23. "IF WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT PRESERVING THE UNITED NATIONS... WE ARE ALL OF US GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE": Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Aiken) in Committee V of the U.N. General Assembly, October 18, 1960 *

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The United States Delegation will have specific comments to make as we take up specific sections of the Budget. These comments will deal both with the Budget itself and with statements and proposals made by members of this Committee. For the present I wish to confine myself to some general remarks which I trust may be helpful to our thinking.

5

In its 15th year our organization stands, as Secretary General Hammarskjold has said, at a turn in the road. Which way that road will take us depends in large measure on what we decide in this Committee. By acting wisely we can assure our organization's healthy, vigorous growth. This we must do. Anything short of it would be to neglect our duty to the extent of denying future generations the possibility of living decently in peace and freedom.

We have been joined by many new nations this year. Their representatives are here in this chamber. Their people are proud to belong to our organization and look forward to a brighter future through it. They have every right to expect that this organization will do its level best to make that future possible for them and their children. Sincere as all our welcoming speeches have been, they will not be enough if we don't implement the feeling of the heart with tangible, effective actions. In plain language this means that this Committee must make financial provision for the continued growth of this organization. It means, for example, that we must recognize the necessity for expanding its activities in the economic and social fields to meet the enormous and legitimate needs of our new members. It means that peace must be assured wherever it is threatened-whether it be in the Congo or anywhere else. It means that for this purpose this Committee must find the way to underwrite the unforeseeable operations that may become necessary in this, the noblest of all works. This means money.

It is true, as members have reminded us, that the budget of this organization is growing. It is growing because this is a growing organization. We all know that this year our budget will be higher than ever before. If we are serious about preserving the United Nations and achieving the objectives of its Charter, we are all of us going to have to pay the price.

The times confront us with new challenges. These challenges cannot be met by negative suggestions, by deploring expenses or advanc

'U.S.-U.N. press release 3541.

&

See the introduction to the Secretary-General's annual report on the activities of the U.N. Organization for the year 1959-1960; text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 26-35.

'See ibid., pp. 55-58.

ing proposals that would render the organization ineffective, indeed unworkable.

Mr. Chairman, my Delegation feels that now, if ever, it is time for us in Committee 5 to think realistically, objectively-and in great terms. There is far too much at stake for us to allow ourselves the luxury of propaganda speeches, mutual recriminations, personal attacks and destructive suggestions-no matter in what apparent virtue they may be clothed. It is time for us to realize that either we want this organization or we do not. It is time for us to realize that if we want it we are going to have to work for it-and that includes paying the bills and having a workable organization. It is a source of regret that certain Member governments which have considerable resources appear reluctant to use them in this great and common cause.

Mr. Chairman, it is the opinion of my Delegation that the subject to which we are addressing ourselves the budget for 1961-has been fairly presented and objectively reviewed by the Advisory Committee. In general we support the Advisory Committee's recommendations. We will also support the inevitable increases that will unquestionably be necessary due to the unforeseen occurrences in our troubled world-provided they are presented and reviewed with the same objectivity and integrity of purpose as has been the case with the current budget.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, the United States believes in the United Nations and I may add, in the high integrity of its Secretary General. We believe in the capacity of this organization to promote and preserve the peace, and in its ability to grow and expand to serve the needs of those member countries which require assistance. We do not see it as static or stabilized. We-and I am sure that this is true of most Member governments-do not intend to permit it to be stunted, crippled, or destroyed. We will do our part-and we hope particularly that other governments with great material resources will do theirs to make certain that this organization has at its disposal the financial means to enable it to fulfill the aspirations of the peoples of the world.

24. EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A UNITED NATIONS PEACE AND SECURITY FUND: Statement Made by the U.N. Secretary-General (Hammarskjold) in Committee V of the U.N. General Assembly, November 21, 1960 (Excerpts) S

The Fifth Committee has devoted considerable time to a general discussion of the 1961 budget estimates and personnel problems facing it. In the course of the general debate much has been said which represents constructive criticism and helpful suggestions. But much has also been said which has but a faint relation to the real problems which the General Assembly will have to resolve,

far as it has been from realities and coloured as it has been by purposes extraneous to a serious consideration of problems of this Committee. I do not think that it would be a useful exercise for me to prolong the discussion on the terms of such misrepresentations as those to which I refer, tempting though it is to put the record straight. I believe those misrepresentations belong to a sphere of argument through which the Members of this Committee will easily find their way without any assistance from my side.

