The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
Delga 596. Re contributions. For Dept info following proposed USGADel staff tactical position comite 5 Tuesday, based on Monday’s developments reported unclassified summary.1[Page 202]
- 1. Obtain withdrawal or defeat expected Indian proposal as priority number one.
- Introduce proposal US reduction coupled with automatic over-all budget reduction in amount equivalent burden assumed by other governments.
- If this proposal defeated, as now seems likely, US indicate support Canadian proposal to apply 33 and ⅓ percent next year and offer abstention contributions comite report if Canadian proposal adopted.
- If Canadian proposal not adopted, vote against contributions comite report. Political officers will bring above position to attention dels, urge defeat or withdrawal Indian proposal and adoption Canadian proposal to make it possible US abtain on contributions committee report.
Hopeful Indians can be persuaded withdraw proposal which view USGADel staff wld endanger not only working basis UN contributions support but also congressional public support continuing aid India, many other underdeveloped countries.
Not printed. India and the Soviet Union had each submitted draft resolutions which had the effect of sending the Report of the Committee on Contributions back to the Committee for reconsideration. This was undesirable from the U. S. point of view, because the scale of assessments recommended by the Committee, although it did not put into effect the one-third ceiling for the U. S. contribution, did effect a reduction of 2.02% in the U. S. contribution as against fiscal 1951.
At one of the two meetings of the Fifth Committee on this matter on December 10, the U. S. Representative (Vorys) made a strong statement of some length calling for a reduction of the U. S. contribution to 33⅓%.
For the proceedings of the Fifth Committee on December 10, see United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixth Session, Fifth Committee, pp. 125–136 (hereafter cited as GA (VI), Fifth Committee).↩