Id. The amounts reported include the annual contributions, and, where applicable, advances to the organizations' working capital funds. Credits due the United States are deducted. This table does not include loans (or repayment thereof) such as the loan to the United Nations for the construction of its headquarters, the purchase of U.N. bonds, or loans under the Indus Basin and Tarbela Development Funds. Neither does this table include commodities unless a contribution was pledged in kind, nor contracts and/or research grants by U.S. Government agencies for services or research performed by an international organization:

On July 5, 1977, William Jones, U.S. Permanent Delegate to the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), presented to UNESCO Director-General Amadou Mahtar M'Bow a check for more than $43 million to cover the U.S. assessments for 1975 and 1976, including the supplemental assessment approved by the 19th General Conference, the U.S. advance to the working capital fund, and a payment for income tax equivilization. Dept. of State File IO/UNESCO.

F. POWERS AND RULES OF ORGANS

United Nations Secretary-General

On September 29, 1977, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 415, which "[r]equests the Secretary-General to appoint. . . a representative to enter into discussions, with the British Resident

Commissioner designate and with all the parties, concerning military and associated arrangements that are considered necessary to effect the transition to majority rule in Southern Rhodesia . . . .” The resolution also requested the Secretary-General to "transmit a report on the result. . . to the Security Council as soon as possible

There were 13 votes in favor and none opposed. The Soviet Union abstained, and the People's Republic of China did not participate in the voting.

U.N. Docs. S/PV.2034, Sept. 29, 1977, pp. 29–30; S/RES/415, Sept. 29, 1977.

The resolution was sponsored by the United Kingdom and supported by the United States. During his remarks in support of the resolution, Ambassador Andrew Young, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, discussed, inter alia, the role of the Security Council and the Secretary-General in finding an internationally acceptable solution in Zimbabwe. Set forth below are portions of Ambassador Young's remarks:

We are here today looking for an internationally acceptable solution. There are many solutions which are possible but only from this body can come a solution which is both permanent and internationally acceptable. The way this body has operated, and especially the way our Secretary-General has operated, is an indication that perhaps... we can approach at least this phase of the exercise with some measure of confidence. Under some circumstances a SecretaryGeneral might be able, without calling a Security Council, to appoint a representative to observe talks about military arrangements leading up to a cease-fire, and yet Secretary-General Waldheim has sought to consult with the Council and to take his mandate from the Council. In everything we have done in Namibia there has been an effort on the part of the Secretary-General to work in consultation with the members of the Council. That is not something that is mandated by the Council necessarily, it is something which the Secretary-General accepts as his obligation and the responsibilities of his office.

As we are approaching an internationally acceptable solution and as we accept the responsibilities of this Council for an internationally acceptable solution, we are in fact giving Zimbabwe an opportunity for a permanent solution. We are giving Zimbabwe an opportunity to move towards independence and towards majority rule without a lot of the in-fighting, struggle and internal dissension that has inevitably gone with the struggle for freedom when it has not been accompanied by the support of the entire international community.

I hope that the Council will support this proposal and, more than just supporting this limited first step, will support the entire process and see to it that, as reports come back to us, we seek to find

some way of bringing about freedom, independence and justice in Zimbabwe and minimizing the shedding of blood and the destruction of the resources of that country.

U.N. Doc. S/PV. 2033, Sept. 28, 1977, pp. 21–23.

U.S.-Canadian International Joint Commission

Role of U.S. Representatives at Public Hearings

On February 16, 1977, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Canadian Affairs Richard D. Vine wrote to William A. Bullard, Secretary of the U.S. Section of the U.S.-Canadian International Joint Commission, outlining the U.S. view as to the appropriate role of governmental representatives for the United States and Canada with respect to International Joint Commission reference activities. Mr. Vine was responding to a previous letter dated February 9, 1977, from Mr. Bullard advising that representatives of the Governments of Canada and the United States would be welcome to attend a meeting of the Commission concerning the report of its Task Force on an equitable apportionment of the waters of the Poplar River system. Mr. Bullard had previously invited the Province of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, the State of Montana, and the Fort Peck Sioux and Assiniboine Tribes of Northeastern Montana to appear before the Commission to clarify arguments made in the briefs of each of these parties concerning this matter in proceedings for which a verbatim transcript would be made and which would be open to the public. Portions of Deputy Assistant Secretary Vine's letter of February 16 follow:

Pursuant to the Commission's invitation, Counsel for the United States Government will observe these further proceedings. Consistent with our policy regarding matters before the Commission under joint Reference pursuant to article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the United States representatives will not be expected to comment substantively on the issue before the Commission. The record reveals certain cases in the past in which the article IX Reference process has, in our opinion, been impaired by the advocacy of substantive positions by governments on matters referred by them to the Commission for impartial technical investigation, scrutiny, and advisory report. Such advocacy in these cases has proven to be counter-productive, making more difficult the task of the Commission and the success of ultimate government-to-government negotiations in light of the Commisson's activity. Nonetheless, there may be occasions on which the Commission will seek clarification of or further guidance regarding the terms and objectives of the governments' Reference, and from time to time other, unusual circumstances in which substantive comment by Counsel may be appropriate and desirable.