Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy

110. Information Memorandum From the Director of the Policy Planning Staff (Wolfowitz) to Secretary of State Shultz¹

Washington, July 24, 1982

SUBJECT

• Possible Topics for Your UNGA Speech

We have been asked to give you quickly some possible topics for your speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September. We are told that you do not want to give a global overview which touches all issues briefly. Recognizing that this will probably be your first major address, IO believes you should emphasize your foreign policy, rather than multilateral issues or UN contributions. Naturally, given the forum, the speech must still be of broad international interest and contain some references to our support for the UN and to principles of the Charter. IO believes you could also refer to our intention to strengthen U.S. participation in international organizations.

You will, of course, be speaking to many audiences, not just the one you directly address. These audiences will include particularly domestic commentators, as well as allies and foreign governments. Venue will be a factor in their perceptions of what you say. For example, the UN venue might be an appropriate platform for a speech that addresses the concerns raised by our domestic nuclear debate.

Keeping these factors in mind, we circulated a memo requesting ideas from the various bureaus.² This memorandum incorporates suggestions we received, as well as some from our office.

In pondering possible topics or combinations of topics, it may help you to consider what past secretaries have done. As you know, the President or the Secretary of State addresses UNGA almost every year. We have reviewed a number of these and have summarized four by past secretaries which are fairly representative of the broad scope typical of these past addresses.

A QUICK LOOK AT SOME PAST UNGA SPEECHES BY PREVIOUS SECRETARIES

Last year, Secretary Haig spoke on international economic development.³ He identified five principles for a strategy of growth: open trading; foreign assistance coupled with sound domestic policy; regional cooperation; incentives for individual performance; and an atmosphere of peace and security. He urged a global expansion of trade, an increase in investment, international cooperation on food and energy.

In 1980, Secretary Muskie spoke on three aspects of peace: refraining from aggression (Afghanistan, Kampuchea); settling disputes peacefully (Zimbabwe, Namibia, Iranian hostage crisis); and arms contol.⁴

In 1978, Secretary Vance covered economic progress (cooperation on North-South issues, open trade, strengthening commodity markets), managing global resources (food, energy, law of the sea), and the enhancement of human dignity (through political and economic human rights, ending torture, aiding refugess, pursuing peace in troubled areas, and arms control).⁵

In 1973, Henry Kissinger reviewed some of the progress since the UN began, asked the world to move from detente to cooperation, and noted U.S. efforts for peace around the world, the problem of shrinking world resources, and areas for world cooperation (curbing conflict, feeding the hungry, aiding development).⁶

SOME POSSIBLE TOPICS

We have four conventional suggestions, and two slightly more controversial topics. Any one of these topics could form the basis for a speech, or, if you wish to cover more ground, the topics might be combined quite easily.

1. Arms Control, Emphasizing Non-Proliferation

You might echo the comprehensive arms control themes of the President’s June 17 SSOD II address.⁷ PM notes that you could add emphasis on CBW arms control, and possible violations to build support for an international meeting on CBW and to reinforce our concern for verification in all arms control agreements.

This portion of the speech could serve an important role in countering the nuclear freeze moment, an issue that will be much debated in the approaching fall elections. Referenda on the freeze will be on at least 5 and possibly 15 ballots. In addition, we can expect candidates for office, including Jerry Brown, to make it an issue.

Having reviewed the central elements of our arms control policy, you could then focus the bulk of your remarks on the subject of non-proliferation. Despite high public interest, as evidenced during your confirmation hearings,⁸ there has been little public discussion of the proliferation problem by senior officials of the Reagan Administration. The result has been not only growing Congressional criticism, but also tentative new efforts on the part of suppliers to cross thresholds once considered taboo. Our new policy depends heavily on quiet cooperation among major suppliers in restricting sensitive technologies from volatile regions of the world. However, we agree with OES that there is a difference between being quiet about our specific efforts, and being quiet about the fundamental problem of proliferation itself.

