PURCHASE OF UNITED NATIONS BONDS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1962

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:35 a.m., in room 4221,
New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman, presiding.
Present: Senators Sparkman, Humphrey, Morse, Gore, Lausche,
Church, Hickenlooper, Aiken, Carlson, and Williams.

Also present: Senator Clark, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Philip M. Klutznick, U.S. Representative to United Nations; Mr. Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let the committee come to order, please.

This morning we have Ambassador Adlai Stevenson to testify before us on S. 2768, a bill to promote the foreign policy of the United States by authorizing the purchase of United Nations bonds and the appropriation of funds therefor.

Mr. Ambassador, we are delighted to have you with us.

We have a copy of your prepared text. You proceed as you wish. STATEMENT OF HON. ADLAI E. STEVENSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the occasion for these hearings is the President's request for a U.S. subscription to the United Nations bond issue. This raises a number of questions of fact and of policy. Underlying these financial questions is the more basic question of the purposes which these expenditures are intended to serve, and the effectiveness of the United Nations in promoting those purposes.

It's been a year since I appeared before you and there are some general observations I would like to make with your indulgence.

As a result of my experiences at the United Nations during this past year, I think it hardly needs saying that if the continuation of the United Nations is contrary to the true interests of the United States, $1 would be too much for us to spend on it. On the other hand, a vigorous and effective United Nations is an important ingredient in the prescription for peace and security, and, therefore, the freedom of the American people. If the United Nations, even in its present imperfect form, were ever subtracted from the arsenal of our diplomacy, I think many times its cost in dollars would then have to be added to our defense arsenal. Nor do I care to contemplate the possible loss of life in avoidable conflict.

So I support the purchase of United Nations bonds which the President has recommended. The financial situation of the United Nations convinces me that prompt steps are necessary to assure the financial soundness and continued vigor of the organization. I believe this bond issue, proposed by Secretary General U Thant and approved by the General Assembly, is the best means yet proposed for this purpose; and that the share of the bonds which the United States proposes to buy is realistic.

If members of the committee wish to direct questions about the financial details at the conclusion of this statement, I will do my best to answer them. But Ambassador Klutznick from the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, who has followed this matter closely for the United States from the outset and who has negotiated very ably in our behalf, will be available to the committee to discuss the bond issue in all its aspects. I understand he will be accompanied by Assistant Secretary Harlan Cleveland who is also well informed on the financial details.

I shall confine myself to one observation on the matter of cost. Comparing the amount which we are asked to lend the United Nations with its value to this country, I believe that even if we had to give the $100 million, instead of lending it, in order to help keep the organization alive and vigorous, it would be worth the cost many times over, for $100 million is an investment of only about one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget in the peacekeeping capacity of the United Nations. It costs a lot of money to fight a war. It costs some money at least to avert it, and I am sure that you have often heard that on a per capita basis each American spent only $1.06 on the United Nations in 1961 contrasted with about $300 on defense.

With that preliminary I would like to supplement the able statement of the Secretary of State yesterday with some views of my own as to the value of the United Nations to the United States. For that, after all, is the underlying position.

HISTORY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

We are all aware of the part which the Senate played in the creation of the United Nations, going back to the Fulbright resolution and the Connally resolution in the fall of 1943. At the Charter Conference at San Francisco in 1945, I was privileged to be present as an adviser to the Secretary of State, and I remember vividly the important work of Senator Connally and Senator Vandenberg and of Congressman Bloom and Dr. Eaton as members of our U.S. delegation and also in their activity in the ratification debate the following

summer.

Later I served as Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the Preparatory Commission in London, which for 6 months worked out the detailed structure and procedures of the Organization, following the San Francisco Conference. Then in 1946 and 1947 it was my privilege to be a delegate to the first two sessions of the General Assembly. After that I thought politics would be less of a strain and now after a year back at the United Nations I still think so.

In 1946 I should say I sat behind as alternate to Senator Vandenberg in Committee No. 5 which set up the basic scale of assessments, and which has been followed ever since with some considerable reductions for the United States.

In 1948 came the second great Senate debate on the United Nations. This produced the Vandenberg resolution, reaffirming our country's support of the United Nations and setting forth several policy objectives to advance the United Nations purposes.

The question then was whether the United Nations could be effective without great power agreement. At least 2 dozen Soviet vetoes in the Security Council had caused great dismay about the United Nations. Some thought those vetoes would end its usefulness. It was widely suggested that we should shift to other means, such as military aid and regional arrangements, to gain the ends of peace and freedom for which we had originally looked so hopefully to the United Nations.

The great wisdom in my judgment of the Vandenberg resolutionSenate Resolution 239, 80th Congress-flowed from the realization of its authors that these different courses of action were not alternatives; that we did not have to choose between them. In fact it was equally vital to pursue them all. So the resolution helped to lay the basis not only for NATO and other regional arrangementswhich as Senator Vandenberg said were "within the charter but outside the veto"-but also for renewed efforts to make the United Nations Organization itself a more effective instrument of its declared purposes.

UNITED NATIONS AS SYMBOL OF COMMON BASIC AIMS OF ITS MEMBERS

In this historical framework the United Nations in terms of our foreign policy, is, to begin with, a standard—a statement of the basic aims which the United States holds in common with most of the nations of the world-however much we may differ with some of these nations on other questions.

