probably has a more highly developed economy-not withstanding her problems-than does Red China.

I would argue in this respect that the value of service rendered by the United Nations to any individual country would have to be a paramount consideration when you got to consideration of your ability to meet a per capita formulation for financial support. In this respect it may be that both India and Red China, for that matter, might make the determination that membership in the U.N. is not worth $250 million a year to Red China, or something less than that to India, I think that is the situation we are in.

The United Nations provides a very vital service to a country such as Maldive which cannot afford to maintain embassies throughout the world and she has, through her membership here, an opportunity to maintain contact with 131 nations of the world with probably no greater cost than maintaining an embassy in the United States, or in London, or some other major capital of the world.

In addition to that, it provides other services-the opportunity for discussion, the opportunity to negotiate such things as boundary disputes, fishing rights, et cetera.

I think that each country has to consider in its own mind whether this limited function which the U.N. can effectively perform is worth the investment that they pay to maintain it.

To the Communist bloc, I think very clearly the United Nations provides another very vital service and that is a convenient platform for engaging in anti-American propaganda. To this extent they might find it still worthwhile to maintain that higher level of contribution and financial support than they do now.

I think one would only have to ask them under this kind of formulation whether they view it as that desirable an instrument for accomplishing those ends.

Mr. FRASER. Would you extend, as I think the bill does, this limitation to voluntary contributions as well as assessed contributions? Mr. CRANE. Yes.

Mr. FRASER. To the Children's Fund?

Mr. CRANE. Yes.

Mr. FRASER. And to the refugee program in the Middle East? Mr. CRANE. Yes. I know this question was raised when I heard the former Ambassador speak before the committee. The suggestion was implied that, if we were to cut back our funding in these vital areas, that these services would not in fact be performed, and I think that is subscription to the classic, logical fallacy of either/or.

One need not necessarily terminate the U.S. support for any eleemosynary and humanitarian enterprises worldwide simply because we are no longer doing it through the agency of the United Nations. I would presume that no country, including some of our most outspoken enemies in the world, would reject American assistance if it were proffered in the event of, say, an internal disaster such as a drought, or famine, or a cataclysm of nature such as a hurricane, typhoon, or earthquake.

The United States can then unilaterally continue as it has consistently throughout the past to serve the humanitarian interests of peoples throughout the world, irrespective of what our ideological differences may be, and I don't think that it's essential that the United

Nations provide the only avenue through which we can continue to engage in philanthrophy.

Mr. FRASER. You probably were here during the discussion on the Cyprus peacekeeping operation during our last hearing. At that time Ambassador Goldberg argued that the U.N. was a vital element in keeping Turkey and Greece from going to war. These are two of our NATO allies in what is described as a highly strategic area in the world in terms of U.S. interest. It would be your judgment, I gather, that even the financing of that should be to the population formula? Mr. CRANE. Well, again I would suggest that with all due respect to the distinguished former Ambassador that he is employing an either/or fallacy in suggesting that were it not for the United Nations, presumably the world would be engulfed in war because of the problems in Cyprus.

Mr. FRASER. I don't know that he argued that but I think he argues that the risks would have been substantially greater.

Mr. CRANE. By the same token we can look at other trouble spots where the United States acted unilaterally, and I am thinking of Lebanon in 1958, and we could have done that without any U.N. sanetions or approval or disapproval.

I am thinking of the problems in the Middle East today which are, in fact, not being solved by the U.N. and which were, in fact, in no small measure created by action taken by the U.N. back in 1967. It seems to me that there have always been these opportunities available on the part of nations truly interested in preserving peace and I don't think the Soviet Union is at all in the case of the Middle East problem, but the United States clearly is, Great Britain and France are, Israel is. I think if it were not for Soviet intervention, even the Egyptians would be. This is the kind of alternative that has ever been available and the truth of the matter is the only real impact the United Nations has in trying to maintain any peacekeeping operation is the potential use of some sanction.

