States could between them impose a settlement in the Middle East and the other nations would have to accept, thus obviating the necessity of UNEF. The Soviet Union has also taken the position that the United Nations forces should be withdrawn from the Congo. Obviously, the presence of these forces and the United Nations program have prevented the Soviet Union from getting a free hand in the Congo.

In the early hours of the morning of December 20, 1961, in the 16th General Assembly, when it looked for a moment as if the passage of the extraordinary expenditures was blocked, the Communists could hardly conceal their glee. They insisted that the Congo finances go to the Security Council. Fortunately, some brilliant work on the part of the American delegates and those of other countries saved the day and the expenditures were approved.

In order to meet the two problems of those refusing to pay extraordinary emergency expenditures and of those who can scarcely afford to pay regular dues, the United Nations embarked on a twofold program. First, it asked the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion as to whether the expenses for the two emergency operations referred to above are as equally binding on the members as the regular assessments. An opinion from the International Court of Justice is momentarily expected. If the decision should be that such obligations are binding, those who refused to pay their emergency appropriations in the long run would be delinquent and deprived of their voting rights in the General Assembly.

For the second part of the program, the United Nations voted to float a $200 million bond issue payable over 25 years with interest at the rate of 2 percent per annum. If the world can have peace and stability, in 25 years, with a gradual rise in per capita income in the underdeveloped areas of the world, the payment of these obligations will not be difficult as compared to the difficulty of these nations in paying now.

The number of states, including Kuwait, that have subscribed so far to the bond issue is quite surprising to those who predicted that few nations would purchase bonds. As of July 13, 1962, 44 nations have pledged or purchased bonds that total $72,404,175.

Now let us look at the list of those who have pledged or purchased bonds. Thirteen are European states; twelve are Asian states, plus Australia and New Zealand; one, Canada, from North America; three from South America; seven from Africa; and six from the Middle East. I should like to call attention particularly to the 7 African and 12 Asian purchasers. Seven African states have pledged to purchase $1,955,000 worth of bonds. All but one of these countries-Tunisia-have, according to the estimate of the special fund, a per capita income of under $100 per annum. Eighteen states from Asia and the Middle East are pledged to purchase a total of $10,816,175 worth of bonds. Of these states, nine have a per capita income of less than $100 a year.

It should also be pointed out that of the 9 Asian and African states-which at the present time have combat troops in the Congo totaling 15,093 men-8 of them have purchased or pledged to purchase bonds.

The U.N. operation in the Middle East has been overshadowed by later events, but nevertheless it is an important factor in world stability. It was clear that the British, French, and Israeli forces had to be withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula and Suez. What could save the face of those who had to withdraw their troops; how could the area be policed until stability was restored? A dialog between Minister of External Affairs Lester Pearson of Canada and Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge of the United States resulted in a decision to send a United Nations force to keep peace. The force first policed the Suez Canal and then was stationed in the Gaza strip and the Sharm el Sheikh area. Not many nations would suggest that these forces be withdrawn. They have resulted in stability in the Middle East and kept peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors. This force has been very little in the public eye and the program has gone on peaceably and steadily.

The Congo has involved a greater agony and drama, with headlines lasting over a longer period of time. Two years ago, on July 14 at 3:22 in the morning, the Security Council of the United Nations in response to the urgent request of the Congolese Government voted to send U.N. troops to the Congo. Tired delegates responded to Dag Hammarskjold's appeal that the peace of the world depended upon immediate action. Not only was there danger of complete chaos in the Congo; it was feared, and with good reason, that some Communist powers were ready to move in. Such a maneuver would have forced a response from

the United States and other Western nations. The result might well have been a third world war.

The United Nations acted. Then began a series of steps that would involve thousands of men, loss of U.N. personnel, the expenditure of a hundred million dollars, scenes of bitterness in the General Assembly, and the martyrdom of Dag Hammarskjold himself. The United Nations had to improvise and revise its tactics as it went along. Gradually, however, violence subsided and the threatened secession of a number of provinces was materially abated. The turning point came when the United Nations was able to give safe conduct to a majority of the members of the Congolese Parliament to meet under its protection in Lovanium University. A legally constituted government resulted, and Cyrille Adoula was elected Premier.

In an address on July 5 to the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, U Thant listed some of the successes which the Government of the Congo and the United Nations have together achieved the past 2 years. He said, "It is hard to think of a working alternative to the United Nations operation in the Congo. In 1960 the world faced, in that vast and newly independent country, a desperate danger, compounded of internal chaos and potential external intervention. It faced an almost classic example of rapid change overtaking all those concerned and leaving them helpless and confused-Africans and Europeans alike." Then U Thant went on to list some of the achievements:

"Despite the initial mutiny of the army and the nationwide breakdown of confidence, law and order now exist again in the Congo, even if they may be disturbed occasionally in some areas by political and tribal differences."

