« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
assessment. Assessments for that year totaled $143,467,267, of which our share was $15,220,264, or 31.5%. This was four times as much as it ought to have been.
When we look at some of the affiliates we discover some even greater disparities. For example, the United States contributed $12,000,000 to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund during 1969, which was 39.0% of the $30,736,605 total.
During the same year, the United States gave $71,000,000 to the United Nations Development Program, 35.8% of the $198,574,980 total.
In 1968 the United States gave $8,749,722 to the Food and Agricultural Organization, or 31.9% of the $27,420,000 total.
Also in 1968, this country gave $18,075,620 to the World Health Organization, or 31.2% of the $57,934,680 total.
During 1968 the United States gave $9,011,940 to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. This was 29.9% of the $30,100,000 total.
The United States contributed $6,209,022 to the International Labor Organization in 1968, or 25.0% of the $24,836,091 total.
Some members failed to give to one or more of the programs that I have mentioned, while several nonmembers, for example, West Germany, South Korea, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Vatican City, and South Vietnam, made contributions.
The monumental absurdity of the whole United Nations fiscal setup can be eloquently demonstrated by using Qatar as an example. This nation, for the most part unknown to anyone but philatelists and members of the oil industry, is about the size of Massachusetts and has a population of 100,000. There are 150 cities in the United States with that many people, yet this tiny country, which joined the United Nations organization just in time to vote on the Chinese question, can kill the vote of the United States. By collaborating with another Johnny-come-lately member, Bahrain, which contains 250 square miles and has 207,000 population, Qatar can outvote the United States, the chief bankroller of the United Nations.
With a public debt already exceeding $400,000,000,000 and due to increase during the current fiscal year, the United States is not in a position to continue providing such grotesquely disproportionate sums of the United Nations organization and its affiliates as it has given in the past. The American taxpayers are overburdened with local, state, and federal taxes and should not be saddled with additional financial burdens that have resulted from the failure of other countries to assume and pay their fair shares.
By reducing the amount of our assessed and voluntary contributions to approximately 6%, we will decrease our expenditures for the United Nations and its affiliates by between 75% and 85%. Once the freeloaders and the deadbeats begin getting bills for larger amounts, they will take a second look at some of the programs and the accompanying pricetags. A nation that casually votes for an expensive program for which the Cnited States will assume between one-fourth and one-third of the financial responsibility will wait a long time before voting for such a program if its own share of the cost outweighs the benefits that it receives.
As a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am painfully aware of the serious financial crisis with which our nation is confronted. Other committees authorize expensive programs that cost billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, but it is the Committee on Ways and Means that must write legislation that will provide the wherewithal to pay for them.
If the people of the United States, acting through their duly-chosen representatives on the local, state, and national levels, want to pay for expensive governmental programs, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent the establishment and funding of such programs. It is a simple matter, however, to prevent foreign countries from placing heavy and disproportionate financial burdens on the aching backs of American taxpayers. Simply pass H.R. 11480 and our share of the cost will drop to about 6%6.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for permitting me to testify in behalf of this very necessary legislation. I hope the Committee on Foreign Affairs will report this measure or a similar one to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, so that it and the other bocy can act on it before the Congress adjourns for the year.
STATEMENT OF Hox. WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of legislalation to limit United States contributions to the United Nations.
On October 7th of this year, Oman, formerly known as the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman, became the one-hundred thirty-first member of the United Nations. Its population is 750,000.
The average population of the 131 member nations is approximately 20 million. Excluding the eight largest nations-India, Soviet Russia, United States, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, Brazil, and now, Communist China--the average population is somewhere in the neighborhood of nine million.
I'm going to cite some interesting statistics which relate my home state of Alabama to the general make-up of the United Nations. In Alabama, after redistricting, the perfect population will be 492,023 for each of our State's Congressional Districts. This means that our average congressional district will be larger in population than 11 countries in the U.X. Jefferson County is larger in its population than 15 countries. In fact, the State of Alabama has more people than do 49 members of the United Nations! Yet each nation, regardless of size, has the same vote. For instance :
1, 628, 765 There are two nations-Qatar, an Arab Sheikdom with 100,000 people-and the Maldive Islands, with a population of 104,000. which have double the voting strength in the U.N. General Assembly of the United States of America. Both Qatar and the Maldive Islands are considerably smaller than the population of the City of Montgomery, Alabama.
In March, I said in a weekly newspaper column: "If we are to remain in the United Nations, we should demand, first and foremost, that all member nations be allocated votes in direct relation to population and financial support. Secondly, only those members current with their dues should be allowed the privileges of the membership such as voting, participating in debate, etc. For the United States, paying the bills is virtually our only 'privilege'."
With this information in hand, let's get down to the crux of the morally and financially bankrupt institution known as the United Nations.
To say that I was "shocked," "dismayed,” or “disgusted" at Free China's expulsion from the U.N. would be an understatement. The result of the vote was shameful.
