501.BB/11–846: Telegram
Senator Austin to the Secretary of State
[via Courier]
782. Daily Plain Summary. Committee V (22nd Meeting)
[In a statement to the Committee on the contributions question80 Senator Vandenberg “re-emphasized the U.S. position on the necessity for a ceiling on contributions to UN administrative budgets. …”]
Asserting that the U.S. did not seek to avoid any appropriate responsibility he assured the Committee that no matter what party was in the majority in Washington, full U.S. support was behind the UN. The issue, he added, was not what the U.S. could afford to pay, but “what is right and wise and just as between partners in this common enterprise.”
The U.S. continued to be unable to agree that “relative capacity to pay” could justify a basic American assessment of 50%. The experts, he declared, had estimated 1946 national incomes in lieu of complete statistics, and “since it admittedly is a temporary figure representing temporary exigencies, it should not be consulted for more than one year.”
The temporary U.S. acceptance of an unequal share of the administrative budgets, and application of a completely different standard to operational budgets “quite clearly demonstrates our complete desire and willingness to take our full share of the load,” the U.S. delegate declared: The U.S. protest involves relatively small sums, but “a relatively large principle,” he added.81
Vandenberg urged that the UN avoid the “mundane” relationship between contributions and control already recognized in some other international institutions, referring to the International Bank. He held further that decisions on the 1947 allocations should be confined [Page 472] to one, single year and that the standing Contributions Committee and Advisory Committee on Budgetary Problems be instructed to reexamine the whole question of assessments without restriction and to report its recommendations to the 1947 GA.
Since the U.S. has offered to accept special obligations in respect to operational budgets, and also to accept extra, temporary obligations in respect of the basic administrative budget, Vandenberg contended it was only fair that all these obligations be considered together in fixing the 1947 allocations. Proposed budgets should be submitted at the earliest possible date to permit deliberative consideration, and decisions respecting allocations should be made at the same time, he said.82
The Uruguayan delegate remarked that there had been no concerted drive for unanimity since the Uruguayan and Belgian Delegations had “categorically” supported the U.S. principle that no nation should be responsible for a 50% contribution.
[Here follows review of other Fifth Committee items.]
- For the Vandenberg statement to the Fifth Committee on November 8, see GA(I/2), Fifth Committee, p. 92 and U.S. Delegation Press Release No. 66, November 8 (IO Files, U.S. Delegation Press Releases, 1946).↩
-
In the Delegation press release the sentence following at this point reads: “It [the U.S. protest] involves only what may become the permanent basic criterion for supporting the general administrative budget.”
Senator Vandenberg went on to say (press release text): “We have suggested, therefore, the desirability of a ceiling at this one point. We do not believe it is desirable for this basic budget to indicate anything like a 50% reliance upon any ONE member of the United Nations. Although this view has been quite uniformly dismissed in the general debate, it persists in our thinking. …
“In the course of the recent general debate, one of our able colleagues reserved a doubt as to just how serious I may have been in my recent argument that the indispensable ‘sovereign equality’ among us may soon be jeopardized if any one member Nation is permitted to dominate the contributions [presumably a reference to his statement to the Committee on November 1; see footnote 79, p. 470]. I can assure him we are very serious—because, as a practical matter, any such preponderant contributor must take a somewhat relevantly preponderant interest in the creation of obligations and in the expenditure of funds. It will be his only protection. I am afraid that this sequence is inevitable. … Certainly the government of the United States has no remote wish to see any such situation created. …”
↩ -
The Vandenberg proposals appear in the Committee records as follows: “Mr. Vandenberg made the following suggestions:
“First, when the Committee decided upon the 1947 allocation, the decision should be confined to a single year.
“Secondly, the Committee should instruct the standing Committee on Contributions or the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions to re-examine the whole study of assessments without restriction and report its recommendations to the second session of the 1947 General Assembly.
“Thirdly, since the United States had offered to accept special obligations in respect to operational budgets, and also to accept extra temporary obligations in respect of the basic administrative budget, it was only fair that all those obligations should be reviewed together at one time in fixing all the allocations for 1947. The Committee could [should?] not weigh those obligations separately. The answer to one problem would necessarily affect its attitude toward other problems.
“Fourthly, all proposed budgets should be submitted as early as possible Jo permit ample time for deliberative consideration. If certain of the budgets could not be presented, the most definite estimates available should be placed before the Committee. Any decisions respecting allocation should be postponed until all decisions could be made at the same time.” (GA, (I/2), Fifth Committee, pp. 93 and 94) These suggestions were submitted as a formal proposal by the United States (United Nations document A/C.5/61, GA (I/2), Fifth Committee, pp. 322 and 323, annex 6a)
↩