Изображения страниц

naught; and all Acts and parts of Acts designed and intended to perfect and carry out such membership of the United States in the United Nations are hereby repealed.

Sec. 2. That from and after the effective date of this Act all Acts and parts of Acts designed and intended to make the United States a member of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, or any of them, are hereby repealed; and all executive agreements, international undertakings and understandings, however characterized and named, designed, and intended to make the United States a member of the specialized agencies of the United Nations are hereby rescinded, revoked, and held for naught.

Sec. 3. That from and after the effective date of this Act any and all appropriations for defraying the cost of the membership of the United States in the United Nations or in specialized agencies thereof are hereby rescinded and revoked; and any unexpended and unencumbered balances of any such appropriations shall be coerced into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States.

SEC. 4. That the International Organizations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669; title 22, secs. 288 to 288f U.S.C.), be and it is repeated; and any and all Executive orders extending or granting immunities, benefits, and privileges under said Act of December 29, 1945, are hereby rescinded, revoked, and held for naught.

SEC. 5. This Act may be cited as the "International Organizations Rescission Act of 1969.



Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to submit a short statement in support of H.R. 11492, of which I am a cosponsor.

The United Nations has become a disappointment through its manifest inability to deal effectively with major threats to world peace, but I continue to believe that an international forum of this kind is useful—and we can persist in the hope that it still might become a major force for stability and cooperative effort, in a world which exists under the cloud of nuclear arms competition.

Many of our citizen-taxpayers have come to resent, however, that they are called on to pay what they regard as an excessive share of the costs of an organization which, in recent years, has seemed to have become a center of anti-American expressions and actions.

Even if we discount the understandable emotional overtones of domestic criticism of the United Nations, there remains the fact that the relative abilities of member states to pay for support of the organization have changed markedly since the founding in 1945. Major nations then devastated by World War II now are economically strong, and well able to contribute more.

Looking to the United States to “make up the difference” when other nations of adequate means do not pay their assessments, no longer is justified. It is an accommodation which has become, I believe, increasingly unacceptable to the American taxpayer.

I want to emphasize that I am not rigid in my sponsorship of a new dues and assessment formula based on relative populations, but I do believe population is a reasonable basis for arriving at a new definition of "fair share" in regard to our support of the United Nations and the support to be provided by other nations, large and small.


(Speech by the Honorable John P. Saylor at United Nation's Day Dinner, St.

Tobias Club, Brockway, Pennsylvania, October 24, 1971) Acknowledgments.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am cautious, curious, and frankly surprised that I would be invited to address anyone on the subject of the United Nations.

My record of opposition to the U.N. spans two decades.
I have not been particularly circumspect about my criticism.

You are gathered here today to do honor to what has been called "the last great hope of mankind.” You are convened to pay homage to-as I have heard it—the reason we have not been involved in World War III.

If you sincerely believe that the United Nations is the last great hope of mankind; that it is the only reason we have escaped a nuclear holocaust; both because of the existence of the organization—then I must warn you now, you may not like the tenor of my following remarks.

I will make my position clear with two statements :

First-to categorize the U.N. as the last great hope of mankind is to give up hope on mankind. If the U.N. is the best that mankind can do in terms of keeping the peace, then certainly, based on historical fact, there is no hope.

Second-the only reason we have not faced World War III, the nuclear holocaust war, is simply that the United States has been too strong-militarily, morally, and economically--for any potential aggressor to chance the certain destruction of itself along with the rest of the world.

If that sounds a bit nationalistic or a bit on the flag-waving side, then so be it. Upon these points I feel justified in launching a critique of the United Nations.

Twenty-six years of existence as an organization has convinced many to believe the U.N. is effective. Far too many of these fervent believers have failed to examine the reality of the organization.

The fervent believers have concentrated on the dream. The dream of what they want the U.N. to be, rather than on what it is.

History is unkind to the dreamer. History records what happened to the people of an era, not what the people wished to happen.

