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

501.AB/11–1546

Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs (Hiss)⁹¹

secret

[Washington,] November 15, 1946.

The Department this morning received from the Assembly Delegation a brief cable which reads:

“Present strong indication that committee will vote US contribution 49.89 percent. Please advise delegation course of action this event.”⁹²

The total budget for this year is about $20,000,000 and the proposed budget for 1947 is $23,700,000. Information from New York indicates that the 1947 budget may be increased considerably. The contribution scale decided by this Assembly will apply to these two budgets and to the $25,000,000 working capital fund.

You will recall from your discussions with Mr. Appleby, who is Chairman of the UN Committee on Contributions, that his committee, whose members were appointed as experts rather than as representatives of governments, developed an index of relative capacity to contribute. This index listed the US capacity at 49.89 percent, the UK at 10.5, the USSR (together with Byelo-Russia and the Ukraine) at 7., France at 5.5, and China at 2.75.

You will also recall that Assistant Secretary Russell felt that it would be a mistake to accept these figures literally, since income figures, on which to base capacity to pay, were not necessarily comparable nor accurate for all countries reported upon. Moreover, the Department took the position that the US should 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. Our position was that a ceiling should be fixed at 25 percent but that we would be willing to discuss a higher percentage—not to exceed 33⅓ percent—for the first three years as a means of compensating certain countries because of “war damage”.

The Delegation has found little or no support in the Assembly for the principle of a ceiling. And, as the cable from the Delegation indicates, it is now apparent that there is no possibility of obtaining an agreement on a ceiling at or close to our previously adopted top limit of 33⅓ percent. However, there is some reason to believe we may be able to work out an arrangement with the British, whose position is likely to be of crucial importance, and ultimately with other delegations for a one-year contribution scale in which our share would be approximately 40 percent.

Recommendations

1. That you talk over this problem with Senator Vandenberg while he is in Washington this weekend.

2. That you recommend to Senator Vandenberg that he, with Senator Austin if that seems appropriate, discuss the problem with the Secretary and suggest that the Secretary may wish to speak directly to Mr. Bevin in view of our indications that the British attitude has substantially stiffened in the last few days. For your information we understand that Senator Vandenberg is having dinner with Mr. Bevin Sunday night.⁹³

3. That in talking with Senator Vandenberg you suggest the following position, which he may also wish to discuss with Senator Austin and the Secretary:

a. Any scale adopted this year should be considered temporary only, with a definite understanding that the question be reconsidered at the next Assembly. This is not without precedent since the present scale applicable to provisional advances was adopted temporarily. (The FAO formula was adopted in London as a stop-gap. Under it our share has been approximately 25 percent.)

b. A Sub-Committee of Committee 5 should be appointed to work out this temporary scale since the views of most delegations have been publicly expressed on the floor of Committee 5, and negotiation in such a large body is difficult.

c. That our Delegation try to work out a scale under which the US would contribute just under 40 percent. The opinion that Committee 5 might accept a 39 percent contribution from the US has been expressed to the US Delegation by Mr. C. L. Hsia of China, and the Delegation has reported in this connection that China would be prepared to increase its contribution at least 2 percent in order to partially meet the US position, Mr. Hsia has stated.

d. If a proposed assessment of just under 40 percent should come to a vote in the Sub-Committee, in Committee 5, or in the Assembly, the US Delegation should say that it cannot vote in favor of this percentage but must abstain because it feels the rate of assessment is too high, and unwise even on a one–year basis.

e. If a scale requiring the US to contribute more than 40 percent should come to a vote in the Sub-Committee, in Committee 5, or in the Assembly, the Delegation should vote “No”, since the scale is so far from a plan which this government considers wise from the standpoint of the interests of the United Nations. The Delegation should not in this event indicate that the United States will not accept the verdict of the Assembly. A negative vote is simply the only effective way of registering our objection to what we consider a very unwise step.

f. In all the above steps the Delegation should feel free to use its own judgment within the broad lines indicated and to use any lines of procedure which it believes wise and calculated to obtain the desired objectives.

Note: Assistant Secretary Russell is out of the city and we were not able to reach him by telephone. In a conversation with Mr. Panuch,⁹⁴ who was in Washington today, the latter agreed generally with the steps outlined immediately above and was particularly favorable to the idea of a Sub-Committee in which an attempt could be made in a more intimate atmosphere than prevails in a full committee to obtain a satisfactory solution. He did not feel that the amount of money involved was such that we should raise a major issue on that ground alone. He said he would be in New York tomorrow and would be glad to do anything we wished.

91. Addressed to the Under Secretary of State (Acheson) and the Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Clayton).
92. Telegram 804, November 14, 1:28 p.m., from New York (501.BB/11–1446). The Delegation at a morning meeting on November 14 had devoted virtually the entire session to the contributions problem, Senator Vandenberg leading off by stating “that he wished to have the problem of the UN budget considered because of developments on the previous day which he felt were most serious for the whole United Nations. He reported that the UK and Canadians had taken the leadership in the move to assess the United States for fifty per cent of the UN budget, regardless of any other consideration. They have declined to accept the ceiling idea.” (See telegram 802, November 14, from New York, p. 474.) After lengthy discussion it was decided to ask the Department for guidance. (IO Files, Minutes of the 20th Meeting of the U.S. Delegation, November 14, 9 a.m., document US/A/M(Chr.)/20)
93. No record has been found in the Department’s files of any of the conversations proposed here.
94. Joseph A. Panuch, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary for Administration (Russell).