312. Letter From the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland) to the Representative to the United Nations (Stevenson)1

Dear Adlai:

If we can get through the next few days with some plan for a non-prejudicial postponement of regular Assembly business, we will then need to focus again on the methods through which the Soviets make the contributions which will get them out from under the application of Article 19. It is possible, of course, that some additional attention will have to be given to this question as a means of getting through the next few days.

The enclosed memorandum, prepared by Elmore,2 bears directly on this question. I find especially useful his suggestion of the manner in which we can re-establish the dynamics of a political bargain on the creation of the Special Finance Committee, and his suggestion of the need [Page 672] in the future to avoid “overspecialized assessments”—and perhaps also “overspecialized” voluntary contributions.

I would be most interested to have your reactions to the proposal. Presumably, there would have to be some consolidation of the arrearage accounts within the Peacekeeping Fund (with the Soviet contribution being applied to that part of the Fund), and with our own contribution being earmarked for future operations.3

Warmest regards,


  1. Source: Department of State, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Subject Files, Reel 141, Frame 104. Confidential. The date is handwritten on the letter.
  2. Not printed. The memorandum was prepared by Elmore Jackson.
  3. In a November 20 reply, Stevenson outlined the latest Afro-Asian proposal and suggested that an accord among the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Union on how to operate under a “no objection” agreement was the best means to arrive at an ultimate settlement of the Article 19 controversy. (Department of State, U.S. Mission to the United Nations, Subject Files, Reel 141, Frames 138–139)