78. Telegram From the Department of State to Selected Diplomatic Posts1
196703. OECD Paris pass Lantzke; Brussels pass Davignon.2 Subj: French Consensus Proposal for Reconvening Prepcon.[Page 270]
1. Following aide-mémoire delivered by French Chargé August 18; same text handed each of 10 Prepcon participants.3 We understand invitations to Prepcon will be issued only when 10 have indicated to French this paper acceptable basis for meeting.4 US response follows septel.5
2. “It is understood that the questions to be considered in the dialogue between industrialized countries and developing countries are energy, raw materials, and development problems, including all related financial questions.
3. These questions will be considered on an equal footing. Participants in the dialogue will, in particular, make every effort to advance toward constructive solutions in each of these areas.
4. A new preparatory meeting will be held in Paris at the earliest possible date, and no later than October 15, with the same participants, at the same level, and under the same rules of procedure (in particular, with respect to observers) as the preparatory meeting of last April.
5. The title of this meeting will be: ‘Preparatory Meeting for the Conference Between Industrialized Countries and Developing Countries.’
6. The preparatory meeting will have the task of:
—Confirming the consensus reached at the April preparatory meeting on the convening of a limited but representative conference, the number of its participants, and the manner in which they shall be selected;
—Submitting to the conference between industrialized countries and developing countries proposals relating to the creation of commissions and their composition (members and observers).[Page 271]
7. Preliminary work for the preparatory meeting should be done in such a way that consensus may be reached within no more than two to three days.
8. The preparatory meeting will be followed, within a period not to exceed two months, by the conference between industrialized countries and developing countries, composed of 27 members, 8 and 19 for each of the two groups respectively. Each group will choose its representatives to the conference within no more than a month after the preparatory meeting.
9. The Conference Between Industrialized Countries and Developing Countries will open at the Ministerial level. Like the preparatory meeting, it should last no more than two to three days.
10. The primary task of the conference will be to reach decisions on the proposals which shall be submitted by the preparatory meeting for approval.
11. This should lead to the creation of four commissions corresponding to the themes of the dialogue, determination of how they should be composed, and agreement on how to follow up the work of the commissions.
12. It would be advisable for these commissions to have no more than fifteen members. In setting up the membership of each commission, each of the two groups making up the conference will choose among its own members those who, by virtue of their particular interests as well as the general significance to be attached to their participation, seem best suited to be included, so that the proceedings may take place in an efficient and responsible manner. Each of the commissions will be presided over by two co-chairmen, designated respectively by each of the two groups.
13. The commissions will be made up of high-level experts.
14. The commission on energy will have the task, within the framework of a general survey of world prospects for production and consumption of energy, including hydrocarbons, of facilitating, by appropriate ways and means, arrangements which seem desirable between oil producers and consumers.
15. The commission on raw materials will have the task of facilitating, by appropriate ways and means, in the light of the existing situation, arrangements which seem desirable in the area of raw materials, including food commodities which are of particular interest to developing countries.
16. The commission on development will have the task of facilitating, by appropriate ways and means in the light of the existing situation, arrangements which seem desirable in the area of cooperation for development.[Page 272]
17. The commission for financial matters, while respecting areas of competence of the international institutions (IMF, World Bank), will study all financial problems related to the work of the three preceding commissions. It will be made up of a limited number of members from each of these three commissions.
18. The commissions on raw materials and development will, in particular, consider the work being done in other appropriate international forums and will establish the necessary liaison with them.
19. Joint meetings of commission co-chairmen may be provided for as required.
20. Observers from organizations directly concerned with the problems under consideration may sit with the commissions and have the right to speak.
21. The conference will meet again at the Ministerial level within about twelve months.
22. A meeting or meetings of the conference at the government official level could perhaps be held at least six months after the first meeting of the conference at the Ministerial level.
23. It would be desirable to reach a consensus on these various points within a fairly short time so that the convening of a new preparatory meeting may be announced as quickly as possible.”6
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D750287–0508. Confidential. Drafted and approved by Anne O. Cary (E). Sent to Brasilia, Kinshasa, New Delhi, Tokyo, Jidda, Oslo, Tehran, Caracas, Bonn, London, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Dublin, The Hague, Luxembourg, Rome, Madrid, Ankara, Bern, Vienna, Ottawa, and Wellington, and repeated to USOECD Paris and USEC Brussels.↩
- Davignon responded by urging that the United States “not formally answer the French aide-mémoire until after the meeting of the IEA Governing Board” on August 25. He said that he thought IEA members could “be persuaded to support the U.S. position if they are given an opportunity to discuss it and if they are not presented with a fait accompli.” (Telegram 7407 from Brussels, August 20; ibid., P850081–2027) Enders phoned Davignon and told him that the U.S. response to the aide-mémoire “did not constitute formal USG acceptance of the French consensus proposal” but, rather, indicated U.S. agreement that the “scenario proposed was an acceptable basis for resuming the dialogue.” Enders added that the United States did not intend to accept the consensus proposal formally until four points were “clarified to [U.S.] satisfaction,” as well as “those which may be raised by the other nine invitees.” (Telegram 198251 to Brussels, August 20; ibid., P850047–2489)↩
- The United States, the European Community, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, Venezuela, Brazil, India, and Zaire.↩
- Sauvagnargues announced on September 15 at the EC Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels that the Government of France had issued invitations to Prepcon II, which would begin on October 13. (Telegram 23764 from Paris, September 16; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D750320–0426)↩
- The Department replied in telegram 197496 to Paris, August 20: “The Government of the United States is pleased to accept the points made in the August 18 aide-mémoire of the Government of France as the basis upon which it would accept an invitation to renew the dialogue between consumers and producers.” It then clarified the points upon which it wanted the U.S. position “to be unambiguous,” including points 2–1, 4–1, 4–9, and 5–2. (Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Country Files for Europe and Canada, Box 4, France—State Department Telegrams from SECSTATE–NODIS (3)) On September 9, Kissinger wrote Sauvagnargues: “I am pleased to learn that discussions between our respective representatives have resolved remaining differences with regard to the consensus proposal circulated in your aide-mémoire of August 18.” (Telegram 213668 to Paris; National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P850033–1986)↩
- After its informal August 25 meeting to address the French aide-mémoire, the IEA Governing Board issued a “Secretariat note” that explained that the “delegations agreed as to the importance of resuming the dialogue promptly, and were generally of the view that the procedures outlined in the aide-mémoire for resuming the dialogue formed a basis on which participating countries of the Agency could accept invitations to participate in a new preparatory meeting,” subject to a list of items it wanted clarified. (Telegram 22249 from USOECD Paris, August 29; ibid., D750300–0060)↩