86. Minutes of the Fifth Meeting of the Delegation to the Twelfth Session of the General Assembly, Mission Headquarters, New York, September 26, 1957, 9:30 a.m.1
Mr. Lodge called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He commented that while the delegates seemed to be able to arrive on time, the staff was appearing later and later for the meetings. He suggested that everyone come to the meetings on time in the future. He then called on Mr. Mewshaw for the day’s announcements.
Mr. Mewshaw said that Mr. Sisco would like to have a meeting of all the area political liaison officers following the Delegation Meeting. Mr. Mewshaw then said that general debate will continue through the end of next week, that is until the fifth of October. He suggested that delegates pay special attention to the speech by the Chinese, Dr. Hu Shih, an eminent Chinese scholar and former Ambassador to the United States. Dr. Hu Shih was to be third speaker of the morning in the General Assembly.
Mr. Mewshaw then recalled that the Security Council would meet at 10:30 in the morning in secret session to discuss the renewal [Page 235] of the appointment of the Secretary-General. During the afternoon session today (September 26) the general debate will continue with speeches by the representatives of Bolivia, El Salvador and Sudan. The General Assembly will then consider the recommendations of the Security Council as to the reelection of the Secretary-General. In the probable event that the Security Council gives its unanimous consent, the General Assembly will probably acclaim the unanimous election of the Secretary-General, following which there would be speeches of congratulations. Mr. Mewshaw then reminded the delegation that the Disarmament Commission begins its work Monday (September 30) and that tomorrow (September 27) the Fifth Committee would begin its meetings.
Mr. Lodge then called on Mr. Bender to present to the delegation the problem of the Scale of Assessments. Mr. Bender began by explaining that the problem of the United States’ contribution was important more as a matter of principle than in its actual amount of money. The United States is assessed at 33.33% of the regular budget, and we are proposing a decrease in this percentage to 30%. This question has arisen because of the recent large increase in United Nations membership. We feel that with the admission of the new nations, the percentage of all members, including the United States, should be decreased on a pro rata basis. This principle, of course, would not apply to members paying minimum assessment percentages.
Mr. Bender outlined briefly the background of the problem of payments to the United Nations. Ever since the meetings of the Preparatory Commission in 1945, the United Nations has accepted the principle that assessments should be based broadly upon the capacity to pay. We objected from the very beginning to the applications of this principle to the largest contributor. It was first proposed by the Committee on Contributions that the United States assessment be fixed at 49.89% of the total. After Senator Vandenberg had strongly objected to this large proportion, the initial assessment approved by the General Assembly in 1946 was set at 39.89%. In 1948, an Assembly resolution recognized the principle that in normal times the maximum contribution of one state should not exceed ⅓ of the United Nations expenditures for that year. Despite American efforts to have its percentage reduced, however, our assessment remained at 39.89% until 1950, when certain small deductions were carried out. In 1952, the General Assembly decided that the highest contributor should not pay more than 33⅓% after the first of January, 1954. Since that date, the percentage has remained at 33⅓%.
In 1955, the General Assembly decided that the scale of investments should remain fixed for three years, that is for 1956, 1957, [Page 236] and 1958. This meant that the U.S. percentage for each of the years would be 33.33% of the total. This situation was affected however when sixteen new members were admitted later in the 1955 session. The U.S. anticipated that all of the old members would benefit proportionately by the additional contributions of these new members. However, in the spring of 1956, the U.N. Committee on Contributions fixed the percentages for these new members, recommending that they be consolidated into the scale of assessments by reducing the percentage shares of the old members, except for the maximum and minimum contributors—the United States and some seventeen countries which paid less than 8/10 of one percent. Last year we objected in the Assembly very strongly to this formula, but we finally agreed to a decision by which the Contributions Committee recommendations were accepted for the years 1956 and 1957, but with the proviso that the assessment scale for 1958 be left open for discussion at this Twelfth General Assembly, and that the assessments of Japan, Tunis, Morocco, and Sudan, who were admitted last year, be maintained outside the regular scale of assessments.
