Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Press MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1966. Battle Of Arrears In U.N.

When the General Assembly of the United Nations ended its twentieth session last December it was remarked regretfully by the “ New York Times ” that no new approach had been found to the financing of peace-keeping forces and that there has been an absence of small-power pressure on the Soviet Union to pay its pledged “voluntary contribution”. The United Nations had come perilously close to bankruptcy because of the failure of 12 of the 117 member States to pay their dues. Of these the Soviet Union stood at the head of the list, owing 62 million dollars; France was in second place with arrears of 17.6 million dollars.

The Administration in Washington has been particularly resentful of this situation, regarding it as immoral for a member country to continue to claim voting rights in the Assembly while remaining in arrears. The Administration had, indeed, earlier demanded invocation of Article 19 of the Charter, providing that a member State should lose its vote in the Assembly if it were in arrears on United Nations assessments for more than two years. In the face of Soviet, French, and other (mostly Communist) opposition, the United States agreed in April last year to drop its demand which, if persisted in, might have wrecked the United Nations. Instead, the United States called for voluntary contributions to restore the United Nations to solvency. Still smarting under a sense of injustice the United States made clear in the General Assembly in August that it regarded financial responsibility as a sound principle; it would reserve the right not to support future United Nations operations if it found compelling reasons for not doing so. That is the position at the moment.

This week’s reported decision of the Administration to take a “ hard look ” at its support of the world body is understandable in the light of the dubious sense of responsibility shown by certain member States on the question of arrears and of the magnitude of American support of the United Nations over its 20-year life. In that period the United States has contributed 2418 million dollars out of a total of 5372 million dollars collected, including assessments and voluntary payments. The American share of the cost, on these figures, has been 45 per cent, compared with a Russian contribution for the 20-year-period of 233 million dollars, or less than 5 per cent. This analysis, taken further, shows clearly the extent to which the small States, with equal voting power in the assembly, can influence decisions on vital questions, such as pressure to secure payment of arrears. Fifteen systems of “ weighted voting ” have been studied by the Department of State, but none has yet been formally advocated. The reported hardening of the official attitude may suggest that some action to put financial responsibility in the United Nations on a more rational basis is now contemplated. Last year more than four-fifths of the 117 members were assessed at less than 1 per cent each. More than a third of all the members paid less than two-fifths of 1 per cent. The United States paid 37 per cent. The Soviet Union, France, and other members of the defaulting minority have argued that since most of their debt arises out of the cost of United Nations peace-keeping tasks which they opposed, they are under no moral or legal obligation to pay. That position, in the judgment of the World Court, is untenable. The Court, when the question was referred to it, held that peace-keeping dues were binding in exactly the same way as budget dues—a finding which was adopted by the Assembly. The Soviet Government, however, is not thought to be concerned about saving dues. Its real purpose, according to Mr Adlai Stevenson, has been to have decisions on keeping the peace transferred from the Assembly to the Security Council—where they would be subject to veto. The Kremlin would thus indirectly control peace-keeping policy; and denial of peace-keeping funds is seen as one means by which it is attempting to force issue. The Administration is well aware of the aims of Soviet diplomacy in the United Nations, which no doubt explains its emphatic avowal at this time that it will insist on continuance of the two-thirds majority in Assembly votes on important questions—as opposed to the Soviet advocacy of a simple majority—and that, in spite of Soviet opposition, it will continue to support peace-keeping operations where these are thought to be necessary.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19660411.2.81

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31031, 11 April 1966, Page 8

Word Count
750

The Press MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1966. Battle Of Arrears In U.N. Press, Volume CV, Issue 31031, 11 April 1966, Page 8

The Press MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1966. Battle Of Arrears In U.N. Press, Volume CV, Issue 31031, 11 April 1966, Page 8