Your speech would subtly remind the Europeans that proliferation is a nuclear arms control problem for which they themselves continue to bear important responsibilities. By showing the great destructive potential and instability which nuclear weapons would bring to already vulnerable regions of the world, your speech could also help refute the developing countries’ rhetorical argument that non-proliferation simply preserves the special interests of the superpowers. Such a speech could also help to recover some of the ground lost by recent publicity on our test ban treaties.

2. Economic Issues

Given your background, economic development and international economic policy would be a natural topic.⁹ However, as noted above, it was the topic of Secretary Haig’s UNGA address last year, and was covered in President Reagan’s Philadelphia speech just prior to the Cancun Summit. We would have to deal with several areas where the audience might criticize U.S. performance, including our failure to accept the Law of the Sea Treaty,¹⁰ our sugar import restrictions,¹¹ steel, high interest rates, and the stalled Caribbean Basin Initiative.¹² In addition, we would have to face the question of whether we have made any progress since last year.

Nonetheless, there are real dangers to raise. Prolonged recession has raised pressures for protectionism, sapped enthusiasm for long-haul development, and accentuated debt and credit problems.

We have a very good position on the goals of economic efficiency and individual freedom, which can only be produced by a free market approach. You could convey that confrontation over ideological issues is sterile and that the UN should concentrate on stimulating growth by building on the strengths of the system we have. The speech would emphasize free market themes raised by the President and Secretary Haig last year. EB suggests you note the opportunity to expand the framework for trade offered by the forthcoming GATT Ministerial and to encourage development of LDC’s hydrocarbon and alternative energy resources through private investment. In addition, U.S. programs of economic assistance, investment, trade, aid to international banks and organizations, and limited regulation are sound grounds to boast and contrast favorably to Soviet inaction and inability.

3. Agenda for Regional Peace

Regional disputes raise the gravest risk of confrontation between the superpowers, pose a dangerous context for proliferation, cause great suffering, and have created a worldwide problem of refugees. The U.S. is the party to which the world turns to resolve such crises and is currently involved in several efforts to resolve regional disputes. Thirty years ago, your speech might note, a regional dispute on the Korean peninsula brought UN troops into action and created a dangerous confrontation.

The Middle East may be very much on everyone’s mind at the time of the speech and would be a main focus of a speech on this topic, provided the subject is not too hot. You would also want to mention U.S. and international efforts to resolve problems in Namibia, Afghanistan, Kampuchea, and possibly the Falklands. Poland, a slightly different case, might be raised, as might our concern for violent movements in North Africa and the Caribbean.

The UN Charter emphasizes the duty of peaceful settlement of disputes. L notes that our submission of the Gulf of Maine boundary dispute to the International Court of Justice¹³ and the creation of the U.S.-Iranian claims tribunal are concrete steps in furtherance of this duty.¹⁴

4. The Human Side of our Agenda to Peace

P raises the possibility that you cover a number of traditional issues, including those touched on above, under the general theme that human tragedies lie behind the headlines of world affairs. This would allow you to show some familiarity with a number of issues while reflecting our strong dedication to peace, individual liberty and humanitarian concerns.

This theme would permit a discussion of the refugee problem. Two issues relating to refugees will be before the UN this session: the renewal of the mandate of the High Commission for Refugees and the election of a new High Commissioner.¹⁵ Your speech could recognize the great contributions of the U.S. in this field, highlight major problem areas and frame the prime issues for UN attention. In addition, if our policy review recommends ratification of the Genocide Convention, this could be announced.¹⁶

SOME SLIGHTLY MORE CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS

The four suggestions above are all relatively safe topics. While this is not the occasion for very controversial issues, you might want to consider being a little more contentious with the following themes (that overlap to some extent the topics listed above).

5. Preserving Nuclear Peace

This speech would have the same purpose as topic No. 1 above, to address concerns about nuclear war, but it would specifically try to educate people to the fact that preventing nuclear war involves far more than just arms control. In this respect it would at least combine topics 1 and 3 (resolving regional disputes) above. I believe it should also to some degree point to the trend toward the use of force by the Soviet Union and its proxies as the greatest treat to peace, although how far to go along these lines must be weighed carefully.