Again, "Despite the extreme confusion of the political situation in the early days of independence, the Parliament was finally reconvened in July 1961 through United Nations effort and its protection and approved the constitution of a central government universally recognized and now gaining daily in strength and experience.

"In spite of various secessionist tendencies or movements, there is now a steady trend toward national reconciliation * * *.

“In this effort at conciliation, we are * * * beginning to see at last a new comprehension by the outside interests involved of the great issues at stake and a new willingness on their part to use every influence in the direction of a united and stable Congo * * *.

"Finally, the great basic problem of the Congo-lack of training, experience, and qualifications-is being tackled * * *. Political tension and pressures from outside have not made the task any easier, but nonetheless, the first results are now beginning to show, and the program of training and assistance, so essential to the successful future of the Congo, has, under United Nations auspices, gathered considerable momentum."

I should like to discuss three problems confronting the United Nations in the unification and the preservation of the Congo. I have already dealt with one, and that was the danger of Communist takeover. The reason, of course, for the ire of the Soviet Union toward the United Nations and toward Dag Hammarskjold personally was the fact that the United Nations arrested Soviet military activity in the Congo.

Another problem or danger was that the African states themselves might divide in their support of various factions in the Congo. For a while, many of them made Patrice Lumumba an international hero. But unity has been pretty much achieved among the African states in support of what the United Nations is doing and in support of the Central Government. At a meeting in January of this year in Lagos, Nigeria, 20 prime ministers and government leaders of African states indicated full support of Cyrille Adoula and followed his lead in protesting the move of the Soviet Union to call a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the Congo at the moment when Adoula was visiting in the United States and was to visit the United Nations.

The third danger, of course, was and to a certain extent still is that the Congo be fragmented by autonomy movements in various provinces and in which Communist influence might be revived.

The United Nations has a long road ahead of it before it can withdraw its military and technical forces from the Congo. But certainly one major step that must be taken immediately is the integration of Katanga into the central government.

Protracted negotiations have been taking place between Adoula and Tshombe for the implementation of the Kitona agreement of last December at which Tshombe agreed to the integration of his province into the central government. Katanga, in modern times, has always been a part of the Belgian Congo. At the Brussels conference in 1960, when Tshombe and other political leaders of the Congo conferred with the Belgian Government to receive their independence, he signed, as did the others, an agreement which provided that the Republic of the Congo would include all the provinces of the former Belgian Congo.

For some time, in the latter part of 1961, there was danger that the Congo be torn apart between what has popularly been called the left and the right. The Soviet Union backed Gizenga. That leader has pretty much been discredited, is under arrest, and Communist agitation seems to be at a very low point indeed. If, however, Tshombe is successful in breaking his province away from the central government, I would expect that secessionist movements would arise in other provinces and that the Soviets would attempt to dust off another Communist champion. The Congo could be torn apart between extremes.

No one wants to deprive Katanga of its legitimate autonomy as a province in a Federal system. No one wants to destroy the Union Miniere and the economic interests whose prosperity must be linked to the prosperity of the Congo. However, United Nations efforts in the Congo will not have been successful and the assurance against the revolt of other provinces and possibly a recurrence of Communist agitation will not have been secured until the last step in Congolese unity has taken place.

Un

I think we should look at the Congo situation in its very largest aspects. doubtedly no one would be satisfied with everything that the United Nations has done there. No operation, particularly one of an untried and improvised nature, could be nearly perfect. In retrospect, one can find mistakes. The fact of the matter is, however, that the United Nations has saved the Congo and probably the peace in Africa.

If one looks at a map, he will see that the Congo is the heart of Africa. Had the U.N. not answered the appeal of the Congolese Government, that area would have been one of untold lawlessness and violence. The Communists were ready to move in. As a matter of fact, they had already begun to move in. And a confrontation of the great powers would have been inevitable, which could well have involved American troops. The new states of Africa would have been involved. Possibly they would have chosen sides and Africa's development, which has been progressing fairly well, would have been thwarted. Much of Africa south of the Sahara would have become involved. The Congo could very well have been the means by which Africa could have been torn apart, resulting in a war which might have involved the entire world.

In closing, may I say that if the Members of Congress wish to avoid anarchy in the Congo, if they wish to prevent the return of Communist influence in that land, they could help by the immediate enactment of the legislation authorizing a loan of $100 million to the U.N. If the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations were to stop because of the failure of the nations to provide the U.N. with emergency financing now, conflicts might well break out in areas where the United Nations is now keeping the peace. The many new states that look to the United Nations for protection and guidance would be confused and forced to make alliances in any way they could. The United Nations would tend to become what a few powers want it to be, simply a conference mechanism to secure coexistence between ideological blocs. The steady development of the United Nations into a strong organization to keep the peace and to develop world law and economic advancement would be thwarted and disintegration might set in which would be fatal to the peace of the world.