Since last year two more new members, Ghana and Malaya, have been admitted. The percentage contributions of the six new members whose assessments have not yet been brought within the regular scale, will come to a total of about 2.11% of the total budget.
During the last Assembly, the United States announced publicly that it would press for a reduction in its contribution to 30% of the total, in view of the admission of all the new members, and we are making this proposal this year.
There are three parts to the U.S. proposal as it stands now:
- (a)
- that, in principle, the maximum contribution for any one state should be 30%,
- (b)
- that the assessment percentages of the six new states be used to reduce the United States percentage, now by about 2%, and
- (c)
- that in the future the United States contributions should be reduced to the level of 30%, as new members join the United Nations and as increases in national income in certain countries require increases in their assessment percentages.
One particular appealing element in the United States proposal is that no other country will have to pay more than previously as a result of the adoption of our idea. We believe that this aspect of our proposal gives it a chance of success.
The attitude of the other governments involved during the Assembly has been generally unsympathetic to the idea of a reduction in the United States percentage contribution. This stems from many factors, among which is the view that the United States can well afford to pay more than its present percentage. There is a [Page 237] widespread feeling that since the relative capacity to pay of the United States is said to be about 42%, we are now paying less than we should. In addition the annual increases in the total dollar budget at the U.N. have required other governments to increase their dollar contributions each year. We have asked the Department to seek support from Foreign Offices through our overseas posts, but it is not clear from the poll whether or not we have a majority for our proposal. Most governments seem to have been afraid to commit themselves, although many Member States apparently have no objection, providing the reduction in our assessment does not lead to an increase in theirs. There is, however, a widespread belief among Western European and Commonwealth nations that it is presently impossible to increase the burden of expenses borne by the new Asian and African nations, and that, therefore, they, the Western Europeans and Commonwealth, will be squeezed as the U.S. percentage is decreased.
Our position is particularly difficult this year, as the expenses to be appropriated for UNEF2 are estimated to be about $40,000,000 in order to keep the force in action through 1958. The Secretary-General favors a direct levy on Member States to pay for UNEF, but when the states are paying this additional expense, they will not be in a mood to welcome United States suggestions that its regular share be reduced.
Mr. Carnahan asked Mr. Bender what criteria were used to determine what countries, in addition to the U.S., would not share in the 6.3% of the total budget to which the first sixteen new members contributed. Mr. Bender answered that any country contributing less than .08% received no reduction. He then pointed out that the sixteen countries already admitted plus the six admitted last year and this year will bring the new contribution percentages up to 9% of the total budget. Three percent of this could equitably go to reduction of the United States assessment.
Mr. Carnahan then asked if the 33⅓% contribution which we are now paying was a “ceiling” or a “floor”, that is, was it considered to be a maximum or a minimum contribution. Mr. Bender answered that it is a ceiling by the terms of U.N. resolutions, but that the average U.N. contributor was more likely to treat it as a “floor” or as a minimum U.S. contribution.
Mr. Lodge then recalled that he had served as the United States Representative on the Fifth Committee during his service as a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Fifth General Assembly. At that time, he had talked to Senator Vandenberg who pointed out the two factors in relation to the problem of contributions. First, Senator [Page 238] Vandenberg said that it was wrong to judge the contributions according to the capacity to pay and, second, that paying a large percentage of the contribution would give us, in the eyes of other delegations, too much influence in the U.N.
Mr. Lodge mentioned that an American statistician named Appleby had put this country on the spot with a great deal of documentation about the gross national product, the total national income, and a great number of economic facts all of which helped to prove that we could pay up to 50% of the total budget, according to the capacity to pay formula. Mr. Vandenberg had made the comment at the time that with such promising facts on the gross national product and our capacity to pay, the other countries would be certainly forced to follow our free enterprise system. However, Mr. Lodge pointed out that the large percentage has been decreasing and there is definitely no evidence that the 33⅓% contribution, now being used, is a floor. Mr. Lodge added that it should not be denied that we gain a certain influence by picking up ⅓ of the total check.
