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

IO Files: US/A/C.5/49

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. William Hall of the United States Delegation Staff of Advisers¹⁷

confidential

[New York,] November 27, 1946.

Mr. Martinez¹⁸ of Mexico asked Mr. David Pitblado of the U.K., Mr. Orlov¹⁹ of the U.S.S.R., and myself to meet with him this afternoon.

At this session he proposed that the United States contribution be set at 40 percent; that the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, France, and China be asked to pay a contribution equivalent to the Committee of Contributions’ recommendations plus 20 percent; and that countries other than the Big Five be asked to pay the Committee on Contributions’ recommendation plus 5 percent with the exception of Canada, India, Czechoslovakia, and Poland which would be exempt from the 5 percent additional amount.

I said that we would prefer to consider the contributions question from the standpoint of the present provisional scale and, departing from that, show increases and decreases; that further our present instructions were that the United States contribution should not be more than 37½ percent, and I felt sure personally that there would be no possibility of obtaining approval of a contribution of 40 percent. Pitblado and Orlov objected strenuously to the use of the provisional scale as a basis for contributions and also objected very strongly to Martinez’s proposal that a heavier assessment should apply to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union than to the smaller countries. They cited the argument which we have been using, namely, that all countries had equal rights in the organization. The small countries had the same voting rights with the exception of the veto and that, in addition, countries other than the Big Five received many specific benefits from the United Nations organization.

Martinez then said he would prepare a scale which was based on a 10 percent reduction in the United States contribution which would be based on a 39.89 percent contribution by the United States and which would provide for contributions by other countries in accordance with the index proposed by the Contributions Committee plus approximately 7½ percent with the exception of China which had agreed to pay an additional amount because of its under-assessment, and Argentina and Brazil who had also agreed to pay additional amounts because of their under-assessments. He also agreed to put into his calculations Sweden at 2 percent and Afghanistan and Iceland at .04 and to provide for a floor on contributions at .04.

Pitblado then raised the question as to how the 2.08 percent of the new members might be provided in the scale which would apply to the 1946 budget. He said that, in line with the United States argument that the allowance of war dislocation should be revised downward each year, it seemed reasonable to him to ask the United States to carry this additional amount for the financial year 1946 in which the war dislocation was the greatest. He said he thought the United Kingdom Government would be willing to include in the Sub-committee report a statement to the effect that the scale should be revised each year for the next few years to take into account economic recoveries of the war-damaged countries; that the Sub-committee had noted the view of the United States representative that 33–⅓ percent constituted a reasonable ceiling for any one country; further that, while the Committee was not prepared as yet to set a definitive figure for such a ceiling, it recognized that under normal conditions some such figure as that proposed by the United States would not be unreasonable as the highest normal rate of contribution of any one nation. The Committee might also note that it would be anticipated that each year for the next several years the contributions of those countries which are today paying a proportionately large scale of contributions, namely, the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and Sweden, and others would expect some reduction in their contributions to take account of economic recoveries.

I said that I did not know what the attitude of the United States Delegation would be on this proposal; that I appreciated the difficulties which the Committee would face in apportioning the Swedish contribution over the 1946 contributions; and that, while I could appreciate the mechanical advantages of the United States acceptance of the additional contribution, I would want to consult my Delegation as [to] the political difficulties which might be encountered within the United States.

I said further that, insofar as the proposed 39 percent contribution for the United States to the 1947 budget and the Working Capital Fund was concerned, I could make no commitment and would put them on notice that our present instructions would not permit us to agree to any such figures, and that I would make an effort to obtain further particular instructions on this point.²⁰

17. Addressed by Mr. Hall to Senator Vandenberg.
18. Dr. Martinez-Cabanas was chairman of the Sub-committee.
19. Mr. N. V. Orlov, Soviet Adviser-Member on the Fifth Committee.
20. In telegram 873, November 28, 8:40 p.m., from New York, Senator Austin informed the Department that “The French Delegation would make every effort to work with the Subcommittee on Contributions in arriving at a solution which would be fair to the U.S.” This information was conveyed by M. Georges Peissel, French Adviser-Member on the Fifth Committee. M. Peissel said that “His Delegation was much impressed by Vandenberg’s statesmanlike handling of the difficult problem.” (501.BB Summaries/11–2846)