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

501.BB Summaries/11–1446: Telegram

Senator Austin to the Secretary of State

New York, November 14, 1946—12:30 a.m.

[via Courier]

802. The following is the continuation of daily plain summary-November 13.

Committee V (23rd meeting).⁸⁸

The United Kingdom came out in Committee V on November 13 with strong support for the United Nations contribution scale recommended by the Contributions Committee as Younger⁸⁹ (UK) pointed out that a downward revision of the United States quota meant an upward revision of quotas of other countries much less capable of meeting heavy financial demands.

In a careful analysis of the present contribution scale, Younger admitted that the present United States quota of 49.89 percent was too high, but added that it was only a temporary quota due to exceptional post-war circumstances. The recovery of national economies, he asserted, would bring about a natural revision of present inequalities.

Younger declared that no one could be surprised at the high United States quota because the factors used by the Contributions Committee in determining “capacity to pay” were (1) national income which was highest in the United States, (2) per capita income which was highest in the United States, (3) dislocation of national economy from the war which had been least serious in the United States, and (4) the status of foreign exchange which affected the United States not at all. In fact, Younger added, the further one investigated the excellent work of the Contributions Committee in an attempt to justify the United States contention that its quota was too high, “the stickier the going becomes”. Younger further backed his case by asserting that much of the estimated 23 millions for United Nations expenses in 1947, of which 19 millions were for personal and common services, constituted “an invisible import” for the United States.

With respect to the political implications of the high United States quota and its effect on sovereign equality, Younger declared that the United Kingdom could [not?] agree with Vandenberg, since in a contributions scale having numerous inequalities, there was no point at which national sovereignties were clearly infringed. He added that in his opinion the doctrine that the amount of representation was related to total contribution was novel in international practice.

[Here follows summary of views of other representatives of the Committee, and discussion of other Committee items. It may be noted that at this meeting the Committee took steps to establish a subcommittee to study the report of the Committee on Contributions, the proposals of the United States Delegation and any new information which other delegations might wish to submit. (GA (I/2), Fifth Committee, pages 105 and 106⁹⁰)]

Austin

88. Within the general area of its discussion of the Report of the Committee on Contributions the Fifth Committee on this date had under specific consideration the proposals formally advanced by Senator Vandenberg at the end of his statement to the Committee on November 8 (see footnote 82, p. 472). For the summary record of the Committee’s discussion at this time (November 13), see GA(I/2), Fifth Committee, pp. 102 ff.
89. Maj. Kenneth Younger, M.P., United Kingdom representative on the Fifth Committee.
90. Formal constitution of the sub-committee was deferred, however, until the Fifth Committee’s meeting on November 15, at which time it was agreed that the sub-committee would be made up of the representatives of Canada, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, the Soviet Union, the United States, and Uruguay (GA(I/2), Fifth Committee, pp. 110 and 111). The formal terms of reference of the sub-committee were conveyed to it in a letter from the Chairman of the Fifth Committee which is printed in pertinent part ibid., p. 318.