Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

348. Briefing Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (Pickering) to Secretary of State Muskie¹

Washington, October 14, 1980

SUBJECT

• Global 2000 Follow-Up: Status and Issues (Information)

Summary: State is deeply involved in what has emerged as a major, multi-faceted USG effort to follow up on the Global 2000 Report.² The following reviews our activities in direct support of the Presidential Task Force on Global Resources and the Environment (of which you are a designated member); our own international initiatives; and a number of key unresolved issues.

Discussion:

1. Presidential Task Force: The Task Force has identified eleven “priority problem areas”, and State has been tasked with lead agency responsibility for developing policy and program responses in three of them: population, energy, and strengthening international organizations (Tab 1).³ We share the lead with the Forest Service on tropical deforestation and with Interior on species extinction. There will also be one State representative on each of the other groups. The U.S. development assistance program is being examined within the “Underdevelopment and Poverty” context, with IDCA in the lead. Plans call for the Task Force to receive the separate sets of recommendations by November 7, and to submit a Decision Memorandum to the President before Christmas. Gus Speth, Task Force Chairman, expects the President to respond “via a major speech or special message.”⁴

2. State Department Strategy: An in-house task force, chaired by OES Deputy Assistant Secretary Hoinkes, is planning and coordinating additional Department activities. All major Department components are represented. We are focusing on (a) raising international awareness of the Report and its implications; (b) beginning a dialogue with other countries on how to attack the problems; and (c) improving our in-house capabilities for integrating long-term G–2000 issues into foreign policy.

(a) Report Distribution: Copies of the Global 2000 Report have been sent to virtually all countries and international and regional organizations through Embassy, AID and ICA channels. We have prepared Spanish and French versions of the summary volume; and are considering Arabic. Japan and Brazil are also preparing their own translations. Unofficial foreign reaction, in the press and from government officials, has been quite positive; complimentary of the U.S. effort and supportive of the call for action.

(b) International Forums: State/IO has identified a wide range of international fora in which we will publicize Global 2000 and emphasize our support for and commitment to the alleviation of these problems (Tab 2).⁵ Following your speech at the UNGA Special Session,⁶ we have raised G–2000 in the ESCAP Committee on Natural Resources; and we are planning to draw on it extensively in the ongoing UNESCO General Conference.

(c) Special Consultations: We are hosting today (Tuesday) a meeting of Summit country representatives to discuss G–2000 in relation to similar studies and perspectives of the other nations. This follows up on a decision at the Venice Summit to keep these issues “under review”. Bob Hormats (USTR) and I will co-chair the session. Henry Owen and Gus Speth will be the other U.S. participants. You will be receiving a separate report on this event.⁷ Our plan is to work toward consensus on priority problems and the development of recommendations for cooperative action to be submitted to the Ottawa Summit next year. As a general matter, it is our intention to take advantage of each appropriate opportunity to focus attention on Global 2000 issues. In particular, we are now undertaking to arrange a series of meetings specifically devoted to G–2000 as proposed in response to your personal letter to our Ambassadors requesting their views on how to build on the Report.⁸ These include briefings in Geneva for representatives of the UN specialized agencies, a meeting of representatives of Latin American countries in Panama, and a bilateral discussion with Mexican officials.

(d) Congressional Relations: We and CEQ have briefed an array of Congressmen and major committee staffs associated with foreign affairs and population/environment/resources matters, and have received uniformly strong expressions of interest and support. I also testified on September 4th before the Subcommittee on International Economics of the Joint Economic Committee.⁹ Discussions are now centering on possible additional joint Congressional hearings and a major symposium under Office of Technology Assessment auspices.

(e) Public Affairs: Media interest remains high. In consultation with State/PA, ICA and CEQ, an integrated series of activities, publications, films, etc., is being planned to promote greater understanding and discussion of the Report and its implications (Tab 3)¹⁰ for both domestic and foreign audiences.

(f) State Department Capabilities: FSI is engaged in modifying instructional materials and courses to include a focus on G–2000 issues in the Department’s training and educational programs (Tab 4).¹¹ Under consideration is a 2–3 day seminar for Department officials (possibly with an initial Latin American focus) to explore how G–2000 issues will affect conditions, and hence, U.S. foreign policy decisions, at the regional and country levels over the next several decades.

3. Unresolved Issues: The following are key issues of both near and longer term significance that we are working to address.

