a great share of the costs of a peace and security action by the United Nations. This has the lure of reasonableness and the siren's quality of removing the burden from our collective conscience and fixing it on someone else. This is a nice and neat trick if it would work. Let us analyze it calmly and deliberately. 1. Will any sovereign state accept blame or permit itself to voluntarily sit with a dunce's cap in any such situation? States are like people they can always justify to themselves and to their constituency the justice or propriety of an act. It would require a trial and finding in each instance by some international tribunal before blame could be fixed and the degree of responsibility for costs assessed. Any other procedure would make a mockery of our pretensions to justice and a shambles of our mutuality in this Organization. The process of stigmatizing one nation or another is a lengthy one. It is also a double-edged sword. It may shake up a lot of hidden factors and culprits who charge others while having no little share of the fault themselves. It seems strange and inconsistent for those who hesitate to submit one limited legal phase of our problem to the ICJ to seemingly espouse this proposition with all of its judicial prerequisites and endless political implications. 2. But, assuming the first step is ultimately concluded, can anyone reasonably contend that an alleged culprit state will advance the financial means to pursue a military action while it is under charges of responsibility for having caused the conditions which make a UN security action necessary? Who then is to provide the funds while all of this palavering and judicial processing takes place? If the suggestion that is made had been pursued in the case of the Suez and in the Congo we would still be debating the subject. This is obviously an impractical approach even if it is acceptable as a principle. Blame-fixing and fault-finding are exercises that are time consuming but do not meet the exigencies of an emergency military or security program. They can only be looked upon as mere conversation pieces for the aftermath-they do not supply men, material and money when they are needed. There is another alternative which has been proposed several times. On occasion it has been met with limited approval by some of the states. The proposal paraphrased is simply that all aspects of this type of undertaking_must proceed only by agreement between the permanent members of the Security Coun cil. This suggestion has been confused on occasions as being somewhat similar to another that proposes that the permanent members of the Security Council pay a larger share of the cost of a peace and security action. Let us be certain that these are two separate and distinct ideas that bear no honest relationship one to the other. My government has expressed itself by acts in affirming its belief that in an emergency security situation such as created UNEF and ONUC a major power should volunteer to do something beyond its share as expressed by the normal scale of assessments if it is necessary to do so. We shall do so again in the consideration of this item. However, we have never claimed that this should deprive the entire membership of its role as a General Assembly to act in an appropriate case under the Uniting for Peace resolution or in assessing and allocating costs under Article 17. Perhaps in this we are less protective of our selfish interests than our colleagues of the Soviet Union. Perhaps, in this we are expressing a naive hope that irrespective of occasional differences the total membership can be relied upon to act in the best interest of world tranquility and in a spirit of collective responsibility if the need arises. The Security Council of eleven members or a lesser number, the five permanent members, should not be looked upon as sacrosanct. We believe that one of the major progressive steps taken in the writing of the Charter is expressed in the mutuality of Article 17 and its companion Article 19 and in the later wisdom of the General Assembly in enacting its epoch making Resolution 377 (V) Uniting for Peace. Any acceptance of the notion that we must move away from these achievements is a backward step in our common search for a universe of peace. It implies that only a few should make the crucial decisions of our day without the prospect of a participation of the many in an appropriate case; it may even imply that only a few should make the decisions, but the many may be called upon to pay for them so long as the few are the great powers. This is an archaic concept which cannot survive the sunlight of today's world. There are many debates in these halls on many dramatic subjects-disarmament, nuclear testing, apartheid, economic development-but there are none as basic as the debate in which we are engaged in this Committee. We have arrived at an hour when a decision that may rock the very foundations of the world must be made. An organization such as this is not brick and mortar and glass it lives only through the personality of the human beings who serve it and through the repute it develops as an entity in the areas in which it serves. There are many places in the world where the people-not governments-but just the ordinary human beings-look to the United Nations as mankind's last and best hope for a universe of peace with justice. Is it conceivable that such a hope can be kept alive in the breasts of men if the organization that expresses it must abandon its mission and lower its escutcheon out of an inability to pay its bills? Is this the portion that the Members of the United Nations have chosen for this instrument that seeks human equanimity? Is it possible that the representatives of the hundred and three nations of the world-a world that expends over $100 billion a year for armaments-will permit the legitimate ambitions of a Congo for freedom and national strength to be aborted for the want of a few million dollars? The Indeed, the answer