U.S. May Review Payments To U.N.

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30593, 9 November 1964, Page 13

U.S. May Review Payments To U.N.

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) WASHINGTON, November 8. The United States has indicated that it may withhold all annual payments assessed by the United Nations unless the organisation’s financial and constitutional crisis is resolved, the “New York Times” News Service reported.

This possibility was raised today in a statement from Mr Harlan Cleveland, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisation Affairs, the News Service said.

At issue is Washington’s insistence that the Soviet Union and other countries lose their votes in the General Assembly unless they pay their overdue assessments.

In rais ; ng the question of future payments, officials emphasised that they were not drawing a distinction, as does the Soviet Union, between regular assessments, or dues, for the operation of the United Nations or its agencies and special assessments for such purposes as peace-keeping missions.

On the basis of a World Court opinion upheld by the General Assembly in December, 1962, the U.S. maintains that there is no distinction.

The U.S. have viewed all assessments as mandatory, binding obligations. The attitude being firmed up by the U.S. is that if the General Assembly makes the assessments mandatory for some and discretionary for others, such as the Soviet Union, the U.S. will have to take mother look at its willingness to pay them all. As one high official put it: “Maybe we will have to adopt the position that we don’t pay of things we don’t like.”

One sign of this hardening policy was the disclosure yesterday that the U.S., at a fund-raising meeting on November 16, would withhold any pledge of aid for the U.N. principal technicalassistance programmes—the special fund for economic

development and the technical assistance programme. The programmes are supported by voluntary pledges, and the U.S. has always been a major contributor. Mr Cleveland’s statement yesterday was intended to explain Friday’s disclosure. He said: “The United Nations is now facing some important issues which bear directly on the future development of the organisation and its programmes. Most crucial, of course, is the problem of maintaining the United Nation’s constitutional and fiscal integrity. “These issues have a bear-

ing on programmes that are financed by both assessed and voluntary contributions. The United States naturally prefers to make its decisions about next year’s programmes after these issues are resolved.”

By design, Mr Cleveland’s statement carried implications extending far beyond the technical-assistance programmes, the News Service said. In effect, it raised a question of how far the U.S. would support other voluntary financed programmes, such as the Arab Refugee Agency in the Middle East or the United Nations children’s fund. The U.S. has been paying 17 million dollars a year, about twothirds of the cost of the Arab and about 40 per cent of the 30 million dollars U.N.I.C.E.F. budget Most significant was the reference in Mr Cleveland’s statement to assessed as well as voluntary contributions. This was viewed as a clear hint that the U.S. would reexamine its payment of the annual assessments if the Soviet Union was not forced to pay overdue assessments.