Mr. CLEVELAND. In the case of the Congo there was an external force in the Congo, a force that was unwelcome as far as the legal Conogolese Government is concerned.

That legal government requested assistance from the United Nations to make it possible for the Congolese Government to perform the functions that the Belgians said were not being performed adequately, and to protect their citizens, and so on, and the U.N. responded to that appeal and made it possible for the Belgians to withdraw rather rapidly.

In the hypothetical case on Cuba that you raised there was not in your statement of it any external threat of this kind, that is to say, it was not a matter which the Security Council could take hold of as a matter affecting international peace and security, which is its mandate.

Senator LAUSCHE. That is exactly the point I want to make. The United Nations went into the Congo to stop the aggression of the Belgians. When that aggression was stopped, the basis under which they went in originally came to an end. Since that time they have been in the Congo not to stop an aggression by a foreign country, but to settle a domestic dispute.

Mr. CLEVELAND. No, sir; that is not an accurate description of the legal basis of the Congo operation as we went over it in the Congo Subcommittee.

The United Nations did not at any time declare the Belgian input of troops to be aggression. This was the charge made by the Congolese authorities, but this was not, the Security Council did not, adopt this language.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right; if they did not go in because of an aggression why did they go in?

Mr. CLEVELAND. They went in at the request of the Congolese Government to help that government create conditions which would make it unnecessary for the Belgians to remain.

Senator LAUSCHE. All right. They did not go in on account of the aggressions of the Belgians but went in to maintain order within the Congo.

Mr. CLEVELAND. To assist the government.

POSSIBLE UNITED NATIONS ACTION IN CASE SIMILAR TO THE CONGO

Senator LAUSCHE. If they went in to maintain order in the Congo, how will the United Nations stay out if a Communist country asks them to come in and maintain order?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Well, the purpose of the exercise in the Congo was, first, to enable the Belgians to get out, also to frustrate what looked to be other external elements that were intervening in the Congo's internal dispute, and to create security conditions there, and also economic and social conditions there that would make it possible for the Congolese Government to govern and would make it possible for peaceful accommodation to be developed among the Congolese authorities.

A symbol of this operation in a sense was the barbed wire entanglement maintained by the United Nations around Louvanium University while the Parliament was going on. The Parliament was not being managed or run or intervened in by the United Nations, but

conditions were being created in which Parliament could act in establishing a new government which turned out to be the Adoula government, without external interference and external threats.

Senator LAUSCHE. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. I do want to leave this thought, however: joining with what Senator Aiken said, in approaching this on an ad hoc basis in the Congo. It might be said that for the moment we are doing good and helping maintain peace in the world.

I do deeply think that there is being established a precedent that may come back to plague us in the future. I hope it is not true, but I have deep apprehensions that it is true, and I want to state my proposition.

If you go into the Congo to maintain order within the Congo, then you have got to go into the United States if there is disorder there, or Cuba, or the Dominican Republic, or anywhere there is disorder.

Mr. CLEVELAND. There is no legal compulsion on a political organization to do anything that its members do not want to do. While it is theoretically possible for the United Nations to do any number of silly things, our leadership and the leadership of other responsible countries, in our judgment, can and will prevent them.

Senator LAUSCHE. Yes; but what if you fall into the minority, where are you then?

Mr. CLEVELAND. The strength of the United Nations is essentially the strength of the operating executive strength, is essentially the power of a relatively small number of countries, and we are the largest of them, and we are, therefore, not without influence in what happens. Senator LAUSCHE. I have no more questions.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Aiken has one more question.

POSSIBLE DATE OF WORLD COURT OPINION

Senator AIKEN. When do you think we will get the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice?

Mr. CLEVELAND. They are predicting sort of early summer.
Senator AIKEN. May, perhaps?

Mr. CLEVELAND. June seems to be the average prediction.
Senator SPARKMAN. It is to be argued in March and April.
Mr. KLUTZNICK. In April.

Mr. CLEVELAND. April; the deadline for submissions is a week or 10 days.

Senator AIKEN. It seems like almost everything depends on whether or not we get a favorable opinion. If we do not get one, then we have to think of what else we are going to do. What would you think of the United States making a loan of around $40 million to the United Nations to carry them up to the time when they get the advisory opinion from the World Court?

Mr. CLEVELAND. The U.N. General Assembly has already made an assessment to cover the period until June 30. There will probably be a shortfall on this as there have been on other things.

Senator AIKEN. That does not help if nations do not pay the

assessment.

Mr. CLEVELAND. It does not help enough, but it is something.

For the period after that regardless of how the Court's opinion goes, the cash in sight, the only cash in sight, under the General Assembly's plan, are the proceeds of this bond issue.

Senator AIKEN. There will be some payments on dues for 1962 be coming along, will there not?

Mr. CLEVELAND. For regular budget; yes.

Senator AIKEN. You mean the regular budget, which comes to $70 or $80 million?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes. But for peace and security operations the funds in sight are the bond issue proceeds. So whether or not the Court decision goes the way we think and hope it should go, we need the proceeds of the bond issue for the peace and security operations for the period after July 1.

Mr. KLUTZNICK. May I add one thing, Senator?

Senator AIKEN. Yes.

Mr. KLUTZNICK. I do not think everything depends on the Court decision, as much as I hope it will come that way.

