Office of the Historian

320/12–1551: Telegram

The Acting Chairman of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly (Roosevelt) to the Secretary of State

confidential
Paris, December 15, 1951—8 p.m.

Delga 695. For Hickerson, UNA from Hall. Re contributions: Vorys and I have checked sentiment here and are of opinion we should rest on present contributions position and should not ask Canadians to reintroduce resolution. Advantages this course seem to be:

1.
Any action by Canada would result other proposals which might worsen our position.
2.
As a result of Stone’s speech Friday, December 14, and general reaction, some sentiment exists that US has been unfairly treated in Comite 5 and Comite 2 decisions. Expected growth this view which we are fostering should result in Contributions Comite being able to proceed with recommendation on reduction next year US contribution most of way toward 33⅓ percent.
3.
Present resolution very unclear and conflicting which permits Contributions Comite to interpret resolution at its discretion. Present composition Contributions Comite favorable to US and we will review candidacies for election next week with this in mind.
4.
Outcome on Canadian res at best uncertain and we are doubtful if the necessary pressure to assure outcome would be justified.1

[Hall]
Roosevelt
  1. On December 21 the General Assembly in plenary session adopted the draft resolution of the Fifth Committee regarding the assessments scale. The United States abstained from voting. Immediately after the vote the United States Delegate on the Fifth Committee, Representative Vorys, explained the United States abstention in remarks of some length which amounted to a major statement of United States policy regarding United States-United Nations relations: “For the first time in the history of the United Nations my country has abstained from approving the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the Organization.” For the proceedings of the General Assembly on December 21 on this matter, see GA (VI), Plenary, pp. 289 and 290.↩