Debt To U.N. CAN RUSSIA AFFORD NOT TO PAY LARGE ARREARS?

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30531, 28 August 1964, Page 10

Debt To U.N. CAN RUSSIA AFFORD NOT TO PAY LARGE ARREARS?

IBu

FRANK TAYLOR

in ihe "Daili/ Telegraph," London.)

toy - - (Reprinted by arrangement J

The United Nations, huge and impersonal though it may at times appear, gets extremely sensitive now and again. At the present tune, everyone in the secretariat from U Thant downwards is exceptionally touchy on the question of Russia’s refusal to pay even part of her massive arrears and the ensuing probability that she will lose her vote in the General Assembly this year. The Secretary-General, surveying a creeping financial paralysis of the organisation from his eyrie on the 38th floor, is said to be struggling to find a solution to a problem which, most observers agree, seriously threatens the very existence of the United Nations.

His immediate subordinates as ■ though according their leader silence in which to think, refuse to discuss the situation with those from outside the organisation. Even the United Nations guides, trim and pretty in their dark blue suits, have been told to put on their best diplomatic smiles and answer vaguely should the question be raised by a tourist. The gloom descended in earnest when U Thant returned from his visit to Moscow with the news that Mr Khrushchev had declared that Russia would leave the United Nations altogether if she was deprived of her Assembly vote. Simple though the basic issue may appear, it has raised grave complications for the United Nations which is labouring under a total deficit of £44 million. It is safe to say that everyone saw the crisis coming many, many months ago but few thought it would be allowed to mature. £2O Million Owed Broadly speaking, the trouble is this: by steadfastly refusing to pay its share of the costs of the United Nations operations in the Middle East and in the Congo. Russia now owes close to £2O million. Under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, a member owing the equivalent of two or more years of its mandatory payments automatically loses its vote in the General Assembly. Moscow, therefore, must dig into its coffers for at least £3 million if it is to avoid being penalised when the Assembly is called into session on November 10. Why does Russia refuse to pay for the two emergency operations? From the start, the Russians have insisted that the assessments for the operations were illegal because they were authorised by the Assembly rather than the Security Council which, they say, has primary responsibility on questions of peace and security. And, of course Russia has the power of veto in the Security Council. It is a matter of history that Russia has been found legally wrong. The International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled that the costs of the emergency operations were “expenses of the organisation” as set out in Article 17 of the Charter and were to be borne by the mem-

bers of the Organisation as apportioned by the General Assembly. So the question that arises is: Is Russia bluffing? It would be perfectly simple for the Kremlin cheque-writer to sign over an extra £3 million or so for some other United Nations activity. True, all and sundry would know the real reason for the extra payment, but at least the crisis would be solved for the moment. The delegates themselves will have the final word on the Issue in November and it is interesting to examine their various views. The United States, as might be expected, talks tough. Washington is firmly convinced that Russia is bluffing and that either she will pay up at the last moment or, if deprived of her Assembly vote, will certainly not walk out of the United Nations. “Troika” Precedent The Americans, it must be said, have fairly good grounds for their belief. The United Nations faced no bigger crisis than that which followed the death of Dag Hammarskjold. Russia and her Communist allies held out for the nowfamous “Troika" SecretaryGeneralship. She was adamant until the last instant and then, in a flood of rhetoric, she gave in and accepted U Thant. America is determined to press Article 19. The Johnson Administration feels that the United Nations would lose its whole substance if one member was allowed to flout the rules in this manner. It was to communicate these views and to demonstrate before the world United States support for the United Nations that U Thant was royally received in Washington recently. Those privy to Washington’s inner secrets say that the President and his advisers were a little put out that the crisis in the Gulf of Tonkin overshadowed U Thant’s visit. But the point was made, at least to those who watch the political scene closely—and that includes the Russians.

Other Western delegations at the United Nations are a little more cautious. Many feel that Russia might indeed walk out of the United Nations and this, they concede, would be a grave development. But they are realistic enough to note that the present “ad hoc” methods of financing peacekeeping operations leave much to be desired; they are anxious that Russia should find some face-saving way of pay-

ing part of her arrears so that all can get down to the business of finding some foolproof machinery to take care of peace-keeping jobs in the future. Afro-Asian Views The view from the numerically-strong though politically-fractious AfroAsian bloc is more confused. Some of the African delegations are clearly scared out of their wits by the Russian threat. They feel that a Russian walkout would be the start of what they glumly term “the big crumble,” the beginning of the end of the United Nations. For them, the United Nations is a forum where the mantle of dignity falls equally upon the shoulders of all: where a State still wet behind its political ears has the same power of vote as the oldest and most sophisticated of governments. Not unnaturally some African States feel that without the United Nations they would be left with little more than a flag. It is in the Russian interest [to pressure these countries into believing that Article 19 is by no means automatic and that the question of being deprived of a vote is a matter for discussion at the General Assembly. It seems that some of this has had an effect, for a number of delegates in the Afro-Asian group are showing signs of weakening. But what of the view from Moscow? The obvious question which the Russians must ask themselves is: Do we get more out of staying in the United Nations than walking out? Surely, the answer must be in the affirmative. Without Russia and her colleagues in the Communist bloc, who would there be to harass and badger the United States? Who would lead the attack on the colonialists? At The Door Perhaps the biggest inducement to remain in the organisation is that the Communist Chinese will again be knocking on the door this year and while they are not likely to be admitted, they might get a foot over the threshold in the next two or three years. What Russian would like to contemplate Communist China becoming spokesman for the Communist world at the United Nations?

On the payments Issue Russia is by no means the only defaulter although she is certainly the biggest. A few weeks ago, the United Nations accounts showed that no fewer than 16 other countries owed a sufficient amount to put their vote in jeopardy at the coming session. But the difference is that before. November 10 most of these nations will pay (and many have probably done so by now) just enough to keep them on the right side of Article 19, The “danger” list was: Argentina, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, China, Czechoclovakia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Paraguay, Poland, Rumania, Ukraine, Uruguay and Yemen. A solution to the problem concerning Russia is being sought in many quarters at the United Nations. The Committee of 21 which was created by the General Assembly to tackle the question of paying for peacekeeping operations, is working hard to come up with an answer which would be acceptable to all parties. British Proposals The latest British proposals on machinery for peacekeeping operations would certainly go some way toward clearing away the doubts and muddle that have surrounded the establishment of operations in the past. Britain wants all peace-keeping proposals to be dealt with first by the Security Council and to be referred to the General Assembly If the Council is unable to act (supposedly because of the veto power). The British proposals also envisage a finance committee to consider alternative plans for financing operations, including possibly a new scale of payments.

Britain feels that a temporary solution to the crisis caused by Russia is not sufficient. Something more solid must be obtained, and with good reason. For by January France, which is already delinquent in its Congo Emergency Force payments to the amount of £5 million, will be faced with the same threat to its General As®e™bly vote under Article 19. And, unless something happens in the meantime, the story will begin all over again.