UNITED NATIONS Back in Business

The U.S. last week agreed that it was far better to preserve the United Nations as a forum for international discussion than to paralyze it in pursuit of a futile principle. "We are faced with a simple and inescapable fact of life," explained Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg in his maiden speech in the U.N. "The consensus of the membership is that the Assembly should proceed normally. We will not seek to frustrate that consensus."

The issue was Article 19 of the U.N. Charter, which provides that members failing to pay their dues lose their vote in the General Assembly. The U.S. had argued that special assessments to pay for U.N. peace-keeping forces in the Middle East's Gaza Strip and the Congo were regular dues. Not so, said Russia and twelve other members, including France, South Africa and Belgium. Adamant, the U.S. let it be known as last year's General Assembly got under way that she would challenge Russia's right to vote. Result: to stave off a showdown, the Assembly decided not to let anything come to a vote. The U.N. was stymied.

The reaction to Goldberg's graceful retreat was a worldwide sigh of relief. Whatever the validity of the U.S. position, almost no other nation was willing to sacrifice the operation of the U.N. to a feud between the world's constantly feuding big powers. The change in U.S. policy means that any further U.N. peace-keeping operations will depend on either voluntary contributions or the U.N. budget. But most of them have been financed by these methods anyway -Korea and Cyprus by donations, Kashmir and Palestine by the U.N. treasury. The Russians, who, according to U.S. figures, owe $62 million in back assessments, have hinted that they would make a voluntary contribution to the deficit-troubled U.N. budget -provided, of course, that no one says they have to do it under Article 19.

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