasons I see no alternative except to support the President.

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Nix. Are there other questions? Mr. Barry, you have just come in. Do you have any questions? Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Kenderdine, I have read your statement and I want to commend the League of Women Voters for their farsightedness over the years, in being one of the earlier sponsors of the United Nations and also for maintaining that support through the years.

I enjoy several League chapters in Westchester, and it is a privilege when one of your representatives appears here to tell the Nation through this committee of your continuing interest in working for the only international peace organization to which members from all over the world can join, with the exception of Germany and one or two other countries.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURLESON. Are there other questions?

If not, Mrs. Kenderdine, thank you very much for your testimony. It is a pleasure to have you here.

Mrs. KENDERDINE. Thank you. Tell Chairman Morgan that I missed him. I come from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BURLESON. He will be sorry to have missed you.

The next witness is Dr. Elton Atwater of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

You may proceed, as I indicated to Mrs. Kenderdine, in your own way. You may wish to read your statement verbatim or summarize and file your statement with the recorder.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELTON ATWATER, REPRESENTING FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Dr. ATWATER. I would like to read the statement and if members would like to ask questions, I will try to answer them.

My name is Elton Atwater. I am professor of political science and head of the Department of Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University. I am appearing today on behalf of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

The Friends committee does not claim to speak for all individual Friends in the United States. Its organization is not such as to empower it to do so. Nevertheless, Friends in general have had a long and continuing interest in the United Nations and would like to have it function as effectively as possible.

Last October, for example, the Friends National Conference on World Order called for wholehearted support for the United Nations. In January of this year, the Friends Committee on National Legisla

tion made support for U.N. bonds a priority issue for 1962. An increasing number of individual Friends during the past 2 years have joined in a self-imposed, voluntary tax plan whereby they have contributed a certain percentage of their income to the United Nations. Approximately $75,000 was given to the U.N. in this way last year, and comparable amounts seem to be coming in this year. It is in line with this interest of many Friends in the success of the United Nations that I have come today to support S. 2768 which authorizes the President to purchase up to $100 million of U.N. bonds.

Much of what I shall say will reflect my own firsthand work and observations at the United Nations. For 2 years, 1957-59, I was on leave of absence from my university to serve as an accredited nongovernmental representative at the United Nations of the Friends World Committee. During this time, I worked closely with many U.N. delegations and Secretariat officials on U.N. programs of technical assistance, economic development, and social welfare. Since returning to my university, I have continued to maintain close touch with current U.N. developments in these fields.

Let me say at the outset that I was appalled at the action of the House last week in voting to withhold loans or special assistance to the United Nations until all other countries had paid up their arrears. While I realize that this does not affect the payment of the regularly assessed quotas of the United States, it seems to me that the above action is like saying to the United Nations, "We won't help you solve your problem until you have solved it." If all U.N. members were to pay up their arrears fully, there would of course be no problem, and the U.N. emergency operations in the Middle East and the Congo would be financially solvent. The U.N. bond plan is designed to help the U.N. out of the crisis caused by the failure of certain governments to pay their share of these emergency operations. The whole purpose of the bond plan will be defeated if the House amendment remains in the foreign aid bill, and this will gravely weaken the U.N. efforts to maintain peace in the Middle East and Africa.

I hope the conference committee, which is meeting today, will find some way of restoring the provision in the bill to permit the purchase of U.N. bonds.

I agree with Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson and Under Secretary of State George W. Ball that it is clearly in the interest of the United States that the U.N. be financially able to carry out its policing operations in Africa and the Middle East. The United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, which as of June 30 accounts for about 29 percent of the estimated U.N. deficit, has contributed greatly to a reduction of tension along the Arab-Israeli borders. Whereas border incidents used to occur frequently, some with serious results, they have decreased considerably since the U.N. forces took up their places along the frontiers. Graphic evidence of this was seen a year or so ago when the U.N. force had to be temporarily shifted from certain border areas and a noticeable increase in border violations occurred.

The U.N. force in the Middle East is not physically large enough nor militarily strong enough to deter a full-scale violation of the border by either the Israel or the United Arab Republic Governments should either decide to commit such an aggressive act. But the U.N. force has a symbolic and psychological strength which enables