A month ago I gave a speech along these general lines, which I have attached.¹⁷ Given at the Naval War College, the speech was very different in tone and content from what would be right for the UN. Nonetheless, it will give you a fuller notion of the way that I think regional peace should be tied to nuclear issues.

6. The Democratic Revolution

In his London speech, the President returned democracy to the political offensive by emphasizing the ideals of human freedom and by promoting democracy as the surest route to reaching those ideals.¹⁸ The President argued that democracy is the wave of the future. You might take up that call, perhaps tying the argument to concepts in the UN Charter. Such a speech might even be tied to the more traditional concerns about economic development by explicitly raising the issue of the ends that development is meant to serve.

Unavoidably, such a speech will raise (if only implicitly) the failure of most UN members to live up to the ideals of the Charter, and the active opposition of the Soviet Union and its allies to those ideals. The tone would have to be carefully modulated.

The speech should distinguish between areas of legitimate political differences and areas of human freedom not honestly at issue. For example, a choice of a free market economy as opposed to government ownership of certain industries might be noted as an honest difference that does not impinge on basic freedoms. You might note your preference for the efficiency and equity that can come from less regulation, but note also that neither side of this argument (which, after all, divides us from most UN member nations) falls outside the realm of acceptable moral behavior. On the other hand, suppression of free speech, free association, or a free press, or the use of torture and terrorism, for example, do violate fundamental notions of human dignity. Alternatives that extinguish all hope of political freedom deserve special condemnation.

Recommendation

The most important consideration in choosing a speech theme is that it provide a vehicle for presenting your thoughts and projecting the image that you are most comfortable with, so I offer my personal opinions with some hesitation. That said, my own belief is that it is better to present some sharp edges than to stick to bland themes with which no one can disagree—but which likewise not draw any strong agreement either. (This is not a recommendation for confrontational rhetoric. Precisely if one speaks clearly about areas of disagreement, one should do so in firm but moderate and non-provocative language.)

Accordingly, I would recommend either topics 5 or 6. Were it not for the urgency of addressing our own domestic nuclear debate, I would prefer the Democratic Revolution theme. However, given our impending elections and referenda, I think it would be best to address the nuclear issue at this time.

A Further Thought on the Middle East

It might be tempting on this occasion to say something new and important on the Middle East. Such thoughts could easily fit under the Agenda for Regional Peace topic, and perhaps others. However, if you break any significant new ground on the Middle East, that will become the dominant theme of all the headline writers, obscuring any other message you might want to get across and creating the impression that you are a one-issue Secretary.

If you deem these risks worth running, you could do something useful and important for our Middle East policy by clearly criticizing both sides—the Israelis for settlements, removal of Mayors and other annexationist policies; the Arabs for their basic refusal to accept Israel’s existence and for the consistent maximalism that has in the past rejected almost all attainable progress (starting with the Arab rejection of the UN’s own partition plan in 1947). By using the device of balanced criticism of both sides, you could make harsher comments than we have previously made in official statements. Such a course would run the risks—but also bring the benefits—of having the extremists of both sides angry at you. It would express our determination to press both sides hard for real progress, and thus embolden moderates in both camps. (You should not, however, appear to be exclusively or mainly criticizing Israel, and thus implicitly apologizing for the U.S.; to do so risks encouraging an Arab belief that the tide is finally turning and that they can hold out for maximalist goals.)