On the other hand, however, I can truthfully say that my good friend and former colleague in the House, Ambassador George Bush, fought for American principles with all of his energies. For his, as well as the other American representatives' actions, I have only one reaction--Pride! They fought against overwhelming odds, if I may, against a stacked deck.
Before the vote came, I wondered : “How much of its moral, legal, and fiscal integrity is the United Nations willing to sacrifice in order to admit Communist China to membership? Now we know....
It is not the admission of Red China that brought about the shocker. The Communist giant with its 800 million people give or take 50 million--could not indefinitely be denied a voice in world affairs. What bothers and disgusts me is the way the U.N, betrayed its ideals and broke its own rules to make the seating of Peking possible.
Throughout, Peking stubbornly refused to accept a seat as long as the Taiwan government of Chiang Kai-shek was a U.N. member claiming to represent all of China. Chiang insisted on his claim-so something had to give.
What gave were the ethics of the majority of nations in the world organization. Bowing to the stubbornness and potential power of Red China, and making no attempt to achieve a compromise, they gave the heave-ho to Chiang's Republic of China---a founding member of the C.N. which had always served the organization faithfully and well.
They resorted to this action by cynically overriding provisions of the U.N. Charter in a manner which not too many people appreciate.
Did you know that the General Assembly, under the U.N. Charter, can agree to admit a member only on recommendation of the Security Council? And that this rule was blatantly ignored because Taiwan, then a member of the Security Council, unquestionably would have vetoed the idea.
Did you know that, under the U.N. Charter, a member can be thrown out only if it has “persistently violated" the Charter principles-and that no such charges were even raised against Nationalist China ?
And did you know that, under Article 18 of the Charter, it is stated categorically that any expulsion automatically requires a two-thirds vote as an “important question"—that the United States therefore should never have had to battle for such a vote?
I didn't know and maybe you didn't-but the delegates did, and they ignored their own laws of operation as an instrument of presumed justice and world harmony. They did it cruelly, unethically, illegally, and with dancing in the aisles when the United States lost its showdown vote.
We lost the "important question” resolution by only four votes. What hurt was to find such nations as Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden denying the Republic of China membership. Those countries mentioned voted against us, as did most of the 12 member countries in Africa, which is where most of the emerging new nations are located. At least Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey had the decency to abstain on the "important question” resolution before switching sides on the substantive resolution after the game had been lost.
It is sickening to consider the fact that our loss was the result of a doublecross from those nations which had promised to help us in our support of Taiwan. Nations we have saved in wars, have protected and helped financially in peace, openly showed their delight in helping to slap us in the face when they doublecrossed us on the vote or spinelessly abstained from roting.
Altogether, 54 of the countries which participated in the voting are recipients of U.S. handouts. This may give us fresh insight into the old truism that Good Samaritans are rewarded only in Heaven, that never a good deed goes unpunished, or as Shakespeare has Polonius saying in Hamlet : “Neither a borrower, nor a lender be; for loan oft loses both itself and friend."
It seems that the delegates who voted against the United States resolution to make expulsion an "important question" took full leave of their propriety and sense of fairness. This double standard, unfortunately, permeates the organiza
tion. For the first time in its 26-year history, the United Nations voted to oust a nation, a nation which represents 14 million free people. Certainly, an extremely dangerous precedent has been set. A precedent which will, in my opinion, return to haunt the U.N. Lord Palmerston, who lived from 1784 to 1865, said it years ago: “England has no permanent friends. She has only permanent interests." History has a way of preserving the truth.
The "important question” vote, as well as the financial inequities placed on the United States by the U.N., is all too characteristic of U.N. policy. Therefore, I felt it necessary to introduce legislation which will limit U.S. contributions to the U.N. The United States of America has been more than generous in support of U.N, activities, even in the face of affronts to American principles. The United States is contributing more than $321 million to this year's activities—more than one-third of the entire U.N. budget. If they choose to pay at all, the remaining 130 member nations make up the balance.
Of the 59 United Nations members which voted to expel the Republic of China on the “important question,” 51, yes, fifty-one, have received U.S. foreign aid. They received $47,617,000,000. That's forty-seven billion, six-hundred-seventeen million dollars.
It is also interesting to note that the U.N. is $233 million behind in dues collection and other assessments from its members. The Soviet Union owes nearly $114.5 million, and the rest of the Communist bloc owes the U.N. another $31 million---meaning that the world Communist front owes nearly $150 million to the organization which just voted to accept another huge Communist country. Is it realistic to have one nation-the U.S.--paying a third of the costs of a body that supposedly represents all the nations of the world, and allots each member equal voting rights?