must come in this debate and from this chamber. subject of legal technicalities becomes oppressive when there is an avenue for a determination of legal rights among the Members and when that avenue can be sought. Any argument as to efficiency or inefficiency tends to beg the issuesince when have hastily-thrown-together organizations engaged in military or quasi-military operations earned an accolade for superb efficiency? The underlying and inescapable issue turns about our hopes, our beliefs in the peace and future of the United Nations. These are solemn days for the United Nations Organization. The headlines address themselves to every variety of international political issue that besets mankind. Sometimes, they scream with the violent differences that are openly expressed; on other occasions in more muted tones they exude the notion that small and even imperceptible forward movements are taking place. Even as we discuss these matters of finance military forces under the banner of the United Nations are engaged in making real the resolutions enacted by the Security Council five times without a negative vote and with minor abstentions. whole notion of a United Nations is undergoing its supreme test in the arena of words and in the crucible of gun fire. The It is in this environment that we listened to the direct and forthright presentation by Mr. Thant bearing on the problem with which this Committee is concerned. It is in other organs of this Organization that the substantive determinations have been made in one instance as recently as November 24, when the Security Council strengthened and again defined the obligations of the Secretary General in the Congo. Our task is to take the first steps to provide the resources which are needed to make possible the political decisions taken. It is sterile debate to question the total of funds requested. Neither the Secretary General nor anyone else can predict with precision what may actually constitute the final accounting in resources needed to achieve the result. All of us hope with him that the efforts in the Congo can be brought to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion. If it takes more in a short time to accomplish his mission than a chronic and continuing effort would require, who among us would choose to save dollars while continuing to expose men of whatever nationality to the dangers of an unending military engagement. The price of victory for the people of the Congo and for the United Nations may be great or small, but we have entered into a path from which there is no turning without dishonor. My Government has publicly and repeatedly stated by word and responded by act to demonstrate our support of the political actions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. We will do no less now. We have supported the resolution submitting the question of the character of obligation incurred in this connection for an advisory opinion of the ICJ. We have done this not to punish or compel anyone; but only to clarify the real task before us. We shall support the resolutions appropriating sums necessary to meet the estimates of UNEF and ONUC, authorizing the Secretary General to incur the necessary expenditures and assessing the costs. As on prior occasions with respect to the assessment of the cost of both UNEF and the Congo operations, my Government is prepared to make voluntary contributions in addition to our regular assessments to defray the loss incurred through the deductions justly made to relieve less developed countries from a substantial share of the burden. We are prepared to make a voluntary contribution on the order of $11.4 million toward the cost of ONUC, to cover the cost of the reductions in assessments provided in the draft resolution before us. We are also prepared to offer, subject to Congressional action, a voluntary contribution on the order of $1.3 million toward the cost of UNEF for the first six months of 1962. The adoption of these resolutions by the requisite two-thirds majority will enable the Secretary General to carry on until June 30, 1962. We now address ourselves to U Thant's suggestion that provision be made for sound and longer-range financing. We believe that the United Nations would be taking an epochal step in authorizing the issuance and sale under the conditions specified of a $200 million United Nations bond issue. My Government is prepared to support and has consistently urged the payment of United Nations obligations on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. Unfortunately, a combination of circumstances has rendered this impossible under current conditions. The adoption of the assessment resolutions, if the customary payment pattern persists, or even if modestly improved, will fail to provide the cash needed by the Secretary General to meet commitments he must make and which the General Assembly has authorized. In this situation, there is great wisdom in the Secretary General's call for longer-range financing. The position of the United States must be clarified. Only the Congress can authorize the purchase of such bonds. It will not convene until after the first of the year. The United States Delegation believes that the character of the crisis is such that all States Members should be prepared to take extraordinary steps. Normally, we would feel compelled to abstain or vote against a proposal of this kind until it had received the blessing of the Congress. For the reason we have stated, the United States, subject to the conditions here expressed, will vote for this proposal. We are directed to advise you that the President of the United States will submit the request for authority to participate in this bond issue at an appropriate level of purchase to the Congress when it convenes in the sincere hope that the United States will be enabled to do its share in making this historic proposal a reality. We firmly believe that such a measure is essential to establish a period without financial