Not only our actions in the United Nations, but all our actions on the world stage, must be aimed at the fulfillment of those basic charter aims or must at all events be consistent with them.

Secondly, the United Nations is itself one means for carrying those aims into effect. It is not the sole means. Indeed, the Charter itself is full of references to others. Article 33 calls for bilateral negotiation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and so forth, as the first obligations of nations involved in a dispute.

Article 51 safeguards the inherent right of nations to individual and collective self-defense. Articles 52 to 54 deal with regional arrangements. Similarly the articles dealing with economic and social matters, and with the administration of non-self-governing territories, constitute among other things pledges by the members themselves, simply as individual signatories of the charter, to follow certain standards of conduct and to promote certain aims.

But the United Nations organization is the instrument specifically created to work full time for the achievement of the Charter's purposes. The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the Secretariat, and the

79694-62-5

International Court of Justice these six basic organs and their various subsidiary bodies are designed for those purposes and no other. Whatever the imperfections which this United Nations organization displays, the light of the Charter usually shines a little brighter upon its proceedings than it does upon many of the actions in the world outside.

Furthermore, the veto problem which concerned the authors of the Vandenberg resolution has been overcome to a degree that was barely visible 14 years ago.

The world doesn't stand still. There have been very many events of importance since the United Nations was founded, which were not then clearly foreseen. It is, therefore, fair to ask whether the United Nations is able to cope with the new forces which we find in the world, and whether it can do so in a manner consistent with the purposes of the United States.

My belief is that the United Nations is an asset of incalculable value in coping with those new forces. It is doing so, and gives promise of continuing to do so, in a way which is manifestly consonant with the fundamental interests of the United States. This does not blind one to imperfections and mistakes which are inevitable in so complex an enterprise.

MAIN FORCES SHAPING WORLD EVENTS

Let me recall briefly, then, some of the main forces which have been shaping world events in the past 10 years, and which provide the environment in which the United Nations has functioned. And let us see how the U.N. has responded.

Of all the new developments of the past decade, the one which has exerted the greatest impact on the United Nations has been the independence movement. It has added greatly to the membership. It has affected the agenda and the decisions of the organization. To appraise it properly it is best to consider first the other major forces with which the independence movement has interacted.

First I would place the continued strength and influence of the United States. We have remained not only a great military and economic power but also, more fundamentally, a nation committed to certain universal moral ideals. What is still more important is our enduring determination to work toward an ever greater realization of those ideals, both at home and abroad. This is surely the deepest source of our national strength. If the United States had ceased to exert its share of moral and ethical leadership during the past decade, the world today would be a very tragic place.

In all the work of the United Nations the United States continues to carry its portion of responsibility. We do not control the United Nations. We never have. We have never aspired to. The very idea of one-power control would defeat the purpose of the organization.

But our position in the United Nations is preeminent. We are the host country to its headquarters. In accordance with our national produce, we are the largest single contributor to its regular budget. Almost nothing happens in which the United States is not interested, and on virtually all vital questions we and the majority of members find common ground.

Indeed, in all the history of the United Nations I know of not one case in which the United Nations has injured the vital interests of the United States.

U.N. EFFORTS ON DISARMAMENT

Second, since the death of Stalin and the end of the war in Korea, the leaders of the Soviet Union have not sponsored any new large-scale military aggression. And they have opened a few chinks in their closed society, through which the Russian people may begin to get rid of some of their poisonous suspicions of the world outside. These latter developments, however limited, must be counted a substantial gain for the whole world.

The United Nations has had something to do with this. It has been a factor in inducing the Soviet Union to shift away, in great part, from overt Korea-style aggression. There is the memory of the support which the United Nations gave to the defense of the Republic of Korea. What is more, bomb rattling has never been popular in the United Nations. Whenever the Soviets have shown this ugly face in the United Nations debates they have been least effective in getting votes and political support.

There is intense interest in disarmament at the United Nations. Every year this subject is debated at great length. And one can predict that this issue will soon replace colonialism as the major preoccupation and emotional involvement of many of the members.

But disarmament is a hard subject to debate anywhere, especially between a free society like ours and a closed society such as the Soviet Union. It is also a highly technical subject, and many people around the world who yearn for peace do not understand the technical difficulties. This leaves a wide field for demagogy, and Moscow has done its best to exploit that field in the United Nations.

In view of all this, we have made out I think fairly well in the disarmament debates. The thorny issue has always been inspection and verification. Last fall the General Assembly once again supported our view on this issue in several key votes. In two instances it did not, and we voted against the resolutions.

After long and patient negotiation we have finally reached agreement on the principles of disarmament, and this winter we also agreed on the composition of a new Disarmament Commission so that negotiations will be resumed in mid-March after almost 2 years. I can't overemphasize the importance of these two developments alone.

More public education is necessary all over the world. But if our position is sound and if we continue to advocate it patiently the world will accept it. We should not be too provoked by occasional disappointing votes which do not and cannot control our policy.

Through the United Nations the Soviet Union has also participated in a number of peaceful activities. It is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which resulted from President Eisenhower's proposal in the General Assembly of 1953. The Soviets have joined to some extent in the work of several of the specialized agencies, and they contribute every year to the U.N. technical assistance program. Their contribution is smaller than it should be but it marks a reversal from their earlier opposition.