Mr. Lodge pointed out that with the addition of sixteen new members, it would be unfortunate from a public relations viewpoint for us to pay the same contribution, while the others had their percentages reduced, particularly the Soviet Union. He made the comment that he had observed, while he was on the Fifth Committee, that many of the experts were so cognizant of the problems of finance that they lost all sight of political and public relations factors. For this reason Mr. Lodge said we, the U.S. Delegation, were extremely fortunate to be represented on the Fifth Committee by Mr. Carnahan, who has a broad background of political training.
Mr. Carnahan asked how the figure of 49.89%, which was once used as our contribution, was arrived at. Mr. Bender’s answer was that the formula was to find something less than 50%, and that it was an arbitrary decision. Mr. Carnahan also asked what the smallest dollar amount came to in the case of nations paying the basic minimum. Mr. Bender answered that those nations paying the smallest percentage amount (.04%) of the present $50,000,000 budget are only assessed $20,000 a year.
Dr. Judd3 asked if the U.S. reduction of two percentage points was from 33 to 31% of the total U.N. budget, or 2% of our last dollar contribution. Mr. Bender answered that it was from 33 to 31% only. Dr. Judd commented that as a Delegate to the World Health Organization, the same problem had arisen, but he felt that he who had the money should in a sense make his influence felt. Dr. Judd also pointed out that other countries have now regained [Page 239] their prosperity, and that they could indeed step up their contributions.
Miss Dunne4 said although she would prefer to ask many of her questions later in private, she would like to know whether or not the 33⅓% paid by the U.S. was sufficient to increase our prestige and influence over other countries or could it be, she wondered, that we were being hated more and more. Mr. Lodge answered that our country would probably never be liked but that we can at least hope to be respected. An interesting comment, he pointed out, made originally by Senator Pastore of Rhode Island when he was on the delegation is that every time you pull out a paper towel in the U.N., each third towel is paid for by the United States.
Congressman Carnahan asked what would happen to our position if Congress decided by itself to reduce the United States share to what it thought should be the correct proportion. Mr. Bender answered that there was very little that anyone could do if Congress so acted, but that our assessment, once voted by the General Assembly, was at least a very strong obligation under the Charter. Mr. Bender asked Mr. Meeker, legal advisor on U.N. affairs, to comment on this problem. Mr. Meeker replied that the Charter says that each member must pay its share, according to what has been voted by the General Assembly. If a member does not pay its full share, the arrears build up to the point where a country in arrears more than the equivalent of its contribution for a two-year period, loses its right to vote. In our case, a reduction by Congress of the United States percentage of 33 to 31% would not be felt in this respect for about twenty years. The most significant and most distressing part would be, said Mr. Meeker, that we would be in default of our treaty obligations.
Dr. Wells5 then asked whether or not all assessments were made in dollar currency. Mr. Lodge replied that while all of the payments were not actually in dollars, they had to be 100% convertible currency. He explained that the assessment for UNEF was not yet clear on this point.
Mr. Lodge summarized the discussion by explaining that, although Congressman Carnahan was carrying the major responsibility on the assessments question, many of the staff members might be asked about it, and that it was wise for everyone to understand the problem. Dr. Wells asked, finally, whether the Chinese proportion [Page 240] was based on the population area and capacity to pay of the mainland or only of that of Formosa. Mr. Lodge replied that it was based on the mainland situation, and that because of this, the Chinese paid a large amount of money every year and kept one of the largest staffs of any delegation.
Mr. Lodge closed the meeting at ten o’clock.
- Source: Department of State, IO Master Files, US/A/M/(SR)/I—Confidential↩
- U.N. Emergency Force was established for service in the Middle East.↩
- Congressman Walter Judd (R-Minn.) member of the Delegation to the Twelfth General Assembly.↩
- Irene Dunne, motion picture actress and member of the Delegation to the Twelfth Session of the General Assembly.↩
- Herman Wells, President of Indiana University and member of the Delegation to the Twelfth Session of the General Assembly.↩