A COMPARSSO-N OF TWO METHODS: MULTIPLE SCALQGMM ANALYS {8 AND FACTOR ANALYSIS: FOR AHALYZMG UN {TED {MTEQW VOW N6. BEHAVEOR Thesis for flu: Deg-reg cg ‘M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY » Kare! G. Knudsen £962 x ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS, MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS AND FACTOR.ANALYSIS, FOR.ANALYZING UNITED NATIONS VOTING BEHAVIOR by Karel G. Knudsen The major concern of this investigation was a comparison of the utility of two statistical methods, multiple scalogram analysis and factor analysis, for the study of United Nations voting patterns. The two methods were compared on the basis of the internal logical consistency of the issue clusters disclosed by each. The data consisted of 34 roll-call votes cast by 74 nations during the Twelfth United Nations General Assembly, as tabulated from the official records of the Plenary Meetings for 1956-57. Although both methods are statistical techniques of classification. they differ in procedure and result in different issue clusters when used with these data. Multiple scalogram analysis is a technique recently developed by Lingoes (1960) which calculates multiple scales of the Guttman variety from a group of individual response patterns. Factor analysis is a multivariate technique more familiar to psychologists which produces clusters derived from the correlation matrix. Karel G. Knudsen Multiple scalogram analysis produced four dimensions. or clusters. encompassing 32 of the 34 issues. Factor analysis resulted in six factors with the varimax rotation and four factors with the quartimax rotation. Each cluster was searched for a logically consistent underlying thread of continuity by examining the debate arguments and implications of each issue within the cluster. Factor analysis, particularly the quartimax rotation. was found to give clusters of issues most nearly congruent with logical expectations. The four factors found with quartimax were: 1. A "Protection of Smaller Nations" factor 2. An "Admission of Communist China to the United Nations" factor 3. A "Racial Discrimination in South Africa" factor 4. A "Housekeeping" factor. The first consisted of issues dealing with colonial territories. such as Togoland and West Irian. and the physical well-being of small nations, such as the protection of Syria from Turkey. The highest loading issues of the second and third factors included all the ballots cast on the topics named. The fourth factor consisted of issues requiring little physical or psychological commitment by the members. such as spreading information on modern nuclear weapons or accepting Trusteeship VV') Karel G. Knudsen Council reports. Multiple scalogram analysis, on the other hand. was found more difficult to interpret. It was necessary to examine each debate closely to arrive at the following inter- pretations of the four dimensions. lgimension I appeared to be related to strengthening the United Nations_andwynited Nations Charter principle§LJ The issues were chiefly procedural or involved racial discrimination in South Africa (related to human rights). Dimension I; was labeled a "Hot" Cold War cluster. Issues as diverse as arms regulation. the admission ofmgommunist China, and the geographical distribution of the United Nations Secretariat were linked together by a common communist bloc argument for proper representation of all views. Dimension III was similar. Issues concerning international trade. the United Nations Emergency Force. and the threat to Syria were all linked_together by communist_bloc speeches identifying these as examples of Western "aggression." The common element of Dimension I! appeared to be the salience of time. In each issue. from arms regulation to the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement in French Togoland. the problem was immediate or delayed action. However. another use of multiple scalogram analysis was demonstrated. The score given to each nation on each dimension can be used to give a strict quantitative definition Karel G. Knudsen of voting blocs. Voting blocs obtained on two dimensions were examined and compared with four different types of national alignments discussed by Hovet (1960): caucusing groups. geographical distribution groups, regional groups. and common interest groups. The superiority of this approach lies in a strict definition of voting blocs in terms of nations' actual behavior and in allowing blocs of different membership to appear as different matters come under consider— ation. The ease of identifying and studying voting blocs is a valuable asset of multiple scalogram analysis. ,I —F Political science may benefit from using these methods for quantification of United Nations or other voting bloc study, an area they have heretofore almost neglected. Psychology's methodologists will find value in a comparative demonstration of the advantages and disadvantages of two of their techniques on a new type of data. Approved fl“ afi‘Q/Zj 87% y N Date 774% “113/?(91 A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS. MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS AND FACTOR ANALYSIS. FOR ANALYZING UNITED NATIONS VOTING BEHAVIOR BY / x L/ 4.. \fi Karel GJ Knudsen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1962 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Charles Wrigley, who not only aroused my initial interest in this area but, also, patiently and enthusiastically guided me along the way. Appreciation is also expressed to Alicia Brown for the usage of her multiple scalogram data on the Thirteenth General Assembly. and to Donald Wilkins for his statistical aid. The forthcoming analyses were made possible by MISTIC and the Michigan State Computer Laboratory. ii DEDICATION To Phyliss Kasper and Donald Wilkins for their kind and understanding patience. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS VINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyses Multiple Scalogram Analysis Factor Analysis RESULTS Multiple Scalogram Analysis ; Factor Analysis \ \‘ Varimax Rotation ‘Quartimax Rotation Summary of Analyses UTILIZATION Comparison with Other Types of National Groupings OF SCALOGRAM.ANALYSIS Utilization of Comparison Discussion of Analytic Problems SUMMARY . REFERENCES iv 15 18 18 35 36 41 44 46 50 55 58 61 65 LIST OF TABLES Table ' Page 1. Percentage of each group with identical scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. .Voting blocs on Dimension I: strengthening of U.N. Charter principles . . . . . . . . 48 2. Voting blocs on Dimension II: "hot" cold war issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 vi LI ST OF APPENDICE S Appendix Page A. Issues Voted Upon During the 12th General Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . 68 B. Multiple Scalogram Analysis Results of the 12th General Assembly . . . . . . . . . 79 C. Varimax Results of the 12th General Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 D. Quartimax Results of the 12th General Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 E. Distributions of Various Types of National Groupings on Dimensions I and II . . . 95 vii INT RODUC TI ON Caught in the movement toward integration within the social sciences during the recent decade, the sister disciplines of psychology and political science have recently moved toget— her to find themselves complementarily occupying several over— lapping fields of interest. The merging of the two has been. perhaps, furthered by the recognition and knowledge that psychology has made two major contributions which, possibly, have been causative factors in opening new areas of fruitful study within political science. The first of these contri- butions is its theoretical notions of developmental influences on behavior. The value of these hypotheses for political science is reflected in the work of Lazarsfeld. Berelson. and Gaudet (1944) on public voting patterns and. more specifically, in Hyman's (1959) work on political socialization. The second contribution has been its more sophisticated analytic methodology, which has often proved applicable to political science. helping the researcher develop and check conceptual schemes with manageable and verifiable data. One of the most direct and easily observable sorts of data in political behavior is the vote, an overt behavioral expression of a political attitude which, in spite of varying degrees of intensities, cross-pressures and underlying causative factors. must be displayed in a rigidly defined set of categories pre— sumably representing alternative choices of action to the balloter. Although Rice proposed using the vote as an index of political attitude and developed some methods for doing so in 1928, it is only recently that psychological methods of quantitative ordering have been applied to the vote with any great frequency. Recent quantitative work has included Belknap's (1958) scale analysis of legislative behavior of United States Senators, to be discussed in more detail later. and the agreement method utilized by Truman (1959) in his analysis of the same legislators. Another method of quanti- tative ordering. factor analysis, had its first appearance as a possible method of investigating political voting data in 1932 with Thurstone's discussion of it and his suggestions that it might be fruitful in the quantitative study of voting blocs. The usefulness of this method was demonstrated by Thurstone and Degan (Fruchter, 1954, pp. 176—79) who analyzed voting records of nine U.S. Supreme Court justices over 115 cases for evidence of bloc voting among them. Factor analysis has also been applied to the U.S. Congress by Harris (1948). Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957) used factor analysis as the principal technique for their semantic differential analysis of characteristic attributes of Stevenson Democrats, Eisenhower Republicans, and Taft Republicans during the 1952 election. Recently. Schubert (1961) utilized such a multi-dimensional technique as the basis of a psychological model to clarify understanding of judicial attitudes within the U.S. Supreme Court. The purposes of this paper are two—fold. Two of the psychological methods for combination and classification of data, factor analysis and multiple scalogram analysis. have been applied to an area of political science new to rigorous quantitative analysis, the voting behavior of the delegates in the United Nations General Assembly. It is felt that the results will be of value to both disciplines. To psychology they offer a new opportunity for testing the applicability and effectiveness of its methods. as well as a demonstration of the advantages and disadvantages of each in the logical. conceptual ordering of this new form of data. A new means for studying the relationship of institutions and their pressures upon attitudes will also be of interest to psychologists. Political scientists, on the other hand. will find a new, quantitative, empirical ordering of behavioral data which should aid in developing scientific understanding of the United Nations General Assembly. Recently, the United Nations has become the focus of an increasing amount of attention by thinkers in political science as they speculate upon the possibility of a theory of international relations. For each directive describing how such a theory should be formulated. there may be found at least two rebuttals. Yet, in spite of Almond and Coleman's (1960) comparative analysis of the develop- ing areas and Lipset's (1960) studies of conditions enhancing the maintenance of democracy, there seems to have been little use made of quantitative and empirical data in discussions of foreign relations. Concerning the United Nations, there are numerous articles dealing with topics such as the manifestation of the principles of collective security within the organization, the theory of its administrative proceedings, and the extent to which the organization approaches its ideals. The principal empirical researches on the voting patterns within the United Nations yet done are the analyses of bloc voting patterns by Thomas Hovet, Jr. (1960) and Geoffrey Goodwin (1960). Both begin their analyses on the basis of a preconception of what a voting bloc is. They view caucusing groups as equivalent to voting blocs and proceed with their analyses by describing each group and the types of issues. as they define them. upon which the caucusing groups do and do not vote with any solidarity. Riggs (1958), however. expresses bloc voting as a percentage of agreement score, in order to give a criterion of relative cohesiveness whereby groups of different sizes can be put on a comparable basis. Although this statistical definition of a bloc must be applauded, his description of the types of issues wherein cohesiveness is examined is also qualitative and substantive. However, it is implicitly recognized that the attitude of a nation, as manifested in the ballot cast by its delegate, will vary from positive to negative with the issue under con— sideration, and that blocs or alignments consequently vary with different types of issues. Therefore, the caution made by Hovet (1960, p. 22) is worthy of notice: It is not sufficient simply to analyze the