Prices on Peace

Everyone demanded a right to dictate the way to peace in the Congo, but few wanted to pay for the privilege. For weeks U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold had pleaded, cajoled, warned and wheedled in the effort to rake up funds for his 20,000-man Congo force. But member nations still owed $24 million for his 1960 operations alone, not to mention the $120 million he would have to spend this year. Of the U.N.'s 99 members, only six (Australia, Ireland, The Netherlands, Canada, Britain, the U.S.) had paid or promised to pay any of last year's Congo dues. The Communists refused. Latin Americans insisted they needed the money as badly as the Congolese. France said no, for De Gaulle disapproves of the whole Congo venture anyhow.

From all sides came the standard refrain: let Uncle Sam pay. Rising in the General Assembly's Budgetary Committee, U.S. Delegate Philip Klutznick sharply reminded the delegates that the U.N. would be stone broke "in a matter of weeks." If the nations do not pay up. he added, "this will be looked on as an era in which raised voices and small bills unpaid marked the beginning of the disintegration of another of mankind's great dreams." Hence, the U.S. would chip in "a sizable voluntary contribution" beyond its normal 32.51% quota, just as it had done in 1960, when Washington picked up 50% of the entire Congo check. Probable total U.S. contribution: $60 million.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.