Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters

238. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations (Dutton) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland)¹

Washington, February 21, 1963.

I want to express genuine concern over several points in cable #3065 from Ambassador Plimpton to the Department on February 18 concerning UN financing.²

1. The proposal that we provide for the Congo operation in excess of our 33% financial contribution through “goods and services” is not a legitimate alternative unless authority can be cited for providing the goods and services. I would appreciate any information you have on legal authorization for that course.

2. Congress should be consulted before U.S. representatives even privately urge the Committee of 21 to adopt such an approach, regardless of whether we reserve our right later to oppose it. You will recall that much of the Congressional suspicion over the UN loan proposal stemmed from the belief that the U.S. had launched the idea in New York before consulting with principal members of the Foreign Relations Committee in Washington. This consideration is wholly apart from the damage I would think would be done in the UN if we “steer a group toward a solution” and then find out Congress won’t go for it.

3. I must take strong exception to the statement that “special scale may be imposed on us over our objection.” Congress is in no mood this year to have the UN impose anything on the U.S.

4. Congress will not likely agree to even the 33% levy if Cuba, Albania and others get their contribution decreased, as proposed in the cable. I realize that we should not allow communist policy to determine whether or not we will support the UN—but that is exactly the psychological situation confronted on the Hill this year. If there is a reduction in the assessments for Cuba, Albania, etc. I anticipate an amendment will be offered on the House floor to reduce our contribution by the same percentage.

5. I find the talk under paragraph #2 in the cable about a voluntary U.S. contribution to make up for any deficiency caused by non-payment by communist bloc as unrealistic at best. The cable indicates that there is considerable sentiment in the UN to reduce the level of the UN Congo forces. Exactly the same sentiment prevails in the U.S. Congress.

Fred

1. Source: Kennedy Library, Cleveland Papers, UN Financing 1963, #2, Box 19. No classification marking. The memorandum bears a handwritten note reading: “H. Here we go again. W.”
2. In telegram 3065 from USUN, Ambassador Plimpton noted that there were three alternatives: a special scale (possibly involving U.S. contributions in goods and services), a combination of regular scale and voluntary contributions, or drastic reduction or elimination of UN peacekeeping operations if special financing were not forthcoming. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, UN 10–4)