280. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1
2170. Talks with SovDel re UN Financing. Ref: Deptel 1143 and USUN 1665, 1999.2
USUN agrees questions of financing and managing future peacekeeping operations in manner more fully in accord with interests of larger contributors is intertwined with US policy decision on acceptance special scale. As pointed out USUN 1999, subject: UNEF financing 1964, it will be difficult negotiate acceptable UNEF financing res early December, unless US prepared during UNEF negotiations indicate it likely be willing agree some version special scale when Working Group 21 meets. Currently expected Working Group begin meeting about Feb 1. USDel concerned unless Congressional soundings already undertaken or can be taken promptly, USDel be very difficult position not only during UNEF financing negotiations in two weeks, but also when Working Group meets. Time and difficulty of both consulting Congress and getting Executive Branch clearance within month of Jan recognized by all.
USUN also concurs safeguards necessary so US capacity to act not impaired. But little time remains for dealing with Soviets exclusively. Several members Working Group 21 have already indicated they believe Working Group mandate to work out methods financing peacekeeping operations involving heavy expenditures likely be “only chance” to bring USSR back into fold for past arrears and for future participation in time avoid necessity Article 19 showdown.
With respect your suggestion USDel indicate to Sovs on informal basis we giving attention to long-range problem of financing and management of future peacekeeping operations in preparation for deliberation of Working Group, taking into account special problems of large contributors, USDel so far finds little interest by Sovs in this approach, except repeated statements financing must be in Security Council with veto. Therefore, believed imperative US position on acceptable perimeters control mechanism for large contributors be available soonest. Restating to Sovs that with solution of problem of old debts, we be in better position to turn to long range financing and management problem considered highly unlikely be productive. In any case we need decision [Page 619] soon on these questions within Executive Branch so that necessary govt position can be prepared before Working Group meetings.
With respect freezing scale assessments, SovDel appears have dropped freeze idea for present. Tactical situation is that unless Sovs bring this before current GA—only logical item being scale of assessment discussion which began Fifth Committee this week—possibility security freeze becomes increasingly difficult. Best bet work out freeze would have been instructions from this GA to Committee on Contributions, before it meets next June, to take freeze action on the scale. Without instructions, Committee on Contributions will have no alternative but to apply present criteria to development revised scale. (It appears such revision would increase USSR percentage substantially and give reductions to many members.) To reverse such Contributions Committee recommendations once made, would be uphill battle even if Sovs throw in sponge next fall and pay arrears. The appeal of reduced contributions for the many LDCs which be so entitled next year be very difficult LCDs resist. Admittedly, major attack next fall on US ceiling—if USSR not press freeze—might appeal many LDCs as way of getting double reductions. USDel will, of course, continue probe Sovs on their ideas on freeze and future intentions.
With respect role of politically important third countries in urging Sovs to settle arrearage problem, we will continue talking third countries but at this stage mainly to bring our information on their opinions up-to-date. Most these countries appear be waiting for opportunity for negotiations in Working Group 21. Problems likely be created if India, UAR, Nigeria and Brazil go off on their own until US position on financing and managing is shored up. Encouraging these countries take independent lead on settlement arrears might well start snowballing of proposals inimical to US interest.
With respect Solodovnikov repeated remark USSR cannot be expected pay arrears if it not have single technician in Congo operation or Civops Congo, best present appraisal this complaint rather pro-forma. Only usefulness might be inclusion in policy guideline for USDel on US attitude inclusion USSR technicians in future operations. USDel willing explore importance USSR attaches to technician for Civops Congo, if Dept believes it advisable. USDel present view is further mentioning or pressing this point better left to USSR.
In summary, USUN intends keep door open for further talks regarding UN financing and plans be receptive further meetings, preferably during present GA, but (1) unless developments in current scale of assessment debate (which began Nov 20) are other than expected, or (2) Dept furnishes further guidelines on financing and management aspects of future peacekeeping operations, any future talks [Page 620] expected only result in keeping channels open and not in development much new information useful in formulating our position.
Within several days USUN expects submit memo to Dept on analysis of possible opting out procedures. Believe personal talks between Dept and USUN personnel also advisable this and other management phases of US needed position.