Mr. BARRY. In other words, if it is our foreign policy to keep our military might undiminished, to keep it first in the world, and if it is our foreign policy to unite with other peace-loving peoples throughout the world in pooling our military might, you would be opposed to this, according to what you indicated here. Is that correct?

Mrs. MANNO. Actually, our organization has never come out for unilateral disarmament, but we have come out for unilateral steps toward disarmament. In other words, some small steps that would begin to relieve tensions in the hope this would set up a new kind of equilibrium with reciprocation from the other side.

Mr. BARRY. I imagine you are a real student of the charter. You certainly referred back 8 years ago when Dr. Wilcox had another idea with regard to financing it. You are familiar with article 52, under chapter VIII, entitled "Regional Arrangements," and I quote from the paragraph 1:

Nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

I would like to ask if you do not feel that SEATO and NATO and any alliance which the United States has or has had has not been basically in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

Mrs. MANNO. Sir, I feel that the Organization of American States comes closest to that, because it is an organization of all the countries in that region, intended to protect them against any one of their members who might aggress against another.

These other groupings you have mentioned generally are not made up of all the countries of the region-for example, SEATO at present has only Thailand which is really strictly a part of southeast Asia. The Philippines is marginal, Pakistan is marginal. So, it is not in accordance with this principle, I believe.

The same is true of NATO. It is not directed against aggression by one of the members of that region but, rather, against the outside. I would agree with conclusions reached quite a few years ago by the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, that this type of military grouping is not in accordance with the principles of the charter and does not further the main aims of the charter in the field of peacekeeping.

Mr. BARRY. My final question would be to ask you this: Do you not feel that NATO has been basically the deterrent to Russian aggression in Europe?

Mrs. MANNO. It may have had some such effect for a time, but we would not base our policy on the principle of deterrence, because we feel that this is not a sound basis for peace.

Mr. BARRY. In other words, if I properly interpret what you say, it is that you have an ideal, a dream, and a hope, and that military strength does not fit within that hope or dream; that you feel that we do not actually stop Communist aggression through such things as our military forces on the spot in Europe and our alliances with other powers to do certain things in the event of further aggression.

Mrs. MANNO. Sir, I feel that all this is based on the idea of a twoworld concept, and the world is now too small to be two worlds. It must become one world or it will not survive.

Mr. BARRY. You believe in a world government with surrender of our sovereignty to the extent they would have police power solely? Mrs. MANNO. I believe we will have to come to some measure of surrender of sovereignty with respect to the power to make war. I do not believe that the world is ready for world government beyond that point.

Mr. BARRY. Until it was, you would not, then, give up your military power, would you?

Mrs. MANNO. As I say, we have favored a gradual reduction. We favor making unilateral steps in hope of reciprocation. The goal of our organization is general and complete disarmament under U.N. control.

Mr. BARRY. I am glad to get clarification of the policy. I must say I sharply differ with it, even though I think your ultimate objective might be the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Manno, I would like to set the record straight in regard to your organization. It was founded in 1914 or 1915, was it not? Mrs. MANNO. Yes; 1915, during World War I.

Mr. O'HARA. Who was the founder?

Mrs. MANNO. Jane Addams was quite active in the founding.
Mr. O'HARA. She was one of the founders and a great leader.
Mrs. MANNO. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. I was very close to Jane Addams in that period. I knew of her motivation, her great dream of peace. That was at a time, was it not, when in Europe they were having an arms race that alarmed us in the United States? We were far away, but we could see if it continued there would be war. Your organization came into be

ing about that period.

Mrs. MANNO. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Then World War I followed. Our fears in the United States proved to be true. This arms race in Europe resulted Then there was an interlude of peace. Then we had another devastating World War, the worst war in history. That is right, is it not?

in war.

Mrs. MANNO. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Certainly nobody regarded Jane Addams as anything but a patriotic American woman. That is right, is it not?

Mrs. MANNO. That is right.

Mr. O'HARA. And all the women gathered around her in this and other countries of the world were held in highest esteem, dedicated women, striving to bring peace to this world of ours. Is that right? Mrs. MANNO. That is right.

Mr. O'HARA. That is what you are doing today, is it not?
Mrs. MANNO. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr. O'HARA. You are not quarreling with what is being done by our Government in the way of meeting the threat of arms. That you leave to the proper people in Government, the military people. However, you do say that you think there is a better way of getting peace on earth than resorting to arms?