The fact of the matter is there is no involvement of the bond issue, in its repayment, in the Court case at all, and I think a careful reexamination of that position may indicate that everything does not depend on the decision as much as I believe it to be a historic approach. Senator AIKEN. If the Court finds that assessments to pay for the operations in the Congo are illegal it would seem that they would find it also illegal to make those assessments by selling bonds.

Mr. KLUTZNICK. Sir, I practiced law once in my life, and I am not a lawyer either.

Senator AIKEN. You are a good lawyer.

Mr. KLUTZNICK. But it is very difficult to reach a conclusion with that kind of reasoning. Our best legal advice is that it is not so. Senator AIKEN. I can tell you now that if we had two lawyers here there would be a disagreement.

Mr. KLUTZNICK. There would be two different opinions.

Senator SPARKMAN. These hearings will be resumed on Monday, the 19th, at 10 a.m. Until that time the committee stands in adjournment.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, after reading the transcript, it is possible that we may want to ask some of these witnesses to come back.

Senator SPARKMAN. I presume they are always in town.

Senator AIKEN. We are getting kind of used to them. What is the use of bringing in new witnesses?

(Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, February 19, 1962.)

PURCHASE OF UNITED NATIONS BONDS

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1962

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

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman presiding. Present: Senators Sparkman, Hickenlooper, Aiken, Carlson, and Williams.

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

The committee is meeting today to hear public witnesses on S. 2678, 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.

It is requested that the witnesses limit their oral presentation to 10 minutes. However, longer statements may be submitted and will be made a part of the record of these hearings.

Our first witness is Mr. E. Raymond Wilson, executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington, D.C.

Mr. Wilson, will you please come forward, and proceed in your own way? You have been before the committee many times. We welcome you back again.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Senator.

Senator SPARKMAN. I may add the committee has received several letters and statements from parties interested in the United Nations bond issue and, without objection, this material will be made a part of the appendix.

All right, Mr. Wilson.

STATEMENT OF E. RAYMOND WILSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my statement for the record.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. And speak to it.

Senator SPARKMAN. Very good.

Mr. WILSON. Thank you.

Senator SPARK MAN. It will be printed in full.

181

(The complete statement of Mr. E. Raymond Wilson follows:)

STATEMENT OF E. RAYMOND WILSON IN BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION, IN FAVOR OF S. 2768 AND S. 2818 FOR THE PURCHASE OF $100 MILLION U.N. BONDS

Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is E. Raymond Wilson. I am executive secretary emeritus of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, for whom I am appearing today.

Our committee does not claim to speak for all Friends. The Society of Friends is a very democratic organization, and Friends cherish the right to their individual opinions. Nevertheless, Friends in general have a long and continuing interest in the United Nations. Therefore, I am here today to support S. 2768, which would authorize the President to purchase up to $100 million of U.N. bonds.

Last October the Friends National Conference on World Order called for whole hearted support for the United Nations. In January, the FCNL General Committee made support for U.N. bonds a priority issue in 1962. Many Friends are planning to come to Washington April 28 to May 1 to witness publicly to their concern for world order. The call to witness points out that "Only by transcending nationalism and building institutions of world order can the Godgiven rights of men be secured and the devastation of nuclear war be averted." You can appreciate the fact that the U.N. Congo military operations present some difficulties to us as Friends. What many of us want is a world system of security, disarmament and law where enforcement procedures would operate on the individual by true police action under established world law. The Congo operations represent a great advance over the Korean war, but are not the ideal toward which the world should strive in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

We support the administration's request for funds for U.N. bonds because it is obvious that the United Nations must become financially solvent and continue in existence if it is to grow into a truly effective instrument of law and order in a disarmed world.

U.N. SOLVENCY VITAL TO WORLD

The first point I should like to make is that $100 million is actually a very small sum. Ambassador Stevenson has already reminded us that $100 million is an investment of only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. Federal budget. It can scarcely be mentioned in the same breath with the U.S. debt of more than $296 billion.

No proposed loan is justifiable, of course, just because it is comparatively small. There are many positive reasons why this loan should be made, and you have heard them from Secretary Rusk and Ambassador Stevenson.

The U.N. needs the money to insure the peace in Africa.

Funds raised through the bond issue will provide the U.N. with a breathing space in which it can concentrate on program and organizational matters instead of fiscal problems.

Floating bonds is a reasonable and widely used technique for meeting financial difficulties, and the proposed issue will help extricate the U.N. from its present serious financial crisis.

Last year Congress expressed concern about the large U.S. contribution to the Congo and Middle East operations and urged the State Department to find ways of encouraging other nations to contribute their share. The resolution authorizing the Secretary General to issue bonds does this by making the bonds repayable from the regular U.N. budget which is assessed against all members. This procedure is designed to reduce U.S. contributions to the peacekeeping budget from the present level of 47 percent to 32 percent.

Spreading the heavy immediate costs of the Congo over a 25-year period will make it easier for small powers to support the Congo operation. The fact that present U.N. peacekeeping expenses exceed the regular U.N. budget by over 60 percent is of particular significance to many of the newer and poorer members. These new members are overburdened by their own problems of social and economic development, by low incomes that average less than $150 a year per capita, and by illiteracy rates which average about 66 percent in some countries and over 90 percent in others. At the present time the peacekeeping assess