roll-call votes collectively; they also must be considered in relation to their subjects. and more especially in generalized subject categories. particularly if the analysis is to be used as a basis for contemplating future trends. This does not mean that votes should not be considered individually in relation to the specific issue and the special circumstances; rather. it means that if these particular issues are to be generalized upon for contemplating future trends they have to be organized into subject and type categories. Herein a search is made for a quantitatively defined, statistical classification of issues which is somewhat congruent with our a priori ideas of which ones logically represent the same attitude. That such quantification is valuable and necessary as the first step in scientific understanding of any discipline is pointed out by Rice (1928, p. 3) as follows: . the quantitative expression of social fact is to be preferred for scientific purposes whenever it can be used. It reduces individual bias to a minimum, permits verification by other investigators. reduces and at the same time makes evident the margin of error, and replaces the less exact meanings of descriptive words. with the precision of mathematical notation. Multiple scalogram analysis and factor analysis are statistical methods of classification. All previous investi— gators appear to have grouped issues on a common—sense basis or to have ignored their differences. The factor analytic studies of Osgood, et; al., (1957) and Harris (1948), mentioned earlier, merely group the voting patterns of all congressmen over all issues. Similarly, the agreement method for defining voting blocs described by Rice (1928) and Truman (1959) merely calculates the percentage of agreement votes cast between selected pairs of individuals, without considering that different kinds of problems and issues may call forth different alignments. Belknap's scale analysis of the legislative behavior of U.S. Senators, on the other hand, does recognize that differences do exist. However. to complete his analysis he arbitrarily selects several votes upon one item, the Taft— Hartley Bill, as completely representative of one type of issue, without considering that other issues may also contain similar elements. It is hoped that separation of issue categories by the more sophisticated quantitative techniques such as those demonstrated here overcomes these limitations. Psychology will benefit from the demonstration of advantages and disadvantages of two of its methods as an attempt is made to bring logical ordering into issue types as categories are mathematically defined. It is hoped that this will also point the way, for political scientists, to a remedy of the distressing state of "empirical theory" in this area, which has been decried so vehemently by Hoffman (1959). ME THOD OL OGY The analyses of United Nations“ voting behavior com- prising the main body of this discussion utilized the statisti- cal techniques of multiple scalogram analysis and factor analysis. The central focus will be a comparison of the results obtained with the two methods. The data for these analyses consisted of the roll—call Votes cast during the Twelfth United Nations General Assembly, as tabulated from the official records of the Plenary Meetings for 1956-57. It is recognized that these ballots are the only ones of which an official record is kept and comprise only about 20% of the resolutions considered by the Assembly (Hovet, 1960, p. 16). This, however, does not invalidate their usefulness for this sort of analysis. since the matters put to a roll-call vote are usually those regarded as the most important by the United Nations General Assembly members. A roll—call ballot must be specifically requested by some nation before any deviation is made from the more common show-of-hands or the adopted-without-objection balloting used on the largest proportion of the issues considered. During the Twelfth General Assembly, 34 roll—call ballots were cast. The votes of 74 of the 82 members were used, the remaining eight being excluded from the analysis because of their absence for three or more roll—call ballots. Remaining absences were tabulated with the'majority. Although a United Nations member may cast his roll- call vote in any of three categories (i.e., in favor, against. or abstain), this initial trichotomy was changed to a dichotomy for this analysis because multiple scalogram analysis requires dichotomous data. Thus, the abstentions were treated as votes against the majority, either "for" or "against" as the case happened to require. The reasoning was, simply, that those who abstained when a vote was cast on a particular resolution. while they did not vote against the majority, obviously had reservations about definitely aligning themselves with it. Thus they could not be counted among the majority's supporters. This categorization was retained for the factor analysis even though this procedure will work with multichotomous data. as it was felt that comparable data would facilitate comparing the results. Analyses Both of the methods employed here are statistical techniques of classification. However, the two methods utilize different procedures. rest on different theoretical ‘bases. and the assumptions of each possess certain advantages 10 which should be pointed out at this time. Multiple Scalogram Analysis Multiple scalogram analysis is a technique recently developed by Lingoes (1960) which produces multiple scales of the Guttman variety. Guttman scales are used widely in social psychology. By means of these the unidimensionality of a group of attributes is inferred from the degree of consistency of the individual response patterns. The ideal criterion of consistency is that agreement with any item is accompanied by agreement with all other, less extreme items and disagreement with all those which are more extreme. In this analysis, the unidimensionality of a group of United Nations issues would be calculated by utilizing the vote of each state, i.e., of each national delegate, on each issue. Each unidimensional scale, therefore, represents a continuum of cumulative difficulty, similar to the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. In the Bogardus Social Distance Scale, most individuals will willingly condone and agree with the first item or items (such as the propriety of admitting a Negro as a visitor to his country or to employment in his occupation) and move across a continuum of acceptance of the Negro to a point where nearly all respondents agree. among themselves, that they would not admit a Negro to close kinship 11 by marriage (Murphy, Murphy, and Newcomb, 1937, p. 899). Or, to use an example of a hypothetical scale in the field of international relations, most nations, including the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., would probably agree with a statement that the arms race produces an excessive degree of world tension. However, various proposals for discussion of disarmament and the inspection of nuclear stockpiles would, and do, receive less consensual endorsement, and an extreme proposal that would immediately end all military expenses and disarm the world would, probably, be disagreed with and voted against by most of the nations, including the larger world powers. Guttman begins the formation of his scales by selecting a group of items which he feels. by a priori judgment, are unidimensional and should call forth consistent response: patterns. He proceeds to accept or reject his initial assumption according to whether or not they do form a single scale. While multiple scalogram analysis is an extension of the Guttman form of scaling, its major advantage is that it differs from the standard Guttman procedure: one can begin with any group of items, without having a preconception of the common attributes involved in the issue categories. From the array of items, a succession of scales is selected. Thus. the final result may easily be a succession of scales, like that found in Appendix B. The left pole of a scale is the 12 item upon which there is the highest consensus among the responses of the individual balloters; the next item, while representing somewhat lower consensus, is the one for which the greatest number of individual members cast votes that agreed with their first ballots. Each succeeding item is linked to the one preceding it in this manner; the items in the center of the continuum, thus, represent those of lowest consensus before the scale continues toward the right pole with issues eliciting increasing negative consensus. In other words, if the general opinion was "yes" concerning the issues at the left end of the scale, the items in the middle represent those upon which opinion was most divided, and those at the right end represent those upon which the majority opinion was "no." The scale ends when no more issues can be added with- out causing a designated percentage (the criterion here being 10%) of the individual balloters to respond with votes which would cause an "error" in their response arrays. As in Guttman scaling, an error is produced by an inconsistent response. This refers to the repetition of a response, for example a "yes," at a point following that at which an opposing response, like a no." has already been given. Each dimension, therefore, represents an attitudinal continuum upon which each individual balloter has a threshold. 13 Up to this threshold point his opinion, as manifested in his vote, will allow him to accept the attitude required. Beyond this point he will reject it as too extreme. The score of each individual balloter thus represents the number of votes of acceptance he cast, or the threshold point beyond which his opinion changed. The negative sign placed before some of the issues represents a reflected score, i.e., an issue upon which the responses were reversed in order to allow them to scale. One good example of what a reflected score means is found in an amendment to the resolution concerned with the discussion of the admission of Communist China to the United Nations. The original draft resolution proposed that the United Nations reject placing such a discussion on the year's agenda. and scaled in Dimension II with other votes taken upon this item. The amendment, however, proposed that the word "reject" be changed to "accede to" and, while scaling in the same dimension. was reflected. The majority vote, against the amendment in this case. was thus reversed and tabulated as a "for" ballot in order to allow the greatest number of respondents to remain consistent in their response patterns. Since it is logical that any nation voting "yes" on the original proposal would vote no on the amendment. a reflected score represents the vote which would have appeared had the phrasing of the 14 issue been reversed. Thus, since the reflected scores here all occur at the right ends of the dimensions, they may be seen as artifacts of the original data indicating that none of the original items were phrased to allow direct sampling at the opposite end of the continuum. The scalogram method has three major analytical advantages when used for the purposes demonstrated here. The first of these. as mentioned earlier, is that it requires no a priori conception of a unitary dimension, but allows cal— culation of a succession of unitary scales from the response array of any group of items, thus enabling the researcher to build concepts upon statistically and quantitatively defined bases. The second advantage is that the separation of the issue categories is made through direct calculations from the data of the original response array, instead of upon corre- lations. as in factor analysis. The third advantage of multiple scalogram analysis is its finished product, wherein categori- zations of both issue types and response patterns are easily noted and prepared for interpretation. The major disadvantage of this technique lies in the fact that each item may appear in only one dimension; once an item has scaled it is automatically removed from the group and not given a chance to scale elsewhere. Thus. as will be noted in the discussion of the results of this analysis. 