Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume XI

34. Instruction From the Department of State to Certain Diplomatic Missions¹

CA–2288

Washington, September 11, 1956.

SUBJECT

• Revision of the United Nations Contributions Scale—11th Session of the United Nations General Assembly

Toward the close of the 10th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, sixteen countries were admitted to membership. It was then too late to re-examine the already approved scale of assessments for the calendar year 1956. The Committee on Contributions, therefore, was requested to study and recommend the level of contributions of the new members. The results of its deliberations are contained in the Report of the Committee (UN document A/3121). In brief, the Committee, with a dissent from the United States national member, recommended appropriate percentage shares for the new members in accordance with relative capacity to pay and then revised the already approved scale for 1956 to incorporate the new shares in a new 100% scale. Fifty members (including 10 new members) received reductions. The United States is one of those not changed.

In view of the interest stemming from the record made by the United States member of the UN Committee on Contributions the following advance explanation of the position to be taken by the United States at the 11th Session of the General Assembly on the Report of the Committee is presented.

At your discretion it is requested that you bring these views to the attention of the government to which you are accredited and inform the Department of the reaction.

1. The United States will oppose the Committee’s recommendation because

a. After review and analysis of the Committee report the Department believes that the Committee went beyond its authority, in view of the fact that the 10th General Assembly set a contributions scale for 1956, 1957, 1958, and of Rule 161 which provides: “The scale of assessments, when once fixed by the General Assembly, shall not be subject to a general revision for at least three years, unless it is clear that there have been substantial changes in the relative capacities to pay.”

b. The Committee’s recommendations in effect constitute a general revision for which the Committee should have had political guidance from the General Assembly, guidance which the United States considers is indispensable in view of a substantial increase in the number of UN member states.

2. The United States objective in opposing the Committee’s somewhat mechanical recommendation is to obtain adequate consideration of all factors affecting cost sharing by the General Assembly so that it can give appropriate instructions to the Committee. The United States considers that the significant increase in the number of UN states makes it appropriate and, in our view, necessary that the General Assembly consider all factors including possibly even a reduction in the maximum share of one-third.

3. The Department recognizes that a general revision of the scale of assessments is a significant issue and that the UN members may not, at the 11th General Assembly, be prepared to consider and accept a general revision. Therefore, the United States tentative position would be that the present scale of contributions should be maintained during the interim until full scale review of assessments in 1958, or earlier as decided by the General Assembly. During this interim, assessments against new members should be established and collected outside of the scale and be placed in the category of miscellaneous income, to be used in reduction of all member assessments. The three members (Canada, New Zealand and Sweden) who now pay more per capita than the United States and have been promised relief should be allowed a “per capita credit” against their assessment. Such credit could be considered a first charge against miscellaneous income.

The advantage of this interim arrangement is that it would retain status quo the relative position of all countries’ assessments until a general revision is discussed, agreed upon, and put into effect. In contrast, the Committee would grant reductions in the shares of only forty of the old members paying between the minimum (.04 through .08) and the maximum. Such changes tend to accentuate and sharpen inequities (even though small), and make later complete revision more difficult. Countries which may be over-assessed would receive benefits not necessarily in proportion to their over-assessment. Countries which are under-assessed receive unwarranted relief and later correction will be doubly difficult to make.

If you deem it appropriate, you may emphasize that the Soviet Union has been under-assessed in the United Nations scale and remained so in the current 1956 scale. The recommendations of the Contributions Committee would accentuate this situation.

For your information, the reasons for the United States position are:

A. It is hoped to achieve a solution which avoids the reduction of the Soviet share while the United States remains at 33⅓. Domestic opinion does not appear ready to accept a reduction in the Soviet share while the United States share remains constant even though, in the eyes of other United Nations members, capacity to pay of the United States remains far above its assessment.

B. Maintenance of the present scale does not prejudice the future but leaves the way open for further consideration of various alternatives at a time when other new members (Japan and Germany) and their contributions may introduce new factors.

C. The initial opinion of the Department is that General Assembly action foreshadowing a change in the United States share is not likely this year. Until now, there has been no discussion of this possibility. The United States has been quiet on this point for two years since its share was reduced to 33⅓%. Preparation of the ground is necessary before thinking in other countries will accept a new movement to lower the ceiling for the United States percentage. It is reasonable to aim, as a minimum, for a full discussion of this matter at the 12th Session of the General Assembly, followed by Contributions Committee deliberations during 1958, and final Assembly action at the 13th Session of the General Assembly. Whether this timetable can be speeded up can be judged only after exchanges of view with selected governments and a general testing of opinions.

The final United States position on this issue will be determined in October and will take into account any reports of reactions of other governments.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320/9–1156. Limited Official Use. Sent to 65 posts; repeated to 8 others.