Why should non official language country pay for translation in UN?

I was reading again of this great report and felt that why should the member countries of the non official language in UN or WHO etc pay for the translation fee.



The memership fees should not be used to translate that 6 official languages. Those 6 languages are the native language of the 6 countries. Since they fought to have the language in the official status, they should shoulder all the translation cost.

As Abel Montagut in http://www.nitobe.info/ said that every year that USA can save 16 billion for not learning a foreign language. This about plus the amount from the UK, Australia, New Zealand etc, should be more sufficent to cover the fees for the underdeveloped countries.

nitobe.info/ld/.../nc_dokumento-27-am_linguistic_diversity_en.pdf



The UN has great language difficulties

http://www.2-2.se/en/10.html

Dream will come true if all work for it.

Why is Japanese not an official UN language?

Why should the delegates from Japan, Germany, Brazil and Madagascar not be allowed to speak in the General Assembly in their own language, whilst for instance a delegate from Syria can use his rhetorical powers in his mother tongue? Either the UN will have to do as the EU and allow the languages of all the member states to be official languages, or it will have to choose a neutral language for daily use. Which alternative do you think will be the cheapest and be the best one to promote international dialogue?
Thanks to the large global importance of the EU the UN would have to add Esperanto to its list of official languages, if the EU was to use Esperanto as its sole working language. After a generation or so, Esperanto would so completely dominate the workings of the UN (thanks to how easy it is to learn), that Esperanto would naturally become the only official language of the organization.