We have, in Korea, a truce, but also an incipient war. We have this tremendous investment of troops in Germany. We have a Vietnam war. We have this mess in Laos which the Administration, although refusing to release the testimony taken by this committee months ago, has slipped out to the press much of that testimony in recent days and weeks, but has officially acknowledged only part of the facts incident to this secret war. We have too the Middle East crisis where the U.N. has done its best, but has been ineffective in promoting peace there. I do not say that in criticism. So, it does not seem to be the right time, regardless of merit, to ask for the money now. Ambassador YOST. Senator, may I make a couple of comments? Senator SYMINGTON. Yes, indeed. I have great respect for you and can fully sympathize, from the administration standpoint, why you would like to have the building. Ambassador YoST. Senator, it is a good deal more than the administrative side of it. I am in profound sympathy with your feeling about the acute financial problems that arise from these very extensive overseas commitments. As you know, I am a very firm believer in the United Nations and in our hope and belief that the United Nations, if we give it adequate support, authority, and resources, will be able in the future, may be able in the future to do more of these things overseas in the line of peacekeeping than it has been in the past, and hence in the longer run will serve to relieve us of many of the burdens that we have tried to assume unilaterally. INTERPRETATION OF U.S. ACTION ON EXPANSION Now, this is, as you know, the 25th anniversary and all members are approaching this with a view to seeing what can be done to strengthen the U.N. in the future. This is in a sense a watershed. Now, of course, this business of headquarters expansion is a relatively small part of this whole process, Nevertheless, if the United States should at this critical point show a lack of interest, even in providing what almost all delegations feel is a necessary expansion, either here or elsewhere, if the United States dissents to contributing to that and indeed to having it in the United States, this will, I fear, be interpreted, perhaps misinterpreted, as a general waning, a diminishing of interest by the United States in the organization. This on the one side. ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM UNITED NATIONS Now, on the other side, purely an economic point, I realize this is a bad time in many ways but it must be remembered that one of the factors which I mentioned in my statement was that the United Nations in New York does provide employment for a considerable number of Americans. The U.N. is a very considerable economic benefit to New York with all of these delegations coming in for the General Assembly and all these various meetings. It is helpful in our balance of payments. The construction itself will be an economic benefit. And, wholly aside from the question of administrative efficiency, and the question of a continuing U.S. influence, which is aided by having it in New York, I do think this has psychological and symbolic value during this 25th anniversary year and it would be a pity if we gave a negative rather than a positive sign in this connection. POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF UNITED NATIONS DISPERSAL Senator SYMINGTON. I know there is a psychological and symbolic appeal. And I find the psychology of our putting up money has been effective over a period of years. I do think there is a great psychological advantage in spreading it around more as against concentrating it as now. In New York, my impression was that the smaller countries were, in effect, dominating the work of the U.N. and at times virile in their opposition. I would hope they would have more understanding of what the United Nations meant. Certain of the larger members are very sensitive to additional dollar flow even if it is only in Eurodollars; and if we could move it around a bit more, I think it might make them more sympathetic to some of the things we want. I have no further questions and comments, Mr. Chairman. UNITED NATIONS ASSESSMENTS IN ARREARS Senator AIKEN. Yes; I have two questions. They are quite general. First, if the back assessments were collected, would this request for $80 million, $20 million, I believe, from the United States, be necessary? Ambassador YosT. I think it would, Senator. If we were able to remove the deficit, which we are certainly very eager to do, this would restore the U.N. to financial health, but it would not enable it to undertake new construction of this kind unaided. Senator AIKEN. I notice that Russia alone is $84 million in arrears. Ambassador YOST. As you know, Senator, that arises largely from their failure to pay for the Congo operation. Senator AIKEN. Sometimes I wonder who is running the U.N. Russia has exercised the veto over 100 times. Ambassador Yost. Yes. Senator AIKEN. We have not exercised it at all. Russia is $84 million in arrears on dues. The United States is temporarily $12 million in arrears. And then the smaller countries like Finland, CanadaI do not call Canada a small country-Ethiopia, Ceylon, are all paid up on everything. USE OF VETO POWER I am wondering why we let Russia get away with exercising the veto every time she feels like it. We do not exercise the veto at all, and yet Russia pays assessments if they feel like it. We eventually pay all our assessments and a little over from time to time. I was wondering what would the world think if the United States exercised the veto once in a while? Ambassador YOST. I would be the last one, Senator Ambassador Yost. -to excuse the Russian use of the veto, but it is a fact we have not had to use the veto because no resolutions so far have been adopted which we have felt seriously threatened our national interest. If such a situation should ever occur we, of course, I have no doubt, would exercise the veto, whereas Russia being in a minority has frequently felt, in most cases wrongly I feel, but nevertheless frequently felt, that its vital interests would be affected if it did not use the veto. OPPOSITION TO EXPANSION WITHIN UNITED NATIONS Senator AIKEN. Did Russia oppose the resolution calling for construction of new buildings? Ambassador YOST. They did, yes. Senator AIKEN. Was it Russia and her friends that cast the 15 votes against it? Ambassador Yost. Yes. Senator AIKEN. There were 95 votes for it. Ambassador YosT. Some of the Arab States as well. USE OF UNITED NATIONS BUILDINGS Senator AIKEN. Do not many members of the U.N. have their own quarters outside of this building in New York? Ambassador YoST. Oh, yes, indeed, Senator. Senator AIKEN. Most of them do, do they not? Ambassador YOST. All of them do. Only the Secretariat is in the U.N. building. Senator AIKEN. They come into the U.N. building to write letters and do what? Keep records? Ambassador YOST. No. The delegations