« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
going to remain a member. The bill H.R. 11480 and similar bills would contribute significantly to this effort and I respectfully urge you to report favorably on this legislation.
STATEMENT OF Hon. John E. HUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to present a statement for the record in support of H.R. 11480 and other bills whose purpose is to limit U.S. financial contributions to the United Nations. Specifically, H.R. 11480, of which I am a co-sponsor, would effect a reduction in U.S. contributions by a formula requiring that payments be made in the same proportion as the population of the U.S. bears to the total population of the member nations. Of course, the U.S. cannot impose this formula upon other member nations, but it is obvious that the large majority of the other nations, especially those that are in arrears, would have to increase their contributions to a more equitable level. The gross inequity of U.N. financing to date is borne out by the fact that from the inception of the C.V. in 1946 through 1970, the U.S. share of the total of $9.2 billion spent by the U.X. and related agencies has been $3.8 billion or 41 percent.
It is evident to me and, I believe, to the large majority of Americans everywhere, that the United Nations has deteriorated to the point of being little more than a forum for our adversaries to carry on a campaign of international propaganda and a base from which these nations have been able to pursue their intelligence activities from within our own borders, virtually immune from U.S. laws. On the latter point, I would note that less than two weeks ago, the head of the advance party for Peking's U.N. delegation, Kao Liang, was identified as a leading Chinese intelligence agent.
Despite the beating the U.S. took as the leader of the effort to keep Nationalist China in the U.N. while conceding admission to Red China, the President, Administration officials, and leaders of Congress vowed to abide by the decision of the U.N. majority while at the same time vigorously protesting the action. If these protests—based on the grounds that the precedent-setting expulsion motion by a simple majority vote could imperil the future stability of the U.N.-are to be something niore than empty rhetoric for face-saving public consumption, and if the U.N. is to become a truly effective international forum for settling rather than perpetuating conflicts, then something will have to be done to instill in the member nations the seriousness of the task and the responsibilities each must bear to justify confidence in its mission.
In my estimation, adoption of the legislation to limit U.S. financial contributions would serve two very useful and necessary purposes. First, it would serve notice to member nations that the rather casual attitude of certain nations which are now going along for the "free ride" is inconsistent with the mission of the U.N. under its Charter. Secondly, this contribution-limiting action would keep faith with the American people by demonstrating, for the first time, the serious intent of the Government to make the U.N. a more effective international peace-keeping organization. Without this action, which is perhaps the only leverage the U.S. has in this situation, the U.N. does not deserve the confidence and support of the American people nor is the continued participation of the U.S. justified. If it is felt that the U.N., as it presently exists, is the indispensable hope for world peace, one need only look around the world at the number of unresolved conflicts involving armed combat.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before this subcommittee can serve as a transition to a more effective peace-keeping forum as was intended. Failure to make such a move will surely result in a continuing decline of public confidence in the U.N. as well as a loss of respect for the U.S. It can certainly not be said to be in our national interest to continue to exercise paternalistic forbearance in the face of coalitions of nations manifesting allegiance to our ideological adversaries.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT PRICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this oppor. tunity to express my strong support for the bill H.R. 11344, to limit United States financial contributions to the United Nations.
To skip the superlatives and get straight down to the heart of the problem, the simple fact is that the United Nations during its twenty-five year history has been virtually powerless in its assigned role of maintaining world peace. Yes, we have heard the ringing rhetoric of praise by those who have lauded the United Nations for its role as a world debating forum and for its lofty commission as "mankind's last chance for peace.” But when an organization is completely debilitated and deprived of the means to discharge its awesome responsibilities, as was carefully and deliberately engineered by the Great Powers at the San Francisco Conference some twenty-five years ago, the exercises, machinations, and undulations that have since transpired within the halls of the UN are as Shakespeare said, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
We have often been chastized about the necessity of living up to our "commitment" to the United Nations, and yet over the years this Nation, which has footed over one-third of the total UN budget and has been a "model prisoner" in observing UN policies steeped hypocrisy and decisively injurious to our own national best interests, has for all its generosity bought very little peace and few friends via the United Nations.
By contrast, the U.S.S.R., which has never let the UN stand in the way of its program of world revolution and subversion, has effectively exercised its Security Council veto at least 105 times since 1946 (by contrast, the U.S. has used the veto once in the same period), has withheld payment of its assessed dues to further cripple the UN's operating capacity, and has flatly ignored UN policies which run counter to its self-interests.
In another instance, while the United States faithfully and foolishly obeys the UN sanctions program against the tiny and innocuous nation of Rhodesia, placing us in the ridiculous position of boycotting the purchase of strategic chromium ore from American-owned chromium mines there and instead forcing us to buy chrome from the anti-libertarian, dictatorial, and anti-American U.S.S.R., the only other available major world source, other pious UN members including the U.S.S.R., are reportedly carrying on a lucrative under-the-table trade with Rhodesia. Even the black African nation of Zambia, which has been most out-spoken in its denunciation of the “racist” Rhodesian government, is carrying on a brisk trade with her southern neighbor.
