45. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in France1
46576. Subject: French Invitations to Prepcon. For the Ambassador from the Secretary for delivery before 8 AM March 1. In response to Sauvagnargues’ letter delivered to me February 28 and transmitted to [Page 153] you separately,2 please deliver following message to Sauvagnargues in your call on him scheduled for March 1.3 This is a revised text that replaces message sent to you earlier today.4
Begin text: Dear Mr. Minister:
In response to your letter to me dated February 28, I have further considered carefully the arguments you put forward for sending out invitations to the preparatory meeting at this time. My strong view remains, however, that we should wait until the requisite consumer solidarity is achieved before proceeding to make formal proposals for such a meeting.
In support of this conclusion, I want to take strong exception once again to the notion that the consumers ought to gear themselves to OPEC meetings. This idea seems to be based on the premise that we cannot have a productive dialogue without taking measures to tranquilize the producers. On the contrary, as we explained in Martinique and subsequently, the preparations among consumers for meetings with producers are the indispensable elements for a successful and con-structive dialogue with the producers. We intend to do our part in order to make the necessary preparations for such a meeting and, indeed, we look forward to making good progress on the major remaining issue at the next meeting of the IEA Governing Board scheduled for March 6–7.
Contrary to the suggestion that producing governments hope that the invitations will be issued prior to the Algiers summit, several members of OPEC have indicated to us that they made no final decision on the timing and composition of a preparatory meeting. Since France’s intention to issue an invitation to producers, consumers, and developing countries can be a mystery to no one, it would seem prudent to de [Page 154] lay issuance of the invitations themselves until the main parties in question have made a decision on the mode and timing of their participation. To do otherwise would put at risk a process on which we both agree and which appears to be advancing properly.
I recognize of course that the French Government may be in a position in its discussions with producers wherein you might consider it desirable, even imperative, to communicate with them before the OPEC summit meeting next week regarding invitations for the preparatory conference. This may be possible with a communication that does not go to the point of a formal invitation to a preparatory meeting. You could inform the producers of the likelihood that invitations would be forthcoming shortly for a preparatory meeting along the lines of the timing we discussed last week. You might wish to relate this to the current status of deliberations in the IEA, including the importance of the March 6–7 meeting, as well as to the understanding reached with the United States at Martinique that proposals for holding a preparatory meeting would be contingent upon substantial progress among consumers in the fields of energy conservation, financial solidarity, and the development of new sources of energy.5
With best regards,
Sincerely, Henry A. Kissinger
His Excellency Jean Sauvagnargues,
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Paris.
End text.
- Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Country Files for Europe and Canada, Box 4, France—State Department Telegrams from SECSTATE–NODIS (2). Secret; Flash; Nodis. Drafted by Preeg, cleared by Enders and Hartman, and approved by Eagleburger.↩
- Sent in telegram 46562 to Paris, March 1. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P850086–2207)↩
- Rush delivered Kissinger’s letter to Sauvagnargues on March 1. Before reading it, Sauvagnargues informed the Ambassador that France had sent the invitations to the producer-consumer conference the previous day. The Foreign Minister explained that the decision was Giscard’s, which he made because he and Sauvagnargues believed that: 1) consumer solidarity had been achieved; 2) Algeria posed a potential problem in terms of agreeing to the conference’s list of participants and agenda, prompting the French to distribute the invitations before the next OPEC summit meeting (which Yamani and other Arab representatives agreed was the right thing to do); and 3) “no approval of the U.S. or IEA was necessary for calling the meeting.” (Telegram 5327 from Paris, March 1; Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Country Files for Europe and Canada, Box 4, France—State Department Telegrams to SECSTATE–NODIS (3)) Giscard sent invitations to the Chiefs of State of Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, India, Iran, Japan, Venezuela, Zaire, and the United States to attend the conference. A translation of the text is in telegram 5328 from Paris, March 1. (Ibid.)↩
- Telegram 45836 to Paris, February 28. (Ibid., France—State Department Telegrams from SECSTATE–NODIS (2))↩
- On March 3, Kissinger sent a message to Callaghan and Genscher regarding the conference invitations that France distributed on February 28. He relayed Sauvagnargues’s justifications for sending them and told them of his previous efforts to prevent France from doing so “until the requirements specified in the Martinique agreement and in the December 19–20 IEA Governing Board decision had been satisfied.” He wrote: “By issuing invitations before the OPEC meeting, we risk formation of a united OPEC stand. Algeria’s reaction suggests that this is just what is going to happen.” While he and Ford would do their “utmost to avoid any public debate with the French” over the issue, Kissinger said, he advised that the IEA Governing Board “take no action on the French invitation” until it reached “final agreement on alternate sources.” He concluded: “For our part, we do not plan to respond to the French invitation until the established requirements are met.” (Telegram 46724 to London and Bonn, March 3; ibid., Box 15, United Kingdom—State Department Telegrams from SECSTATE–NODIS (3))↩