Mrs. CHURCH. May I ask a legal question in connection with this? If the amendment in the Senate bill is included in the House bill, and passed by the House-namely that the United States shall deduct its share before it pays its new assessment-is that a definite hazard against the United States paying its full assessment in the future? Suppose you find yourself in a situation where, once again, the United States is the only country which is willing to rush in to the rescue? What would happen if this provision is operative?

Mr. STEVENSON. My colleagues tell me that they would interpret the Senate bill as making it mandatory that there be a setoff, that the amount the U.N. owes us would be set off against the amount we owe them.

Mrs. CHURCH. Under no circumstances

Chairman MORGAN. The lady's time has expired.

Mr. STEVENSON. This is the peacekeeping budget-

Mrs. CHURCH. Dr. Judd stole a minute, and I want to steal one. I believe one of the high moments in United Nations history occurred at that December midnight when you spoke in protest against the Soviet veto of the Goa resolution. I would like the record to show that.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Hays.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Ambassador, I am sure you are aware that the United States does not recognize the right of the World Court to litigate about any matter concerning us unless we give our consent. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes.

Mr. HAYS. So you are going to take the Soviet Union into a court that we refuse by law to recognize and get an advisory opinion against them and then make them pay up. Do you think that is a very practical way to do it?

Mr. STEVENSON. I am afraid that is the only means available to us. This is an advisory opinion, you understand.

Mr. HAYS. It is a pretty weak reed to lean on?

Mr. STEVENSON. I don't see anything the matter with that. That is an advisory opinion of the Court.

Mr. HAYS. You are going to take them into a court that we don't recognize and get a decision against them. Won't they say, "You don't recognize the decision; why should we?" This decision, opinion, or call it whatever you may.

Mr. STEVENSON. Let me just say a word about that. A proceeding in the Court is a request for an advisory opinion, an interpretation of the charter, Mr. Congressman. It is not an adversary proceeding between opposing litigants. It is purely advisory. While I might differ from you or others as to the Connally amendment, and its wisdom, we recognize that it exists, but it has nothing to do with an advisory proceeding.

Mr. HAYS. I don't happen to be for the Connally amendment but it is there. I am sure the Soviet Union will use it for what it is worth. There are several questions I could ask. I would like to throw this

one out

Mr. STEVENSON. The Connally amendment doesn't say we don't recognize the jurisdiction of the Court. It says we reserve the right to determine whether a question is within our domestic jurisdiction.

86138-623

Mr. HAYS. Let's don't split hairs. It amounts to the same thing. We reserve the right to say whether we will pay any attention to the World Court. It comes out to about the same thing.

Mr. STEVENSON. In this case we are saying we will.

Mr. HAYS. Another thing that bothers me is that in NATO we pay 24.2 percent of the cost. There are 15 nations involved. There are 104 nations in the United Nations, and our regular assessment is 32 percent. Actually, we are paying 47 percent. Don't you think we are being taken a little bit there?

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes. I wish we didn't have to pay anything. We are paying 47 percent, and have been historically for peacekeeping operations.

For the regular budget it is only 32 percent.

Mr. HAYS. The regular budget I think is way too high. If a fair share of NATO is 24.2 percent with 15 nations, those same 15 nations are in the U.N., plus 89 others. Yet we are paying more money.

Mr. STEVENSON. I don't know the basis of the assessment in NATO. I point out that the situations are hardly comparable. The NATO exists for the defense of those very countries. They should make this contribution. I would have thought if anything they should make a greater contribution to their defense.

Mr. HAYS. Presumably the U.N. exists for the same thing. You said in your statement

Mr. STEVENSON. Not military.

Mr. HAYS. To protect and preserve their freedom, many of these countries.

Mr. STEVENSON. Not for their

Mr. GALLAGHER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HAYS. Not at the moment.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I might be able to answer the question.

Mr. HAYS. We are engaged in a military operation in the U.N., aren't we? We are financing one in the Congo.

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes.

Mr. HAYS. If we weren't pouring the money in it wouldn't be there. Mr. STEVENSON. Yes.

