U N ESCO —GOO D O
action to enforce compliance therewith."
I fail to find in tiny of this language
any suggestion whatsoever, as has
been charged, that The American
Legion urges United States withdrawal from UNESCO. We urge only
that Congress repeal the laws creating
the U. S. Commission for UNESCO.
In effect, we ask onlv that the channel for the distribution of UNESCO
world government propaganda in the
United States be abolished.
To those who may think that this
request amounts to the same thing as
urging that the United States pull out
of UNESCO, let me say this:
If The American Legion intended
the result which UNESCO apologists
misrepresent as having occurred, we
would have asked that the Congress
appropriate no further funds as the
U. S. contribution to UNESCO. Not
only would this pull the United States
out of UNESCO, it would pull the
foundation out from under UNESCO
Uncle Sam each year foots one-third
of UNESCO's eigfit- to nine-million-
dollar annual bill. We do so despite
the fact that only a fraction more than
one per cent of the total number of
UNESCO's representatives are American citizens.
The American Legion doesn't object
to this contribution, but we do object
to the fact that, despite this contribution, the United States government has
no control over UNESCO's hiring or
firing of American employees. Any
disloyal Americans employed bv
UNESCO could flaunt the authority
of the United States government, and
there's nothing we can do about it.
This isn't just an opinion. It's an
undeniable fact, deplored by America's highest representative to the
United Nations, Ambassador Henry
Cabot Lodge, Jr.
Senator John J.
Sparkman I left) is
welcomed to membership on the U. S.
National Commission for UNESCO
by the Chairman of
Willard E. Givens.
was nominated by
Vice President Nixon
and appointed by
Secretary of State
Dulles as a representative of the
on the Commission.
In a statement on the loyalty problem among United States employees
of UNESCO, released a little more
than a year ago on October 16, 1954,
Ambassador Lodge stated, and I
"It is now clear that eight United
States citizens employed by UNESCO
have had adverse loyalty reports from
the United States International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board.
Concerning these eight persons the
Board found reasonable doubt as to
their loyalty to the United States.
Only one of these eight persons condescended to accept the Board's invitation merely to meet with it when it
was in Paris last summer. The seven
others were in such contempt of the
whole procedure that they did not
bother to appear at the Board's
"Although Dr. Luther Evans, the
Director-General of UNESCO, after
a long period of consideration, has
stated he will not renew the contracts
of four of these persons when their
contracts eventually expire, he has
taken no action to separate these
eight United States citizens now. The
failure of Dr. Evans to act on these
cases actually frustrates the efforts of
the United States, conducted in close
collaboration with the heads of the
other international organizations, to
ensure the highest standards of integrity on the part of those United States
citizens who are members of the staff
of these organizations.
". . . Although UNESCO is a specialized agency and is, therefore, outside of my jurisdiction, I have a
responsibility as United States Representative to the United Nations to see
that fair play exists. It should, therefore, be crystal clear that there have
been no such problems in the United
". . . The other international organi
zations, particularly the United N1
tions (with which I have persoi
familiarity) have dealt with the pro'
lem in a fine way. In all faimq
therefore, public opinion should <j'
tinguish between the policies wbj
are being followed by the Direct"1
General of UNESCO and the poll
which are being followed by "
United Nations and the other iuM
I need not remind you that j'
Luther Evans, the Director-General
UNESCO, is an American citizen.
tae facts I
1,1 this com
The record on this problem of M
» .""nent. A
i "fat UNES
Per - ''
alty among United States employ* Sehn'',K',(',
of UNESCO, and the very recent i* ^°' chd<
ord at that, reveals another gall'1 tn„. !
On October 29, 1955, two ««
after The American Legion con^j
tion, the highest tribunal of the L'"1 i
ed Nations ordered UNESCO to!
instate four U. S. citizen emplo?jj
of UNESCO who had been
charged for failure to cooperate <H
a United States Loyalty Board. VB
UNESCO finally felt compelled toj
fuse to reinstate these employee^
tribunal ordered UNESCO to I
each of them two years' salary 1
legal costs. These indemnities anio'
ed to more than $30,000.
Thus we have the situation w'1.
the United States, based on its ^
third contribution to UNESCO, jj
the questionable privilege of p*-i
$10,000 to American citizens firefl
cause they refused to cooperate
a United States Loyalty Board.
DISLOYAL EMPLOYEES FIRE"
And this is no isolated
Last April the same tribunal
ed three American employe^
■ and exi
<w is n"t
UNESCO $43,000 after they haA™
dismissed for refusal to face the .
Loyalty Board. The American taflj
ers' share of this award was •>
The moral to be drawn from |
examples would seem to me to
If you want to ignore or fl'111.1}^!
authority of legally constituted V ^
States loyalty boards, get a j"' <j
UNESCO and be'paid by Uncle'
for the privilege of kicking '''
the teeth. , , i
There can be no question £"*"!
the small part of UNESCO'^ *1
which I have read to you ""!",,(
justifies The American Legion S
sition to this specialized agency '
United Nations. I am confide"
this record also inspired i'1" •
America's greatest patriotic ofl
tions to join with The A'"1
Legion in this fight.
Facts Forum News, .A;"'1''
»t ' fducat
u>rt .the sc
J> our n