Our Nation has rather naively turned to the U.N. for the peaceful resolution of burning world issues, knowing fully well that organization's penchant for delving into the insignificant and ignoring the most pressing problems. In meas. uring our commitment to the U.N., I must ask how much support have we received from the world organization in our efforts to arrest bare-faced Communist aggression in Vietnam? It is not the United Nations, but "Uncle Sap" and a few trustworthy allies who have done the fighting, the sacrificing, and the dying to prevent another expansion of the Iron Curtain. Of course there are many these days who even deny there is a Communist threat, but then they speak smugly from their position of security behind the American umbrella of protection. But as President Nixon has said, if anyone doubts the existence of the “domino theory," he should simply talk with one of the dominoes.
The term "commitment" is basically synonymous with the term "responsibility." If the United States has a commitment or responsibility to the United Nations, the United Nations has a commitment or responsibility to protect and preserve world peace. But I ask, where was the United Nations when Russians tanks rolled down the streets of Budapest and more recently, Prague? Where was the United Nations when China invaded Tibet and more recently the border areas of India ? Where was the United Nations when the critical Arab-Israeli War broke out in 1967? And what was the U.N. reaction to terrorist attacks against Rhodesia
being fomented and launched from neighboring Zambia ? The reaction was about as logical as could be expected-Rhodesia was branded “a threat to world peace," and the United Nations lined up behind the forces of violence who pledged that the Zambezi River "should run red with the blood of the white
Of course, the list goes on and on, but I believe the point is made. The United Nations has, as Vice President Agnew recently pointed out, become little more than a soundboard for the left.
And while the U.N. has been effectively neutralized over the years by the recalcitrant attitude of the U.S.S.R., we must wonder what chance the U.N. has to be effective now that Red China has been added to the membership, including its seat on the vital Security Council? How can the United States maintain faith in the United Nations after it has expelled the Republic of China, a law-abiding charter member, and admitted in its place a brutal renegade government which has systematically liquidated over 17 million of its own people? Such an act by the U.N. membership can only indicate that the United Nations Charter, which limits membership to “peace-loving states," has become a complete mockery and that the U.N. has sunk into utter moral bankruptcy.
There are those who have argued, it is better to admit Red China to the U.N. because it is better to talk than to fight—but have we forgotten that the Japanese diplomats were politely talking with us in Washington, D.C. at the very time they were planning the treacherous attack on Pearl Harbor?
Furthermore, it has been said that as a member of the United Nations, Communist China would be more accountable to world opinion than as an outcast; but since when has U.N. membership ever deterred the Russians in the aggressive behavior toward Eastern Europe, the Mideast, Africa, or even the United States? Red China has already shown its complete disregard for world opinion when, following the action of Great Britain to extend diplomatic recognition, it confiscated British property without compensation, demanded millions of dollars in blackmail for exit visas for British subjects, and threw many into jail without trial. And since Red China has acquired UN membership without the necessity of making any prior concessions, what incentive is there now for the Chinese to change their conduct? In fact, on November 16 we got our first taste of things to come when Red China joined with 105 other UN members to criticize the Congress of the United States for ending our absurd boycott of Americanmined chromium ore from Rhodesia. Wrapping themselves in the robe of piety, the Red Chinese, who are no more interested in world peace than the proverbial man-in-the-moon joined in castigating the United States for violating our treaty obligations. What better case can there be for reducing the American commitment to an organization where we pay 40% of the costs and have less than 1% of the voting power? Even the U.S.S.R. has three votes to our one, and in this latest example of world hypocrisy, only two nations, South Africa and Portugal, defended the position of the United States on this issue affecting our national security.
Mr. Chairman, I feel one additional point needs to be stressed on behalf of reducin our financial commitment to the United Nations. I believe I speak for 99% of the American people in raising strong objection to giving any aid to the Communists, who have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of American servicemen in Korea and Vietnam, and whose aggression around the world has placed a heavy defense burden upon our taxpayers. And yet, Peking as a member of the United Nations, now joins the ranks with Cuba, Poland, Albania, and all of the other Communist dictatorships which are eligible for loans and grants of the U.N. specialized agencies, which as we know are subsidized in large part by American taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, if the United Nations serves any purpose to the United States at all, it is that of providing a forum for discussing world issues. To believe that it can or will do any more than that is at best a naive position and a miscalculation which this Nation can no longer afford. The American people are a generous people, as evidenced by our unprecedented foreign aid program since World War II; and they are a determined people, willing to sacrifice and meet their obligations to others. But the American people are not patient—they like many of us in the Congress are tired of all the unkept pie-in-the-sky schemes and plans for "world peace," and will no longer tolerate playing the role of "soft
touch” to the rest of the world. Let the Congress provide the necessary leadership to serve notice on the rest of the world that from here on the United States shall assume no more than its fair share of the burden of keeping international peace--for others the free ride is over.
