Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, General; the United Nations, Volume I

IO Files: US/A/C.5/2

United States Delegation Position Paper

secret

[New York,] October 21, 1946.

Principal Issues Before Committee 5

Following is a summary of the principal issues anticipated for Committee 5 arranged in order of relative importance. References to tab numbers correspond to the position papers in the Committee 5 Handbook.⁷⁶

1. (Tab 4) Report of the Committee on Contributions on a Scale for the Apportionment of Expenses. The Committee on Contributions, appointed by the Assembly, will submit an index of relative capacity to contribute to the support of the Organization for the first three years. This index lists the U. S. capacity at 49.94 per cent, the UK at 10.5 per cent, the USSR (together with Byelorussian SSR and the Ukranian SSR) at 7 per cent, France at 5.5 per cent, and China at 2.75 per cent. On the basis of a $25,000,000 budget, the annual U. S. contribution would amount to $12,485,000. The report refers to the Assembly the question of a ceiling on contributions and does not propose a floor.

u. s. position

It is suggested that the U. S. Delegation should:

(1) Propose that the Assembly accept the Committee Report as a general technical basis to aid in determining contributions for the first three years (the U. S. would thus not have to attack the technical quality of the report);

(2) Propose adoption by the Assembly of the principle of a ceiling, in order to prevent undue dominance of the Organization by one Member, and in recognition of the principle of sovereign equality as set forth in the Charter;

(3) Propose that the basic ceiling be fixed at 25 per cent, but indicate a willingness to discuss a higher U. S. contribution for the first three years as a means of compensating for the “exemption” to be allowed certain countries on account of war damages;

(4) Seek to secure adoption of a temporary three-year U.S. quota of not more than 30 per cent (i.e., a 25 per cent ceiling, plus 5 per cent, to compensate for war damages exemptions), but be prepared, if necessary to facilitate agreement, to accept a temporary three-year quota as high as 33–⅓ per cent (i.e., a 25 per cent ceiling plus 8–⅓ per cent compensation for war damages);

(5) Refrain from pressing its previously held position for a floor and vote against a floor if one is proposed.⁷⁷

[Here follow statements on other items on the agenda of the Fifth Committee.]

76. This has reference to volume 1 of two “books” of position papers and background memoranda relating to the Fifth Committee which had been prepared in the Department, and which are found in the IO Files. This Delegation position paper (in pertinent part) was an abbreviated version of a position paper prepared in the Department on the subject of the Report of the Committee on Contributions (IO Files, document SD/A/C.5/1). The Departmental paper is missing from the book in the IO Files, but a revised copy dated October 23 is found in the Department’s central indexed files (501.AB/10–2646).

77. The United States Delegation to the General Assembly (see pp. 37–42 for information about the composition of the Delegation) discussed the contributions question at meetings on October 21 and October 28; this paper was used by the Delegation in its October 21 discussion. At this meeting a lengthy review of the problem was presented by Mr. William Hall, Adviser on the staff of the Delegation and expert on Fifth Committee (administrative and budgetary) matters. In a statement that followed Senator Vandenberg expressed apprehension that the United States “would pay so much that sovereign equality would become meaningless. …” Later in the discussion Mr. Ross said he wished to clarify the thinking of the Department, where the emphasis was not so much on the principle of sovereign equality, “a frank and sincere [approach]”, as on other factors. “More stress was put on (a) what Congressional reaction would be toward the proposed rate of the contribution in general, and (b) a concern lest Congress and the Executive Department be misled into thinking that, since the U.S. contributed almost half the expenses, it could exercise more influence in the UN than was actually the case. …” In the end the Delegation decided to defer its decision on the United States position until there had been more opportunity to study the Report of the Committee on Contributions. (IO Files, Minutes of the 5th Meeting of the U.S. Delegation, October 21, document US/A/M(Chr.)/5)

    At the October 28 meeting the paper under discussion apparently was the Department’s own position paper on the Committee’s Report (SD/A/C.5/1) referred to in footnote 76, p. 467, and the Delegation quickly approved it (IO Files, Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the U.S. Delegation, October 28, document US/A/M(Chr.)/11).

    On October 31 the Delegation received a telegram from the Department (telegram 259, October 31, 8 p.m. File No. 501.AB/10–2646) which directed that the first recommendation of the Department’s position paper (and so of this Delegation working paper) be revised to read that “U.S. Delegation point out the admitted statistical inadequacies of the Report and the failure of the Committee to consider fully differences in cost of living and price indexes, but agree to use the Report as a general guide to differences in capacity to pay among Members in the sense that the United States has greatest capacity to pay even though it is not as great as indicated in the Report.”