Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters

236. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State¹

New York, February 7, 1963, 7 p.m.

2985. Deptel 2084.² Working Group of 21 re financing UN peace-keeping operations.

Mtg held this morning with Reps of UK, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, and Italy. Plimpton outlined major points of US position contained in memo of Jan 21, 1963,³ and asked for reactions.

All reps of above-mentioned states said they were without instructions and would have refer Plimpton’s remarks to govts before indicating official reactions. However, personal reactions summarized as fol:

1. There appeared be general doubt we could secure complete acceptance of concept of ad hoc approach to future financing of peace-keeping operations. Barton (Canada) indicated his govt felt rather strongly there should be decision now which would govern future operations. However, from discussion, appeared likely we could convince states represented go along with this approach, at least for present.

2. Several reps indicated we must have better definition of states entitled to lower percentages in special scale than that used in past. We indicated we recognized this problem and hoped be able solve it.

3. There appeared be general acceptance of idea that special scale be treated in segments with under-developed countries receiving smaller percentage assessments as total cost of operations increased.

4. There was no stated objection to our view that all states represented at mtg must expect increased assessment percentages in any special scale. However, several reps, particularly those of Canada, UK, and Australia, pointed to fact that their govts considered they were already overassessed in regular scale of assessments because of US ceiling. They indicated that they would have to know specific percentage increases which we contemplated for them before committing themselves to acceptance of increase.

5. Doubts were expressed as to possibility of our success in securing acceptance of comite on financing of major peace and security operations. Barton said he believed Canadian Govt would be strongly opposed to including on comite states such as USSR and France, which had significant arrears.

6. Appeared to be majority view there was little hope we could secure acceptance of position that $10 million of expenses for each of existing UN operations be financed on basis regular scale of assessments in 1963. Consensus seemed be that, while we should try for this result, we could not realistically hope to finance on regular scale more than a total of $10 million; that is, $5 million per operation.

Reps present extremely anxious have firmer and more detailed statement US position so that common view can be introduced into Working Group as soon as possible. Other reps had fear, which we share, that it dangerous permit Working Group proceed very much longer with only extreme views of China and LA’s serving as basis for discussion.

Stevenson

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, UN 10. Confidential.
2. In telegram 2084 to USUN, the Department authorized the Mission to “consult with friendly governments represented on Working Group of 21 to learn reaction to major points of U.S. position as outlined in memorandum on UN financing dated January 21, 1963.” Priority was given to obtaining the views of the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Australia. The Mission was instructed that it did not need to be specific about the percentage to which the United States might agree. (Ibid.)
3. Document 233.