Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Arab-Israeli Dispute; United Arab Republic; North Africa, Volume XIII

81. Letter From Secretary-General Hammarskjöld to Secretary of State Herter¹

New York, June 3, 1959.

Dear Chris: Before the conclusion of the Foreign Ministers’ Conference,² I must bring to your attention the crisis that we are facing in the financing of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). By the end of this year, at the current pace of contributions, both our cash and our reserves will be exhausted. The United Nations, therefore, will approach the new year in a very critical financial condition.

At the present time, Members of the United Nations are $22,527,000 in arrears on their payments, of which amount the members of the Soviet bloc account for $10,628,000.

We are now engaging in consultations with a number of Members of the United Nations in the hope that they will pay their assessments at an early date.

I am well satisfied with the efforts that are being made both at Headquarters and in the field to cut the budget to the utmost. By a succession of careful reviews of the needs of UNEF, we have reduced and stabilized the budget at about eighteen to nineteen million dollars a year. In reply to my request to General Burns to review the size of the Force in terms of his needs, he has made a convincing case for the retention of the present reduced level of the Force if its functions and responsibilities continue unchanged. Some new difficulties which have emerged in the last several months add strength to his case and I therefore am not in a position to argue for any further reduction of the size of the Force. When one considers the invaluable contribution that UNEF had made to the peace and quiet of the area, the expenditure of eighteen to nineteen million dollars a year does not, in any case, seem excessive. There can be little doubt that if by lack of financial support we are forced to abandon UNEF, we would most certainly be confronted with a new crisis which would require the organization and presence of a new force not unlike UNEF.

Consequently, our task clearly is to widen generally the contribution of Members of the United Nations to this United Nations effort. I think everyone will agree that too much of this burden should not fall upon one country alone, in this case, the United States. It is an effort that should be supported by the United Nations membership as a whole.

As you know, the Soviet refusal to contribute has been based upon the argument that the “aggressors” should pay the bill. On that point, of course, as we move farther away in point of time from the Suez crisis, the presence of UNEF becomes more and more a current mechanism for the maintenance of quiet along the line between two Member countries and continues to have vital meaning and significance for the foreseeable future.

The second argument sometimes used by the Soviets is that UNEF, arising out of Chapter VI of the Charter, lacks a proper constitutional basis. It should have been approved and organized, they maintain, under Chapter VII of the Charter. Nevertheless, two Soviet bloc states—Czechoslovakia and Romania—offered contingents to UNEF. As you know, Soviet leaders have been making references to possible United Nations activities in Berlin which might have constitutional implications similar to those of UNEF in the present phase of Middle Eastern developments—a fact that seems to emphasize further the weakness of their “objections in principle”.

I have already talked to the Soviet leaders in the above terms but without results. If you should share the views expressed here and the approach I suggest, I should be glad to complement your efforts in whatever way might prove most useful in achieving a soundly and more broadly based financial support for this important contribution to peace and security.

I am writing to you urgently now as you may find it appropriate and possible to talk with Gromyko about this matter. In any case, it might be desirable to open the subject with him now since its importance and significance would seem to be of such a character as to deserve consideration in the course of a Summit Meeting, if such a meeting is held later in the summer. The last word on the Soviet side would probably have to come from Mr. Khrushchev. If there is a desire to reduce the scope of the cold war, the support of UNEF by all parties would represent a significant contribution to that end in one specific area, the Middle East.³

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely

Dag

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 320.5700/6–359. No classification marking.
2. Reference is to the four-power Foreign Ministers meeting at Geneva, May 11–August 5.
3. A copy of this letter was sent to Herter in Tosec 220 to Geneva, June 6. (Department of State, Central Files, 320.5700/6–659) On June 9, Herter replied that he would be glad to raise the question of UNEF funding with Gromyko, but the present moment was “singularly inappropriate”. He hoped to find a more propitious opportunity. (Secto 211 from Geneva; ibid., 320.5700/6–959)