For those who dream of a secure world through the U.N., the organization has become a sacred cow. Some token criticism of the U.N. is always advanced by these partisans, and then dismissed as reflecting the faults of the nation-state system within which the U.N. must operate.

Those who dream of a fairytale world where sophisticated diplomats calmly and rationally solve world problems, fail to see the flaws in the idea based on the objectives of some of the participants in the real world.

Like it or not, the United Nations is influenced by the will of international communism. The Soviet Union has demonstrated its narrow-minded self-interests time and time again in the Security Council. There is no reason to expect the Red Chinese to act otherwise should they gain a foothold in the organization after the current debate.

Because of the preponderant communist interests in the United Nations, the world organization has been unable to act effectively in confrontations between the free world and communist bloc countries.

In Korea, for example, the U.N. was only able to intervene because the Russians walked out of the Security Council. But even then, the United Nations was not able to conclude the dispute.

In fact, no single dispute has been resolved by the United Nations with finality. The list includes Suez, Korea, Laos, Tibet, and Cyprus.

There are those who say the answer to this criticism is to give the U.N. teeth. Give it the military might necessary to back up its positions.

The lack of military backbone is admittedly the major reason for the impotence of the organization. It could not enforce a decision even if it were capable of reaching a coherent one. Authority to prevent war requires means of coercioneconomic, military, and moral. Stripped of military force and the power to impose economic sanctions and boycotts, the U.N. stands naked and impotent-notwithstanding the current boycott on Rhodesian goods. The only reason that boycott works is because of the wrongheaded action of the United States.

If the United Nations had military strength it could back-up its now empty pleas. But let me quote the best source on this subject-Secretary-General U Thant:

"There are a number of reasons why it seems to me that the establishment of a permanent United Nations force would be premature at the present time. I doubt whether many governments in the world would yet be prepared to accept the political implications of such an institution, and in the light of our current experience with financial problems, I am sure that they would have very serious difficulties in accepting the financial implications.”

The Secretary-General lays it on the line-the idea of a militarily effective U.N. force remains another impossible dream.

Despite the outward appearance and the hoopla in the press, no worldwide decisions are made in that great glass monolith at Turtle Bay. That edifice, mind you, which was donated by Americans and financed by the American taxpayer.

The appearance of legitimacy is a very thin veneer. Just about the only substantive decisions the U.N. can make involve decisions as to where to send health

teams. And, just for the record, the World Health Organization is an outgrowth of many years prior to 1945, of international understanding and treaty cooperation. The U.N. did not create world agreements on health matters.

Beyond sending health inspection teams, the diplomatic receptions and cocktail parties serve not the masses of desperate underprivileged, but the pleasures of an elite.

Yes, an elite force of strident voices from Nations with no more creditability than those make-believe nations founded at universities across our country to participate in Model United Nations activities.

The United Nations can be criticized heavily for contributing to the zeal of nationalization rather than hastening its decline as its founders dreamed.

New nations whose borders were determined more or less accidentally in the wake of colonialism are striving to present an image greater than that warranted by their achievements.

Some of these new Member States, most of thein small ones in Africa, only recently emerged from colonial status and have no riable basis for an independent and prosperous economic existence.

The one-man, one-vote concept cherished by the U.N. certainly finds little practice in that body. Representation in the U.N. has no egalitarian justification whatsoever; small states rank with large ones.

And lest you forget--remember that the United Nations would never have come into existence if the United States had not allowed the U.S.S.R. extra voting power in the original General Assembly by allowing Byelorussia and the Ukraine to have separate representation. By all rights, we should have extra votes for Texas and California.

Of the 130 Member Nations, 72 have populations smaller than New York City, yet each is treated as a sovereign equal in the General Assembly.

I do not quarrel with the concept of two different bases for representation such as the House and Senate of the United States Congress. But where, I ask you, is the counter-weight to the General Assembly? Surely, it is not democratic or republican to have five nations as the counter-weight.