Mrs. MANNO. That is right.

Mr. O'HARA. Do you see at the present time any other agency of peace that we have in the international field, where we have an international forum, any other than the United Nations?

Mrs. MANNO. No, sir, I do not.

Mr. O'HARA. You have studied this bond proposal and you have reached the conclusion that there is no alternative other than this bond issue to meet the immediate situation?

Mrs. MANNO. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much.

Mrs. MANNO. Thank you.

Chairman MORGAN. Thank you, Mrs. Manno.

The committee stands adjourned until 10:30 Monday morning.

PURCHASE OF UNITED NATIONS BONDS

MONDAY, JULY 23, 1962

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:50 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 for a continuation of the hearings on S. 2768, the purchase of U.N. bonds.

Our first witness this morning is Mrs. Alison Bell, staff associate, legislation, American Association of University Women. Mrs. Bell, do you have a statement?

Mrs. BELL. Yes, I do.

Chairman MORGAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ALISON BELL, STAFF ASSOCIATE, LEGISLATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Mrs. BELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the AAUW welcomes this opportunity to appear before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to express its continuing strong support for the United Nations and to endorse the purchase by the U.S. Government of up to $100 million of the proposed $200 million United Nations bond issue.

This position of support is fully in keeping with AAUW's historical belief in and work for the United Nations. Ever since 1944 when the association enthusiastically approved full U.S. participation in the new international organization and carried on an extensive educational campaign to inform its membership about the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, AAUW has consistently adopted at its national membership conventions resolutions and legislative items reaffirming the membership's belief in the importance of the United Nations to world peace and U.S. security.

At the present time we are having an opinion poll on our legislative program and as the returns come in, this I can say, this support is continuing as it has in the past, although we haven't finished the poll.

At its most recent convention here in Washington, D.C., in June 1961, the following resolution and legislative item were unanimously adopted:

Resolution: We reaffirm our faith in the United Nations as a flexible and viable institution for the achievement of international cooperation. We will continue to support measures to make the U.N. and its affiliated agencies more 247

86138-62- -17

effective, and will oppose measures which would impair their present strength. Legislative item: Support of measures for effective participation in and operation of the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

In February of this year, three official bodies of the association, the international relations committee, the legislative program committee, and the association's board of directors, meeting in that sequence, discussed the United Nations bond issue at length. Each urged that the AAUW membership not only support full and favorable congressional action on the $100 million bond issue but also undertake extensive community education about the importance of the United Nations to the United States.

An essential part of this education program has been stress upon the need to insure the United Nations' continued financial security and stability.

In coming to the decision to support the bond issue, these AAUW groups considered two fundamental questions:

First, what would failure to resolve this financial crisis in the United Nations mean to the United States?

Second, what would the effect of such failure mean to the United Nations itself?

After consideration of the alternatives, these AAUW officers concluded that each of these questions leads back to the same basic considerations: One, the continued existence of the United Nations itself; two, the importance of the United Nations as an instrument for the implementation of U.S. foreign policy; three, the critical role of the United Nations as an organization to foster and maintain world peace.

We recognize that the United Nations has not achieved total world peace in its short existence, a goal which seemed more easily attainable at the time of the San Francisco Conference in 1945 than it does in 1962. At the time of Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco we could not predict the many crises or vast changes which have so altered the world in these 1612 years.

The onslaught of the cold war, the advancement in the technological sciences, the emergence of many new and independent countries in Asia and Africa, and the increasing economic interdependence of all nations have created new problems after new problems for the United Nations. In the opinion of the AAUW, the United Nations has met these challenges creatively and often with amazing success.

If, as was estimated earlier this year, the debts of the United Nations for the UNEF and Congo operations were approximately $140 million on June 30, emergency steps must be taken to preserve the United Nations. As a bankrupt body incapable of action, the United Nations would immediately lose its effectiveness, or in the words of the New York Times, "deteriorate into an ineffectual debating society."

As an initial step in establishing fiscal stability for the United Nations the association favors the bond issue proposed by U Thant as more equitable than outright grants made by only a few nations.

Since the repayment schedule approved by the General Assembly provides for annual payments from the general budget of the United Nations, this financial responsibility will be placed upon all the member nations.