The real problems are of a different nature. Will this Organization face the economic consequences of its own actions and how will it be done? Further, if it is not willing to face the financial consequences of its own decisions, is it then prepared to change its substantive policies? There is no third alternative. It must be remembered that it is not the Secretariat which carries the responsibility for costs caused by steps taken by the General Assembly or the Security Council. Nor is it the Secretariat which has the right to change the substantive policy if Member Nations are not willing to shoulder the financial consequences of the stands they have taken.

However, before entering upon the facts which confront the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly with the choice to which I have just referred, I feel that there are a couple of points arising out of the general debate on which clarifications from my side are necessary. The first and most important one refers to the assertion that I have been misleading the General Assembly in saying that a stabilization policy has been pursued in earlier years, and that the budget proposal for next year represents a first modest departure from such a policy. Instead, I have been said to have pursued a lavish and extravagant spending policy.

Quite apart from the fact that this criticism, if it were true, hits the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee, just as hard as it hits the Secretariat, the statements referred to, for factual reasons, certainly deserve your most serious attention. I circulated this morning to the Members of the Committee a memorandum 10 with a full analysis of the budget and the budget development from which the Members will be able to draw their own conclusions. I have done so because I do not wish to leave any uncertainty in the minds of the Governments of Member States, while, on the other hand, I would not have liked to burden you here with such a detailed exposition of facts and figures as would be required for a complete refutation of the criticism. I shall only quote a few data from which you can draw your own conclusions.

The total number of the Professional posts approved in the 1954 budget-the first one for which I was responsible-was 1,648. On a strictly comparable basis the same figure for 1960 is lower than the one approved for 1954. Leaving aside the requirements of the Economic Commission for Africa, my budget proposals for 1961 show an increase over the comparable 1954 establishment of 28 Professional staff for a total of 1,676 posts as compared to the figure of 1,648. I think that the comparative figures amply justify my claim that the Professional establishment has been remarkably stable over the period in question and the significance of this fact is all the greater in view of the parallel increase in membership and the increase in tasks to be handled by the Secretariat. Whether or not the figure for 1961 will exceed that for 1954 within the modest limit mentioned, will of course depend on the Fifth Committee's final judgement as to what is required to meet the substantive demands formulated by the General Assembly itself.

If we turn from this decisive comparison of the establishment in 1960 and 1961 with the establishment in 1954 to the development of the budget figures, these figures may seem to contradict the comparison just made as they show a considerable increase in staff costs and certain other expenditure. I shall not burden the debate with an analysis of the figures as such an analysis has been made available in detail in the memorandum to which I referred. Suffice it to say that an overwhelming part of the cost increase is what, in budgetary language, is called automatic and explained by annual increments, salary adjustments and similar factors. There has been no extravagant expenditure or uncalled for expansion as would indeed have been most unlikely in view of the

10 U.N. doc. A/C.5/842.

close scrutiny to which both the Advisory Committee and this Committee have submitted the budget estimates each year.

One short word may also be said about the Laos mission, as it has attracted some special attention. It has been charged that we use a staff of 28 persons at an expenditure of some $260,000 for assistance planned at a level of only $213,000. The point has already been made here in the Committee that the 1960 expenditure includes costs which will be of a non-recurrent character, for example, accommodation, communications, equipment, etc. The following added facts, however, should be put on record. First, the figure quoted for the planned assistance is very misleading and falls far short of the total scope of the operation which has to be handled. It is difficult to give an exact figure that may be taken as the correct measure of the scope of the work. An analysis of the situation has, however, been included in the memorandum circulated. It should also be observed that, apart from the Chief, the staff of the mission consists only of a Principal Secretary and an administrative officer, three secretaries and three Field Service staff. The rest mentioned in the figures just quoted are local recruits who serve as drivers, messengers, maintenance men, etc. As this shows, the Professional establishment is very modest and certainly not out of proportion in relation to the tasks which have to be handled. Finally, it should be noted that the establishment, as well as the individual men and women concerned, have been specifically requested and approved by the Royal Government of Laos. This last-mentioned fact takes us beyond the field of purely administrative considerations and into a wider and more important area: should the United Nations, even on the modest level established in this case, fail to render the Government of a Member State, in desperate need of assistance, the help that it specifically requests in order, at long last, to get its economic development under way in support of its young independence? Similar corrections as those made here in relation to Laos are given in the memorandum regarding the mission to Guinea.

When I take the floor at this stage of the development of the work of the Fifth Committee, it is difficult to bypass entirely the question just debated, that is, geographical distribution. I will, however, limit myself to a couple of observations of principle, leaving aside questions of statistics and similar matters covered in the report.

Under the provision in the Charter that "due regard" should be paid to wide geographical distribution, a line of thinking seems now to be slipping into the debate which, I am convinced, is entirely foreign to the philosophy of the Charter. Geographic distribution means geographic distribution and nothing but that. The phrase has to be seen in conjunction with the Charter demand for full and exclusive loyalty of the international civil servants to the Organization, the other side of this demand being that United Nations officials should sever all their ties of interest in or loyalty to their home country.

