Изображения страниц

It was mainly through the efforts of the United States that a postSecond World War peace in the world was restored and an international body—the U.N.—was created to help maintain that peace. The United States has realized its responsibilities in this regard and has met them.

Today, however, we are forced to consider other things equally important.

The economic problems that beset our country are fast approaching the crisis stage. The resolution of these problems is of vital interest to the whole world. An economically healthy United States means an economically healthy world.

There is no doubt that the world is dependent on the economic stability of the United States. However, we have not of late shown that level of economic stability, which exudes the confidence necessary to preserve the world's economic system. One of those reasons has been that we have overextended ourselves financially. And giving more than our fair share in voluntary contributions to the U.N. is a good case in point.

The U.S. Government and the American taxpayer cannot continue alone to carry the heavy burden of peace in the world. The responsibility and duty for doing so must also be met by others. This is all that we are asking

It is not being unrealistic, in my opinion, to do so. On the contrary, there are member nations of the U.N. body who are presently in arrears in their assessed contributions to that body upward of $80 million. Some of those same countries continue year after year to increase their spending for the purpose of building weapons of war. We can no longer spend untold millions of dollars to wage peace in the world, while other nations, who are aggressive in nature, spend their country's wealth in preparing for war. Either we are waging peace in the world, or we are not.

There is a precedent for legislation of this nature that would limit the amount of U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations. The Department of State Appropriations Act, 1953, approved on July 10, 1952--Public Law 495, 82d Congress 66 stat. 550; 22 U.S.C. 262b-set a limit of 3312 percent on the amount the U.S. Government could contribute to the total budget of any international organization.

In addition, there are specific legislative limitations on the percentage contribution of the United Nations to the World Health Organization, 3313 percent; Food and Agriculture Organization, 331%2; and the International Labor Organization, 25 percent.

So I say to you, I think it is past time that we realistically view this question of U.N. funding and reduce our contributions accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER. Thank you, Mr. Waggonner. • Mr. Gross?,

Mr. Gross. Mr. Waggonner, it is refreshing to have you and such colleagues as Mr. Sikes and Mr. Crane come before this, subcommittee. It is a breath of fresh air,', We don't often have that pleasure. I compliment you on your statement.

I have no questions, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Kazen?

Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to welcome our esteemed colleague before the subcommittee and to commend him for his statement.

I have no questions.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Waggonner, let me just see if I can grasp the full import of the position that you would have the United States take. I gather you are not suggesting that we pull out of the U.N. at this point ?

Mr. WAGGONNER. No, sir; I am not.

Mr. FRASER. I was asking Mr. Crane what his views would be if the United Nations General Assembly were to accept the apportionment of the expenses that did not accede to the population formula.

Mr. WAGGONNER. That did not?

Mr. Fraser. That did not accede to a population formula so that we would be left with a higher assessment than that suggested by your bill. It could lead to a confrontation of some kind in which the position of the United States and the U.N, might be put at risk. What would your view be about what should happen at that point.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I think, Mr. Chairman, we just finished one confrontation and have gone to another. The confrontnation we had over the expulsion of Taiwan was one that we lost and Red China challenged us with her opening words when she came to the United Nations. I just think that we would have to meet each confrontation on its merits as they developed and support the needs of the United States in this world organization with regard to financial assessments based on population.

It seems to me that if the courts in this land say that we have to do everything on a one-man, one-vote basis, if its good enough for us in this country, we ought to practice it on the international level as well.

Mr. FRASER. Well. I think the question of voting is a very real question in the U.N. and as you say, we have that in the United States, but we finance the Federal Government on an ability to pay basis. .

Would you carry the population formula into the financing of the Federal Government? In other words, we would have a per capita assessment of the Federal budget rather than the present Federal income tax.

Mr. WAGGONNER. No; I don't think I would, and I don't think you would either.

Mr. Fraser. Well, if you wish to apply U.S. Government formula to the United Nations as you have indicated, why would you finance the U.N. differently than the Federal Government?

Mr. WAGGONNER. The U.N. is entirely different. There is no way to equate our responsibility to the people of the United States to provide for them that which the Constitution requires we provide in the way of freedoms, et cetera, as opposed to the United Nations and our responsibility to that organization.

We have a responsibility first of all to the United States and its population. I, first of all, am a representative from the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana; my first responsibility is to the people I represent.

We, as representatives of the United States and our representatives in the United Nations are representatives to the United Nations from the United States and our first obligation is to represent the United States and the citizens thereof.

Mr. FRASER. Would you apply the same measure with respect to NATO expenditures!

Mr. WAGGONNER. Well, we don't have any required contributions to NATO to the best of my knowledge. We have some voluntary agreements.

Mr. Fraser. Your bill covers both assessed and voluntary contributions to the U.N., so would you apply the same formula?

Mr. WAGGONNER. I think we would be better off if we did. I think we would get more out of the others.

I am somewhat disappointed in the cooperation we get from our NATO allies and the effort we make through NATO.

Mr. FRASER. They have not been cooperating with us recently. Mr. WAGGONNER. I certainly would be willing to trade out with you. If we would adopt the formula which I've presented with respect to U.S. contributions to the United Nations, I think we would reach some common ground with regard to our contributions to NATO.

Mr. FRASER. And you would apply this same limitation to the U.N. Children's Fund?

Mr. WAGGONNER. I would apply it to every activity both required and voluntary.

Mr. FRASER. In the Middle East ?

Mr. WAGGONNER. Yes, sir. That required activities and the voluntary funds, as well. Mr. FRASER. And this would include peacekeeping?

