Dear Dick: The Senate has before it a proposal to the purpose and effect that United States contributions to the budget of the United Nations shall cease if and when Communist China is seated in the Security Council of the United Nations. This takes the form of an amendment to the Bill making appropriations for our contribution to the budget of the United Nations for this calendar year.1
I am writing you to express my strong hope that this amendment will be defeated. My opposition is based solely on the unshakable conviction that the threat to withhold funds from an organization which we have solemnly obligated ourselves to support as a member is neither becoming to, nor in the interest of, the great nation which is the United States.
We are all opposed to admitting an aggressor into United Nations bodies. So long as the Chinese communist regime is subservient to Moscow and does not abandon its aggressive actions and policies, no consideration can be given to any change in this policy. But I fear that the proposed amendment would harm us rather than help us in attaining our common objective.
Legislation such as this surely would not serve the cause of our leadership of the free forces in the United Nations. Leadership of these free nations--nations which are a great majority within the United Nations--is something the Soviet Union can never take away from us. But we can give it away, or lose it if we are careless. And, in my opinion, a hostile, punitive measure such as this, unworthy of our responsibilities of leadership and our great traditions, would be a priceless gift to those who would see us weak and alone. Because of the example of irresponsibility it would set for all countries, it could well set loose reckless forces which would level the United Nations before our eyes. If we set off on a course such as this, of laying down our own terms of financial support of the United Nations, we must expect others to follow.
The objectives of our national policy are firmly founded in decency, morality, and genuine cooperation. So also have been our methods in the United Nations. It is for this reason that in the entire history of the United Nations there has not been a single instance where the United Nations has taken a decision on a matter manifestly contrary to the vital interests of the United States and in the face of our opposition. The United States has made accommodations and concessions in the United Nations--as we all have to do in our private lives to be able to live and work with other people. But these accommodations and concessions have never infringed upon our vital national interest. This simple and reassuring fact should be kept in mind.
The situation calls for persuasive arguments--which we possess--and not for overbearing bluster. If our only recourse is to throw our weight around, the suspicion will inevitably grow that we do so because we possess no good arguments. This is unfair to our cause, which is both wise and just. If we were to cut out our contribution, we would by that action get out of the United Nations. Getting out and leaving the field to our opponents is neither courageous, self-confident, far-sighted, nor wise.
Under the charter of the United Nations, we have an obligation to meet our share of the expenses of the Organization.2 A financial boycott, if we should undertake it, would constitute a direct attack upon the United Nations. This is not the kind of example to be set by a great nation like our own. We are not so friendless or frightened that we must resort to this kind of coercion to gain our ends. If the time should ever come when the people of the United States propose to abandon the United Nations--I trust it never will--let us renounce our membership and leave by the front door, rather than default on our obligations as a member and sneak out by the rear door. This would be the straightforward American way.
The Soviet Union can never take away from us the support of a large group of states in the United Nations who have confidence in us and who wish to remain free. But we, by our threats, could do so.3 Sincerely
