UN. doc. A/6316, pp. 41-42. This resolution, sponsored by the representatives of 22 member states (including the U.S.), was adopted unanimously.

Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp. 176-178.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, p. 131.

Text in U.N. doc. E/3753, pp. 4-5.

Text in U.N. doc. E/4117, pp. 18-19. Text in Official Records of the World Health Organization No. 143: Eighteenth World Health Assembly, Geneva, 4-21 May 1965, Part I, p. 35.

52 Text ibid., No. 151: Nineteenth World Health Assembly, Geneva, 3-20 May 1966, Part I. pp. 20-21.

Text in UNESCO, Records of the General Conference, Fourteenth Session, Paris, 1966: Resolutions, p. 57.

Noting the steps taken by the organizations of the United Nations system concerned with these questions to co-ordinate their work in the field of population,

Concerned at the growing food shortage in the developing countries, which is due in many cases to a decline in the production of food-stuffs relative to population growth,

Recognizing the need for further study of the implications of the growth, structure and geographical distribution of population for economic and social development, including national health, nutrition, education and social welfare programmes carried out at all levels of government activity,

Believing that demographic problems require the consideration of economic, social, cultural, psychological and health factors in their proper perspective,

Recognizing the sovereignty of nations in formulating and promoting their own population policies, with due regard to the principle that the size of the family should be the free choice of each individual family,

54 See UNESCO, Draft Programme and Budget for 1967-1968 (Paris, 1966).

55 U.N. doc. E/3895/Rev. 1 and Add. 1-3. 56 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, p. 147 and footnote 23 thereon.

5 World Population: Challenge to Development (U.N. publication, Sales No. 66XIII.4).

1. Invites the Economic and Social Council, the Population Commission, the regional economic commissions, the United Nations Economic and Social Office in Beirut and the specialized agencies concerned to study the proceedings of the 1965 World Population Conference when pursuing their activities in the field of population;

2. Notes with satisfaction the decision of the World Health Organization to include in its programme of activities the study of the health aspects of human reproduction and the provision of advisory services, upon request, within its responsibilities under World Health Assembly resolution WHA 19.43, and the decision of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to stimulate and provide assistance towards scientific studies concerning the relations between the development of education and population;

3. Requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To pursue, within the limits of available resources, the implementation of the work programme covering training, research, information and advisory services in the field of population in the light of the recommendations of the Population Commission contained in the report on its thirteenth session,58 as endorsed by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1084 (XXXIX), and of the considerations set forth in the preamble of the present resolution;

(b) To continue his consultations with the specialized agencies concerned, in order to ensure that the activities of the United Nations system of organizations in the field of population are effectively co-ordinated;

(c) To present to the Population Commission at its fourteenth session, as envisaged in Economic and Social Council resolution 1084 (XXXIX), proposals with regard to the priorities of work over periods of two and five years, within the framework of the long-range programme of work in the field of population;

4. Calls upon the Economic and Social Council, the Population Commission, the regional economic commissions, the United Nations Eco

58 U.N.doc. E/4019.

The principal agent of the UNDP in the field is the U.N. Resident Representative, whose primary task is to advise his host government on priorities and planning. A government seeking UNDP assistance submits its requests through him. In addition, he coordinates UNDP activities with those of the various specialized agencies and with bilateral assistance programs. This task is complex and sometimes difficult. Ambassador James Roosevelt, the U.S. Representative at the Governing Council's second session in June 1966, called for intensified interagency cooperation in the field and stressed the role of the Resident Representative as "the eyes, ears, and the arm" of the UNDP Administrator in the field, and as an essential link between the host country and the UNDP. During the 41st session of the Economic and Social Council, later in the summer, many members joined the United States in emphasizing the importance of the Resident Representative.

65

63

In this context, the United States welcomed an October 1966 agreement between the UNDP and the FAO which made FAO's country representative a member of the Resident Representative's staff. The purpose of this arrangement is to achieve "a desirable degree of coordination and integration [of FAO] within the Office of the UNDP Resident Representative." This agreement marks an important first step in improving and formulating the coordination

61 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, pp. 149-151.

capabilities of the U.N. Resident Representative.

FINANCING

66

The UNDP is financed by voluntary contributions from member states. During 1966 pledges and contributions totaled $156.9 million. The United States pledged $65 million, subject to the condition that U.S. contributions should not exceed 40 percent of total governmental contributions. The U.S. pledge to the UNDP was apportioned as follows: $22.7 million for the technical assistance component, $40.3 million for the special fund component, and $2 million earmarked for special industrial services." In addition, the U.S. share of the regular U.N. budget-which provided $6.4 million for technical assistance-was 31.91 percent.

The UNDP management is working toward a complete integration of the policies and procedures of its two component programs, and during 1966 the Governing Council approved plans for gradual changes in the administrative organization. The United States has urged that this administrative integration be completed as soon as possible and has called for both closer financial relationships between the two programs and a more uniform presentation of them.

Currently, the two components follow different budgeting procedures: the technical assistance component approves programs for individual experts and fellowships on a biennial basis, while special fund-type projects are approved on a project-by-project basis with sufficient funds set aside to cover the total cost of the project from inception to completion.

The two UNDP programs differ in their character as well as their budgeting procedures. The former special fund component consists of large-scale preinvestment surveys and feasibility studies, while the technical assistance component concentrates on technical assistance projects, often of quite small size.

PREINVESTMENT

The special fund-type projects originate with specific requests from

€2 International Atomic Energy Agency. 63 Held at Milan, June 8-24, 1966.