crisis to permit all of us to soberly and calmly survey the experience to date in an atmosphere relieved of the tensions of prospective bankruptcy. We would appeal to our colleagues to move quickly and confidently to put our house in order. This is one way in which we can bring a new tone to these halls as we near the close of a General Assembly which began under the pall of tragic martyrdom. We can by these acts affirm our determination that Dag Hammarskjold and his valiant comrades did not give up their lives for naught. We can do something no less important. We recall with a glow of happiness that moment of unanimity when U Thant assumed the duties of Acting Secretary General. The brilliant words of nomination which identified him as a man of faith, of fairness, of splendid judgment and serene personality did not exceed the talents he has so far shown in the execution of his exacting duties. His consecrated efforts to bring some order out of the chaos that was inevitable in the wake of the sudden and tragic demise of his predecessor; his fairness in trying to involve all of the Members in the major matters with which he is concerned; his quiet courage which has restored an air of real strength to our work-all this suggests that we must join to lessen the heavy load resting on his shoulders. seek in all friendship and earnestness to give our fulsome support to this accomplished and dedicated leader. It may well be that the destiny of all mankind rests in his hands and in his ability to make the United Nations responsive to the common urge of all ordinary people for a universe of peace where justice prevails. My Government shall not fall short of discharging its fullest measure of support toward this end. This is the spirit and the objective of our willingness to join in giving the Acting Secretary General the tools he needs. We APPENDIX 18 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [on the report of the Fifth Committee (A/5038)] 1691 (XVI). Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations 1. The scale of assessments for Members' 1 contributions to the United Nations budget for the financial years 1962, 1963 and 1964 shall be as follows: 1 Not including the Member States admitted to the Organization at the sixteenth session of the General Assembly. 2 Allocation between Syria and the United Arab Republic to be determined. 14 Yugoslavia_ . 15 2. 24 Total.. 04 .04 .38 2. Subject to rule 161 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the scale of assessments given in paragraph 1 above shall be reviewed by the Committee on Contributions in 1964, when a report shall be submitted for the consideration of the Assembly at its nineteenth session; 3. Notwithstanding the terms of regulation 5.5 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations, the Secretary-General shall be empowered to accept, at his discretion and after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee on Contributions, a portion of the contributions of Member States for the financial years 1962, 1963 and 1964 in currencies other than United States dollars; 4. Subject to rule 161 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, States which are not Members of the United Nations but which participate in certain of its activities shall be called upon to contribute towards the 1962, 1963 and 1964 expenses of such activities on the basis of the following rates: Non-member State: Federal Republic of Germany- Monaco Republic of Korea.. the following countries being called upon to contribute: (a) To the International Court of Justice: Liechtenstein, San Marino and Switzerland; (b) To the international control of narcotic drugs: Federal Republic of Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Republic of Korea, Republic of Viet-Nam, San Marino and Switzerland; (c) To the International Bureau for Declarations of Death of Missing Persons: Federal Republic of Germany; (d) To the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East: Republic of Korea and Republic of Viet-Nam; (e) To the Economic Commission for Europe: Federal Republic of Germany; 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 above, the Committee on Contributions shall at its meeting in 1962 examine the scale of assessments for the years 1962, 1963 and 1964, in the light of the discussion in the Fifth Committee at the sixteenth session and in the light of such further information as might be made available to it, and shall report thereon to the General Assembly at its seventeenth session; in the event that the Assembly should at its seventeenth session revise the scale set out in paragraph 1 above, the contributions for 1962 shall be adjusted accordingly. The General Assembly, B 1082nd plenary meeting, 18 December 1961. Bearing in mind the provisions of regulation 5.5 of the Financial Regulations of the United Nations and the existing arrangements for facilitating the payment of contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations in currencies other than the United States dollar, Aware of the difficulties experienced by many Member States in securing United States dollars for the payment of their contributions to the regular budget of the United Nations, Taking into account paragraphs 17 and 35 of the report of the Committee on Contributions,3 Considering that it is desirable to expand the existing arrangements for facilitating the payment of contributions, Recommends the Committee on Contributions: (a) To study all the possible ways and means of expanding the existing arrangements for facilitating the payment of contributions by Member States to the regular budget of the United Nations in currencies other than the United States dollar; (b) To submit a detailed report and recommendations on this matter to the General Assembly at its seventeenth session. 1082nd plenary meeting, 18 December 1961. 3 Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixteenth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/4775 and Corr. 1). |