The smallest of the U.N. Members is the Maldive Islands, a former British Colony in the Indian Ocean, with a total population of less than 100,000. There are now 130 Members of the U.N. and at least 60 new "nations" will be seeking membership in the future.

As you know, membership is open to all peace-loving states that accept the obligations of membership and are able and willing to carry out these obligations. However, most of these states have little if any experience in international affairs, lacking in number sufficiently educated leaders required to build nations with responsibilities as U.N. members. Yet here they are, with pomp and ceremony, draining their small economic resources, putting on a huge show of respectability in the meeting rooms of New York.

These “mini-states" control a majority of the votes by combining as the AfroAsian Bloc. Together these states form voting alliances that impede effective action by following only regional interests.

And more and more, the reason for bloc voting is not on any great principle of morality, or peace or war, but rather, who is to foot the bill for this or that project of economic upgrading back home.

And you know who ends up footing the bill!

The major reason for the failure of the United Nations is the attitude of the communist countries toward the organization and the altruistic and noble ideas which founded it.

The record clearly shows us that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in making the V.X. effective in peacekeeping, unless U.S.S.R. interests are served first. Here are a few instances of non-cooperation and direct flaunting of the United Nations Charter by the Soviets:

1. Invasion of Hungary in 1948 and complete oblivion to General Assembly resolutions deploring the attack,

2. Division of Berlin and continuing refusal to permit the U.N. to consider the issue as one affecting the peace of the entire world.

3. Military aid to North Korea, in spite of the United Nations-sponsored defense of South Korea.

4. Interference in the Congo to foment internal strife even while the United Vations was attempting peacekeeping actions.

5. Repeated attempts to immobilize the U.N. Secretariat hy calling for the appointment of a “troika" administration.

[ocr errors]

6. Constant use of the veto in the Security Council to stop meaningful peacekeeping activities, even when approved of by a majority of the General Assembly.

7. Refusal to pay their share of United Nations dues for peacekeeping.

A good example of the U.S.S.R.'s duplicity in this last issue occurred after the June 1967 war between the Arabs and Israel. Having bet on a loser in that conflict, a bet which cost many lives and displaced a million refugees, the Russians turned the tables and asked for peacekeeping funds despite their refusal for 15 years to pay a fair share of the cost of the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the Gaza trip.

Thus, the Soviet Union uses the U.N, as an instrument of its foreign policy, utilizing or ignoring the U.N. depending on whether or not it can serve the communist interests. The Soviets continually block effective U.N. action by use of the veto and use the Security Council merely as a lauching pad for tirades against the Free World.

To summarize--the U.N. lacks objectivity, balance and maturity. Its decisions are politically motivated and sometimes distorted by evasion, improvisation and a double standard of morality.

Because the U.N. cannot act without Great Power unanimity, the organization becomes helpless in any major crisis. The U.N. is unable to insist that all Members share costs of its maintenance and to end quarrels within it. The U.N. is chronically in debt and, consequently, limited in its capacity for action.

The U.N. remains a dream. A dream we helped to foster, to support, to finance, and we work within its rules. But a dream is a dream. I suggest that in a world full of threats and dangers to peace, a wide-awake view of world politics is advisable.

The threat to the peace of the world is not a dream. The wide-awake American foreign policy is to remain militarily and economically strong.

The fate of the United Nations organization is based on one simple premisethe United States is strong. Without that strength, there would be no United Nations for the dreamers.

Thank you.



Mail from my constituents demands that some change be made in our relationship with the United Nations. Frankly, a majority of the mail demands our immediate expulsion of this organization from this country. It would be a mistake for us here in the ethereal smog of Washington to overlook the sincerity of Western thinking in its opposition to the expulsion of a legitimate member of the United Nations. The United Nations has failed miserably in every criteria set forth by its founders. It has not kept the peace: it has, in fact, fomented bloodshed in the name of political pressure groups within its membership. The question is not one of whether or not changes need be made-but rather one of how much change should be made. Shall we accept truth that it is a failure abandon it and begin again with a new forum? Or shall we adjust our membership to a more meainingful role and work for change within the present set up?