15 certain items appear in one dimension when logically they might as well appear upon another where other, similar items are found. For this reason. correlations of each item with each dimension were calculated, an operation which demonstrated that in such not clearly logical cases, a fairly high corre— lation existed with other dimensions. Factor Analysis The factor analysis technique begins with the corre- lation matrix of each item with each other item, rather than with the actual response array used in multiple scalogram analysis. As Wilkins (1962) shows, this correlation matrix may contain artifacts resulting from special peculiarities of the phi coefficient, which may be a disadvantage of the analysis. However, the principal components factor analysis operations were performed on the data at hand, utilizing both the quartimax (Neuhaus and Wrigley, 1959) and varimax (Kaiser, 1958) rotational methods. The basic idea underlying factor analysis is that the separate factors represent noncorrelated dimensions. Each factor, therefore, supposedly represents a distinct basic thread of continuity which ties together the various issues most highly loaded on that factor. The loading of each issue on each factor would represent the correlation of that issue 16 with the "pure" case of underlying unity. which is what the factor supposedly represents, if such a "pure" case could be shown to exist. The procedure assumes that there is usually more than one motivational component which must be taken into consideration before a ballot can be cast on any single issue. e.g., frequently the reactions of one's own national government. one’s allies, and one's enemies may all be calculated and weighed. Thus, the user of factor analysis, in cases such as this, must search each factor for the higher loading issues, to discover and interpret which of the several considerations made over all the issues is the unifying, latent component. or variable, in this particular factor. The results of these factor—analytic operations, which appear as six factors for the varimax rotation and four factors in the case of quartimax, may be found in Appendices C and D. The two rotations differ in the way in which they go about fitting the axes to the variables. Both of these rotations are orthogonal; that is, the resulting factors are uncorrelated. However, varimax strives to produce factors containing a wide variation of loadings; i.e., on each factor some variables will be highly loaded and others not at all, so that the variables are split into distinct grOups. Quartimax, on the other hand, strives to concentrate as much as possible of the variance of each variable into one loading with no restriction 17 as to the factor upon which the variable is loaded. Thus. the quartimax rotation often gives a large general factor, as happened here, whereas varimax makes such a general factor nearly impossible to obtain, due to the way it attempts to spread the variance. The major advantage of factor analysis over multiple scalogram analysis in analyzing this type of data is one which has also proved to be important in the use of factor analysis for other types of data in psychology: this technique does not require a variable, e.g., an issue, to score in only one dimension (or factor), as multiple scalogram analysis does. In fact. any issue is assumed to include more than one inde- pendent component as contributing factors in a delegate's decision as to how his vote is cast. That a variable may be. and often is, multi—dimensional is taken into account as the separate variables are put together and load in different ways to form the individual. independent components. RESULTS Both multiple scalogram analysis and factor analysis are techniques for classifying the selected United Nations issues into clusters, which are referred to as "dimensions" in multiple scalogram analysis and "factors" in factor analysis. This section will be devoted to a close and detailed examination of each dimension, or factor, in turn, to see exactly what issues do cluster together in each form of analysis. We hope this will enable us to see why delegates' votes are often different from what we might expect by knowing merely the name of the issue. Following the detailed examinations. each cluster can be summarized and viewed as a whole, allowing us to identify the salient feature that possibly serves each as the underlying thread of continuity. Multiple Scalogram Analysis In the scalogram analysis of the 12th General Assembly of the United Nations. four dimensions appeared, encompassing 32 of the 34 issues. The tables and relevant key may be found in Appendix B. For the purposes of this interpretation, each dimension will be viewed as a continuum representing a specific kind of problem which has been faced by the General Assembly. Each pole, therefore, represents one extreme of the opinion: 18 19 the left (first issue to appear on a dimension) and the right (last issue of the dimension) being the issues where there is the greatest amount of consensus among members, respectively in favor and against the opinion represented. The middle issues are those upon which there is the least consensus. It has been noted in Chapter Two that one of the peculiarities of the scalogram method of analysis is the "reflected" score. In the ensuing examination, we shall see that the scores at the right end of each dimension have been reflected, further demonstrating that after a certain point most of the members do not accept the underlying principle being considered in the dimensional scale. Dimension I The first dimension is the largest and is composed of 16 issues, which will be discussed in the order of consensus in which they appear along the continuum. Issue #1 of this dimension is the vote taken on Agenda Item 66, the peaceful coexistence of states. The draft resolution urged the member states to strengthen international peace by taking individual measures to settle their disputes peacefully and to attempt to maintain policies of non-aggression and non-intervention in the affairs of others. Issue #2 is Draft Resolution I of the Report of the Economic and Security Council, proposing 20 that an Economic Commission be set up for Africa. Remembering that three such commissions, with work focused in Europe, Latin America. and Asia and the Far East. already existed at this time, we might anticipate little disagreement among members as to the establishment of this commission. Issue #3 represents the vote taken on Agenda Item 51, concerning the geographical distribution of the United Nations Secretariat staff, which merely requested that the Secretary—General continue to follow the policy of giving appropriate preference to nationalities which form a disproportionately small part of the Secretariat, in making the appointments. Issue #4 again refers to a collective administrative action to be recommended by the Assembly, but on a more touchy subject: spreading information about armaments. The resolution called for the Assembly to form a commission to enlighten the people of the world as to the dangers of the armaments race and the destructive effects of modern weapons. Although Poland and a few other nations objected, on the grounds that any measure that did not actually prohibit nuclear weapons and tests was woefully deficient, the objection was apparently considered irrelevant by the majority of the voting members. Issue #5 represents a question of a seemingly very different nature. This vote centered on the situation in the 21 Trust Territories of the Cameroons under the British and under the French administrations. We can assume that its signifi— cance was the conflict of the principles of colonialism versus self-determination and human rights. The resolution recommended a restoration of peace and a lessening of tension allegedly caused by the struggle for independence in the area under French administration, as well as an effort to terminate the trusteeships of both areas as quickly as possible. This issue marks the beginning of a large cluster of questions falling together within the first dimension in an interesting manner. Thus, Issue #6 of the first dimension deals with the establishment of a Good Offices Committee on South-West Africa. to be composed of the United Kingdom, the United States, and one other to be elected by the Assembly, to discuss giving international status to this territory. Issue #7 represents one of the votes taken on the future of Togoland under French administration. On the surface this ballot concerns a minor procedural matter. that of voting on two of the paragraphs separately. But, examining the substance of the argument, one finds that the question is really that of providing for the termination of the Trustee- ship Agreement of the Territory of Togoland if such a move were requested by the new Togoland Legislative Assembly. Those objecting to this provision held that it was premature 22 to refer to the termination of the trusteeship before the proper conditions had been fulfilled. This vote was actually designed so that the rest of the draft resolution could be passed without saying anything about ending the trusteeship status of the area. Issues #8 and #2 again concern non—self-governing territories, and propose the setting up of a six-man committee to study the problem of transmitting information about them. These issues seem to center on whether the General Assembly is competent to require the administering states to transmit such information. or whether this is an interference in the domestic jurisdiction of these states. Vote #9 is a procedural question: whether or not this motion is important enough to be put to a two—thirds vote, while #8 represents a vote on the draft resolution as a whole. Issue #10 is a vote taken on the inclusion of Agenda Item 62, the question of West Irian (West New Guinea) on the agenda. This was another long—standing political dispute whose inception was Indonesia's former status as a colony of the Netherlands; a question of self-determination was now involved. Issue #11 represents something of a break in this cluster, for it is concerned with Agenda Item 68. the composition of the General Committee of the General Assembly. Noting the 23 increased membership of the General Assembly, the resolution outlines a motion for increasing the number of Vice Presidents of the Assembly and a pattern for electing them, allowing for a redistribution of the vice—presidencies on the basis of equitable geographical representation so as to "balance" the Assembly's vital steering organ. While the distribution of the seven Main Committee Chairmen on the General Committee was to remain the same, it was recommended that thirteen Vice—Presidents be elected according to the following pattern: four from the Asian and African states, one from the Eastern European states, two from the Latin American states, two from the Western European and other states, and the five permanent members of the Security Council. The next four issues deal with some of the basic principles stated in the United Nations Charter, those of human rights. Issues #12 and #13 are concerned with Agenda Item 61. the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. Item #12 concerns placing this on the agenda: Item #13 presents the substance of a draft resolution which appeals to the Government of the Union of South Africa to enter into negotiations with the governments of India and Pakistan to solve this problem. Issues #14 and #15 are also concerned with human rights in the Union of South Africa. Item #14 represents another vote on forming the agenda. and 24 Item #15 is the vote on Agenda Item 60, dealing with race conflict in South Africa allegedly resulting from the "apartheid" policies of the Government of the Union of South Africa. The resolution appeals to the government to revise those of its policies which are designed to perpetuate or increase racial discrimination. This is, once again. basically a conflict of the proper domestic jurisdiction of states with the higher issue of human rights. The final issue of Dimension I returns to the question of the composition of the General Committee which appeared earlier. This vote was on an amendment to insure that at least one of the four representatives of the Asian and African states or the two from Western Europe should be from a Commonwealth country, without altering the proposed geographical distribution of the seats. Naturally, several members objected to the amendment. saying it was against the U.N. principles to break down barriers. Summary of Dimension I. Dimension I appears to be a cluster of issues concerned with problems of strengthening the United Nations and upholding broad principles. such as self-determination and human rights, embodied in the U.N. Charter. The first three issues represent general, procedural topics requiring no concrete action from the various Member 25 States, such as supplying money or information. As expected, the endorsement of peaceful coexistence. of a commission similar to others already approved, and of "representative" distribution on the Secretariat staff does engender a high degree of consensus. The fourth issue is similar in that it also hits on a matter of collective action of presumable benefit to the people of the world, without requiring sacrifices of any kind from the individual members. At this point, however, we reach the problem of strengthening the United Nations by upholding the U.N. Charter's trusteeship and human rights principles. Issues 5. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are concerned with problems of colonial possessions and self—determination for trusteeship territories. Items 12, 13, 14, and 15 are concerned with alleged infringements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter. Items 11 and 16 are measures for altering the General Committee. the steering organ of the Assembly. It may be a poor prognosis for the future of inter— national organizations to note that except for Item #11. Item #7 and all those following it are reflected. This implies that beyond this point most of the members did not vote to implement these principles of the U.N. Charter when they appeared to be in opposition to their individual interests. 