all have their offices outside and they come into the U.N. building for meetings and consultations. Senator AIKEN. I am thinking of the U.N. office building. Amabssador YOST. That is Senator AIKEN. I know they come into that. Ambassador YosT. That is for the Secretariat and for conference rooms. ENLARGEMENT OF UNITED NATIONS MEMBERSHIP Senator AIKEN. Are they anticipating further enlargement of the membership of the U.N.? Ambassador YosT. This, as I am sure you know, Senator, is a problem. There are no immediate prospects of new applicants but over the longer run it is a serious question whether a number of very small states apply and if so, whether they should be admitted or some special arrangement should be made for them. There will be some growth undoubtedly. Senator AIKEN. We have the last two, Equatorial Guinea and Swaziland. Equatorial Guinea has a population of 250,000 and has one vote in the U.N. Assembly. Have other nations of comparable size to Equatorial Guinea indicated any desire to become members? Ambassador YOST. Not at the moment but I have no doubt that some will. Senator AIKEN. Not at the moment. MEMBERSHIP ARRANGEMENTS FOR SMALL NATIONS Ambassador YoST. As you may know, Senator, the United States has proposed and a committee of the Security Council is now studying our proposal that a special arrangement be made for very small states whereby they would be given full access in the United Nations and the protection of the United Nations but would not have full membership. Senator AIKEN. How are you going to work that without exercising a veto? Ambassador YOST. Well, I do not know. We are trying to persuade other members that this is a wise arrangement. It is difficult because there is a strong attachment among members to national sovereignty and the right of self-determination. It is an uphill business but we are working hard on it. Senator AIKEN. I agree with you that if they admit as many members as I have an idea want to get in with a full vote, you would have very serious difficulty in raising the money from the Congress for further support. For instance, I understand British Honduras wants to or will be a member. The Persian Gulf States, Brunei, maybe the Pitkin Islands and a few others of that size. Has not the time come when the United States has to do something about that? We cannot let in every one of these countries. We now have 126 members in the General Assembly. Do not they determine the assessments and expenditures of which we are supposed to pay a substantial part? I am trying to figure some way to make the U.N. work. It is just as simple as that. I know from your statement that you are, too. You are a little bit pessimistic in one place where you say, "I do not for a moment suggest that this expansion project will guarantee future success of the U.N., or of American policy in the U.N. But I do strongly believe that if this project were not carried through, the outlook for success would suffer a grave material injury.' You are probably right about that. You did not put too much enthusiasm in that paragraph, if I may speak frankly. Ambassador YOST. Well, Senator, I am very much troubled by this influx of very small states. We are trying to do something about it. Whether we succeed or not I cannot guarantee, but we are working very vigorously on it. Senator AIKEN. I hope something can be done to make the United Nations more nearly carry out the purpose for which it was established than has been done up to now. Ambassador YosT. In this connection DISPERSAL OF UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES Senator AIKEN. As for moving activities out of the country, I do not know if you read the Peterson report of yesterday-▬ Ambassador YOST. Just the summary in the paper. Senator AIKEN. which recommends very strongly that we share all of our prosperity and good things with the rest of the world. I was just wondering if perhaps this would be an opportunity to diversify some of the operations there. THE WORLD COURT For instance, what is the staff of the World Court at The Hague? What is the cost of operating the World Court? Does anyone know? Ambassador YOST. I am sure we have that. I will be glad to put it in the record. I do not know offhand. Senator AIKEN. I believe they are tenaciously hanging onto one case over there, and when and if that is gone, they will not have anything to do. Ambassador YOST. I know. It is a tragedy. Senator AIKEN. It is a tragedy, the failure of the World Court. Ambassador YOST. The budget estimate for the World Court for this year is $1,395,000. This is the entire budget. Senator AIKEN. Of which $450,000 would be salaries of the judges. Ambassador YOST. Yes, sir. Senator AIKEN. Does the rest include rents or secretarial staffs? Ambassador YOST. We have got a breakdown and we can put it in the record, Senator. (The information referred to follows.) INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: BUDGET The initial budget estimate of $1,395,600 for the International Court of Justice in 1970 contained the following elements: Ch. I. Salaries and expenses of members of the Court (includes salaries Ch. II. Salaries, wages, and expenses of the registry (includes staff Total.... $713, 700 567, 100 102, 800 12, 000 1, 395, 600 Senator AIKEN. Since 1946, I think, they have only had 34 cases of which half a dozen were settled out of court. Fourteen were held to be outside the jurisdiction of the World Court, and the rest have been spread out over 24 years. Decisions have been made in some cases, but, as I understand it, the litigants pay little attention to the decisions once they are made. Ambassador YOST. Well, I think the failure is to use the Court, the failure on the part of governments mostly to submit cases to the Court. Senator AIKEN. Yes, but they will not use it. DISPERSAL OF UNITED NATIONS WOULD BE COSTLY AND INEFFICIENT Ambassador YosT. And this, I think, is one of the important ways. in which we should try to strengthen the United Nations. In general, Senator, I think it is proper and appropriate that some parts of the United Nations should be in other places than the United States, and of course, they are. But I am very much afraid if we permit this fragmentation and dispersal to proceed at the rate which many desire, including many of the smaller states who would like to have bits and pieces of it around in their countries or in their neighborhood, if we permit that to go unimpeded, we will have the whole organization so fragmented that it will be a good deal more costly to run. Senator AIKEN. The international airlines might like that arrangement. Ambassador YOST. I am sure they would. And the Organization would be more inefficient and less able to do the sort of job in multilateral development which I believe the Peterson report as well as the Pearson report have recently recommended and which I myself believe is very sound and wise. But once again, if the United Nations 42-581 0-70 |