What sanction does the United Nations have other than the kind of collective military action which has taken place really only once in the history of the U.N. and that was in Korea against two aggressive powers, North Korea and Communist China.

And, as you know, at that time Communist China was branded by the U.N. as an aggressor for her violence against the peoples of South Korea and now the United Nations, without any repeal of that condemnation of Red China, has brought such a country into its own ranks, seated them, in fact, in the Security Council and the General Assembly which again I think illustrates the incapacity of the U.N. any longer to provide any moral force on the one hand, or to provide any effective international peace-keeping force with sanctions imposed by a collection of military forces.

In my judgment, we increasingly must look to the interests of the United States and those other countries that are still truly committed to peace and freedom worldwide to act in concert by mutual agreement as Britain and France and the United States, at least, are trying to do to maintain peace in the Middle East.

Mr. FRASER. If I may say, one thing that strikes me about your statement is your pointing out the vote of the Communist countries on the censure of the United States with the Rhodesian action and the action

with respect to the seating of China. Then you point, as you just have, to our friends like Britain and France. Britain and France voted against us in both of these measures. None of our NATO allies supported us on either of these issues, I think, with the possible exception of Portugal. I think Portugal abstained on the final China question. Do I understand that your view is that the NATO countries are all wrong in their assessment on these questions?

Mr. CRANE. On the question of the seating of Red China, I think, indeed, they were wrong. As I said, there was a clear repudiation of explicit principles of the Charter of the United Nations. I think the United States, for that matter

Mr. FRASER. I understand that is your view, but they held a different view.

Mr. CRANE. Yes; but the charter is rather explicit on the point. Mr. FRASER. You mean that the Nationalist Government was identified by name?

Mr. CRANE. By name as a permanent member of the Security Council and the procedural steps for expelling a member are very explicit as well.

Now I am not saying that they could not have expelled Nationalist China but what I am saying is there are procedural steps involved in that process of expulsion which were ignored altogether and at that point they had done sufficient violence to the Charter of the United Nations that from that point on any commitments the United States had at the time of the inception of the U.N. had been arbitrarily broken by those powers that elected to pursue that course.

This being the case, I think we have to reevaluate the figures of the U.N. and the service it can perform in a different light which is not to say that it is a useless body. As I indicated, it can still perform a number of functions, but certainly not those exalted goals which were embraced in the preamble and subscribed to, I think, in good faith certainly by the United States and most countries in 1946.

Mr. FRASER. Well, I think you have done a good job of making your views clear. I must say that I am struck that you have the United States, in effect, going it alone in its views about some of these worldwide questions and asserting the primacy of the correctness of its views to a point where, with the other countries disagreeing, we would make a very sharp departure in terms of our relationships with these other countries through the U.N.

Let me just put one final question, if I may.

Supposing that we passed the bill that you are authoring and the United Nations took up the question of assessments and concluded that while there might be a reduction for the United States to some lower figure, that they were not prepared to go to the level that your bill would suggest, would it be your view that under those circumstances the United States should pull out?

Mr. CRANE. No, not necessarily.

Mr. FRASER. Let me just follow the scenario there for a moment.

If by law we are limited to 6 or 7 percent and, let's say, that the U.N. came up with a figure of 25 percent, then after 2 years we would be subject to expulsion. So I want to make it explicit in that event when we came to that kind of confrontation you would be in effect prepared to see the United States voted out?

Mr. CRANE. I cannot in my wildest imagination contemplate any day, notwithstanding the reduced level of funding, that those other member nations of the U.N. would turn down $63 million American dollars. annually.

Mr. FRASER. You are right. I think it is clear that the U.N. is reluctant to take on any of the large powers, and I think that is one of its limitations. But if it should come to that point, do I understand that rather than comply with the assessment that might have been agreed upon under the charter provisions, that you would be prepared to see the United States depart from the U.N.

Mr. CRANE. The fact that the United Nations has already acted so capriciously and so whimsically means that we run that risk irrespective of our level of funding, so that is always a fear to be contemplated and I suppose the United States would have little way of dealing with it. They could turn on us as capriciously as they did on Nationalist China.