26 Dimension II. Turning now to Dimension II, we find that it includes eight issues. seven of which are apprently concerned with basic problems of "hot" areas in the cold war between the two major powers. The first issue involved Agenda Item 24, a recommendation to enlarge the Disarmament Commission by 14 members. The U.S.S.R., denouncing the existing commission as not representative of all viewpoints, had earlier proposed its dissolution and the establishment of a permanent commission composed of all the U.N. members. Whereas the United States— centered bloc felt that the proposed smaller commission would result in more fruitful negotiations, the U.S.S.R. still objected on the grounds that it was not properly representative. The second issue involved a draft resolution embodied in Agenda Item 23, the report of the United Nations Commission on the unification and rehabilitation of Korea. The resolution confirmed two objectives of the United Nations: peaceful establishment of a unified, independent, and democratic Korea under a representative form of government, and the restoration of peace and security in the area. It then called specifically upon the communist authorities to adopt these objectives. Again, the U.S.S.R. objected to this on grounds of repre— sentation. saying that the important interested nations 27 (Communist China and North Korea) had no part in making such decisions. The third issue returns to a section of Agenda Item 24, other portions of which have appeared earlier. The com- plete item is concerned with the regulation, limitation, and balanced reduction of all armed forces and armaments. This particular section embodied a draft resolution calling for the immediate suspension of nuclear tests and the reconvening of a sub—committee to make definite recommendations for international control and inspection of both ground and aerial components of existing nuclear weapon stores. As in the former issue, it gave the opportunity for communist attacks, on both Western "aggression" and attempts by the U.S. to impose her ideas on the whole world. The next four votes were also seized by the communist bloc as an opportunity to denounce Western "aggression" and values. and as a chance to return again to the principle that the United Nations must make decisions based on repre— sentation of all peoples affected by them. The question is the placement on the agenda of a discussion on the inclusion of Communist China in the U.N. The resolution presented to the Assembly consisted of two paragraphs. the first recommending that the Assembly reject India's request to place the question on the agenda. and the second stating that 28 the General Assembly would not consider any proposal to exclude the Government of the Republic of China or to seat the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. Vote #4 of Dimension II is on the adoption of paragraph 2, and Vote #5 on the adoption of the draft resolution as a whole. Vote #6 is on the adoption of paragraph 1; Vote #7 is the re— jection of an amendment to change the word "reject" to "accede to.‘ Although the U.S.S.R. again argued non-representation on the eighth and final issue of this dimension, the issue itself appears to be little related to the rest of Dimension II. It covers a vote on an amendment connected with Agenda Item 51, the geographical distribution of the U.N. Secretariat staff. of which the vote on the draft resolution as a whole appeared in Dimension I. The amendment, proposed by Bulgaria, was to make sure that at least three posts would be given to members making minimum contributions to the budget, with the stated purpose of setting forth a definite and practical guide for broadening representation on the Secretariat staff. During the discussion of this amendment, the U.S.S.R. delegate made a special point that this would establish a minimum guide to help combat the existing situation wherein 50% of all posts were filled by the U.S., U.K., and France. It is notable that this argument was not made during the discussion of the main resolution (which appeared in Dimension I). The amendment 29 thus appears to have special. salient features of its own which are consistent with the other issues of the dimension in which it scaled. Summary of Dimension II. Dimension II, therefore, with the exception of the final item, encompasses what we have termed "hot" cold war issues, wherein the question is not a conflict between desinas to expand the influence of communist or non—communist states, as might be assumed from the titles of the issues alone, but a matter of affording appropriate representation to all states affected by them. Represen— tation of all viewpoints is one of the U.N. Charter principles. The peculiarity of the items appearing in this dimension is that upon each of these issues the U.S.S.R. or some other communist bloc nation made a special point in the pre—ballot debates that the viewpoints they supported would rectify the unequal representation in the U.N. or, in the case of the first item. in the commission under debate. The dimension measures the degree of acceptance of the propriety of the existing U.N. set-ups. The U.S. and its allies appeared to be more content with the status quo than the Russian bloc. The first two issues, which were reflected, indicate that the majority voted against the Russian argument, in these two cases representing the side voting in favor of the resolution. 30 Our only problem with this interpretation lies with the third item, upon which the communists argued that it was merely an attempt to legitimize U.S. "aggression." Recognizing this, we shall proceed and return later to this problem. Dimension III Dimension III covers five issues. Issue #1 centers on the approval of an Agreement on the Organization for Trade Cooperation, embodied within the Economic and Security Council's recommendations for the expansion of international trade. The resolution as a whole recommended lower tariffs, attention to land—locked countries, and lowering of trade barriers through this Agreement. The vote was cast after the U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, and others had objected on the grounds that the Agreement was a device of the industrial capitalists to restrict the trade of the under—developed nations and, furthermore. that the U.N. had had no connection with the agreement, most of the members had not been included in it, and the General Assembly had never considered approving it. Issue #2 arose under Agenda Item 65, the U.N. Emergency Force. The problems of financing it bring up once again the jurisdiction of the U.N. over the individual states. The resolution was to authorize the Secretary General to spend, at his discretion. up to 13.5 million dollars on the Force 31 until December of 1957, and to provide a scale of assessments under which all Member States were to bear the expenses. The communist bloc argued that the financial burden should be borne by the states who caused it to be incurred, using the issue as part of their campaign against Western "aggression" and protesting the use of force in the Middle Eastern disputes. The next two issues are concerned with Agenda Item 69, threats to the security of Syria and to international peace. The immediate problem concerned a concentration of Turkish troops on Syria's border, and Syria had appealed to the U.N. for help. The U.S.S.R. again used the opportunity to denounce Western "aggression." stating that the United States' "prodding" of Turkey to attack Syria was another demonstration of U.S. military strategy. During the discussion, King Saud of Saudi Arabia offered to mediate. .Vgte.#3 was taken on a motion to adjourn the discussion until the results of the mediation were known, and #4 added an amendment to adjourn for "not more than three days." As in the other dimensions, our final issue appears to present a different matter; it is Agenda Item 62, the question of West Irian (West New Guinea), which also appeared in Dimension I when the question of placing it on the agenda was considered. The resolution declared that the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands endangered peaceful 32 development of the area, and invited the two nations to settle it in accordance with the principles of the U.N. Charter. Once again, the main arguments concerned colonialism versus self-determination. However, the problems of disturbing the peace and the requests of Indonesia for protection against the use of force by the Netherlands receive more attention now than formerly. Summary ovaimension III. As in Dimension II, there is a peculiarity in the communist bloc arguments on these items. Here, four of the five issues are specifically identi— fied as examples of Western "aggression" against weaker nations. while in the last, the same point is implied by Indonesia's request for protection. Whether or not this interpretation is actually accepted by the voting members, we find the last three reflected. indicating a change in the majority view- point as the issues approached the end of the continuum. Dimension IV Dimension IV consists of three issues, two of which return us to sections of items which have already appeared. Issue #1 returns us to Agenda Item 24 on the regulation of armaments and armed forces. this vote being taken on a recom- mendation to suspend nuclear and thermo—nuclear tests immediately. The appeal was specifically directed to the U.S., United 33 Kingdom, and U.S.S.R. It afforded the U.S.S.R., while endorsing immediate suspension. an opportunity to denounce the apparent unwillingness of the two Western Powers either to suspend or prohibit these tests. Issue #2 concerns the definition of aggression. The resolution asked for members' comments. and for a special committee to be formed, composed of the 22 members who had joined the Assembly since the study began, to give their ideas on aggression to the existing committee. The U.S.S.R. opposed the resolution, saying it was merely a Western block to an immediate solution of the problem. Issue #3 represents another vote on the draft resolution con- cerning the future of Togoland under French administration; a procedural vote on this matter appeared in Dimension I. This resolution provided for free elections to a Togoland Legislative Assembly in 1958, under U.N. supervision and universal suffrage, following which the Togoland Government and U.N. Administration Authorities could plan to end the Trusteeship when Togoland wished. The delegate from Ghana argued that an immediate vote on terminating the Trusteeship Agreement would only confuse the people of Togoland. Ghana held that the question should be delayed until the people had had the Legislative Assembly election and were. thus, more accustomed to democratic processes. 34 Summary of Dimension IV. In spite of its seemingly heterogeneous character, this dimension contains issues sharing one major common element: each issue focuses on a problem of immediacy or delay. No such problem was found in issues scaling elsewhere. This is true for the first item, which might otherwise more logically seem related to Dimension II or Dimension III; the second item, which could have scored in Dimension I or Dimension II; and the third item, which could have scored in Dimension I, if the time factor had not been the specific focus of the debates. Thus, the left pole represents the majority view that action should be delayed. while the reflected right pole represents the majority View that action should be immediate. Problem Issues Two issues did not appear on any scale. One was a question of self-determination for Cyprus, concerning the desirability of negotiations while there was tension in the area. This is not unlike the problem of West Irian in substance. and it is hard to see why this item did not join the West- Irian item in some dimension. The second nonscaled item was a motion concerning the dissolution of the Disarmament Commission and the establishment of a new, permanent one, which is the substantive converse of the first item in Dimension II. 35 For some reason. the votes rejecting this motion did not match the votes on the other dimensions, while the motion adopted following its rejection gained enough consensus to mark the beginning of a new scale. It is apparent throughout that one or two issues frequently appear in a dimension which tend not to fit into the interpretation given, which raises some doubt as to the adequacy of the interpretations. Some examples of these are Items 4, 11, and 16 of Dimension I, Item 3 of Dimension II, and Item 5 of Dimension III. The appearance of unexplainable items_at the ends of a continuum is not a very disturbing factor. since the inherent character of scalogram analysis allows issues representing a high degree of consensus to scale with almost anything else. However, the appearance of such items in the middle of two of our scales poses another problem. An ad hoc explanation of underlying meanings can be pushed only so far without straining credibility. For this reason another, different, search for similarity which might affect members' interpretation of issues was made. using factor analysis. Factor Analysis The results for the varimax and