180. Memorandum From President Nixon to Secretary of the Treasury Shultz 1


  • Instructions to U.S. Representatives to Certain International Financial Institutions

I recently approved enrolled bills S. 748, S. 749, and S. 2010,2 92nd Congress, relating to U.S. participation in increases of the Inter-American Development Bank’s Consolidated Special Funds,3 and the International Development Association.

I should like to make it clear that as part of the delegated authority contained in Section 3(a) (1) of Executive Order No. 11269, dated February 14, 1966, the Secretary of The Treasury, after taking into account any advice received as a result of CIEP expropriation policy coordination and review procedures,4 is to make determinations and to give instructions to the representatives of the United States to the respective organizations pursuant to Section 21 of the Inter-American Development Bank Act, Section 18 of the Asian Development Bank Act, and Section 12 of the International Development Association Act. If the instruction of the Secretary of The Treasury is contrary to advice received as a result of the CIEP review procedures, he shall so advise the agencies participating in the CIEP review prior to giving such instruction.5

Richard Nixon
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970-73, E 1 US. No classification marking. Except as noted below, the language in the text printed here is identical to that proposed by OMB on April 10, and at variance with what Hormats recommended to Kissinger on April 12. See Document 177.
  2. See Document 176 and footnote 2 thereto.
  3. The Consolidated Special Funds pertains to the Asian Development Bank, not the IDB. The following language was in the April 10 OMB draft and was apparently omitted here: “Fund for Special Operations, the Asian Development Bank’s.”
  4. This phrase was not in April 10 OMB draft. It is a modification and repositioning of the final sentence in the OMB draft.
  5. This final sentence was not in the OMB draft. An October 19 memorandum for the record by B. Scott Custer explained that, in response to Irwin’s June 27 letter to Flanigan (Document 179), Flanigan met with Irwin and they agreed on language “substantially similar” to what Irwin had proposed at the outset of his letter. The July 6 Presidential memorandum contained “the language Mr. Irwin had asked for and agreed to.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970-73, E 1 US)