Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities

125. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Italy¹

Washington, October 19, 1966, 6:55 p.m.

69229. FODAG. CEDTO. Deliver before 9:00 A.M. Sub: Food Production Resources Program. Ref: Rome 2061.² For: USDel FAO Council.

1. As USDel aware we are most anxious avoid either (a) any action by FAO Council which could be construed as endorsement Sen proposal, or (b) a so-called “compromise” under which FAO would assume primary responsibility for studying plan.

2. Re proposed study, we gather from Canadian and New Zealand Embassies that their governments had initially considered study by FAO Council Committee to be innocuous compromise. Nevertheless, within past 24 hours Canadian and New Zealand Embassies have called at Dept to underscore their concern about Sen’s handling of proposal, and their Washington Embassy offs now appear to agree with us that study conducted primarily by FAO would start us on slippery path and are so advising capitals urgently.³ Our central objection to study conducted primarily by FAO is that this would prejudge institutional framework for increasing emphasis on agricultural inputs.

3. In view para 4 reftel, USDel requested proceed along following lines: Either singly, or jointly with other like-minded dels, USDel should, if she perceives no objection, discuss problem with Sen prior to formal consideration proposal by Council, making, inter alia, following points: (a) As indicated by high US officials at Washington High-Level DAC meeting,⁴ we are seriously interested in studying Sen proposal, (b) we consider it of utmost importance that study be so conducted as to maintain confidence of potential donor countries and major sources of financial assistance within UN system. If study appears, rightly or wrongly, to be effort at FAO aggrandizement we consider proposal doomed from start. Moreover, we must not overlook importance of examining problem in manner calculated to encourage increased assistance, as justified, to agriculture by IBRD/IDA group, UNDP, and bilateral donors. (c) Accordingly, we are not prepared agree to study conducted solely or primarily by FAO. We would, however, be prepared to agree to a joint study by FAO, UN, and IBRD, taking account of work of OECD. In context of such joint study, we would further be prepared to support establishment of FAO Council Committee to consult with Director General on FAO contribution to joint study.

4. We would like a strong demarche to Sen on this matter.

5. In view strong interest New Zealand in Sen proposal, USDel requested explore whether New Zealand Del can be included in GG Meeting dealing with this subject. FYI: New Zealand Embassy Washington has been informed we favor their inclusion this meeting. End FYI.

6. In connection consideration Sen proposal, AID Asst. Administrator Waters advancing ETA to Friday AM.⁵

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, AGR 3 FAO. Limited Official Use; Priority. Repeated to Paris. Drafted by Leighton Van Nort (IO/OES) on October 19; cleared by Fred H. Sanderson (E), Stephen H. Rogers (EUR/RPE), Herbert J. Waters (AID/AA/MR), Dorothy H. Jacobson (Agriculture) in substance, Eskildsen (Agriculture), Ralph Hirschtritt (Treasury), William J. Stibravy (IO/OES), Helen A. Wilson (AID/PC/UN), Paul J. Brynes (IO/OIA), and Joseph J. Sisco (IO) in substance; and approved by Stibravy.
2. Telegram 2061 from Rome, October 18, reported that at its October 17 meeting the Geneva Group (FAO), while recognizing the importance of Sen’s proposed $50 million multilateral fund for manufactured agricultural prerequisites such as pesticides and fertilizers, gave it no support and speculated that his proposal for a study on the subject might be a “compromise move in course of debate.” (Ibid.)
3. Subsequently, telegram 70412 to Rome, October 21, reported that the Canadian Embassy had recently “informed us that Ottawa now opposed to Sen ‘compromise’ under which FAC would assume primary responsibility for studying plan. Embassy believes Canada will strongly support tactics outlined reftel,” i.e., telegram 69229. (Ibid.)
4. See Document 124.
5. October 21.