quartimax rotations may be found in Appendices C and D, respectively. Tables 36 list the issues with the highest loadings on each of the six varimax factors and the four quartimax factors. By selecting about half of these highest loading issues for detailed discussion, each of the six varimax factors and the four quartimax ones could be characterized by a recurrent theme. exactly as has been done for the dimensions appearing on multiple scalogram analysis. Since each issue and its impli— cations has been discussed in detail earlier, a brief des— cription should suffice to indicate the flavor'of each factor. It will be noted throughout the discussion that the varimax results are sometimes difficult to interpret, whereas the quartimax rotation gives factors which are more easily explained than the multiple scalogram analysis dimensions. Varimax Rotation Factor I. The first factor has been labeled a "Protection of Smaller Nations" cluster. Six issues have been chosen to represent it. Five of these center around specific problems of the protection of small, underdeveloped nations. The first two are concerned with the threat to Syria allegedly posed by Turkish troops encamped on her border. The third centers around a threat to peace in another area of the world, West Irian, which also appears to be related to the problem of small nations' security. The fourth is a vote 37 upon the establishment of a Good Offices Commission for South— West Africa to discuss awarding international status to the territory. The fifth is concerned with a procedural resolution to divide two paragraphs in the resolution planning termination of the Trusteeship Agreement on French Togoland. The final issue of this factor outlines the plan for electing thirteen Vice—Presidents to the General Committee of the General Assembly. to make representation more equitable in the light of increased U.N. membership. This may be seen as a protection of the political interests of smaller nations. The remaining highly loaded issues involve a similar theme. Thus, on the first factor, items which scattered in two different places on multiple scalogram analysis have been gathered together to give one grouping relating to the physical and psychological security of smaller nations. Factor II. The six issues loading .80 or higher on the second factor are all found in the second, or "hot" cold war dimension of multiple scalogram analysis. With some reservations, this factor has also been tentatively labeled a "Hot-Cold War" cluster. The four votes taken upon the admission of Communist China are here, as well as the one concerned with the unification and rehabilitation of Korea, and that concerned with the suspension of nuclear tests and a 38 committee to discuss the inspection of disarmament. The remaining issues appear to encompass other items on the question of proper representation which were also found on the cold war scalogram dimension, as well as a few colonial problems. Factor III. Here, six issues have loadings of .60 or higher. The first four are those concerned with racial problems and the treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. The next issue has appeared earlier on Factor I; it is the question of equitable representation on the General Committee of the General Assembly. However, it seems fitting that this should appear along with other questions concerning the just treatment of minority peoples. as it is highly probable that more than one consideration is made when the votes upon issues are cast. The final issue loading above .60 on this factor centers around placing the question of West Irian on the agenda. Although there does not seem to be any simple explanation for the relegation of this matter to this factor, that it is related to the question of the General Committee's composition is apparent from their correlation of .685. Likewise, there are correlations from .628 to .680 of this issue with the first four issues. The other, weaker loading issues of this factor demonstrate a 39 similar phenomenon. Factor IV. Five issues have loadings of .40 or greater on the fourth factor. The best label that may be placed upon it is "Global Improvement." The first item is the issue of taking collective action to inform the people of the world about the destructive effects of modern weapons. The second is that of accepting the report of the Trusteeship Council on the situation in the British and French Cameroons. The third is the question of financing the United National Emergency Force. The fourth relates to the problem of expanding international trade. and the fifth to the geographical distri- bution of the United Nations' Secretariat staff. Thus, this factor is even more difficult to explain than the last. There seems to be no underlying homogeneity among the arguments; there is little similarity among the issues or their impli- cations: the actions required of the Member States range from financial support to mere approval. Even the label finally selected fails to explain the second issue. Factor V. This factor has been tentatively labeled "Tension Reduction." It is represented by four issues, of which only two received loadings above .50. On the whole, these issues appear to represent a factor of world tension items, both general and specific. The problem of self— 4O determination for Cyprus and the consequent tension in the area as a threat to peace appears first, although it is difficult to understand why the similar problems of Syria and West Irian did not load as highly on this factor. The second item represents a move toward lessening general world tension by suspending nuclear tests. The third item is again the question of providing for self-determination of French Togoland. Although this issue received a strong loading in Factor I, its weaker loading here may indicate that an unnoticed bit of tension and conflict was present when the issue reached a vote. The final, weakly-loading item of this factor is the question of allotting more time for study to the committee on defining aggression. Thus, as with the previous factor, the chosen label does not easily encompass all of the items chosen to represent the factor. Factor VI. The sixth and final factor is the smallest, for only three of the issues load above .30. It seems that this is most probably an administrative or "house— keeping" factor, wherein items requiring little or no commit- ment to action on the part of the Member States tend to receive the highest loadings. The three highest loading items are those concerned with the geographical distribution of future appointees to the United Nations Secretariat staff. the 41 endorsement of the resolution for peaceful coexistence. and the enlargement of the Disarmament Commission. Summary of the Varimax Solution. A phenomenon similar to that noted earlier in the use of multiple scalogram analysis is apparent: a few seemingly unexplainable items remain within each factor. Again, there are also factors where the explanation and interpretation of its underlying unity may appear a bit unreasonable. as if the explanation were being stretched to encompass all the issues. However. the quartimax results solve many of these problems. Quartimax Rotation Factor I. There were nine issues with loadings of .80 or higher on the first factor. This has been labeled "Protection of Smaller Nations,‘ as was the first varimax factor. The exceptionally high cut-off point has been chosen because, asijsapparent from Appendix D, the first cluster resulted in a somewhat general factor wherein 19 of the 34 issues held loadings of .60 or higher. With the exception of the third, sixth. and ninth issues, each of those selected for discussion was concerned with colonial problems. The first and fifth issues were centered on the question of terminating the Togoland Trusteeship Agreement; the committee under discussion in the second issue was concerned with 42 according international status to this territory. The fourth and eighth issues were concerned with the legality of requiring Member States to furnish the General Assembly with information about the non-self-governing territories within their respective jurisdictions. The question of West Irian was also a colonial matter, an issue which, as was noted in the previous discussion of the multiple scalogram results, appeared to belong with other colonial issues although it did not cluster with them either in the multiple scalogram method of analysis or the varimax rotation. The third, sixth and ninth issues, on the other hand. were concerned with the physical well-being of smaller nations. The problem of the purported threat to Syria from Turkey concerned an allegedly imminent attack. Those of defining aggression and the establishment of a permanent and effective Disarmament Commission centered around problems of future attack. The remaining items carry out a similar theme. Each of these issues primarily concerned the physical and psychological security of the smaller nations. The larger powers were given the opportunity to show themselves as cognizant and respectful of the problems of areas now developing into potential United Nations members, thereby making a bid for future support from these nations when each obtains a vote. 43 Factor II. The second factor is neat and clear-cut. Of the 34 issues considered, the only ones to receive a loading of .60 or higher are the four concerned with including the admission of Communist China on the Assembly's agenda. The remaining items are issues shown in the multiple scalogram analysis to be related to these first four. Factor III. The third factor is also neat, for the only items receiving a loading of .60 or higher here are those concerned with the agenda formation and discussion of the problems of racial conflict and treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa. The other issues found in this factor are also found in the same dimension of multiple scalogram analysis. Factor IV. The fourth factor appears to be made up, as was the final factor of varimax. of general "housekeeping" matters wherein little physical or psychological commitment is required of the various Member States and there is, thus, no strong feeling engendered on either side. This indifference is fairly clear, since only one issue loads above .60. Examination of the three highest loading issues will provide a sample of the type of matter that contributes to this factor. The first issue was approving the establishment of a committee to disseminate information about the destructive effects of 44 modern weapons. The second called for approval of a report from the Trusteeship Council about the situation in the British and French Cameroons. and this issue's loading of .651 on the first factor demonstrates the probability that more than one point was taken into consideration when it was voted on. The third issue. the matter of adequate representation of the staff of the United Nations Secretariat, received its highest loading here. Thus. although a few of the 34 issues did receive their highest loadings on this factor, the high frequency of relatively low loadings supports the assertion that it may represent a type of issue where little concern is felt, the type of issue which appears on the first half of Dimension I of multiple scalogram analysis. Summary of Analyses Thus it is evident that, with the voting data of the Twelfth Session of the General Assembly, the quartimax rotation of factor analysis gives the most clear-cut and readily interpretable clusters of the three methods. The same factor analysis operations were subsequently performed by this author on the roll—call votes of the Thirteenth Session of the same assembly, of which the multiple scalogram results were obtained from the work of Brown and Wrigley (1961). 45 Examination of this session resulted in the same conclusions. that the quartimax rotation was the most easily interpreted. As before, the scalogram dimensions can be explained only by assumptions about the underlying implications of debate arguments and quasi—hypotheses as to how the diverse issues can be bound by a similar thread, while the factor analysis groups show clusters of issues with similar titles. apparent at a glance. The differences between the two rotations are less striking in the Thirteenth Session: both give four factors, the second. third, and fourth being identical in terms of the issues covered. The differences between the highest-loading items in the first factors of the two rotations. although small, support the previous conclusion that quartimax is superior for this type of data. To find out whether the striking similarity of the two rotations in the Thirteenth Session is due to some idiosyncrasy of that session, or whether the difference between the two produced by the data on the Twelfth Session is typical of all such United Nations data would, of course, require further analyses on other sessions. FURTHER UTILIZATION OF MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM.ANALYSIS One other feature of multiple scalogram analysis makes it particularly valuable when used with this type of data. This feature, which may be seen in Appendix B, is the score given to each country on each dimension. Countries whose delegates have voted alike along a dimension receive the same score. One of the several new and potentially exciting uses of these scores in examining voting blocs within the United Nations will be demonstrated. The phenomenon of bloc voting in the United Nations has been recognized for a number of years both by the lobbyists within the organization and by its observers, but only recently has it come to be the subject of detailed study. We can assume that the structure of the United Nations, wherein group decisions are based upon majority vote, and not unanimous agreement, is one in which bloc alignments are likely to occur. We can infer this from our knowledge of the political bargaining that goes on in legislative bodies in the United States. This discussion will attempt, therefore, in a limited and tentative manner. to further the empirical analysis of the similarities and differences of these voting groups in 46 47 the United Nations by calling attention to statistical insights gained from the country scores along multiple scalogram analysis dimensions. For the purpose of this analysis, a voting bloc is defined as a cluster of countries whose mathematical scores. computed from the votes each cast on aspecified series of issues, were identical. This approach allows blocs of different membership to appear as various matters come under consideration. This mathematical definition of blocs, allowed by multiple scalogram analysis. is felt to be an advance over the work of others studying the United Nations (Hovet, 1960; Goodwin, 1960) who define their blocs as caucusing groups and do not take voting patterns into account. In our study. the first and second dimensions of multiple scalogram analysis revealed two distinct sets of blocs for the two different types of issues. These will be found on the following two pages. It will be noted that although fourteen different scale scores were obtained on the first dimension, the number of blocs has been reduced to nine through combining some of the sparsely populated middle ranks, without damaging the relative rankings of the blocs along the continuum. These were combined to allow the width of each dimension to be comparable. to facilitate the analysis that follows. 48 \1. fia>mam loos» swam» hmDmDHD mamflsse ampsm Hmmmz .m.m.m ovaxmz .m.m.m mamsu whan OGHMH . Imsw> smuH magnum MAB UGMHAmSB mapsH flpsmm mfiamfi. Hmmsunom suwm mEmcmm momonw meH CCMd mpcmanwnumz .M.D hmsmmnmm mhmamz mcmstHmOQOUcH >Hmmc. musonamxsq :Hmmm .¢.m.D smumwxmm maumnfiq ovum mama maxm> UHHQstm pcmammm >mxHDB cmvam momq smash mumoo Im#msw Imamonuol .809 302 mammumoflz >m3hoz pcmamuH H00 coawwo mfimoflflum mammsn hamuH mpmcmo MCHQU HmmHmH mHQEoHOO Im>amm ma>flaom umhmm team. mocmum Enamamm mfiuums< xnmacmn maeno Hm cmum MHGOQEmU manmmar pamacflm meamnumss mcflucmmnd mnso Haumum Mommsom Iflsmnmmfl mausm manna m m h m m w m N a pmumuoawd muoom osmum ma ma ea 8 ma NH 8 Ha OH 8 m m w h m w m w m ©m>flwomm muoom mamum mmamHUCHum Hvuumnu .z.D mo msflsonumsmuum “H seamsmafla no moon msfluo> .H musmfim 49 mamsuocm> mmsmsnb .¢.m.D .&.D pcmaflmsa aflmmm sums hmsmmnmm mfimcmm mammumoflz psmammN 3oz mpsmauwnumz mH50950x5q samuH .m.m.m.h mamfimumsw .m.m.m oosmum mfl>mam mcflmhxh H0©m>amm Hm Iompw wasmEoM nonmsom smfimw Unmaom UHHQsmwm .Q mauhm mummCSm mflQEoHoo smosm msmnm mcflnu manmnm pamacflm vafinu Hpsmm maxm> momsmo moxnse Hmmmz Imamonowun Heumum ovaxmz memos mammsn mH>HHom smash . IonsH Ionmm Esflmwmm vaH m>mam2 smumBm mamflsse mach mHHmmHSm mauums¢ cmHH waned Hmmsunom. momq ummmm macmnaa mwamuumsfl mnsu newsman cmumflxmm >m3uoz HmmumH GOHMOU smum msflusmmnfi MUflm mumoo muvunw .maQ0aSum xumficmn pcmamHH mausm mHUOQEmU IflcmammA m m h m m w m N a pmumooaam muoom mamom m n m m w m m H o pm>fiwumm muoum mamom mosmmH HMS pHOU =uom: "HH soflmcmEHQ so mUOHm msfluo> .N onsmfim 50 Comparison With Other Types of National Groupings Four different types of national groupings are discussed by Hovet (1960) as having presumable influence upon the voting of their members, since the members demonstrate some degree of solidarity in voting patterns: caucusing groups, geographical distribution groups, common interest groups, and regional groups. When the representatives of these groups are located within our mathematically defined blocs. the voting of each of the four different types of groups, as tested by the Kolmogorov- Smirnov two—sample test (Siegel, 1956), has shown a difference beyond the .001 level of significance between that group and the rest of the Assembly. That each group does vote with a significant degree of solidarity is evident. and the results of multiple scalogram analysis can now be used to demonstrate how it is possible to determine the relative influence of each type of national grouping on voting on different types of issues. Caucusing Groups. A caucusing group is defined by Hovet as "any group of member states in the Assembly which has some degree of formal organization, holds fairly regular meetings. and is concerned with substantive issues and related procedural matters before the sessions of the General Assembly" (1960, p. 13). As mentioned earlier, both he and Goodwin use 51 such groups as the basis of their descriptions of bloc voting to the almost complete exclusion of all else. At the time of the Twelfth Session. there were eight caucusing groups; Figures 3 and 4 of Appendix E show where each lined up on our two dimensions. Some overlap of the Asian—African group with both the Arab and Commonwealth groups will be noted; certain countries belonged to two or more caucusing groups. Geographical Distribution Groups. Our other three types of groups are also delineated from the definitions and membership enumerations given by Hovet. Thus, we find five "geographical distribution" groups with no overlap of member- ship. The distributions of these over our blocs are shown in Figures 5 and 6 in Appendix E. These groups are not truly geographically distributed, by any means, but Hovet states that they are referred to in this manner within the Assembly "because diplomatic tact prevents them from being called, more rationally, political compromise groups with some reflection of geographical areas" (1960, p. 33). Any real geographical division would, no doubt, switch the positions of several nations (i.e., place China in the Asian group and the United States and Canada with the rest of the Western Hemisphere). Hovet's divisions are accepted only because precisely these groups exist, by either formal or informal arrangement, and 52 meet to discuss matters of concern to them, such as the geo- graphical allocations of various committee seats. Common Interest Groups. Common interest groups might be defined as groups of states which, although not bound together by any sort of formal arrangement or membership in a regional body. nevertheless have some elements in common which tend to provide a common outlook on certain types of issues before the General Assembly. Whether these common interest groups actually exist may be a moot question: some observers indicate that they do exist and have an influence (Hovet, 1960, p. 44). Hovet's "common interest groups" were examined. The relevant charts are Figures 7 and 8 of Appendix E, and show that common interests do seem to correlate with the votes. This is particularly apparent for the Moslem States and the Arab League in Dimension I, and for the other three common interest groups in Dimension II. Regional Groups. The fourth type of group is the regional group, a group of United Nations members bound "together either by common membership in a regional organi- zation not connected directly with the United Nations. or by common participation in important regional conferences which, while not establishing any permanent organization. nevertheless draw participating countries together in estab- lishing an agreement on principles of mutual consent" (Hovet. 1960, p. 39). From the large numbermm cH AEsHmHmmv Hllmswsflmumnd onlumCHmmm hmlluo>mm :H Amcflfiov allmcflsflmumn< onlumcflmmfi mhnluo>mm CH mcoflumasnme muo> .2: map mo umaumumnomm may mo mmmum may on musmfiucflommm mo msflxme CH mumanmumuomm may no munmm HHmEm mawumcoflunomoumwap UCHEHOM mmflufiamcoaums Op mosm lummmum mumflnmoummm msfi>flm mo mCOHumpcmEEoomH ummm ou Euomcoo ou mssflucoo Hmnmcmw Iwumumnomm ms» umnp ummsvmm .HHUQDOU wuwusumm paw UHEosoum mnu mo uuommm on» CH popsaocfl .moflumfl How scammHEEoo UHEocoom am How ammomoum .mmumum mo mocmpmflxmoo aswwommm now soaumwcmEEoomm mammH may no sopmxm emem\a Hm mm m ownm\< NH ma N momm\< me «m H .02 Hmnfisz muo> mo Hmpno Hmnfisz uswfidoon EmuH mocwmd Hmoamoaocouno EmuH sfiqmzmmmd Admmzmwhmfima MEB DZHmDQ ZOAD QMBO> WMDmmH < NHQZflQQd 7O .msumpm HmCOHHMCHmuCH Cm SHOHHHHmu mHCH mCHpHouom mHllmCHCHmqu< mmCUme ou MUHHMC ummz OHIIumCHmmm Cusom Co wmuuHEEoo meHmmo m¢IIHo>mm CH @000 m m0 quECmHHQmumm .Cuon CH Emummm QHCmmmmeHB mCu mo mm>Huutho man no COHHMC IHECmu pCm mCooumEmo CUCmHm mnu CH momma mo CoHumnoummH mCu How mCOHumprEEoomH mCHmmmmEooCm .COHumuumH ICHapm CUCmHm umpCC mCOOHmEmu on» UCm COHumnumHCHEpm CmHuHHm CmpCC mCooumEmo mHIthHCHmquC may no mmHuoanHwB HmCHB mnp onlumCHmmm CH COHumsuHm may Co HHUCCOU mmlluo>mm CH mHCmmmumCHB on» no uuommm .mCommm3 CHmUOE mo muommmm m>HHUCHumm© msu ou mm >HHmHCoHunmm pCm .momu mquEmEHm ms» mo mummCmp map OH mm pHuo3 may no mmHmomm may CmquHHCm pCm EHOHCH ou CoHuom m>HuU®HHoo Com mCHHHmo .mquEmEMm HHm pCm AmHummv moonom UmEHm HHm mo CoHu HIImCHCHmmeC Inapmu UmUCmHmQ pCm .CoHumu mllumCHmmC IHEHH .COHumHCmmH map Co voluuo>mm CH COHHCHommH ummnp mo COHuomm mCOHHMHCQwB mCmmH mCu mo Cuumxm muo> HOhm\¢ mm OH 0 HCN.A\¢ MH om m mme\< uN NH e .02 . HmAECz muo> mo Hmpuo HonECZ quECUOQ EmuH mpCmm< HMUHmoHOCOHCO EwuH 71 HHIImCHCHmumnd mauuumeHmma vaIHo>mH CH AmEmCmm .momH .Cmmmb .pCMHmHH .HOpm>Hmm Hm .HOpmsvm .meponsmov hIImCHCHmumflfi mmuuumchms leluo>mm CH AMHmstCm> .CCMHHmne .momH .CCQCb .pCmHmCH .HOpmsvm .MCHCU .MCHHCmmHCV wIImCHCHmHmQ< emuunmchma hmlluo>mm CH mIImCHCHmquC mmllumCHmmC bNIIM0>mm CH mCoHumHCQme muo> .AmmCHSO BmZ ummBV CmHHH ummz Ho COHummsv was .No EmuH Ho COHmCHoCH "mpCmmm msu mo COHumEuom .mpo> mCHHCqu3H m on mmHHOHHHHmu mCHCum>omlmHmmlC0C usonm COHumEHOHCH mo ConmHE ImCmnu m0 EmHQOHQ OCH hosum Op mmuuHEEoo CmE me m we COHumEHOH man no COHummsw ms» pomnsam ou COHuoz .mmHnouHHHmu mCHCHm>om IHHmmICOC usonm COHH ImEHomCH Ho ConmHEmCmHB .COHH ImuumHCHEpm CUCmum CmpCC pCmHomOB mo whouHHHmB may now quEmmumfi mHCmmmHmCHB any Ho COHHMCHEHmu unsusm on» Co uuommu mCu Ho m pCm h mammnmmnmm muo> pmpH> IHp m 0H Humansm 0H COHuoz mammH was mo sopmxm eepm\< m m OH mm 5H m mmnm\¢ mm mH m hm 0N 5 .oz HwQECZ muo> Ho Cmpuo HwQECZ pCmESUOQ EmuH mpCmm< HmonOHOCOHCU EmuH mHIImCHCHmquC onlumCHmmm mmlluo>mm CH mHIImCHCHmHmQ< HmUCmnmv HIIHmCHmmC hmlluo>mm CH 72 mNIImCHCHmquC Ameneoc H--pmeamee nelluo>mm CH mCOHHMHCQmB muo> .moHCHC Cusom Ho COHCD Gnu CH CHmHHo CMHCCH Ho mmHmowm Ho prEHmmuu may mCHCHmUCoo Cmumemm pCm MHpCH mo mquECHm>om me CHHB mumHuommC ou MUHHHC Cusom Ho COHCD may Ho quECHm>oo on» on Hammad .moHHHC CuCom «0 COHCD may CH CHmHHo CmeCH mo memomm.Ho quEummHu OCH .Ho EOHH Ho COHmCHU ;ICH unflCmmm msu m0 COHHMEHOW HHUCCOU muHusumm mnu Ho meQEwE quCmECmm mCu mCoEm EOHH m mmumum HmCuo pCm Cmmmousm Cumummz EOHH N mmpmpm CmoHHmad CHHmH EOHH N mumam Cmmm lousm anummm Cm EOHH H mmumum CmoHnmm pCm CMHm< EOHH u "mqupHmmHmImoH> CmmuHHCH may Ho CoHuUme map HOH Cumuumm mCHBOHHOH may mCH>Hm .xHQEmmmm Hmumaw mCH Ho wmuuHEEoo Hmumme mCu mo COHHHmOQEOU on» How Cumuumm mammH was so nonmxm mmem\< H6 mm mH mepm\a m m NH Hmem\4 mm mm HH .oz HQQECZ muo> Ho prno HOQECZ smuH quECUOQ EmHH mmCmmd HmUHmOHOCOHCU 73 .wuuCCOU CHHmmsCOEEOU m Eoum mmousm Cumummz Ho mm>HumqummHmmH oBu mnu Ho mCo mm.mmpmum CmUHHH< pCm CMHmC Ho mm>HumpCmmmummH HCOH mnu Ho mCo umme um mme on >HQEmmm¢ Hmnmme mCH pHunmeHchumna mo mmuuHssoo Hmnmemo may no onlumCHnmm hmlluo>mm CH mlemCHCHmqum HEovaHx ceases .Hmmsuuom .mHCOHEmXCH .moCmum .ECHmHmm .MHHmuumsmm CH mIImCHCHmquC Asepmeex pmuHes .CHmmm .Hmmsunom .mHCOQmeCH .moCmnm .ECHmHmm .mHHmHHmCCV euuumchmm mmlluo>mm CH mCoHumHCQwB muo> COHUHmOQEOU OS.