Mr. HAYS. There are a lot of people in the Congress who don't know who are not convinced and who don't think maybe we are supporting the right side.

Mr. STEVENSON. I understand that.

Mr. HAYS. I happen to be one of them. I said I think this Adoula is a lemon and I will say it again. I think we are going to wind up in a pretty sad state of affairs. I am not from Mississippi, or any other Southern State. I have voted for every single civil rights piece of legislation since I have been in Congress. But, Mr. Ambassador, when the American people find out that we are paying for Ghurkas and Moroccans to murder white missionaries, I don't think they are going to like it much, and they are finding this out.

Mr. STEVENSON. You must have facts that I don't have. Mr. HAYS. I have talked to some of these people who were there in Katanga. It has disturbed Mrs. Bolton. It has disturbed a lot of people. The photographs, the facts, the testimony is irrefutable. That is what is causing your trouble here. A lot of us are pretty concerned about this whole Congo operation. Mr. STEVENSON. I understand that.

Mr. HAYS. We didn't go to war when Upper Volta and the rest of that federation split up. Are we going to war because RuandaUrundi wants to split up? Are we going to send troops in there when that civil war breaks out? Mr. STEVENSON. We haven't sent any troops, I remind you, to the Congo. There is not an American life that has been lost in the Congo or the Middle East since the United Nations operations began. Mr. HAYS. We are hiring mercenaries who are not very well disciplined.

Mr. STEVENSON. They are not mercenaries. They are other members they are armed forces of other sovereign states, just as sovereign as we are.

Mr. HAYS. That is a debatable question, too. Many of these states are on the foreign aid dole and they wouldn't exist if we weren't supporting them. They call themselves sovereign states. I suppose the Congo calls itself a sovereign state but it is a little debatable about how sovereign they are. These are pretty fundamental things.

Mr. Ambassador, I am back in touch with the people in Ohio every day, and they are concerned about this, and they are disturbed about it, and they are going to do something about it.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Mailliard.

Mr. MAILLIARD. I will pass, Mr. Chairman, to answer my name on the pending rollcall in the House.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Pilcher.

Mr. PILCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, should we have an adverse decision in the World Court, and then these countries that have refused to pay their assessment continue to refuse to pay them on the grounds that this would mean money to pay back this loan, then where would we go? What would be our position?

Mr. STEVENSON. If I understood you correctly, the answer is that the loan doesn't in any way depend on the decision of the World Court. I think this has gotten confused.

Mr. PILCHER. I mean if these countries refuse to pay their dues right now on the ground that much of this money that they use would go to help pay off these loans, on that matter they refuse to make payment.

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes; I suppose they would be defaulting under their ordinary budget and get penalties therefor.

Mr. PILCHER. Article 19-you understand that better than I dostates if they are in arrears for 2 years. But a part of the article gives them a loophole when it says that the General Assembly may permit a member to vote if they refuse to pay because of a condition beyond the control of the member. It doesn't mean if they don't pay in 2 years they don't have a vote. It is left to the discretion of

the General Assembly.

I just want to know what you think. I know you can't say what the United Nations will do. I have a lot of confidence in you. What would be your position, say, if we had an adverse opinion in the World Court, and then these countries refused right on to pay their dues in the United Nations? What would you recommend?

Mr. STEVENSON. I think we would have to examine it case by case. I don't think you can lay down any broad generality. There would be some cases where the payment might be

Mr. PILCHER. I didn't want to call names. I will say Russia and the satellites.

Mr. STEVENSON. I think Russia would be just as liable as anyone else for payment and as able to pay as anyone else. Other countries where we know their budgets are

Mr. PILCHER. We will forget about the little countries. Say Russia and her satellites refuse to pay right on. What would be our position or what would be your position?

Mr. STEVENSON. I think they would lose their vote after 2 years if they were in default automatically. So that the judgment of any one country would make no difference whatever.

Mr. PILCHER. You think the Assembly would back that up?
Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, I think so.

Mr. PILCHER. That is all.