My point is that I cannot imagine that so many of those deadbeats up there, who are $176 million in arrears in their financial obligations to the United Nations, would, in fact, arbitrarily take an action and turn down in the process somewhere between 60 and 70 million American dollars annually.

Mr. FRASER. One of the countries in debt was the Nationalist Government of China.

Mr. CRANE. At the same time I think you have to keep in mind that Nationalist China was paying for the entire population of China and she assumed the burden for the 700 million people.

Mr. FRASER. That is her claim, that she represented them.

Mr. CRANE. To be sure. At the same time if you examine the degree of arrearage of payment you will find that the Communist bloc was more in arrears than Nationalist China was and we had no assurance that had Nationalist China remained and retained her position in the Security Council it would not have made every effort to pay up her arrears. Frankly, I think on the basis of the enormous load that she sustained during that 26-year period that we could have depended upon Nationalist China to do that.

Mr. FRASER. I was not trying to argue that Nationalist China was not having problems but you referred to the deadbeats and I wondered if you included Nationalist China in that description?

Mr. CRANE. I don't think you can include Nationalist China because she made every effort to meet what was obviously, until her expulsion, an enormous burden-14 million people on the island of Taiwan carrying the burden for 714 million people.

Mr. FRASER. France would be another deadbeat.

Mr. CRANE. Yes; absolutely, in arrears of payment.

The Communist block is $118 of that $176 million. The others are obviously not members of the Communist bloc.

Mr. KAZEN. I have no questions.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Gross.

Mr. GROSS. I would like to make at least one comment.

I am intrigued by the resort to the Goldberg testimony and the risk there might have been of war on Cyprus if the United Nations had not been there. That reminds me of the old story of the dog and the rabbit. You will remember that there has been the argument that if the dog

had not stopped to carry out certain functions, he might have caught the rabbit.

I think the answer to Cyprus is the fact that we served notice on the warring factions, the Turks and the Greeks, that if war broke out on Cyprus neither would be likely to get any more lollipops from the United States. I think that is the determining factor in Cyprus, Mr. Goldberg to the contrary notwithstanding, and if the United Nations is such a potent force for peace, where the hell are they today as between India and Pakistan?

Mr. FRASER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Crane. I think you did a very good job of developing the issues that we want to examine. Mr. CRANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER. It is a great privilege for the subcommittee to have a very able Member of the House, Mr. Waggonner of Louisiana, appear and we are honored with your presence here today. Mr. Waggonner. STATEMENT OF HON. JOE D. WAGGONNER, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. WAGGONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that very warm welcome on a cold winter morning.

I want to express my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, personally and to the other members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to come and talk with you about this proposal. I believe you have copies of the statement from my office?

Mr. FRASER. Yes, we have.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like first to present my statement in support of the bill introduced by Congressman Bob Sikes. Mr. Crane and myself along with 69 others of our fellow colleagues on the question of reducing the U.S. financial contribution to the United Nations organization and its related agencies.

If after that there are questions, I would be happy to attempt to respond.

This legislation provides for a new formula to be used for determining what our financial contributions to the United Nations system will be. That formula would be the percentage of the total U.S. population to that of the total U.N. member state population.

Presently there are 131 nations who are members of the United Nations organization, comprising a total population of roughly 311⁄2 billion persons. The percentage of the U.S. population of that total comes to approximately 5.9 percent. Yet, of a total U.N. family expenditure for calendar year 1970 of $947,900,000, the U.S. share was $300,684,000, or 32 percent.

It is anticipated that our contribution in 1971 will be higher, some $335.443,000. Our esteemed colleague of the House, John Rooney, chairman of the House Subcommittee on State Department Appropriations places the percentage of U.S. contributions as high as 38.3 percent for 1971. At any rate, it is a substantial amount.

No other country in the world appreciates the need for peace in the world as much as this one does. No nation has given as much of itself in maintaining peace in the world as has this one. Our history has proved that.