IO files, US/A/3548
Plenary Position Paper Prepared by
the United States Delegation to the General Assembly
restricted
[New
York,] December 4, 1952.
Scale of Assessments for the Apportionment of the
Expenses of the United Nations: Report of the Fifth Committee
(A/2286)
1. united states position
The United States should abstain on the report and the resolution
recommended by the Fifth Committee. This resolution adopts the scale of
assessments for 1953, recommended by the Committee on Contributions,
which reduces the United States share to 35.12%. The resolution also
decides that from 1 January, 1954, the assessment of the largest
contributor shall not exceed one-third of total assessments against
Members. This is the first time that definite assurance has been given
the United States regarding the implementation of the ceiling principle
adopted in 1948. The United States should vote against the draft
resolution proposed by the USSR
(A/L.122). This resolution in practically the same form was rejected in
the Fifth Committee by a vote of 5–37–6.
The United States should vote under Rule 67 against plenary debate of the
Fifth Committee report. It is necessary, however, that the United States
explain its vote by a statement along the lines of the attached draft
(Annex A).
2. history in committee
The United States vigorously pressed for an immediate reduction of its
percentage to 33⅓% during Fifth Committee discussions (Press Release
#1579). Many delegations were sympathetically inclined toward the United
States position, but were fearful that an overthrow of the scale
recommended by the Committee on Contributions would lead to a chaotic
situation. These delegations, led by the Canadians [Page 614] who agreed to forego benefits which they
would otherwise derive from the per-capita principle as the United
States share was reduced, supported the compromise solution contained in
this report. This solution was designed to give the United States
assurance that its wishes would definitely be accommodated by 1954. The
United States abstained in the vote on the resolution now before the
Assembly. The vote on the draft resolution as a whole was 38–7–3.
3. possible developments in plenary
It is anticipated that the Fifth Committee report will be adopted. The
Soviet bloc may seize this opportunity to again attack the United States
along the line followed in Fifth Committee, i.e., “failure to provide
income tax exemption for United States nationals on Secretariat,
requiring reimbursement to United States Treasury out of United Nations
funds; restraint of trade which makes difficult payment of Member
assessments; and war profiteering of United States, while others
suffered immense devastation”. (A full rebuttal to these charges was
made by Senator Wiley in a speech in Fifth
Committee, on November 14, 1952, Press Release #1583.)
[Attachment] Annex A
Draft Statement
Explanation of Vote on the Report of the Fifth
Committee (Scale of Assessments) by the Honorable
Alexander Wiley, United States Delegate to the
General Assembly, in Plenary Session, November 1952.
Mr. President: I appreciate this
opportunity to explain the vote of the United States on the report
of the Fifth Committee on contributions for 1953. This is a most
important and complex question.
As I have repeatedly attempted to make clear to the Fifth Committee,
the reduction of the United States’ share of the regular expenses of
the United Nations to the one-third ceiling, is a matter of great
moment and a source of considerable concern within my government.
This is evident from the fact that for two successive years the
Congress of the United States has passed laws which place
restrictions on our representatives to international organizations
with regard to assessed financial commitments on the United States
in excess of one-third of the total assessments. My previous
statements in the Fifth Committee, urging action to implement the
one-third principle now, were made with these
legal limitations, as well as the United States Delegation’s
convictions, in mind.
For several years, delegations from the United States have stated the
case for the one-third ceiling principle with earnestness and
sincerity. [Page 615] They have
attempted, as I have endeavored this year, to make it abundantly
clear that the United States looks upon this question as one of principle—not one of money. I reminded my
colleagues in Committee 5 of the vast contributions which the United
States Government has freely made to the total undertakings of the
United Nations and its related Agencies. Contributions which have
reached a total of $580 millions since 1946—a total which does not,
and cannot, take into account the thousands of American lives and
billions of dollars being directly spent by the United States in
support of United Nations principles in Korea. I mention these
considerations, not in an effort to claim credit, but in an effort
to again underscore the fact that my Government is primarily
concerned about the principle at issue. We believe it is vitally
important to the United Nations that it not be dependent upon any
one Member State for more than one-third of its regular income. We
believe that in an international organization composed of sixty
sovereign states, with equal privileges and responsibilities, there
should be more equality in contributions. We believe that contrary
conditions mitigate against the best long run interests of the
United Nations.
I shall not again repeat the many reasons why I believe it would have
been both wise and just for this Assembly to have approved the
resolution submitted by my Delegation. This resolution would have
fixed the share of the largest contributor at one-third as of 1
January 1953. Since this did not find favor with the majority of the
Fifth Committee, I had no alternative but to abstain on the proposal
to establish the ceiling at one third for 1954. We also abstained on
the resolution adopting the report of the Committee on
Contributions. In any event, Sir, I believe that it is manifest, as
the distinguished delegate and parliamentarian of Norway pointed out
in the Fifth Committee, that any commitment of the United States to
contribute more than 33⅓% is based on the provisions of the Charter,
and not on the vote of the United States representative.
I should not like to close without a reference to the Committee 5
efforts of the Canadian and other delegates, who obtained Committee
agreement on the resolution we have considered today. While this
agreement is not all that my Government deems warranted under the
circumstances, it does constitute a firm step forward in that, for
the first time, there is definite assurance that the ceiling
principle will be finally implemented beginning 1 January 1954. This
in itself is gratifying, and those who labored to bring about this
result, are entitled to the appreciation of all of us who have the
best interests of the United Nations at heart.
In summary, Sir, I hope that this Assembly will accept the assurances
of my Delegation that the United States will continue to do its part
in the support of the United Nations. I hope also that you will [Page 616] understand that our
abstention today was dictated by a spirit of cooperation. Since I
could not vote for the report, I did the next best thing by
abstaining. I did so because I recognize that there is much that is
good in the report on contributions, and because I appreciate the
goodwill which lies behind the 1954 assurance. It is my fervent
wish, Mr. President, that this example of give-and-take—this product
of a willingness to come at least part of the way toward
accommodating differing points of view—might spur us on, in the same
spirit, toward significant accomplishments in the settlement of the
major problems which confront us.
I thank you, Mr. President.
