46. Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly, Mission Headquarters, New York, November 29, 1956, 9:30 a.m.1
Ambassador Lodge opened the meeting with an announcement that he had received word last night from the Department that they were making progress and that we should be ready soon to go ahead with new steps on the Hungarian situation, perhaps tomorrow. Miss Gough announced that there would be only one item for discussion at this Delegation meeting, since a number of delegates were busy with negotiations which required shortening the meeting.
On the one item—the Scale of Assessments—Mr. Bender led off the discussion. The issue was that of how the percentage contributions of the new member states to the UN budget would be distributed among the old members. Although opposed to the inequity of the Contributions Committee report, the U.S. Delegation had accepted the proposed new scale for 1957 as recommended in the report. In addition to opposing retroactive application of the scale to 1956, we had objected to the adoption of the same scale for 1958. We favored, rather, a full debate on the scale of assessments at the next session of the General Assembly.
With regard to our resolution presented in the Fifth Committee, the reaction was even less sympathetic than we had expected, despite our own feeling that we had made a real compromise in dropping our opposition to the ‘57 scale. The only delegations to speak in favor of our resolution were those of the United Kingdom, Canada, Burma, and Iraq. Argentina had spoken against our resolution and the Chinese had not supported us, wanting instead a reduction of their own contributions. Mr. Bender thought it was clear that we could not win our fight against retroactive assessments for 1956 and suggested that we drop it. Committee 5 still wanted to vote the same scale for 1958 but we had a chance to defeat that. [Page 146] Our instructions from the Department were to accept the scale for 1957 but to make a fight on the 1958 scale and to press for a full debate in the next session.
Ambassador Lodge asked whether he was correct in believing that the Headquarters Agreement had not committed us to any particular percentage contribution. Mr. Bender cited the Charter provision in Article 17 that the General Assembly “shall” apportion the expenses of the organization among the members. Ambassador Lodge pointed out that the General Assembly only recommends; its recommendations were not legally binding action. Mr. Bender then called attention to Article 19 of the Charter which provides for withholding the vote of a member nation if its arrears equals the amount of its contributions for the preceding two full years. In this context, it was notable that the Soviet Union had said it would not be bound by any assessment for the expenses of the United Nations Emergency Force.
Ambassador Lodge recorded his feeling that the Committee’s refusal to vote a share in the reduction to the United States was “outrageously unfair.” Senator Knowland wanted it understood that he as a Senator was not bound by any such concept as that prevailing in the Committee. He said that Ambassador Jones yesterday had made it clear that the United States could not be assessed without the consent of Congress. Senator Knowland did not want any misunderstanding later; it must be made clear that the General Assembly could not bind Congress.
Mr. Bender pointed out that if the General Assembly approves the Committee recommendations over our objection, it then becomes at least a question of complying with the General Assembly recommendation. Ambassador Lodge thought the question was rather how much unfairness we could tolerate. The other delegations appeared not to know what they were doing—other things would be affected by refusing the United States a share in the reduction. In terms of dollars our fair share of the reduction would be small. After all we could financially afford to pay 100% of the budget but this in Ambassador Lodge’s view, was a matter of principle. Mr. Hoffman asked whether our failure to pay all that the General Assembly had “assessed” us for two years would mean that then we had to get out.
Mr. Bender reminded the delegation that today we would vote against any commitment on the 1958 assessments. Ambassador Lodge said that if we were defeated in Committee, we would take it to the Plenary session. We must educate the other delegations; even with regard to the retroactive scale for 1956. Mr. Lodge’s own feeling would have been not to go along. Mr. Bender thought in accepting the 1956 scale we had a better chance of blocking the scale [Page 147] as recommended for 1958. Ambassador Bunker considered the scale “inequitable” and favored arguing it out. Ambassador Wadsworth thought it was also unfair that some fifty other member nations had their contributions reduced while we had not. Ambassador Lodge doubted that the Committee could have handled the matter in a way more offensive to the United States.
In answer to Ambassador Bunker’s question, Mr. Bender estimated that our fair share of the reduction would be about $1,000,000. Ambassador Jones was in favor of “standing by our guns”. We should give them the facts of life; we ought to let them know now how we stand.
Mrs. Lord asked whether we were authorized to tell the Technical Assistance, UNICEF and other groups what we thought the psychological effect would be on our contributions to other voluntary program budgets. Ambassador Lodge said that in doing so, we must give the idea that we are generous, but not to be imposed upon, not to be discriminated against. Mr. Sears expressed the feeling that it was undignified for us even to talk about it. He was ready to urge that Senator Knowland tell the General Assembly that the United States Congress simply would not vote for any such unfair assessment. Ambassador Lodge thought such a step as Mr. Sears proposed would require some thinking about; it might defeat our purpose. Senator Knowland stressed that we must make the record clear. The Senator promised that he would “raise hell in Congress” and that was the most conservative statement he could make.
Mr. Bender surmised that the figure of 33.1% as the United States share, formerly regarded as a ceiling, was now considered by others to be a floor. The other delegations appeared to be giving no thought to anything but looking out for their own treasuries. Senator Knowland warned that passing the proposed scale would set a precedent and the other delegations ought to know that Congress can get arbitrary too. Mr. Fobes expressed the opinion that we had been able to make ourselves clear about the 1956 and 1957 scales. It would be better to concentrate on gaining votes with regard to the 1958 scale. Ambassador Lodge thought that we need not insist on voting against but we must make our position clear that we cannot defend such a thing before any representative group of Americans. It was folly for the Committee to be bureaucratic when this matter of principle was involved.
Before closing the meeting Ambassador Lodge congratulated Mr. Bunker on his appointment as Ambassador to India, which had been announced by the White House yesterday. Ambassador Bunker said that he was looking forward to a most interesting assignment in India. Ambassador Wadsworth asked Mr. Bunker whether he could [Page 148] take back to New Delhi with him the controversial head of the Indian Delegation. Ambassador Lodge assured Mr. Bunker that he would get immediate confirmation by the Senate if he would do so.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10.
- Source: Department of State, IO Master Files, US/A/M(SR)/1—.Confidential.↩