Mr. Waggoy NER. In every respect. As far as peacekeeping is concerned, it is something that is on paper; it does not amount to anything. As the gentleman from Iowa said a minute ago, where are they now in the confrontation and where is the United States in not asking the United Nations to try to do something about what is developing between India and Pakistan?

Mr. FRASER. We had some discussion about Cyprus and the peace, keeping operation on Cyprus which, at least, some observers say showed the ability of the U.N. to avoid a serious risk of war between Greece and Turkey. Would you share that view?

Mr. WAGGONNER. I'he ability to do it?

Mr. FRASER. The ability of the United Nations to put Canadian and other troops into Cyprus and prevent a head-on confrontation between the Greeks and the Turks?

Mr. WAGGONNER. I am not yet willing to support the principle of required participation in such peacekeeping efforts. I am willing to support the principle of voluntary particiation. I have a theory about the United Nations as far as peacekeeping is concerned, or any other problem is concerned, and that is when the United Nations has a problem between two small nations, the problem disappears. When it has a problem between a small nation and a large nation, the small nation disappears, and when there is a problem between large nations, the United Nations disappears.

I just don't think the U.X. face up to all problems presented before it.


Mr. Fraser. I think that is probably right, we didn't see the U.N. involved in our landing on the Dominican Republic or our abortive effort to invade Cuba. In neither case did the U.N. intervene.

Mr. Gross. Or Vietnam.

Mr. Fraser. Nor in the Hungary or Czechoslovakian invasion by the Soviet Union. So I think that accurately describes the limitations of the U.N. Nevertheless, I was just trying to get your assessment of the value of the U.N. in other arenas in which a major power is not involved on the ground.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the U.N. could be a force in the world today if the obligations of the charter, the requirements of the charter were met by each and every member nation of the United Nations. If everybody who is a member of the United Nations subscribed to peace and tried to walk out on the road toward peace, then it could be a potent force; but, that is not the situation.

Mr. FRASER. What is your view of the best way to achieve the competence to carry out that role?

Mr. WAGGONNER. Well, I think one of the fairest ways is to do what we propose here and let everybody believe they are going to get out of it what they put into it, and if they don't put anything into it, they are not going to get anything out of it. There are many countries not putting anything in but they are getting a heck of a lot out.

For instance, today the U.S.S.R. is in arrears to the extent of $86,864,900.

Mr. FRASER. What is the French deficit ?
Mr. Gross. A good many millions.

Mr. WAGGONNER. France has a deficit of $17,796,807, and we in the United States even have a deficit of $2,136,839, but that is a rather insignificant figure of the whole arrearage total which is $176,699,174. And the U.S. deficit is even more meaningless when one considers the amount we do


each year. Mr. KAZEN. Vlr. Chairman?

Are those arrears in contributions to the United Nations or to the other organizations?

Mr. W'AGGONNER. These are arrears to the United Nations, UNEF and UNOC, so that is operations.

Mr. KAZEN. Mr. Waggonner, according to your figures this year the United States contributed to the U.N. $300,684,000?

Mr. WAGGOXXER. Yes, sir.
Mr. KAZEN. Under your formula, what would that have amounted


Mr. WAGGONNER. Under my formula, it would be, as Mr. Crane said, just a few minutes ago, somewhere between $60 and $70 million. It would be 5.9 percent.

Mr. KAZEN. Thank you.
Mr. FRASER. Well, thank you.

Mr. Gross. I must make one comment on your statement that we support this Government on the basis of ability to pay. I am sure the Democratic study group, the ADA, and all of these Democrat groups will tell you differently. We hear it constantly stated on the House floor that too many people are escaping their fair share of the tasload.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Gross, if I could comment on that, I have the old-fashioned idea that everybody who earns something should pay so they better understand how this Government is financed and where these so-called free services really come from. I don't think anyone really understands something until he has to pay for it.

Mr. Gross. But the gentleman has seen those statements of Common Cause and all the rest of them.

Mr. WIGGONNER. Yes, sir; but I am not prone to reading those statements.

Mr. Gross. Well, I have to read them to try to keep up with their doubletalk.

Mr. FRASER. I might say, Mr. Gross, our feeling has been that we would like to have the oil companies put something on it instead of putting it on the farmers of Iowa.

Mr. Gross. That is exactly the point I am making. You say one thing, but then your organizations say something else.

Mr. FRASER. We all subscribe for perfection we have not arrived at.

Mr. GROSS. The mistake of the Charter of the United Nations is the mistake of the old covenant of the League of Nations, that nations bound together in time of war would be bound together for the same reasons in time of peace. Nothing could be further from the truth, and until the Charter of the United Nations

Mr. WAGGONNER. Unless the time of peace comes before the time of war.

Mr. Gross. Until the United Nations Charter is revised to make it practical and workable, it is not worth the powder to blow it out of New York.

Mr. WAGGONNER. I understand some are unhappy about it being there now and thinking about leaving, and I would wish them well.

Mr. GROSS. So do I.
Mr. WAGGONNER. Maybe they won't come back after Christmas.
Mr. Gross. Thank you, Mr. Waggonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FRISER. Thank you so much.
Mr. W'AGGOXXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRISER. Our next witness is the Honorable Samuel De Palma, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.

Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you here, and apologize to you for having to come back the second time. We appreciate your being here this morning. Why don't you go ahead on whatever basis you like.



Mr. De Palma. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposal to change the basis for paying U.S. contributions to the United Nations family of agencies and programs from the present system to one based on comparative population data.

It would be useful at the outset to review the method for establishing the assessments of U.X. members. The background will make clear

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »