Volume #16 - 397.|
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES
UNITED NATIONS SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Secretary, Permanent Delegation to European Office of United Nations,|
to Under Secretary of State for External Affairs
June 12th, 1950|
The Allocations Committee of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization met recently to discuss among other things an appropriate scale for the allocation of the expenses of the Organization among states members. You will recall that difficulties have been caused by the United States monetary ceiling on the amount of its contribution.
As legislative action has not yet been completed in the United States to raise the ceiling, it was not possible for the Committee to make progress towards the preparation of a permanent scale. However, the United States delegate said that his delegation would not vote against a scale for 1951 which set the United States contribution for 1951 at 25%. The United States contribution for 1950 was 22%.
It was agreed by the Committee whose report was subsequently adopted by the Governing Body that for the year 1951 a scale would be recommended on the basis of a 25% contribution for the United States and the Secretariat submitted a paper setting out four possible scales on this basis. These scales will be submitted to the Finance Committee of the I.L.O. Conference along with a further scale suggested by Australia which is based on the United Nations 1950 scale with a maximum contribution of 25%, a minimum contribution of 12% with no state paying a higher percentage than in 1950.
I am attaching two ropiest of the five scales listed as AA., AA.1, BB, CC and CC. 1 which will be considered by the Finance Committee of the Conference.
As Mr. Sidney Pollock of the Department of Finance is at present in Florence attending the UNESCO Conference, I forwarded the proposed scales to him and requested his comments. I am attaching a copy of Mr. Pollock's reply dated June 9th and you will note that he has suggested that the Canadian delegation might support the adoption of scale CC or any other scale submitted to the Conference which would have the effect of reducing the Canadian contribution below its 1950 level.
Unless other instructions are received from you, I shall follow the suggestions made by Mr. Pollock when this matter is discussed by the Conference.
La délégation d la cinquième Conférence générale d'UNESCO au secrétaire de la délégation permanente auprès de l'Office européen des Nations Unies
Delegation, Fifth General Conference of UNESCO, to Secretary, Permanent Delegation to European Office of United Nations
Florence, June 9, 1950
Dear Norman [Berlis],
I have your letter of June 6i requesting my comments on the suggested scales of contributions which are to be submitted to the Finance Committee of the I.L.O. Conference. As you know, I have not had much time to examine the scales and my preliminary remarks that follow are, of course, subject to any change which may be notified to you direct from Ottawa.Generally speaking, it would seem to be desirable to press for adoption of that scale which would lead to the minimum contribution for Canada for 1951. It is not hard to justify such an approach. Our contribution to the I.L.O. has always been out of line with our relative "capacity to pay", especially as compared with the assessment of the United States and, to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom. Furthermore, on a per capita basis, our contribution is considerably higher than that of the United States. Since I assume that it will not be possible this year to raise the United States' contribution above the 25% figure mentioned in your letter, I doubt that there is much that you can do to bring our contribution down this year. Nevertheless, as already indicated above, our aim should be to bring the United States contribution up and others like Canada down correspondingly.
There is, however, one qualification I should make: it seems highly unrealistic to increase the contribution of China for 1951. If, as I suspect, the Chinese are already substantially in arrears in the I.L.O., the effect of an increase in their contribution for 1951 would be to increase these arrears and to bring serious financial consequences for the Organization. In the circumstances, I would feel that scale A.A., in which the Chinese contribution would be increased to 7.64% should not be supported for 1951. If and when the Chinese issue is finally resolved, it may be appropriate to re assess China at a rate appropriate to its capacity to pay and to its national importance. However, at the moment I would be inclined to follow the line of expediency in this connection.
If we exclude scale A.A. and examine the other proposed scales, it will be noted that the only scale which does not lead to an increase during 1950 in the Canadian contribution is scale C.C. Accordingly, my tentative recommendation would be to support the adoption of scale C.C., or any other scale submitted to the Conference which would have the effect of reducing the Canadian contribution below its 1950 level. I would also suggest that the Canadian Delegation might indicate that, while the United States increase is a step in the right direction, further adjustments will be required in future if the scales are to be true to the criteria of "capacity to pay".
I am rushing out this hastily dictated note as I feel that you are anxious to receive my views on this question. If I have a further opportunity tonight, I may be able to write again and at greater length.
Best personal regards,