Mr. HAYS (presiding). Mr. Fountain.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ambassador, it is good to have you with us. Many of the questions I have in mind have already been asked. I want to ask one or two questions concerning this advisory opinion.

As I understand it, if the advisory opinion is favorable, it will still require a two-thirds vote to prevent a country from voting if it remains in arrears; is that not true?

Mr. STEVENSON. No, sir. Our interpretation-our assumption is that while the General Assembly may have to pass resolutions on details as to timing and method and one thing or another, that countries would automatically lose their vote after arrearages had amounted to the unpaid assessments for 2 years.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. I was looking at article 18, paragraph 2, which says that

decisions in the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by twothirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include

and it says

the suspensions of the rights and privileges of membership.

Would that not include the right of voting?

Mr. STEVENSON. I don't think so, sir. If you look at article 19 it says that a member who is in arrears in the payments of its financial contributions to the organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears exceeds the amount of contributions for the previous 2 years.

Mr. FOUNTAIN. This is along the line of the question that was asked by Mr. Pilcher. Suppose the Soviet bloc continues to refuse to pay and suppose they lose their votes, will that mean the end of the United Nations?

Mr. STEVENSON. The United Nations would not be the same if any major state like the Soviet Union were to drop out for whatever reason. I don't think merely losing its vote until it corrects its arrearages is tantamount to withdrawing. I suppose you are speaking of withdrawing from the United Nations, not merely nonpayment of dues. Then you don't have a United Nations in the sense of a universal organization. It is ironic, however, that a good many people in this country would like the United Nations a lot better if the Soviet Union was out of it.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Ambassador, I am sure that some of the members would like to come back. They were called for a quorum call. I the have an unusual opportunity here since I am the only member present. I don't like to impose on you. We might wait a couple of minutes and see if somebody does come back.

ོ

Perhaps we might pursue this question of the amendment a little. further. I am curious to know what would be our attitude, if, saying we get this advisory opinion, and the Soviet Union says, "We don't recognize the right of the World Court to act on this subject." What do you do then?

Mr. STEVENSON. It is difficult for me to answer some of these questions because I just don't know.

Mr. HAYS. Imagine how much more difficult it is for me, as I am not a lawyer.

Mr. STEVENSON. If they say they don't recognize the decision of the World Court and continue in arrears, it would be for the General Assembly to determine whether or not, under article 19, they had lost their vote, regardless of whether they say they approve or don't approve of the opinion of the Court.

Mr. HAYS. Then we would be confronted with the situation, in essence, of the General Assembly voting on whether or not to deprive the Soviet Union of a vote. You don't realistically think that we

could muster a majority for that?

Mr. STEVENSON. I wouldn't have any doubt about it personally. Mr. HAYS. I would have a good deal of doubt. You are up there and I am not.

Mr. STEVENSON. I think most of these people want to keep this organization alive. They want to keep it healthy, want to keep it responsible, want to keep it adequately financed and effective.

If any step of this kind were to be taken, which would be tantamount to destruction of the very means of its existence, I think there would be a very general protest.

HE WAS

Mr. HAYS. I am glad to get that on the record and I hope you are right. We may have to wait for a while to see. I hope if we come to that, you are right. Mr. Murphy. WRONG Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy to have you here today, Governor. Mr. Ambassador, you are going to have another crisis arise in the very near future. You touched upon it in reference to Rhodesia and the trust territories. I am very fearful of what is going to come about when the two kingdoms of Ruanda and Urundi receive their independence.

It is my understanding that they became trust territories following the creation of the United Nations and were administered by Belgium. They were mandated territories under the League of Nations of the former German Southeast Africa colony. I understand the former German Southeast African colony-namely, Tanganyika-became a trust territory under the administration of the British. These two particular kingdoms have a problem, a tribal problem. They clashed about 2 or 3 years ago, and the Batutsi, which is the stronger tribe but lesser in numbers, had formerly enslaved the other tribe, the Bahutus. And I now understand that the Bahutus now control Rwanda. They have deposed the king of that particular kingdom. I am wondering what is going to happen when the Belgians withdraw their forces.