« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. FRASER. Let me just pursue that. Now that the United Nations has determined that there is only one Government of China and that is the Peking Government, Taiwan is left, it seems to me, in a kind of a hiatus; from the Peking point of view, this is part of China, but clearly Peking does not control Taiwan.
It would seem to me that what this may do is to force a new basis for the legitimacy of the Government on Taiwan; that is, their legitimacy before was founded on what was increasingly a fiction, an increasingly transparent fiction in which the people of Taiwan were essentially denied representation in the government. Now, it would seem to me that with this fiction having been, in effect, destroyed by the action of an international body, that there would have to be generated on Taiwan a new basis for legitimacy, that in that process the. people of Taiwan may be brought into the political workings of the government. On those grounds and hopefully with the continuation of the mutual security agreement which offers the best prospects for an independent Taiwan--assuming that is what the people want-this process of legitimizing the Government of Taiwan might be speeded up, whereas under a two-China solution, it might have been deferred a considerable length of time.
This is all speculative I realize. I guess your view is that the Taiwanese should have the right to decide their own future, in effect, free of Peking
Mr. SCHWEBEL. Exactly.
Mr. FRASER. That is my view, too, and that the outcome of the U.S. action may have facilitated that. Mr. SCHWEBEL. Well, sir, I am really not sure. I have my
doubts that it will facilitate it, but we will se 1.
Mr. FRASER. That is, the disappea rance of representation from nations other than Taiwan, it seems to me, was not dependent so much on U.N. action as the leverage that is being exerted by Peking against countries which sought to establish diplomatic relations with Peking. Therefore, the process of isolation, if it does continue on, won't seem so much a result of the U.N. action as from Peking's leverage.
Mr. SCHWEBEL. That may well be. I think the U.N. action, though, is a contribution to the trend away from relations with Taiwan, and I would not underestimate the impact that the views of Peking in New York may have over the longer pull.
Mr. Fraser. Well, I guess we are now speculating about the future, and I recognize the difficulty of pinning it down.
Well, I want to thank you very much for a very helpful statement on this China question and your statement on the proposals to reduce the assessed and voluntary contributions by the United States. I don't have any questions on your statement, because I am largely in agreement with it.
So again I want to thank you very much. You have been very helpful, and I hope we can get some of our colleagues to read the discussions we have provided on the China question, because it seems to me that the reaction to the China vote was not justified, particularly in light of the fact that none of our NATO allies ended up supporting us. For some reason, people don't seem to give any weight to that.
Mr. SCHWEBEL. Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment on the issue before us stimulated by the argument which Congressman Sikes
was good enough to make at the outset of the hearings on the subject. If I recall correctly, he maintained that adoption and implementation of this bill would not be unlawful because of the fact that there is now a law on the books which instructs representatives of the United States not to vote for contributions in excess of a percentage of an assessment, and his view was that if they could not vote for more than 33 percent, or whatever that provision is, equally, they could be required not to vote for more than 6 percent and that, therefore, there was nothing illegal about his proposal and that which his distinguished colleagues make.
May I respectfully say that I disagree with that legal conclusion. Enactment of a law which instructs U.S. representatives or which invites the Executive to instruct U. S. representatives not to vote for a measure does not impair the authority of an international organization to adopt a measure.
There seems to be a confusion between what American representatives vote for and what is binding on the Government of the United States. The United Nations, at this current session of the General Assembly and any other, can adopt a budget, the United States may vote against the budget, nevertheless it is adopted and binding.
My impression is, in fact, that last year at the General Assembly, the United States did not vote in favor of the budget because it had certain increases that the United States judged were unmerited. Nevertheless, we have been bound to pay our assessments under that budget. If American representatives never voted for an assessment of more than 6 percent and the assessments were 31 or 25 percent we would still be bound by law to pay the 31 or 25.
In sum, my argument is that that law now on the books and any other such law would simply be irrelevant to the United States' legal obligation; it does not for a moment prove that enactment of this proposed law would lead to a legal situation. On the contrary, in fact, I think it must lead to an illegal situation in view of the fact that it cannot be expected that the U.N. or other international organizations would assess us on a level proportionate to our population.
Mr. Fraser. Well, I am glad to have that point developed, because it does seem to me hat here is a significant difference between the law and the wording of the proposed bill.
Thank you again very much.
STATEMENTS AND MEMORANDA SUBMITTED FOR
STATEMENT OF Hon. W. JI. ABBITT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of testifying in support of H.R. 11518 of which I am a co-sponsor. This bill would provide for United States financial contributions to the UN and related agencies to be based on the ratio of this country's population to the population of all member states.
Since the inception of the United Nations in 1915, the United States has borne the major responsibility for the financial support of the UN. In the beginning, we did this in order to get the organization started and as time went on, we assumed more and more by way of responsibility for various aspects of the operation.