“ .HOM COHflmmv ICQEEOUQH m Cu. UCOEUGOE .UHC03.m£u Ho mmHQHUCHHm mnu Ho 3wH> CH .HUHHHCOU HMHumH mmsmo sour; .pumepumem. mmeoHHoe Hm: mmH>mH ou MUHCHC Cusom Ho COHCD mCu Ho quECHm>Ow map on Hmmmmm .mUHHHC Cusom Ho COHCD onu Ho quE ICHm>oo mnu Ho :pHmCHMQO= Ho meUHHom map EOHH mCHuHCmmu mUHHH< CHCOm CH HUHHHCOU moon HO COHumng mgu .oo EmuH Ho COHmCHUCH "mprmm mnu Ho CoHumEHom msmmH was no sopmxm mem.a\a mm mm 6H Nth\< om HN mH mN©m\¢ m H wH .oz HmQECz muo> Ho nmpho HOQECZ HCmECUOQ EmuH mpCmm< HMUHmOHOCOHSU EmHH 74 mHIImCHCHmHmCC mIIHmCHmmC menuuo>mm CH mHIImCHCHmHmCd manmCHmmC mvlluo>mm CH OHIImCHCHmHmCC .mEOHCOHQ COHHOOmmCH OCH HCCHO 0H OOHHHEEOU ICCO O HO C0HHCO>COOOH OCH mCHCCHUCH .COHHUCHHOOC mums Ho mCommO3 HOCHo UCm COmoume .UHEOHm Ho COHHHCHC Iona OCH pCm mHCOEmEHm mo COHHOCCOH OCH Co HHHOOHHV CoHHCO>Coo HOCOHHOCHOHCH Cm Ho ConCHOCou OCH Com mCHHHmU .OHCOEOEHO HHO pCm mOOHOH COEHO HHm mo COHH IOCCOH COUCmHmC pCm .COHHO IHHEHH .COHHmHsmOH OCH Co COHHCHOOOH Hmmuc Ho COHHUOm .mOHm OCH CH HHHHCUOO pCm OUOOQ HOCOHHOCHOHCH HO COHHOHOHmOH pCm HCOECHO>om Ho EACH O>HHmHCOmOCmOH m HOCCC OOHOM UHHOHO IOEOC UCO .HCOUCOQOCCH .UOHHHCC O HO HCOECOHHCmHmO .HCHOUOOQ OCH “EOHQOHQ CmOHox OCH CH mO>HHUOm inc 2: OCH Ho COHHOEHHHHC .mHOCEOE wH >9 COHmmHEEOU HCOEmEHm ImHn mCHHmeO OCH OmHmHCO 0H COUOBm pCm .hmsmmumm .Cmmmb .meCH .mmemO >9 CoHHOE m mCHmmmmEooCO .mHCOEmEHm pCm OOOHOH COEHm Ho COHHUSUOH UOUCOHOC qu mtleCHmm¢.C0HHmHHEHH .COHHOHCmOC OCH Co vmllno>mm CH mCOHHwHCCmB OH0> COHHCHomOH Hmmnp Ho COHHOOm mummH may mo Coumxm mmsm\¢ em HH mH wvhm\C mN mN mH 6mm.q\a em mH eH .oz HOCECZ OHo> Ho HOCHO HOCECZ HCOECOOC EOHH mcCOmC HOUHmoHOCOHCO EOHH 75 mIImCHCHmHmC4 nmIIHmCHmmC mNIIHo>mH CH HOHOHCCB .mHCmHC Hpsmm .HmmCHHom .CMHmemm .momH .HOmumH .OHCOCEOUV bIImCHCHmHmCC nNIIHmCHmmC ovllno>mm CH AmHmHCCB .OHCOHC HUCmm .HmmCHHom .momH .HOmHmH .mHCOCEmOV mIImCHCHmHmCC .emuuumchm< NVIIH0>OH CH HmHmHCsB .mHCmnm Hpsmm .HmmCHHom .momH .HOmHmH .mHUOCEmUV OllmCHCHMHmC< ONIIHmCHmmC mvlluo>mm CH mCOHHMHCCmB OHO> =.0H OpOoume 0H =HUOHOH= pno3 OCH mCHmCmCU an OCHCU #mflCHHEEOU .HO COHOSHUCH 03“ MO COHmmComHU OCH Ho COHHOOCv OCH Co COHHCHOOOH OCH CCOEO 0H meCH ma COHHQE "mpCOmm OCH Ho COHHOEHom .COHmmOm mHCH Ho mpCOmm OCH Co ConmCome OUOHQ 0H HmOCUOH m.mHUCH MNMHMH 0H .mCHCO HmHCCEEoo Co COHH ICHomOH OCH Ho H CmmHmmHmm umpCOmm OCH Ho COHHmEHom .mCHCU HmHCCEEoo Ho mCHHmOm OCH Ho COHHmOCU OCH Co COHHsHomOH Hmmup OHOHQEOO OCH "OCCOmm OCH Ho COHHOEHom .mCHCU UHHCCmOm m.OHm0Om OCH Ho HCOECHO>OO m.OHm0Om HmHHCOO OCH HOOm no OCHCO Ho OHHCCQOM OCH Ho HCOECHO>0O OCH OpsHoxO 0H Hmmomoum mCm HOpHmCOU 0H HOC OCHOOC 0H .MCHCO HmHCsEEOU Co COHHC IHOOOH OCH Ho N Camummnmm "mpCOmm OCH Ho COHHmEHom msmmH may mo soumxm emm.4\a m H mm oepm\e m m mm osmm\m m h HN onem\¢ m 0 ON .02 HOHECZ OH0> HO HOCHO HOCECZ HCOEUUOQ EOHH mpCOmC HOUHmoHOCOHCU EOHH 76 .mHCOEmmOmmm Ho OHmom OCH 0H mCHUHoo Iom OHOCEOE ZD OCH an OCHOC mCHOC mOmCOQxO Ho Hm>oummm OCH pCm .mummmOUOC mOOm OC mm AemmH mo .omo HHuepv moses may Co OHOE COHHHHE m.MHw 0H QC UCOmm 0H HmHOCOOIHHmHOHUOm OCH How CoHHmNHHOCHCm.Cm .mHmou Ho COHHmUOHHm OCH Ho Hm>oummm Cm .Oouom OCH CH mCOHHCC IHHHCOU .mOHmHm HOCEOE OCH hHIImCHCHmHmCC Ho CoHHmHUOHmmm mo COHmmOHm HHIIHmCHmm< IxO Cm ”Oouom >UCOmHOEm mvsluo>mm CH 25 OCH mCHCuOUCoo COHHsHomOm .COHHmHOQOOU Opmua How COHHmNHCmmHO OCH Ho .Opmua pCm OHHHHmB Co HCOEOOHm< HmHOCOO OCH OCHH mCOHHmNH H.m.m.m.b ICmmHo pCm .mOHHHCCOU COCUOH .mmm OCHmHCD IUCmH 0H CoHHCOHHm HmHUOmm .pCmHom .mHCmEom. .mmmHumH HOSOH CmCOHCH .wummCsm ~mHmmsH mHOHHHmC OpmnH Ho COHHOCUOH IoHOhm .mHHmm OCH CCm OomHH HmCOHHmCHOHCH IHsm .mHCmCHCV Ho COHmCmme OCH mCHUCOE mIIHmCHmmC IEOUOH HHUCCOU mHHHCUOm UCm ©¢IIHO>MM CH UHEOGOUW NO UHOQOm MO COHUOOW .HOmCCC OCH CH mCOHHCCHHHCoo ECEHCHE mCHCmE OHOCEOE 0H CO>Hm OC mHmom OOHCH HmCH mCHpCOEEOUOH HmHHmHOHUOm as was no mmmpm was nHIImCHCHmHmCC Ho COHHCCHHHOHU HmOHCmmHm mmIIHmCHmmC IOOm OCH Co COHHCHomOH hHIIHo>mH CH Hmmup OCH CH HCOECCOEC mCOHHmHCCmE OCmmH OCH Ho COHOHm OHo> mmm.u\a mm 6H pm oenm\é NH ON mN va.H\< Hm Hm dN .oz HOCECZ OH0> Ho HOCHO HOCECZ HCOECOOQ EOHH mpCOmC HmOHmoHOCOHCU EOHH 77 mHIImCHCHmHmC< emuuumesmmm MNIIHo>mH CH HHIImCHCHmHmC< pmuuumeummm hmnluo>mm CH lelmCHCHmHmCC OHIIHOCHmm< leluoemm CH vHIImCHCHmHmCC omuupmesmmm mNIIHo>mH CH mCOHHmHCCmB OHo> .mCommO3 HmOHOCCIoEHOCH mo mCHHmOH Ho COHmCOmmCm mCHCCOEEOOOH .MHCOEMEHM mud—m meHOM COEHM MO COHHUCUOH COOCmHmC pCm .COHH umHHEHH .COHHmHCmOH OCH Co COHHCHomOH Hmmup Ho COHHoOm .HOHHmCo 2D OCH CHH3 puooom CH mOHm OCH Ho HCOE IQOHO>OU HCHOomOm mHOmCmcCO CoHss mundep mHnn mHuHmm 0H .AmOCHCO BOZ HmOBV CmHHH HmOz mo CoHHmOnv OCH CH COCHOOCOO mOHHHmm OCH mm .mHmOCOCCH pCm mUCmH IHOCHOZ OCH CH COHHmHH>CH .oOmmmm HCOEOCOEm O>OCm HOHHm .OomOm HmCOHHmCuOHCH 0H UCm mHHNm Ho >HHHCOOO OCH CH mHmOHCH OCH HCOCm mHCHmHmEoo OCH mo COHO .ImsomHn OCH Ho HCOECHCOHUC .C30Cx OHOB 05mm mCHM >9 COHHmeOE OCH Ho mHHCmOH OCH HHHCC OomOm HmCOHHmCHOHCH 0H UCm mHHHm Ho >HHHCOOO OCH CH mHmOHCH HCOCm mHCHmHmEoo OCH Ho COHmmCUmHn Cusonpm 0H COHHOE m 0H pOppm :mmmp OOHCH CmCH OHoE HOC= Ho HCOECCOEC msmmH use mo soumxm «mm.a\< em mH om emem\< me am mm mm m mm mm m mm .02 HOCECZ OHo> Ho HOUHO HOCECZ HCOESUOQ EOHH mUCOmC HmOHmOHOCOHCU EOHH 78 .hmmH .mOxOCCC .COHmmOm CHNH .wHCEOmmC HmHOCOO OCH Ho mpnooOm HmHOHHHO OCH CH UCCOH OC mmE CoHHsHomOH ComO H0 HCOEOHmHm HmEHoms .msumhu NNIImCHCHmHmCC Ho OHQOOQ OCH CH COHHmmm NNIIHOCHmmC OC CoHHmCHEHOHOUImHOm Ho mmuueo>mu eH mHmHocHuC may ups» Hmmsemm emsm\a mm mm em .mHOCEOz ZD OCH HHm Ho COOOQEOU COHmmHEEOO HCOEmEHmmHQ HCOCmEHOm m CmHHCmHmO pCm ConmHEEoo HCOEmEHmmHn mCHHmHNO OCH O>Homme on mmms map as eoHHos m mCHmmmmEOOCO .mHCOE ImEHm pCm mOUHOH pOEHm Ho NNIImCHCHmHmCC COHHUCCOH COUCmHmC pCm .COHH NvIIHmCHmmC ImHHEHH .CoHHmHsmOH OCH Co mIIHo>mH CH COHHCHOOOH meup no COHHUOm OMN.H\¢ vN wH mm .pCmHomOB COCOHH CH >HCEOmm< O>HHmHmHmOH OCH CH HOCOHmmHEEoo nNIImCHCHmHmCC 2D mCHmH>HOmCm m pCm HmCmCUV HIIHmCHmmC OmmHHHCm HmmHO>HCC HOCCC o¢IIHo>mH CH .mCoHHUOHO OOHH CHOC 0H CmHm Hmnm\C hm mN Nm .ConmOm CH¢H OCH CmCH HOHHHmO HOC mUCOmm OCH Co CoHHmOCg mHCH Ho mCHumHQ OCH pCm,COHmmOHm Imm mCHCHHOC Ho EOHCOHQ vHIImCHCHmHmCC OCH Co OBOH> HHOCH O>Hm HNIIHmCHmmC 0H mHOCEOE 2D.3OC NN OCH mmuuno>mm CH mo mmHHHesoo m m0 aOHHmsuom mmem\m em mm Hm mCOHHmHCCmB OCmmH OCH Ho COHOxm IIIJMHWII HOCECZ OHo> Ho HOpHO HOCECZ OHo> HCOECOOQ EOHH mpCOmC HmUHmoHOCOHCO EOHH APPENDIX B MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE 12TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY 80 APPENDIX B MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS RESULTS OF THE 12TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY ©(D~JO\U1#(HDOF4 Dimension I Nation Issues 1e12* Afghanistan 1111110000000000 Albania 1110000000000000 Argentina 1111111111011110 Australia lllllllllllllllO Austria 1111111111100110 Belgium .1011111111111111 Bolivia 1111100010000000 Brazil «1111111110000001 Bulgaria 1110000000000000 Burma 1111000000000000 Byelorussia 1110000000000000 Cambodia 1101100000000000 Canada lllllllllllllllO Ceylon 1111100000000000 Chile 1111111111000000 China 0111111111111001 Colombia 1111111110100000 Costa Rica 1111110000000000 Cuba 1111111110100001 Czechoslavakia 1110000000000000 Denmark 1111111111100001 Dominican Republic llllllllllllllll Ecuador 1111111100000000 Egypt 1111000000000000 .'.El Salvador 1111111000000000 Ethiopia 1111000000000000 Finland llllllllllllllll France llllllllllllllll Ghana 1111110000000000 Greece 1111100000000000 Guatemala 1101100000000000 Hungary 1110000000000000 India 1111100000000000 Indonesia 1101100000000000 Iran 1101110000000001 Iraq 1111000000000000 Ireland 1111111100100000 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 81 Nation Israel Italy Japan Laos Liberia Libya Luxembourg Malaya Mexico Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Norway Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Poland Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Spain Sudan Sweden Syria Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine S.S.R. U.S.S.R. United Kingdom U.S.A. Uruguay Venezuela Yemen Yugoslavia *Appropriate keys may be found in Appendix A. Dimension I Issues 1—17 1111111011100001 1111111111111111 1111111100000000 1111111101000000 1111111001000000 1111100000000000 1111111111111111 1111110011000000 1111110000000000 1111100000000000 1111111111111111 1111111111111110 1111111111110011 1111111111100001 1111110110100000 1111111000000000 1111111111000000 1111111110000010 1110000000000000 1111111111111111 1110000000000000 1111000000000000 1111111111111110 1111100000000000 1111111111100000 1110000000000000 1111111110000000 1111110000000000 1111111111110110 1110000000000000 1110000000000000 1111111111111110 1111111111100010 1111100010000000 1111111111000000 3 1111100000000000 1111100000000000 Nation Number mqmwbwrot—I 9. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43., 44. Dimension Issues 17-24 00000000 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 10000001 00000000 00100000 11111111 10000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111110 01111111 00000000 11100001 11111111 11111111 10000000 11111111 11111000 00000000 111111117 00000000 11111100 11111111 00000000 10000000 10000000 11111110 11111110 01100001 01100001 11111111 11011111 11100000 01111110 11111100 11111111 II 82 Dimension III Issues 25-29 01110 00000 11111 11111 11111 11111 11000 11001 00000 11000 00000 00111 11101 11000 10111 10111 01111 11100 11111 00000 11111 11111 10111 00000 10100 00000 11111 11111 11010 ‘11000 00000 00000 11000 11000 11110 00000 01111 01111 11111 11110 11110 11111 10000 11111 Dimension IV Issues 30-32 111 111 000 000 110 000 111 000 111 111 111 110 000 110 000 000 000 000 000 111 000 000 000 111 000 000 100 000 111 011 111 111 111 111 111 111 110 000 000 100 100 100 111 000 Nation Number 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. Dimension II IssuesL17-24 01111110 11111101 10000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11100001 01111001 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11100001 00000000 10000000 11111111 10000000 11100001 10000000 11111111 11100000 11111110 00000000 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 10000000 10000000 83 Dimension III Issues 25-29 10010 00001 10110 11111 11111 11111 11111 11110 00111 01111 11111 00000 01111 00000 00000 11111 00000 11111 00000 11110 00000 11111 00000 00000 11111 11101 11111 11111 00000 01000 Dimension IV Issues 30-32 100 110 111 000 000 100 000 001 010 000 110 111 000 111 111 000 111 100 111 000 110 000 111 111 000 000 100 000 111 111 \OCDQO‘U'I-waI-J 18. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 84 Scale Scores Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Nation I II III IV Afghanistan 6 0 3 3 Albania 3 0 0 3 Argentina 14 8 5 0 Australia 15 8 5 0 Austria 13 8 5 2 Belgium 15 8 5 0 Bolivia 6 8 2 3 Brazil 10 8 3 0 Bulgaria 3 0 0 3 Burma 4 2 2 3 Byelorussia 3 0 0 3 Cambodia 4 l 3 2 Canada 15 8 4 0 Ceylon 5 l 2 2 Chile 10 8 4 0 China 13 8 4 0 Colombia 10 8 4 0 Costa Rica 6 7 3 0 Cuba 12 7 5 0 Czechoslavakia 6 0 0 3 Denmark 10 4 5 0 Dominican Republic 5 8 5 0 Ecuador 5 8 4 0 Egypt 4 1 0 3 El Salvador 7 8 2 0 Ethiopia 4 5 0 0 Finland 16 0 5 1 France 16 8 5 0 Ghana 6 0 3 3 Greece 5 6 2 2 Guatemala 4 8 0 3 Hungary 3 0 0 3 India 5 l 2 3 Indonesia 4 l 2 3 Iran 6 7 4 3 Iraq 4 7 0 3 Ireland 9 3 4 2 Israel 11 3 4 0 Italy 16 8 5 0 Japan 8 7 4 1 Laos 9 3 4 l 85 Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension Nation I II III IV 42. Liberia 8 6 5 1 43. Libya 5 6 l 3 44. Luxembourg 16 8 5 O 45. Malaya 8 6 2 1 46. Mexico 6 7 1 2 47. Nepal 5 1 3 3 48. Netherlands 16 8 5 0 49. New Zealand 15 8 5 0 50. Nicaragua l4 8 5 l 51. Norway 12 4 5 0 52. Pakistan 9 5‘ 4 1 53. Panama * 7 8 3 1 54. Paraguay 10 8 4 0 55. Peru 10 8 5 2 56. Poland 3 0 0 3 57. Portugal 16 4 4 0 58. Romania 3 0 0 3 59. Saudi Arabia 4 l 0 3 60. Spain 15 8 5 0 61. Sudan 5 l 0 3 62. Sweden 11 4 5 1 63. Syria 3 l 0 3 64. Thailand 9 8 4 0 65. Tunisia 6 '3 0 2 66. Turkey 14 7 5 0 67. Ukraine S.S.R. 3 0 0 3 68. U.S.S.R. ‘ 3 0 0 3 69. United Kingdom 15 8 5 0 70. U.S.A. 12 8 4 0 71. Uruguay 6 8 5 1 72. Venezuela 10 8 5 0 73. Yemen 5 1 0 3 74. Yugoslavia 5 l l 3 APPENDIX.C VARIMAX RESULTS OF THE 12TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY Loading .684 ~623 .589 .582 .580 .553 .507 .446 .434 .425 .414 .410 .408 87 APPENDIX C VARIMAX RESULTS OF THE 12TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY Agenda Item No. 69 69 62 38 37 68 35 37 68 24 24 35 MSA Issue Dimension Factor I Complaints about threats to III Syria and international peace-- draft resolution. Complaints about threats to Syria and international peacea- amendment III Question of West Irian III Establishment of a Good Offices Commission for South-West Africa I Future of Togoland under French administration--procedural vote I Composition of General Committee of General Assembly--draft resolution I Transmission of information about non-self-governing territories-- draft resolution I Future of Togoland under French administration--draft resolution IV Composition of General Committee of General Assembly--amendment I Inclusion of the question of West Irian on the agenda I Enlargement of the existing — Disarmament Commission II Formation of new Disarmament Commission of all UN members —- Transmission of information about non—self-governing I territories--procedural vote 88 Agenda MSA Loading Item No. Issue Dimension Factor II .906 8 Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda--paragraph 2 II .906 8 Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda--draft resolution II .885 8 Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda—-paragraph 1 II .859 23 Question of unification and rehabilitation of Korea II .833 8 Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda--amendment , - II .808 24 Suspension of nuclear tests ' and committee to study inspection problem II .653 24 Formation of new Disarmament Commission of all UN members —— .631 51 Geographical distribution of UN Secretariat staff-- amendment ‘ II .554 37 Future of Togoland under French administration--draft resolution IV .542 38 Establishment of a Good Offices , Commission for South-West Africa I .518 54 Question of defining aggression IV .516 37 Future of Togoland under French administration--proCedural vote I Factor III .920 8 Inclusion of treatment of peoples of Indian origin on agenda I .917 8 Inclusion of race conflict in South Africa