64 See U.N. doc. DP/SR.20-39, pp. 88 ff.

65 Held at Geneva, July 5-Aug. 5, and at New York, Nov. 15-18 and Dec. 17-21, 1966.

66 See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1965, p. 148.

67 See footnote 19 to doc. II-30, ante.

member governments submitted to the UNDP through the U.N. Resident Representative. The UNDP considers the project in consultation with the country, the specialized agency that will carry out the project, and the Resident Representative, and submits the final project request to the Governing Council for approval.

During 1966 the Governing Council approved 137 preinvestment projects raising the total number of such large-scale projects assisted by the UNDP to 657 by December 31, 1966. These projects call for UNDP earmarkings of $644.5 million and $920.8 million in counterpart contributions from the governments benefiting from this assistance.

More than 40 percent of these projects (282) involve surveys in natural resources and/or feasibility studies; 132 are for research in such fields as agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and power; 233 are for training in such fields as forestry, fisheries management, industry, education, public administration, and transport; and 10 are for economic development planning.

A total of 116 UNDP special fundtype projects had been completed by December 31, 1966. Thirty-one of these, which cost the UNDP $38.5 million, have had associated with them followup investment of $1.6 billion.

At the second session of the Governing Council the U.S. Representative stressed the U.S. interest in close cooperation between the UNDP and various sources of investment capital and noted that the increasing use of financial advisers attached to individual projects was a good step in that direction." He went on to point out the need for still more followup investment.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

UNDP technical assistance projects consist primarily of experts and/or training fellowships and are designed to expand the human technical resources of the developing countries.

The technical assistance program for the 1965-66 biennium (approved in November 1964) called for an esti

68 See footnotes 63-64, above.

mated expenditure of $100.9 million. The major fields covered were assistance to governments in the formulation and implementation of development plans (19 percent), agricultural projects (17 percent), health services (16 percent), and education (15 percent). Other programs were in industrial production, auxiliary services to industry and agriculture, community development, other social services, and atomic energy.

This 2-year program provided for 6,257 expert assignments in the field. One special phase of this program sent 105 experts to work directly in government offices of developing countries as administrative members of those governments. This “OPEX" program provides "operating executives" for fields in which developing countries have an insufficient number of trained personnel.

For the 1965-66 biennium the UNDP technical assistance program scheduled 8,060 training fellowships, primarily for advanced technical training abroad, but also for participation in seminars (often given on a regional basis) and work-study tours.

In November 1966 the Governing Council approved a technical assistance program for 1967-68 at a total cost of $110.7 million. Eighty-one percent of this will be for salaries and support for some 6,179 experts. In addition 8,773 training fellowships are planned. Twenty-five percent of the program funds will be for agricultural projects, and projects in education, public health, and industrial development will each receive approximately 15 percent.

QUESTION OF PRIORITIES

The question of assigning priorities for UNDP projects was discussed at the second session of the Governing Council. The U.S.S.R. and East European representatives urged that the UNDP assign special priority to the development of industry in the recipient countries, in particular by investing directly in industrial projects. Some other countries urged the UNDP to stress agriculture. However, along with the United States, most countries-developing and developed-stressed that the choice of priorities and the initiative for requesting assistance were, and remained, the responsibility of the recipient government alone. The main considera

tion was that UNDP assistance should be consonant with national development plans and the stated needs of the developing countries.

U.N. REGULAR PROGRAM

The 1966 program of technical assistance under the regular U.N. budget was $6.4 million. Of this sum $3.4 million was earmarked for country programs and $3 million for regional and interregional programs. For this program, as with UNDP projects, a country's requests for project assistance are considered to be in accord with its own development priorities.

The 1966 allocation for regular program projects in economic development, social development, and public administration amounted to $6.1 million. It included such projects

F Human Rights

Document II-38

Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Abram) in the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, March 30, 1966 (Excerpt)1

United States Willingness To Accept Appointment of a United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights From a Country With a Different Form of Social Organization

I say on behalf of my country that, knowing full well that a High Commissioner for Human Rights could not conceivably be tied to the United States and granting that the High

as child welfare training for Colombia, taxation and finance studies for Laos, and a sugar industry study for Bolivia. Reflecting increased U.N. interest in industrial development, the portion of this $6.1 million devoted to industrial projects rose from $807,500 in 1965 to $1,054,000 in 1966. $220,000 was allocated for human rights advisory services (see page 152), and $75,000 for narcotic drug control programs, such as the seminar for narcotics control enforcement officers held in Iran in April, and fellowships in enforcement, addict rehabilitation, and narcotics control.

In June 1966 the Governing Council recommended a budget of $6.4 million for the 1967 regular program, and the same level for planning the 1968 program.

Commissioner for Human Rights might be chosen from a country with a different form of social organization, the United States does not believe that its integrity, its existence, its sovereignty, would be challenged thereby; we do not believe that a man chosen by the Secretary-General and confirmed, for example, by the General Assembly, would be a man who would be prejudiced or subjective in his judgments. My country is prepared to have such a man appointed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union has said that if the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is created, if it is finally approved by the General Assembly, then his delegation will disassociate itself from the process. He has said that they would not finance it and would not contribute to it. I further understand that they have taken the position that they will not work with any ad hoc committee of this group established to study further the role of such a High Commissioner. I regret this with all my heart.

1 Department of State Bulletin, June 27, 1966, pp. 1031-1033.