While this procedure may have had some merit in the beginning when the organization was getting on its feet, it is totally unrealistic today when the UN membership is much larger. Today we are furnishing approximately 36% of the US budget whereas under the provisions of H.R. 11518 this would be lowered to approximately 6%.
Such action is long orerdue not only from the standpoint of reducing the United States burden of responsibility but also in making the other members of the US more responsible for its upkeep. We face the situation in the UN today which is vastly different from that which welcomed UN members at the organization in 1945. Not only is the membership greatly enlarged but our own position within the UN has changed substantially. Many of our people are greatly concerned about the fact that our influence within the UN has substantially lessened while we continue to pay the lion's share of its support. In addition to this, the fact is that many nations which are financially able to assume their responsibility are in arrears on their dues and little or nothing is done about this. It is high time that the UN come to grips with this matter and the only way that I know to bring this about is to make it abundantly clear that the United States does not intend to forever carry the major portion of the load, especially in view of the attitude of other members in regard to their obligation.
I trust that the subcommittee will give serious consideration to this proposal and that the Congress will be given the opportunity of expressing itself on this issue.
STATEMENT OF Hox. Tom BEVILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN ('OXGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my position on pending legislation to limit United States financial contributions to the United Nations.
The recent vote by the General Assembly of the United Nations to seat Red China and expel Taiwan has, at long last, made the leaders of this nation stop and take a good, hard look at this organization and the value of our particiption in it.
While we have continued to pour money into the U.N. for the last 25 years, many other member nations have refused to pay their share and in fact have laughed at and mocked our naive generosity.
I know that I speak for a majority of the people of Alabama when I say the time has come for the United States to stop playing Santa Claus to the
world, pay only its fair share, and insist that every other member nation do likewise.
Over the years the United States has been the backbone of the United Nations, contributing about six times as much as the Soviet Union or the United Kingdom, the two next highest contributors.
We all know this money is desperately needed to meet some of our pressing domestic problems.
Mr. Chairman, I am co-sponsor of H.R. 11518, a bill which would provide for U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations and related agencies to be based on the ratio of U.S, population to the population of all member nations.
It is my understanding that if this legislation becomes law, it would lower the United States' contribution from is present 36 percent to 5.9 percent, for a savings to the U.S, taxpayers of more than $250,000,000.
I believe that if we decide to stay in the U.N., we should immediately reduce our financial assistance to this amount. If this organization is to constitute a force for world peace, all nations must contribute their fair share.
We must stop pouring money into an organization which provides our enemies an open forum to denounce us.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge approval of this legislation,
STATEMENT OF Hox. HAROLD R. COLLIER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements in behalf of H.R. 11480. This bill, of which I am a cosponsor, was introduced on October 28th, soon after the United Nations organization had voted to expel the legitimate government of China from membership.
On the resolution to expel Free China from the organization and seat Communist China in its place, 76 votes were cast in favor and 35 in opposition. There were 17 abstentions and three absences.
All but three of the nations that voted for the resolution of expulsion have been passengers on the foreign aid gravy train which the United States has been operating for more than a quarter of a century. All but three of the nations that abstained from voting have received foreign aid from the United States.
The 76 nations that voted for expulsion of our long-time ally received a total of $61,205,800,000 in foreign aid during the fiscal years from 1946 through 1971. As we had to borrow this huge sum before we could make it available to foreign nations, it becomes necessary to add interest totaling $32,904,238,000, making the true total $94,110,038,000.
The 14 foreign aid recipients that abstained on the vote received a total of $11,278,900,000 during the 26-year period, plus $6,063,538,000 for interest, or $17,312,438,000 altogether.
Out of 131 members in the United Nations organization, 76 opposed us on this crucial vote and 17 others took the easy way out by abstaining. These 93 nations have received a total of $72,484.700,000 in foreign aid from the United States since World War II. With interest totaling $38,967,776,000 added on, the grand total lavished on these ingrates comes to $111,452,476,000.
While a comparatively small amount of foreign aid can be justified, it is obvious that neither the House of Representatives nor the other body is going to keep the numerous foreign aid programs funded at the current annual level of over $131-billion. This tremendous sum will be reduced through the cutting of authorizations and appropriations in a number of different bills. At the moment, however, we are concerned with but one phase, the contributions of the United States to the United Nations organization and its affiliated agencies.
Mr. Chairman, the total population of the 131 members presently represented in the organization is 3,366,768,000. The population of the United States is 204,766,000, or 6.08% of the total. Before the expulsion of Free China and the admission of Red China and five mini-states, the population of the United States was about 734% of the total population of the 126 members.
In spite of the faet that its population was only about one-thirteenth of the total, the United States' assessment for 1969 was nearly one-third of the total