The people of this country, my constituents and yours, have paid over 35% of the expenses required to keep this exercise in futility afloat. Let us today serve the people of this country, and put the people of the world on notice that they must bear equal share. America should pull its fair share-no more; our contribution must not exceed what the citizens of any other country must sacrifice.


Washington, D.C., December 13, 1971, Hon. DONALD M. FRASER, Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Foreign

Affairs Committee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FRASER: This is to request that the views of the Citizens Committee for UNICEF on the subject of determining an appropriate level of United States contributions to the United Nations Children's Fund be included in the record of Hearings before your Subcommittee.

The organizations comprising the Citizens Committee for UNICEF have a long history of opposition to the philosophy of a restrictive formula for voluntary giving. From 1954 when the decision for such a limitation was acted upon, our cooperating organizations have been on record in opposition to a rigid limiting formula. (It should be pointed out here that we take no position in regard to the financial support for the United Nations itself and other UN agencies because the mandate from our cooperating organizations applies only to support for UNICEF.)

To cite a few examples :

On June 22, 1954, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations our testimony states:

"We hope that the Congress will authorize and appropriate the full $13 million, and will not restrict the contribution by the application of a rigid matching formula. ..."

Again, on March 14, 1958, before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs we urged that every penny of the amount requested by the Executive Branch be contributed to UNICEF without restriction.

we oppose the imposition of a further reduction this year in the matching formula. ..."

And later in the same testimony,

"We earnestly request, therefore, that the Members of this Committee express to the State Department their recommendation that no further reduction in the percentage formula for the United States contribution be required in 1959."

On the basis of this consistent position we must, therefore, oppose the proposals for a formula based on population as offered in several bills now before this Subcommittee. We also oppose an arbitrary limitation of the U.S. contribution to UNICEF to 25%. We were pleased with the view expressed by Mr. Samuel De Palma, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, in his statement before this Subcommittee on December 2, 1971, when he observed : "Insofar as voluntary contributions are concerned, we now contribute at varying rates—depending on our interest in the program. ..." A decision to determine the contribution to each organization individually makes great sense.

Our organizations stress again that each contributing government uld support the Children's Fund to the best of its ability irrespective of any so-called matching percentage. Although the fact is that UNICEF's resources have increased during the past 16 years as more countries have begun to share in its support, we do not believe that a strong case can be made that this increase in financial resources is necessarily due to the existence of a matching formula. We consider the growth of support for UNICEF to be a consequence of the merits of the program and the increasing value the developing countries place on the importance of providing adequately for their children.

In short, the very idea of an arbitrary percentage restriction on what is intended to be a voluntary gift is distasteful and unworthy of the best instincts of the American people. Moreover, a contribution is not altogether voluntary if it is not free from constraints such as a limitation to an assessment or other fixed rate. If there were flexibility to determine the amount of the contribution in relation to the level of the needs of children which UNICEF can reasonably plan to assist with efficiency, that would be a more suitable yardstick for "voluntars" support. We urge this Subcommittee not to support a percentage formula for voluntary gifts to UNICEF

It should be realized that the input of funds by governments which UNICEF assists is many times greater than the amount of UNICEF aid itself. In considering the share which the United States Government contribution forms of total resources involved in the process of rendering aid, the financial investment by the assisted governments in the social and humanitarian development of their countries must not be overlooked. Lest any Member of Congress be concerned about the level of the United States contribution on a percentage basis, as long as there exists the general assurance that UNICEF continues to operate on the premise that assisted governments carry the major responsibility for providing the bulk of required funds, the U.S. contribution will remain a worthwhile and proportionately modest investment. Sincerely,

(Mrs.) VIRGINIA M. GRAY, Executive Secretary.


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »