Mr. GALLAGHER. That is what I would like to have in the record. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Cleveland, you can furnish that for the record.

Mr. STEVENSON. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Sweden have all purchased amounts greater than their regular assessments. In addition Germany and Switzerland, which aren't even members, have made substantial contributions.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Contributions or pledges?

Mr. STEVENSON. Pledges.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much.

(The following information has been supplied for inclusion in the record:)

Nations which have purchased or pledged to purchase United Nations bonds, as of June 28, 1962, in an amount equal to, or in excess of, their regular U.N. assessment rate as applied to the $200,000,000 bond goal

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Barry.

Mr. BARRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, it is very nice to have you with us today. I always enjoy your presentation.

I would like to ask if you believe that the United States should contribute as much as 32 percent toward the United Nations in view of the fact that under NATO we only pay 24 percent; and Europe is becoming much more capable now of paying a larger and higher assessment than at the time the United Nations was organized. It was devastated at that time and unable to pay a proportionate share of the cost of the United Nations in relation to its volume of world trade, and its internal development and production. Now, other nations of the world, including Japan, have demonstrated a very substantial ability in productive forces of their nation and in international trade. The World Court is expected to hand down a decision soon, and with this bond issue the whole financial structure of the United Nations is being examined with the idea of putting the U.N. on a firm financial basis. Should not the United States now speak up and say to the rest of the world that somewhere below 20 percent I

will leave it for you and others in the State Department to decideshould that not be our legitimate dues in the United Nations?

Mr. STEVENSON. In the first place, I think it is a great mistake to ever relate the NATO budget to the United Nations budget. They bear no resemblance whatsoever nor are the two organizations even comparable. The 24 percent that we do contribute to the NATO budget is for administrative expenses only. It doesn't take into account the cost of troop maintenance in Germany, the nuclear weapons that we provide, the weapons that we provide generally and all the materiel that we contribute to the NATO defense effort. As I understand it, if you were to take all those items into account, our contribution to NATO would be immense.

Mr. BARRY. Conversely if that were so we would need to take the military assistance side of our Mutual Security Act and add that to the cost of those members of the United Nations, you see, because we do assist many nations in our Mutual Security Act. I believe we strengthen our position in the United Nations by paying less, for this reason: That our opponents can say, "The United Nations is bought by the United States," by virtue of the fact that we contribute so much to its support that it might be labeled a Western instrument. If we contributed less, and other nations more, to its support, we would be in a healthier position in world opinion.

What do you think about that?

Mr. STEVENSON. If we can then leave the question of NATO for a moment and talk about the American contribution to the budget of the United Nations, I would point out to you that the original contribution of the United States was 40 percent. We are now down to 32 percent. There has been a substantial decrease already in the proportion of the budget that is paid by the United States. If you use the criterion of "ability to pay" you would find that the statisticsI think generally accepted-would indicate that the United States should pay about 44 or 45 percent of the cost of the United Nations. Therefore the proportion of the budget of the United Nations that we should pay would be very considerably more than we have ever paid, let alone more than 32 percent. For the very reason that you said, however, no one, including our adversaries, has wanted the United States to pay anything like its relative proportion on the basis of capacity to pay, because of the very fear that you gave voice to a moment ago, that it would be interpreted as selling the organization out to the United States and give rise to a disproportionate influence of the United States within the organization. So that the budget has been held down-the American contribution to the regular budget has been held down deliberately for that reason since 1947 when I sat in the budgetary committee and when this scale was originally established.

Mr. BARRY. Some of the nations which we have helped support and granted aid are those who do not pay their assessments to the United Nations. I wonder how you feel about making the meeting of obligations as far as arrearages are concerned a condition for further qualification under our aid program? In other words, make it a criterion for future aid that all nations who are the beneficiaries under our aid program be paid up to the United Nations in full.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Would the gentleman yield? If they paid up they wouldn't need the aid.

Mr. BARRY. That is not quite so. We have many nations who are receiving aid today from us who have not paid their dues in the United Nations, which further aggravates our problem in having to make voluntary contributions to keep the United Nations from floundering financially. I am exploring the possibility of offering an amendment to the Mutual Security Act that would require all nations to be current in their dues in order to be recipients of our further aid. Mr. STEVENSON. I think one answer at least is that it would not put any pressure on the Soviet Union. It would only put pressure on our friends.

Mr. BARRY. That is true. But sometimes our friends need a little nudging, too.

Chairman MORGAN. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. O'Hara?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Ambassador, it is good to have you as a witness. Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. I suppose you and I have enjoyed an older friendship than that of any two other persons in this room.

Mr. STEVENSON. I think that is right, Barratt.

Mr. O'HARA. I notice in your fine statement you did stress the words "peace-seeking activities of the United Nations."

Mr. STEVENSON. Peacekeeping.

Mr. O'HARA. That is right. Do you regard the United Nations, imperfect though it may be, sometimes noisy, and of course it is better to fight with words than with atomic bombs-do you regard the United Nations as the bridge to peace?

Mr. STEVENSON. I do, sir. I think that its peacekeeping machinery in the past has been used effectively in a number of instances that I have cited here this morning. I think the improvement, the enlargement, the strengthening of its peacekeeping duty in the future is one of our major objectives.

Mr. O'HARA. Recognizing that while we have our own organizational approaches like the Disarmament Agency, is there any bridge to peace other than the United Nations on which the Soviet and our country are brought together in an international effort and in a world climate? In other words, is not the United Nations the only bridge to peace that we have left?

Mr. STEVENSON. I think it is fair to say it is the only institution in which we meet face to face continuously. There are, of course, constant negotiations between the United Nations and the Soviet Union over a specific problem that relates to peace, like Laos, Berlin, and so on. We also meet in certain of the specialized agencies of the

United Nations of which the Soviet is a member.

Mr. O'HARA. Peace, Mr. Ambassador, you would call a dream, a precious dream?

Mr. STEVENSON. Also indispensable to not only our national security but perhaps even our survival in this atomic nuclear era in which we live.

Mr. O'HARA. And our desire to conquer space and reach the moon, that is a dream of the American people, too, isn't it?

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Ambassador, you and I, and I would say our fellow countrymen, have faith that with dedication and effort we in our generation can give substance and reality to both of these dreams.

I venture to say that if a vote on the relative importance of the goals envisioned in these two dreams were taken in the homes of America, expansion to the moon or peace on earth, peace would sweep the boards. Frankly, I cannot understand the manner of arriving at relative evaluations of some of my colleagues who, without batting an eye, voted $4 billion for the space program and close both eyes and mind to a suggestion of $100 million, just one-fortieth as much, to keep open our only bridge to peace. Mr. Ambassador, you have explored thoroughly, I understand, all the other possible means of financing the U.N. in this crisis-the World Bank, soft currencies, and other possibilities?

Mr. STEVENSON. I think so.

Mr. O'HARA. Not only you, but working with you a large staff of experts have made an exhaustive study of all possible alternatives. You tell us now that the bond issue is the best method that you can find, the soundest.

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. One other question, Mr. Ambassador. I am interested in Africa. I think as Africa goes, so goes the world. How many African countries have contributed to this bond issue or have pledged their contributions?

Mr. STEVENSON. I should think it was in the order of 10. I would have to give you a table.

(The information appears on the following page.)

Mr. O'HARA. That is my recollection. The contributions have been, considering the size of the countries and their resources, very large. Would you not accept that, Mr. Ambassador, as an index of the feeling on the Continent of Africa as regards the operations of the United Nations?

Mr. STEVENSON. I would, sir. I would like to supplement that by saying I think it is interesting to note that the very first act that any new nation-which most of them have been in Africa, performs literally-the first act that it performs in the international field is to apply for admission to the United Nations. Whereas the great powers like the United States can defend themselves, the small powers have only one shield: that is this organization. Therefore, they have a far disproportionate interest in it and reliance on it than we do. Finally, may I say I am most grateful for what you have said here this morning, and I think perhaps you should have been the witness instead of me. Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I am merely voicing the sentiment of your countrymen when I say that as our Ambassador to the United Nations you are rendering an imperishable service to our country and to the world of freedom.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Whalley?

Mr. WHALLEY. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, many of our people are interested in the support of the United Nations. I think $200 million has to be raised in some way to pay the expenses of the extracurricular activities. Many of the other members have wondered why the regular assessment of the United States for 1962 is 32 percent and Russia's, who appears to want to share at least all of the benefits of the United Nations, assessment is only 14 percent. Of the $200 million bond issue, apparently the U.S. quota is $100 million, or 50 percent. I think