Thus, geographic distribution cannot mean a balanced representation of interests or ideologies. Were another view to be held and the development of the Secretariat to be determined by it, it would represent a basic departure from the Charter concept. The Secretariat is international in the way in which it fulfils its functions, not because of its geographic composition but because of the attitudes of the members of the Secretariat and the truly international spirit in which they fulfil their tasks-if that had not been the view, the Charter would certainly have made wide geographic representation a primary consideration, instead of subordinating it to a demand for integrity.

There may be members of the Secretariat of the United Nations and of the secretariats of other international organizations, who tend to regard themselves as spokesmen for their country's interests or for this or that ideology and, in consequence, may feel that they are entitled to be influenced by what they are told to be or believe to be their country's interests, and may likewise feel entitled to serve as informal channels of information. There may be such staff members, but if there are, they would be endangering the international character of the Secretariat, from whatever geographic area they come.

I am concerned about the implications of the present discussion of geographic distribution because those implications may confuse the views as to what constitutes the international character of the Secretariat and, within the

Secretariat itself, may foster the false idea that anyone is there as an informal representative of a country or a group, or of interests or ideologies, and that any staff member is entitled to regard himself as being in a special relationship to any outside interests or views. I have said before in this Committee that those who in their functions recognize other loyalties than the one to the Organization can certainly be used by the Organization, but that their usefulness is subject to restrictions. While, as I have stated on many occasions in the past, the application of the principle of wide geographic distribution needs improvement, it would be a bad day for the Organization if, against the clear line of the Charter, such an attitude became the norm or was even sanctioned by the General Assembly, as may happen through the introduction of a demand that geographic distribution should provide for a balanced representation of groups, interests and ideologies.

Let me now turn to the crucial question of the financial status of the United Nations. I wish first of all to draw attention to the cash outlook.

Cash and investments on hand at 31 October 1960 amounted to approximately $9.4 million-$7.65 million in the General Fund and $1.75 million in the Special Account of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). These amounts do not include certain held-in-trust and other payables, e.g. Suez Canal surcharge collections, residual assets of the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency (UNKRA) and voluntary contributions received for the United Nations Fund for the Congo.

Projecting to the end of the year as optimistically as possible, it is estimated that likely receipts of contributions to the regular budget may amount to $5.85 million and to UNEF to $100,000. Expenditure likely to be incurred from 1 November to 31 December inclusive on these accounts (i.e., regular budget; and UNEF) are estimated at $9.1 million and $6.85 million, respectively.

Thus it is foreseen that without making any allowance for further ONUC remittances and expenditures subsequent to 31 October 1960, there will be a cash deficit by 31 December of approximately $500,000. This amount compares to a cash balance of 1 January 1960 of $16.5 million. The outlook, however, is somewhat worse than these estimates would indicate, in so far as it will be necessary to maintain bank balances of not less than $3 to $4 million in the General Fund and the UNEF account. Minimum requirements at the year end, apart altogether from those relating to ONUC, will therefore exceed cash availabilities by not less than $4 to $5 million.

Up to and including 18 November 1960 total disbursements for the Congo operations (expenditure at New York plus remittances to the Congo) amounted to approximately $15 million. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which further cash expenditure or remittances in connexion with the Congo operations will take place between now and 31 December. The 1960 supplementary estimates for ONUC amount to $66,625,000. I believe it would be prudent to assume that perhaps some $25-30 million of obligations will need to be liquidated in 1960, involving further cash requirements by 31 December of say $10 to $15 million.

On the basis of year-end requirements only, we must therefore find ways and means of supplementing available cash resources by not less than $20 million. This, however, is not the full extent of the problem, since financing will need to be assured for the regular budget as well as for UNEF and ONUC in 1961. So far as the regular budget is concerned, it might be helpful if, at this point, I were to attempt a forecast of the level at which contributions are likely to be assessed in 1961. On the basis of the estimates already approved in first reading, and others which, though yet to be considered, appear reasonably firm, total budgetary expenditures (apart from UNEF and the Congo) of approximately $74 million gross can be foreseen. This figure, I should add, would allow for an increased provision for technical programmes for economic development and for an expanded programme for the provision of operational. executive and administrative personnel (OPEX). Miscellaneous income and the 1959 balance on surplus account could reduce the gross total to about $67.8 million. To this should be added the supplementary estimates for 1960 already approved by the Fifth Committee or which are still to be considered-let us say in the amount of $2.5 million (excluding whatever sum may be assessed for the