IO Files: US/A/M (Chr.)/13
Minutes of the Thirteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation, New York, Hotel Pennsylvania, November 1, 1946, 9:00 a.m.
[Here follows list of names of persons (32) present.]
United States Attitude Toward Contribution Ceiling
Senator Vandenberg stated that he wished to put before the Delegation the issue of the United States attitude on a contribution ceiling since Committee V met that morning. It had been proposed that Committee V immediately divide into two sub-committees, and he wished to be able to make the United States position clear to the whole [Page 469] Committee before that time. He recalled that the Department’s position was that there should be a ceiling of 25 per cent of the contribution of any member. However, the United States, because of the post war emergency, would be willing to increase its contribution for 1947. Senator Vandenberg said that he thought that it would be almost impossible to get any ceiling imposed, knowing that even the Canadians opposed a ceiling. Therefore, he thought that the only possible position was a bold and immediate statement of the United States position to the entire Committee. He stated that he had prepared a statement on that subject and had submitted it to Mr. Bloom and Mrs. Roosevelt, whose opinion he particularly valued. He thought the question was whether the United States should meet the question head-on. He pointed out that the report of the Committee on Contributions recommended a 50 per cent United States contribution.
Senator Connally inquired regarding the prospects for getting by with the United States position. Senator Vandenberg replied that he did not know what the prospects were, but he felt sure that a proposition for the United States to pay 50 per cent of the budget could not get by Congress. Mr. Eaton stated that he was sure that such a proposition could not be passed, especially if there were a Republican House.
Mr. Sandifer pointed out that the matter had been carefully considered by the Department and that the view of Mr. Eaton had been taken into account. He thought that the other Delegations should be informed as to how far the United States was willing to go, and he thought it desirable that a public statement should be made. Mr. Ross also agreed to the desirability of making a bold and immediate statement. However, he proposed that the door should be left open in view of the economic dislocation of the world. While the 25 per cent ceiling should be a standard rule, it should be clear that the United States would be willing to go as far as a one-third contribution to the budget.
Mrs. Roosevelt said that she hoped Senator Vandenberg would stress that any group making such a large contribution to the budget as 50 per cent would be open to pressure by its constituency to exercise pressure on the Organization. It should be made clear that the United States interest was not only a monetary one but a concern that the Organization must be free.
Senator Vandenberg agreed that this was his primary point. He also said he would take occasion to point out that it was an old dictum that taxation without representation was unjust. He said he would note that for his British colleague.
Senator Connally said that he thought Mrs. Roosevelt’s point was a very good one, for if the United States contributed 50 per cent, there would be stimulated a spirit of suspicion. Mr. Dulles added that it would also stimulate a tendency toward extravagance.
[Page 470]Mr. Eaton said that the question had to be faced in view of the attitude of the House of Representatives. He said that the House of Representatives would never pass a bill providing that the United States pay 50 per cent of the expenses of the United Nations. He pointed out that it was difficult to get more money for UNRRA and emphasized that money bills had to originate in and be approved by the House.
Senator Vandenberg reminded the Delegation that every other representative at the Committee table would also be under an obligation to defend his position before his parliament.
Mr. Sandifer cautioned that it was important that the statement be firm and clear, but it would be dangerous to make it appear to be an ultimatum.
Senator Vandenberg said that he would agree to put in for an emergency ceiling of one-third of the budget to be paid by the United States and would emphasize that this should apply to the purely administrative budget. Insofar as the affiliated agencies were concerned, the United States would accept what was demanded by their needs. He would also say that in regard to the specialized agencies, wherever the United States had a special responsibility it would pay what was necessary.
Senator Austin polled the Delegation on whether Senator Vandenberg was authorized to state a firm position based on the Delegation’s previous decision accepting a ceiling of 25 per cent on contributions, with an emergency ceiling of 33⅓ per cent in respect to the administrative budget for United Nations.78 This was approved unanimously.79
[Here follows discussion of other items.]
- See footnote 79, below.↩
-
At the first meeting of the Fifth Committee at 11 o’clock the same morning Senator Vandenberg made a statement setting forth the principal points of the United States position. He stressed the danger to the principle of “universal and equal authority” inherent in the allocation of “almost fifty percent” of the total assessments to one member; and criticized the Report of the Contributions Committee as “technically inadequate”. “Mr. Vandenberg emphasized that he was not speaking of the operational budget [a reference to the budgets of specialized programs such as that of the International Refugee Organization], in which the United States clearly accepted larger responsibility, but of the administrative budget [the “house-keeping” budget of the Organization itself], regarding which his Government proposed that a ceiling of twenty-five per cent should be set on the assessments to any one Member. Although extraordinary conditions, such as the temporary incapacity of many nations to pay, resulting from war damages, might call for a temporary divergence from the twenty-five per cent standard, such a divergence should be an emergency measure only. Under present conditions, the United States Government was prepared to urge its Congress to meet a temporary assessment of thirty-three and one-third per cent.” (United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, First Session, Second Part, Fifth Committee, p. 72; hereafter cited as GA(I/2), Fifth Committee)
At a meeting of the executive and political officers of the Delegation on November 7 “It was urged that everything possible be done to persuade other States to accept the U.S. position that there should be a ceiling on contributions. The anticipated serious difficulty with Congress on this question should be pointed out.” (IO Files, document US/A/M/8)
↩