Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy

122. Memorandum From Samuel Huntington to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski)¹

Washington, August 2, 1979

SUBJECT

• Four year Goals Revisited²

On the basis of a very hurried survey of the goals material you gave me today, I conclude:

1. The Administration’s impressive accomplishments in foreign policy look much less impressive when compared with the goals the Administration set for itself in 1977.³ This is due not to a paucity of achievement but rather to the scope and magnitude of the goals. A dramatic example of this is Arab-Israeli relations, where the Administration obviously scored a major triumph at Camp David, but which does not produce a very good rating when compared to the goal of a comprehensive peace settlement including Palestinians and with Saudi involvement and backing. As a consequence of this phenomenon, however, it clearly would not be desirable to use the April 1977 goals statement⁴ in any public presentation of the Administration’s foreign policy record.

2. The 1977 goals do make for some interesting reading now as a reflection of the dominant approaches to foreign policy at the start of the Administration. Despite the fact that this statement was primarily the work of you and me, it is still striking to me now to see the important role in it of the foreign policy approach which you labeled “Liberal 2” in your January 1978 report.⁵ In this connection, it might be useful to do a think piece for purely internal consumption on why it was the Administration was so successful in achieving its goals in some areas (e.g., China) and unsuccessful in others (e.g., Africa). I suspect such an analysis would relate success and failure to the extent to which the goals were based on realistic assumptions concerning the hard power politics of the situation. While I won’t give it a high priority, if you’re agreeable, I may at some point try to undertake such an interpretive re-evaluation.⁶

Attached at Tab A is a topical outline of the goals statement with my judgments as to how well the Administration has done so far in achieving the goals it set out for itself. In many areas, my knowledge of the detailed specifics of these actions is rather limited, and here I have simply put a question mark. In other cases, I’ve made guesses that may or may not be very well informed. Performance is graded on a scale of zero to ten, with the latter meaning achievement of all goals set forth in the paper. In arriving at these ratings, I have also made some qualitative judgments about the relative importance of specific goals within each topic.

Obviously, I could go around and get a much more accurate read-out of how well we’ve done by talking with the NSC specialists in each area, but I have doubts as to whether that would really produce a great deal more that was useful.

Tab A

Outline Prepared by Samuel P. Huntington ⁷

Washington, undated

FOREIGN POLICY GOALS, AUGUST 1979

1. Relations with Advanced Industrial Democracies
A. Political coordination	—	8
B. Cooperation with Europe	—	3
C. Cooperation with Japan	—	4
D. Economic cooperation	—	5
E. Recovery	—	2
F. Finance	—	?
G. Investment	—	0?
H. Trade	—	9
2. Relations with Emerging Regional “Influentials”
A. General steps	—	8
B. Venezuela	—	8
C. Brazil	—	2?
D. Nigeria	—	6?
E. Saudi Arabia	—	5
F. Iran	—	6
G. India	—	8
H. Indonesia	—	7?
3. North-South Relations
A. Political Relations	—	2
B. Economic relations	—	6?
C. Relations with specific countries
(1) Panama Canal	—	10
(2) Cuba	—	1
4. Relations with Soviet Union and Its Allies
A. Arms Control	—	3
B. Political and economic issues (Eastern Europe)	—	8
C. Social issues	—	8
5. Relations with China	—	9
6. The Middle East
A. Arab-Israeli conflict	—	3
B. Trade and development	—	6
C. Persian Gulf	—	4
7. Africa
A. South Africa
(1) Zimbabwe	—	3
(2) Namibia	—	1
(3) South Africa	—	2
B. Communist state presence	—	1
8. Arms Control
A. Conventional arms transfer	—	6
B. Nuclear proliferation	—	8
C. CTB	—	0
9. Human Rights
A. Multilateral action	—	6
B. Bilateral relations	—	9
C. Unilateral action	—	7
10. Defense
A. Defense posture	—	2
B. Defense management	—	5?
C. NATO	—	7
D. East Asia	—	8

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Office File, Outside the System File, Box 63, Goals: Four Year Foreign Policy Goals—1980 Review: 8/79–10/80. No classification marking. Sent for information. Huntington left the National Security Council Staff in August 1978 and returned to Harvard University, where he served as Director of the university’s Center for International Affairs.
2. Huntington added “Four year” to the subject line by hand.
3. Brzezinski placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to this sentence.
4. See Document 36.
5. See Document 62.
6. Brzezinski underlined the word “interpretive,” placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to this sentence, and wrote “OK.”
7. Secret.