I believe this legislation will hit the U.N. with a reality it has overlooked. America is not going to be a patsy for this international body of Communist propaganda. In other words, we are giving notice to the United Nations that Uncle Sam is sick and tired of being “Uncle Sugar." If such a bill become law. the U.S. will, in the future, pay only its fair share of dues, bearing the same ratio to the total budget of the United Nations and its affiliated agencies as the total population of the United States bears to the total population of all the member states of the United Nations. In effect, this would lower U.S. contribution from its present 33 percent to an equitable 5.9 percent or a savings to the American taxpayer of more than 250 million dollars. There is no reason why we should contine to be intimidated by U.N. policy.
After all, one of the most basic flaws in the United Nations is its pompous misnomer, together with the phoney concept that its name implies.
There is no real unity in that glass-faced Tower of Babel on New York's East River because the Communist members have only on underlying aimthe ultimate domination of all free nations.
Communism is a kind of ruthless religion in which compromise of any sort isat most-only temporary. Since freedom means the right to take varying views, non-Communist nations are automatically incompatible.
So there is indeed an enormous, built-in advantage here for the forces which seek to destroy democracy. I don't know how, if ever, freedom and communism can bridge the chasm between them, but it won't be through the U.N. in our lifetime.
I have never had much, if any, confidence in the United Nations. My reaction initially—and I believe the reaction of most Alabamians-was: well, it would be our gain if the U.N. were to break away from the tip of Manhattan-slip into the East River-and sink. I also thought, perhaps facetiously, that we ought to pull out, lock, stock, and barrel, just pick up our checkbook and go home.
This was my emotional reaction. A rational reaction tells me that the U.N., despite its many shortcomings and abuses, still embodies an ideal of all mankind-the hope that somehow all the nations of the world may yet be able to get together in peaceful co-existence.
Right now, the ideal of a United Nations is far from realization, notably in the U.N. itself. Yet, the glass-faced edifice on the East River is still the tangible symbol that the hope persists—and it must be supported despite its flaws for that reason.
We cannot pull out of the U.N. To do so would be a small-minded and vindictive as the recent debacle at the U.N. We must continue to work for justice and harmony, however bitter the occasional fruits.
All the same, there is no reason why this country should have to continue paying its disproportionate share of the financial tab. A realignment must come-it is certainly long overdue.
What is overdue more than anything else is a change in the notion that the U.N.—either now or in the foreseeable future--can remotely become a true entity of nations.
It ought to be called something like the World Forum, which is all it basically is, anyway, and stripped of all its pretension to authority and punitive powers.
Every viable nation in the world, from Taiwan to Rhodesia, should automatically be entitled to membership and the right to air their gripes, troubles, and opinions.
Get rid of the idea that the U.N. has any kind of police authority.
Get rid of the structure which makes it an arena for power plays and doublecrosses.
Let the U.N. face up to the fact that its most useful function should be as an international steam valve-and nothing else.
What we would have then would be a whole lot better than what we've got now.
Finally, the nations—large and small—that perpetrated the melancholy affair will do well to ponder how their actions will alter the attitude of the United States, to which many of them are indebted for their mere existence.
For more than a quarter of a century, the United States has provided the strength, enlightenment, and treasure that has contained communistic imperialism. By great sacrifice, including the blood of her young manhood, the United States has made it possible for millions of people to choose their own way of life. No other nation in the world today can replace the United States' role, a fact which should bring sobriety to many a capital.
It is time we realize what other nations have known for centuries. We have no national friends--only national interests—and this fact should dictate where, how much and with whom we spend or give our money.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge this committee to report a bill to the House of Representatives which will limit our contributions to the United Nations.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, with the same placating attitude which allowed Russia three votes rather than one as they should have received at the time of the founding of the United Nations, the United States has continually condoned a formula for the U.N.'s assessment of member nations on the "ability to pay" principle which has caused this nation to be billed the lion's share of the cost of an organization which has 131 individual member nations. This formula for assessment should be changed, I believe, and replaced with the formula based on population as proposed in H.R. 11480 which I have co-sponsored.
Not only is it unhealthy for the U.N. to be so dependent on contributions of any one member nation, as it now is, but also such reliance on funds from the U.S. makes a mockery of the principle upon which the U.N. was foundedthat of the sovereign equality of all nations.
When the U.N. was just getting established, after World War II, there is no doubt that the U.S. was in a better position to pay a larger share of the budget than some of the other nations of the world which were then trying to recuperate from the enormous drain the war had imposed on their economies. But, today things have changed. Nations which were virtually bankrupt at the end of the war are among the most prosperous nations of the world now, yet the U.S. share of contributions to the U.N. has been decreased over the years to only 31.52 percent.
Personally, my opinion of the U.N. has been very low over the years based on the lack of that organization to be able to keep peace in the world. Although I realize some good has been performed by certain agencies of the U.N. and chances are more likely than not the U.S. will remain a member of that world body, there is no denying that the U.N. has not fulfilled even limited expectations of what its role should be in preserving the peace in this world. Something needs to be done soon to help that body become effective if the United States is