on agenda I 89 Agenda MSA Loading Item No. Issue Dimension .897 61 ' Treatment of peoples of Indian origin in Union of South Africa I .881 60 Race conflict in South Africa from "apartheid" policies I .622 68 Composition of General Committee of General Assembly--draft resolution I .604 8 Inclusion of question of West Irian on agenda I .510 35 Transmission of information about non-self-governing territories--procedural vote I .470 35 Transmission of information about non-self—governing territories--draft resolution I .445 68 Composition of General Committee of General Assembly-~amendment I. .434 62 Question of West Irian III Factor IV .704 24 Informing peoples of world about effects of modern weapons . I, .684 13 Report on situation in British and French CamerOons I .586 65 Financing U.NL Emergency Force III .501 12 Expansion of international trade III .448 51 Geographical distribution of UN Secretariat staff--draft resolu- tion _ I .380 24 Enlargement of the existing Disarmament Commission II .372 58 Question of Cyprus -- .329 69 Complaints about threats to Syria and international peace--draft resolution III 90 Agenda MSA Loading Item No. Issue IDimension ‘ Factor V .926 58 Question of Cyprus -- .779 24 Suspension of nuclear tests IV .480 37 Future of Togoland under French administration-~draft resolution IV .406 54 Question of defining aggression IV .337 51 Geographical distribution of UN Secretariat staff--draft resolu- tion I .332 8 Inclusion of question of West Irian on agenda I .324 60 Race conflict in South Africa from "apartheid" policies I .322 35 Transmission of information about non—self-governing territories-- draft resolution I .313 35 Transmission of information about non-self—governing territories-- procedural vote I Factor VI .543 51 Geographical distribution of UN Secretariat staff--draft resolution I .390 66 Endorsement of peaceful coexistence I .373 24 Enlargement of the existing Disarmament COmmission II APPENDIX D QUARTIMAX RESULTS OF THE 12TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY Loading .911 .883 .871 .866 .852 .848 .843 .817 .809 .797 .768 .763 .757 92 APPENDIX D QUARTIMAX RESULTS OF THE 12TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY Agenda Item No. 37 38 69 35 37 54 62 35 24 69 51 23 MSA’ Issue Dimension Factor I Future of Togoland under French administration-- procedural vote I Establishment of a Good Offices Commission for South-West Africa I Complaints about threats to Syria and international peace-- amendment III Transmission of information about non-self-governing territories--draft resolution I Future of Togoland under French administration--draftresolution IV Question of defining aggression IV Question of West Irian III Transmission of information about non-self—governing territories-- procedural vote I Formation of new Disarmament Commission of all UN members -- Complaints about threats to Syria and international peace—- draft resolution III Geographical distribution of UN Secretariat staff—-amendment II Question of unification and rehabilitation of Korea II Inclusion of question of West Irian on agenda I Agenda Loading Item No. .737 ' 24 .735 68 .709 24 .674 58 .651 13 .618 65 .817 8 .817 8 .796 8 .681 8 .506 23 .477 24 .458 24 93 Issue Suspension of nuclear tests and committee to study inspection Composition of General Committee of General Assembly—- draft resolution Suspension of nuclear tests Question of Cyprus Report on situation in British and French Cameroons Financing U.N. Emergency Force Factor II Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda--paragraph 2 Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda--draft resolution Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agendaH-paragraph 1 Inclusion of the question of representation of China on agenda--amendment Question of unification and rehabilitation of Korea Enlargement of the existing Disarmament Commission Suspension of nuclear tests and committee to study inspection problem MSA Dimension II III II II II II II II II 94 Agenda MSA Loading Item No. Issue Dimension Factor III .812 8 Inclusion of race conflict in South Africa on agenda I .793 8 Inclusion of treatment of peoples of Indian origin on agenda I .785 61 Treatment of peoples of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa I .750 60 Race conflict in South Africa from "apartheid" policies I .396 68 Composition of the General Committee of the General Assembly-- draft resolution I .385 8 Inclusion of question of West Irian on agenda ' I .306 12 Establishment of an Economic Commission for Africa I Factor IV .632 24 Suspension of nuclear tests I .570 13 Report on the situation in British and French Cameroons I .484 51 Geographical distribution of UN Secretariat staff—-draft resolution I .477 65 Financing the U.N. Emergency Force III .428 12 Expansion of international trade III .383 24 Enlargement of the existing Disarmament Commission II .302 58 Question of Cyprus —- APPENDIX E DISTRIBUTIONS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF NATIONAL GROUPINGS ON DIMENSIONS I AND II J T 7 , 5 #63 7 3 .4 b B .‘ .Bya . Ldan lnisia ,6 . amen Laos Turkey fghanistan ’ Japan I; [1" Pakistan sylon Liberia Thailand lana -Malaya l ‘ dia " an .bya. apal .dan- . ; tnisiia i f ' amen 'B-- I Belgit ' G . v. Pakistan Austré’ylon Malaya Canadiana New 211a . _ U.. K. , Brazil ‘Cuba Argentina )livia ‘Eduador [3 Chile Nicaragua )sta Rica - El Salvador Colombia exico Panama ' I Paraguay 'uguay Peru Venezuela Denmal’ Noun" Swed‘ ‘ f Belgiu I L! l r d Israel Spain 'eece Irelan U.S_A_. l oslavia Caucusing Groups in Dimensij 1 9 Communist Albania . Bloc Bulgaria Byelorus Czechosl (Hungary 5 Poland . Romania ' - Uk. S. S. R. 4 *U .5. S . R . Arab Group ‘ As1an-African Afghanistaland Group Ghana Benelux . Grou lum p tmbourg . erlands Commonwealth Ghana , G ' raha roup da Zealand L . J . V atln erlcan entina 'El Salvador Group _ . yia Guatemala til , Nicaragua e Panama imbia Paraguay lepublic Peru Venezuela Scandinavian MIL—— Y Group ’ Western European Group Other (no caucus-l Finlanc ing group) ’ Asian-A sations L A atin- nations 'estex natiOns erma 31'8 0 5eCurj Geographical Distribution Grou l 8 9 Eastern Albania ‘ . Finland European . Bulgaria ‘ nations Byelorussi: Czechoslav Hungary Poland - Romania Uk. S. S . R. ‘_ Asian-African Syria l nations LatineAmerican - D- Republic nations Western European 11: Italy nations :1 Luxembourg . .Netherlands paland Portugal Permanent mem- U. S. S. R. 7 France are of the > security council (I 98 Geographical Distribution Groups in Dimension I l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 Eastern Albania Yugoslavia Finland European Bulgaria nations Byelorussia Czechoslavakia Hungary Poland Romania u Uk. S. S . R . .__ ASian-African Syria Burma Afghanistan Japan ,' Laos Turkey nations Cambodia Ceylon Liberia i Pakistan Egypt Ghana Malaya ' Thailand Ethiopia India Indonesia Iran I Iraq Libya 1 Saudi Arabia Nepal * Sudan ' Tunisia I Yemen . Latin-American Guatemala Bolivia Ecuador #Brazil Cuba Argentina D° Republic nations Costa Rica El Salvador Chile Nicaragua Mexico Panama Colombia Uruguay Paraguay Peru M jenezuela v Western European Greece - Ireland Denmark Austria Australia Italy nations Israel Belgium Luxembourg Norway Canada Netherlands Sweden New Zealand Portugal M k Spain Permanent mem- U.S.S.R. U.S.A- China U'K- France bers of the . Security council \ v 99 Geographical Distribution Groups in Dimension 11 l 2 3 l 4 5 o 7 8 9 Eastern Albania Yugoslavia ‘ European Bulgaria nations Byelorussia Czechoslavakia Finland Hungary Poland Romania Uk. S . S . R . Asian—African Afghanistan Cambodia Burma Laos Ethiopia Liberia Iran Thailand nations Ghana Ceylon 'Tunisia . Pakistan Libya Iraq Egypt ; Malaya Japan India : Turkey Indonesia Nepal Saudi Arabia Sudan i . Syria | ' Yemen ' Latin—American Costa Rica Argentina Guatemala nations '. Cuba Bolivia Nicaragua .' Mexico Brazil Panama ' Chile Paraguay Colombia Peru D- Republic Uruguay . Ecuador Venezuela l __ C4—_ , El Salvador Western European Portugal Ireland V enrnark Greece Aust‘ralia nations .glsrael Eorway Austria .Swed'en Belgium 1; Canada '. | Italy 1 Luxembourg Netherlands New Zealand m - ' y__ Spain nent mem- U.S.S.R. . , China bers of the Z . France Security Council i U~ K- ."' I U. SLA. 100 Common Interest Groups in Dimension I 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 Moslem States Syria Egypt Afghanistan Pakistan Turkey Indonesia Iran Iraq Libya Saudi Arabia Tunisia Sudan Yemen Arab League Syria Egypt Libya Iraq Tunisia Saudi Arabia Sudan _ Yeman Big Three . S. U. K. France Trust Adminis— . S. Australia France trators Belgium Italy New Zealand _ U. K. Colonial Powers r .. S. Australia France * Belgium Italy New Zealand Netherlands Spain Portugal __ j U . K. Anti—Colonial Albania Burma - Afghanistan Liberia aos "" States ' Bulgaria Cambodia Ceylon Malaya Pakistan Byelorussia Egypt Ghana Thailand Czechoslavakia lEthiopia aIndia ' Hungary Indonesia Iran Poland traq Libya Romania Saudi Arabia Nepal Syria Sudan Uk.S.S.R. Tunisia U.S.S.R. Yemen '._______ Yugoslavia _“ 101 Common Interest Groups in Dimension 11. 1 Z Y 3 i 4 k 5 O 7 8 9 Moslem States Afghanistan Egypt Tunisia Pakistan Libya Iran Indonesia Iraq Saudi Arabia Turkey Sudan Syria Yemen H Arab League Egypt Tunisia Libya Iraq Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Yemen Ag m Big Three . France U. K. _* U. S. A. Trust Adminise Australia trators Belgium France Italy New Zealand U. K. __ U. S. A. W COlonial Powers Portugal 7 Australia Belgium i France Italy 4 New Zealand ‘ ; Spain ’ ' U. K. . U; S. A. - Anti-Colonial Afghanistan _ 1. Cambodia Burma Laos A” . Ethiopia Liberia Iran v Thailand States Albania Ceylon Tunisia , . Pakistan Libya Bulgaria Egypt . Malaya l Byelorussia India ; Czechoslavakia Indonesia 3 i 3 Ghana Nepal :9 . Hungary Saudi Arabia ' Poland Sudan ' . Romania Syria L Uk.S. s. R. Yemen * . U-S-S-R- Yugoslavia ;~—__ 103 Regional Interest Groups in Dimension 11 1 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 Economic Denmark Greece Turkey Austria Netherlands mtion for ’Norway Belgium U. K. European Economic gPortugal France Cooperation ‘Sweden Ealy b uxem ourg " European Coal and Belgium Steel Community . France 1 Italy Luxembourg _“ Netherlands Colombo Plan l Cambodia Nepal I Burma Laos ‘ Pakistan Malaya Japan Australia ‘ Ceylon Saudi Arabia ‘ Canada Egypt Sudan ‘ New Zealand India Syria { Thailand Indonesia Yemen ' U. K. J U. S.A. Bandung Conference lAfghanistan Cambodia Burma Laos Ethiopia Liberia Iran Thailand (Ghana Ceylon . Pakistan Libya Iraq ' Egypt l Japan India . Turkey Indonesia L Security ' Belgium Netherlands Western European ' :rpnce U. K. Union a Y 7} Luxembourg NATO Denmark Greece Turkey Belgium Netherlands Norway Canada Luxembourg Portugal . France U. K. ' Italy U . S. A. Anzus Council ; Australia l New Zealand ____ ‘ l i l U. S.A. SEATO I I - : . Pakistan Australia Thailand ‘ I) France » U. K. i \ New Zealand U.S.A. PVliXed fl i l ArabLeague Egypt Syria 4: Tunisia ‘ .3 , Libya Iraq M Saudi Arabia Sudan Yemen organization of American States I - afi.fia&b§£5~'§uu : l v 2'. " A. ~t ;: : fl“. ‘ ‘ ' ”I. '1 ' “5”“: -’--'*-"“F"mm~ fl Wax-«1:3; Costa Rica Cuba Mexico Argentina Guatemala Bolivia Nicaragua Brazil Panama Chile Paraguay Colombia Peru D. Republic Uruguay Venezuela A Ecuador A - a nati I18. k w na Geographical Distribution Group 1 9 Eastern Albania ‘ European Bulgaria ations Byelorussi Czechoslax Finland Hungary Poland Romania Uk. S.S.R. Asian-African Afghanismd nations Ghana l Latin-American ntina Guatemala nations ria Nicaragua il Panama 3 Paraguay mbia Peru epublic 'Uruguay .dor Venezuela llvador Western European ralia nat1ons tria ium ;da ‘Inbourg A“. erlands '. 7, A Permanent mem- Y‘ U°S° 5° R bers of the Security Council (Sonnrn Mosle Arab: Big Tl Tnmt trat. \— Coloni ““r—— Ann-C State Common Interest Groups in Di: 1 8 ~ 9 Moslem States ‘ Syria F Arab-League Syria Big Three > France Trust Adminis- 'alia France trators um Italy Zealand Colonial Powers 'alia France um Italy Zealand Netherlands Portugal Anti-Colonial Albania States Bulgaria Byelorussia Czechoslava Hungary Poland Romania , Syria Uk. S. S. R . U . S. S. R . Common Interest Groups ii I I U.S.S.J 9 Moslem States Afghani Arab'League Big Three France U. K. U. S. A. Trust Adrninis- A Australia trators Belgium France Italy New Zealand U. K. g U. S. A. Colonial Powers Australia Belgium France Italy New Zealand Spain U . K. U: S. A. Anti - C olonial Afghan' T hailand States Albani Bulgar Byelor Czecho Ghana Hungar' Poland Romani Uk. & S Region Ecggg Orga Eurc Coo; 'Eurt Stee Col: Bar e/ talc' >0] Regional Interest Groups in Dill 1 m 9 Economic ria Netherlands . . {ium U. K. Organization. for nce - European Economic I Cooperation embourg ~”European Coal and fiiium . Steel Community Pee , embourg garlands Colombo Plan tralia Eda ‘ Zealand Hand ‘ A. Bandung Conference land ium Netherlands 5211.513 pce u, K. WesternEuropean = Union bmbourg NAT 0 ium . Netherlands Ida ' Luxembourg ice U. K. U . S. A. Anzus Council ralia , Zealand I, . A. ' 13A SEATO ralia TH E Ice ‘Zea’ ixed Arab League LL—e Organization of . if?“ American States 3' P13 ' -‘ til 5 .n. j Bpu Hnw r t. 9.3.2.. .(3 .r... llmlwill“lllllllllullullll