(a) What will be the scope and thrust of the Task Force recommendations to the President? We are concerned about a possible lack of focus in the Task Force efforts as they currently are being orchestrated by CEQ, and by what appears to be an attempt to do too much all at once with the Report, thereby jeopardizing appreciation of the long-term follow-up that is required to address the issues effectively. We are also concerned that the two “cross cutting” issues (the Government’s long-range forecasting and analysis capability, and the institutional ability to integrate Global 2000 issues in decision-making processes) may not receive sufficient attention by the Presidential Task Force. Our internal State Department Task Force will concentrate on the latter issue as it relates to foreign policy decision making. I will be meeting with Gus Speth this week to discuss and attempt to clarify and resolve these questions.

(b) How can the LDCs, and other nations, be brought into an expanded international effort to address the problems? While we have received some positive feedback to the Report, we do not yet know how other countries will react to U.S. calls for accelerated action to actually address the problems.

(c) Can the USG mobilize the funding necessary to maintain U.S. leadership and back up our calls for action? Can public opinion be swayed to support greater foreign aid investments, and longer [larger] contributions to UN specialized agencies, on the basis of G–2000 arguments? Or, should funding channels other than AID be suggested to avoid association with a “give-away” image?

(d) How can we effectively engage the U.S. private sector in the follow-up? We and CEQ are putting this question directly to leaders of the business community, academia and private foundations.

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P800149–0018. Unclassified. Sent through Nimetz. Drafted by Long; cleared by Hoinkes, Benedict, Hollick, and Eckholm, and in IO and T. Long initialed for Benedick, Hollick, Eckholm, and the clearing officials in IO and T.
2. Telegram 15676 to all diplomatic and consular posts, January 21, 1981, indicated that the Department and CEQ had released the 250-page follow-on report, entitled Global Future—A Time to Act, based on the Global 2000 recommendations, on January 14. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D810030–1164) Upon the report’s release, Speth noted: “Our basic conclusion is that the United States must respond to these global challenges with concerted and vigorous action because our longer-term political and economic security, as well as that of other nations, is at stake.” (Philip Shabecoff, “U.S. Calls for Efforts to Combat Global Environmental Problems,” The New York Times, January 15, 1981, p. A–12)
3. Attached but not printed is a September 24 letter from Speth to Pickering requesting that the Department of State take the lead in developing recommendations for these areas. Speth noted that Benedick, Eckholm, Hoinkes, and Long would direct this work. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, P800149–0024)
4. Although the President did not address Global Future—A Time to Act publicly, he did reference the Global 2000 Report in his last State of the Union message: “The Global 2000 Report to the President, prepared in response to my 1977 Environment Message, is the first of its kind. Never before has our government, or any government, taken such a comprehensive, long-range look at the interrelated global issues of resources, population, and environment. The Report’s conclusions are important. They point to a rapid increase in population and human needs through the year 2000 while at the same time a decline in the earth’s capacity to meet those needs—unless nations of the world act decisively to alter current trends.” (Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, January 20, 1981, p. 2972)
5. Attached but not printed is the undated 3-page memorandum entitled “International Fora (United Nations) for Promoting and Publicizing the Global 2000 Report.”
6. Muskie addressed the 11th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, concerning the New International Economic Order, on August 25. Summarizing the Global 2000 Report’s conclusions, he asserted: “Global 2000 is not a forecast. It is a projection of present trends. But it is another chilling reminder that our common future depends on our common success, here and throughout the complex of relations known as the North-South dialogue. We must work together to raise food production, to diversify energy sources and to use energy and other resources more efficiently, to protect our common environment, to restrain population growth, to deal effectively and equitably with mounting deficits, and to keep an open system of trade.” Muskie’s remarks are printed in Department of State Bulletin, October 1980, pp. 76–78.
7. Not found and not further identified.
8. See attachment, Document 344.
9. During the course of his testimony, Pickering noted that Muskie had sent a personal letter to all Ambassadors underscoring the importance of the Global 2000 Report. He also indicated that the report had received extensive press coverage, much of it “uniformly complimentary.” (Richard L. Strout, “Congress hears more-optimistic view of gloomy ‘2000’ report,” The Christian Science Monitor, September 5, 1980, p. 1)
10. The undated “Global 2000 Public Awareness Program Status Report” is attached but not printed.
11. Entitled “FSI Actions on Global 2000,” the undated paper is attached but not printed.