A strong U.N.-working actively for peace, justice, and progress in the worldserves the national interests of the United States. The American people-by every nationwide test of public opinion-want a strong United Nations. Favorable consideration of the bill before you will help achieve that objective.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. I don't think it is necessary possibly for this committee, but for the general public it is well to break U.N. expenses down into three divisions, because the public has the idea that nations do not pay their obligations anywhere along the line. Of course, the first division of the United Nations expenses is the regular budget. It was last year, I believe, the United Nations collected 98.6 percent

of all the dues from the Communist states and everyone else. As a matter of fact, this year there are very considerable arrears but that is purely a technical matter. The United States is $33 million in arrears in the table published in the New York Times Sunday. That is because I think you gentlemen provide the U.N. money in the middle of the year whereas the U.N. bills everybody automatically the first of the year.

Mr. CHIPERFIELD. Could you enlarge on that statement for the record for us?

Mr. EICHELBERGER. It is all in my prepared statement, Mr. Chiperfield.

The second division of the United Nations expenses are the voluntary contributions. The United Nations sets a figure but the contributions are voluntary. It sets a figure for the care of refugees. The United States and the United Kingdom pay a major portion of their bill. The United Nations also puts a figure for technical assistance and the Special Fund, and I think the report should show that last year-rather, for 1962, 86 members of the United Nations pledged to that Special Fund. Surely, the United States pledged 40 percent but 85 others pledged the rest, which shows that everyone wants to get in the act to help as much as they can--the very poorest nations.

Then the third department of the United Nations expenses are the special peacekeeping operations. Those two peacekeeping operations, of course, as Mr. Lindsay said, are in the Gaza strip and in the Congo. Now, the Gaza strip affair is possibly overshadowed by the Congo, but you will remember there was an invasion of the Sinai Peninsula and the Suez by Israeli, French, and British troops. They wanted to get out. How could it be done? So in a very famous dialog between Lester Pearson of Canada and Cabot Lodge of the United States it was provided that an international police force would go in, and no one except the Soviet Union would like to have that force withdrawn. A couple of years ago the Soviet delegates in effect said to the American delegates in the Assembly, "Look, now that while we are getting along better, why don't our two countries impose a settlement on the Middle East? We can get away with it and then we don't need a police force." But the United States doesn't believe in imposing settlements with the Soviet Union. It prefers to work out settlements through the United Nations.

The Soviet Union, of course, opposed the activity in the Congo. Why? Because it was the United Nations that prevented the Soviet Union from sending troops into the Congo. I remember on the 14th of July 2 years ago at 3:22 in the morning the Security Council passed a resolution providing for sending troops to the Congo. They did so at Secretary General Hammarskjold's appeal that it must be done immediately, for the peace of the world was threatened. He had information—and the world generally did, but it wasn't published until later that the Communist troops would move in if the United Nations didn't.

Now, Mr. Chairman, a quorum call has been made. Do you prefer I go along a little longer for the stenographic record or do you prefer I rest with my prepared statement?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Eichelberger, some of the Members may have. questions and will undoubtedly return. I realize that I realize that you have a

very tight schedule. Could we, however, suspend for 5 minutes to answer the quorum call? Would this be agreeable with you? Mr. EICHELBERGER. Certainly.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am sure Mr. Chiperfield will be back as well as other Members, so we will just suspend for 5 or 10 minutes.

(A short recess was taken.)

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The committee will resume hearing the testimony of Mr. Eichelberger.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. Mr. Chairman, you may be very interested to get back on the floor yourself.

Do you prefer that I just rest by submitting this statement for your convenience, Mr. Chairman? I do not need to convince you.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I need no convincing but I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Eichelberger, to commend you for your untiring efforts to promote better understanding for the United Nations, its problems, its accomplishments, and its goals.

You have done yeoman's work. If more people would have an opportunity to better understand the United Nations, I am certain there would be no objection to the legislation before us.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. Mr. Chairman, there are just two points in this statement I hope sometime you have an opportunity to point out. I wrote Mr. Lindsay's figures down where he pointed out how many African and Middle Eastern states have already purchased a pledge to purchase United Nations bonds. He pointed out how many with a per capita income of less than $100 a year are showing some interest and actually making a greater effort than we will if we purchase $100 million worth of bonds. I think that information ought to be given so we do not get the idea that we are carrying more than our proportionate share.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I assure you, Mr. Eichelberger, that the members of the committee who were unable to be here today will carefully read your statement. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I want to thank you for your excellent presentation. I am sorry that, at the time when we scheduled your appearance before our committee, we did not know that the farm bill would be on the floor of the House today.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. This is very, very important and it should be important to you, too.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. EICHELBERGER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The committee stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m., tomorrow, Friday, July 20.