501.BB Summaries/11–2146: Telegram
Senator Austin to the Secretary of State
us urgent
[via Courier]
836. GA Secret Summary.
[Here follows discussion of several matters taking up the attention of the General Assembly and the United States Delegation.]
Committee V, Subcommittee on Contributions (2nd Meeting)
At a continuation of the general debate on November 21, Turkey7 requested the Subcommittee to review the Turkish quota in view of the recent devaluation of Turkish currency and its consequent adverse effect on Turkish ability to secure foreign exchange.
St. Laurent8 (Canada) opened the discussion, stating that Canada had no quarrel with the criteria which the Committee on Contributions had used in defining “capacity to pay.” With respect to Vandenberg’s statement at the opening meeting, St. Laurent reasserted the Canadian view that relative per capita contribution was fundamental. If other criteria than “capacity to pay” were considered, Canada would have to put its case as strongly as possible to prevent less fortunate nations from having to pay a higher per capita rate than the U.S.
Geraschenko urged the Subcommittee to consider the substance of Vandenberg’s arguments, and on the basis of its discussions to see whether or not something had to be done to meet U. S. demands.
The Soviet delegate recommended that the quotas of new members and the requests of member nations, except the U. S., for the lowering of quotas be referred to the Contributions Committee. Geraschenko (U.S.S.R.) declared that the Subcommittee could come to no solution of its problems if it confined itself to discussing the establishment of a ceiling. Vandenberg, he said, had suggested a 25 per cent ceiling for the U.S., but it might as well have been 33⅓ per cent, or 40 per cent, and any discussion of an arbitrary ceiling would be academic. Geraschenko rejected the Canadian per capita principle, the consideration of contributions as a form of international taxation, and asserted that national revenue as well as the national budgets should be used in establishing capacity to pay.
The Polish delegate9 asserted that he appreciated that the U.S. position had been engendered by high principles and not through a desire to save money, but that Poland would have to oppose any attempt to establish ceilings at this time. He felt it was premature [Page 485] even to try to settle when ceilings might go into effect. When peacetime economics had been restored, he continued, quotas would have to be revised and due consideration given to “capacity to pay” and per capita contributions. The Polish delegate then urged lowering Poland’s quota.
Pitblado (U. K.) asserted that to establish ceilings at this time would be an arbitrary action taken in a period of changing conditions. He agreed that the decision on the quotas of new members and appeals for lowering of quotas, except that of the U. S., should be referred to the Contributions Committee.
The U. S. request, he asserted, differed from other questions facing the Subcommittee in that it was essentially political. Although under ideal conditions no one would like to see so large a proportion of the UN costs assigned to one nation, the U. K. position remained substantially as it had been stated in Committee V.
Pitblado said he had no very constructive proposals to suggest, but he reminded the Subcommittee that in February the GA had stated that if a ceiling were imposed it should not be one that seriously obscured the relationship between contributions and capacity to pay.
With respect to the U. S. assertion that all nations in the UN had certain influence and responsibilities and that these should not necessarily be related to “capacity to pay,” Pitblado reminded the Subcommittee that no nation could escape consideration of the public opinion factor. Referring to the matter of foreign exchange, Pitblado reminded the Subcommittee that the U. K. was well aware of the difficulties of procuring it in terms of added effort at production and reduction of goods for home consumption.
China10 opposed consideration of support of the UN as a form of international taxation rather than as national contributions. China recognized the justice of the U. S. request for a reduction in its quota because the request stemmed from an unselfish desire to give strong support to the UN. The Chinese delegate then suggested that the principle of sovereign equality might be applied to the smaller administrative budget and “capacity to pay” to the larger operational budgets.
The French delegate11 asserted that he did not believe that the Subcommittee had the technical ability or the time to fix a new scale of contributions. Although no one could disagree with the justness and fairness of Vandenberg’s statement of principles, the French delegate questioned whether the U. S. meant those principles to be practically applied in relation to the 1947 budget. He pointed out that [Page 486] in his belief, Vandenberg, even in his statements in Committee V, had not pressed for immediate adjustment, and that it was his understanding that what the U. S. wanted at this time was a recognition that the present U. S. contribution should not be a precedent.
Two suggestions were put forward by the French delegate (1) that the Subcommittee defer any discussion of the foreign exchange element until it received advice on the results of Vandenberg’s discussions with the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and (2) that the Subcommittee seriously consider Rueff’s (France) proposal in Committee V that the Secretariat Fiscal Committee be requested for a redefinition of “capacity to pay.”
Speaking as Chairman and the representative of Mexico, Martinez-Cabanas12 recalled that only the matter of administrative budgets was before the Subcommittee. He also pointed out that the SYG’s remarks on establishing a floor on contributions, as well as a ceiling, would have to be discussed. He expressed some doubt that contributions could be too closely related to per capita income in view of the fact that quotas were essentially based on national income.
[Here follow other items of the summary.]
- Mr. Sukru Esmer was the Turkish Member on the Fifth Committee; the Alternate Member was Mr. A. Birden.↩
- The Right Honorable Louis S. Saint-Laurent, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs and Head of the Canadian Delegation to the General Assembly (not one of the regular Canadian members of the Committee).↩
- The Polish Member was Mr. Juliusz Katz-Suchy; the Alternate Member was Mr. Aleksander Bramson.↩
- Dr. C. L. Hsia was the Chinese Member on the Fifth Committee: Mr. J. C. Pao was the Alternate Member.↩
- The French Member was M. Jacques Rueff; the Alternate Member was M. Andre Ganem.↩
- Dr. Gustavo Martinez-Cabanas.↩