Again, I express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for the privilege of speaking on behalf of this very popular and important piece of legislation.
STATEMENT OF Hox. JOHX R. RARICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF LOUISIANA Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, since the expulsion of the Republic of China and the admission to U.N. membership of the Communist Party in inainland China, correspondence has been heavy not only from the constituents but also from citizens in various parts of America urging that the Congress take action on the U.N. Some letters call for a deduction in our payments to the United Nations; a considerably larger number urge that we even get completely out of the United Nations and get the United Nations out of the United States.
In view of the grassroots Americans souring on the U.N. as offering any leadership for world peace, I appreciate and welcome this opportunity to offer a statement presenting a case for both limiting our contributions and for rescinding and revoking membership of the United States in the United Nations and the specialized agencies.
A CASE FOR LIMITING FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNITED NATIONS Consider that the United States is paying from one-third to 40% of the entire cost of the U.N. operations, yet we have one vote out of the 131 votes in the General Assembly and have never used our veto on the Security Council for fear it might offend some Communist country.
In comparison, the Russians who have three votes; i.e., including Ukraine and Byelorussia, pay but 16.5% and of this they are $82 million in arrears. Of the smaller countries, 54 pay less than 2% each of the U.N. budget and 67 other countries pay but 4/100 percent each. The following chart shows percentage contributions to the United Nations budget which U.N. member nations are expected to pay : Percentage contributions to the U.N. budget
Percent United States.
33. O C.S.S.R. (including Ukraine and Byelorussia.
16. 5 France
6. 0 United Kingdom.-
5. 9 Japan
4. O Italy
3. 1 54 countries (each less than)
2.0 67 countries (each)--
.04 Source: Washington Daily News, Oct. 23, 1971.
No informed person would ever consider the United Nations as being an example of equal rights when over one-half of the voting countries of the U.N. don't even contain as many people as we have in the U.S. with our one vote and direct payment of one-third of the operations.
The manifest illegality in the U.N. is obvious to any observer. It is wantonly misapportioned and could not pass the "one man, one vote” legal formula under which the Members of this House must comply.
The population of the United States is over 200 million, yet 70 member states, or well over one-half of the 127 votes in the U.X., do not have the total population of the United States of America, which has one vote and pays most of the bills. How undemocratic and ill-informed can our leaders be?
The President's bome State of California is more populous than 99 voting members of the U.X. Yet Californians are not represented by population for their State.
The District of Columbia, with a 1970 census count of 764,000 people, is larger in population than each of 14 voting members in the U.N. and the District of Columbia citizens talk about being a colony within our country that we of the United States are but a colony of the U.N.
In 1970, the census counted 668,700 American Indians, of which 468,700 live on reservations. Twelve voting members of the U.N. do not represent the population of American Indians who have no vote.
In the United States, there are estimated to be 20 million Negroes, who are constantly being told about the power of voting, yet have never been told that of the 41 votes the African Continent controls in the U.N. only four of the 41 represent people surpassing the American Negro population; that is, Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa, and United Arab Republic. Yet the American Negro has no U.N. vote except the U.S. vote for 205 million Americans.
The Jewish population in the United States exceeds 5.800,000 while the population of Israel is but 2.900,000. Yet Israel gets a vote, while America, who pays most of the bills, gets but one vote for 205 million people.
United Nations advocates who call for the "one-man, one-vote" principle to be applied in Southern Rhodesia, are silent with regard to the abuse of this same principle in the United Nations.
For example, of the member nations of the U.N., only India and the U.S.S.R. exceed the United States in population. Yet the United States has one vote, as do all the other nations, while Soviet Russia has three votes. The United States, which has approximately 2,000 times more people than Maldive Islands, has a vote in the General Assembly that can be canceled by the vote of the Maldive Islands.
The undemocratic voting apportionment in the United Nations is manifested by the following comparisons :
Asia, with about 10 times the population of the United States, has 2.6 to 1. Africa, whose total population is about twice that of the United States, has 41 otes to our one vote-à voting advantage of approximately to 1.
Europe, with a population about 2.5 times that of this country, has 21 U.N. votes, or a voting advantage of about 8 to 1.
South America, with a population approximately 10 percent less than that of the United States, has 13 votes to our one for a voting advantage of about 15 to 1.
It is incredible that this great Nation, whose taxpayers foot a larger share of the U.X. bill than any other country, allows its people to be discriminated against in such an unfair and undemocratic manner.
Here is a chart showing statistics on the continents and the United States. population in thousands to the nearest thousand, and numbers of U.N. votes
Here is another chart listing the member states of the U.N. and population in thousands to the nearest thousand :
Jembers of United Nations General Assembly
[Population in thousands)
17, 000 Austria
2, 200 Barbados
300 9, 700 4, 600