1. Source: Department of State, Executive Secretariat, S/P Files, Memoranda and Correspondence from the Director of the Policy Planning Staff to the Secretary and Other Seventh Floor Principals: Lot 89D149, S/P Chrons PW Chrons to Secy JUL 1982. Confidential. Drafted by Libby; cleared by Wilcox. McManaway’s stamped initials appear on the memorandum. A stamped notation on the memorandum reads: “EXPEDITE.”
2. Not found.
3. September 21, 1981. See Document 63.
4. Muskie’s September 22, 1980, address is printed in Department of State Bulletin, November 1980, pp. 57–60.
5. Vance’s September 29, 1978, statement is printed in Department of State Bulletin, November 1978, pp. 45–50.
6. For Kissinger’s speech, see Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, vol. XXXVIII, Part 1, Foundations of Foreign Policy, 1973–1976, Document 17.
7. See Document 106.
8. See Document 109.
9. Shultz earned a Ph.D. in economics from MIT and taught at both MIT and the University of Chicago. He served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1970 until 1972 and Secretary of the Treasury from 1972 until 1974.
10. On April 30, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea approved the Law of the Sea Treaty. The United States did not vote in favor of the treaty. In a July 9 statement, the President announced “that the United States will not sign the convention as adopted by the conference, and our participation in the remaining conference process will be at the technical level and will involve only those provisions that serve United States interests.” (Public Papers: Reagan, 1982, Book II, p. 911) Documentation is in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. XLI, Global Issues II, Documents 114–202.
11. On May 4, the administration decided to impose a quota on sugar imports. The decision was made in order to protect a price support program for sugar, instituted in December 1981, which guaranteed U.S. sugar producers a set price of 17 cents a pound. (Seth S. King, “U.S. Plans Quotas on Sugar Imports: Prices to Rise as Government Avoids Crop-Support Cost,” New York Times, May 5, 1982, pp. A1, D14) Secretary of Agriculture Block justified the policy as “necessary to staunch a massive flow of foreign sugar into domestic markets. ‘If allowed to continue,’ he said, that development ‘could only lead to foreign sugar displacing domestic sugar on the U.S. market while domestic production flowed into the Commodity Credit Corp. . . . at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.’” (Paul Taylor and Lou Cannon, “New Sugar Quotas Approved; Consumers to Pay $1 Billion,” Washington Post, May 5, 1982, pp. A1, A10) For the President’s May 5 statement on the import quota program, see Public Papers: Reagan, 1982, Book I, pp. 568–569. In telegram 123287 to all diplomatic and consular posts, May 6, the Department transmitted the text of the President’s statement. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D820238–0237) Additional documentation on sugar policy is scheduled for publication in Foreign Relations, 1981–1988, vol. XXXVIII, International Economic Development; International Debt; Foreign Assistance.
12. On July 15, the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved by voice vote the $350 million in economic aid the President had requested as a component of the CBI (see footnote 3, Document 97); however, the House added restrictions on the use of funds. On September 10, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported its authorization bill, including $350 million for CBI. Neither the House nor Senate authorization bills made it to the floor; however, CBI funding was included in H.R. 6863, the omnibus FY 1982 supplemental funding bill. The President vetoed the legislation in August, but Congress overrode the veto on September 10. (Congress and the Nation, vol. VI, 1981–1984, pp. 149)
13. Reference is to the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada to Submit to Binding Dispute Settlement the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area. United States and Canadian officials signed the treaty in Washington on March 29, 1979; it entered into force on November 20, 1981.
14. The 1981 Algiers Accords established the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which met in The Hague for the first time in May 1981.
15. A/RES/37/196, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 18, maintained the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for 5 years from January 1, 1984. Former Danish Prime Minister Poul Hartling, who had served as High Commissioner since 1978, was reelected by the General Assembly on December 18 for a 3-year term beginning January 1, 1983. (Yearbook of the United Nations: 1982, pp. 1195, 1626)
16. Reference is to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948 (A/RES/260(III)A).
17. Attached but not printed is Wolfowitz’s June 22 address, which is printed as Department of State Current Policy No. 406. In it, Wolfowitz stated: “The prospects for preventing nuclear war depend on far more than just what we do about nuclear weapons themselves. They depend also on what we do to reduce the many local sources of conflict in the world and on what we do to promote possibilities of peaceful change. And they depend on what we do to restrain the Soviet use of force to exploit these sources of conflict.”
18. See Document 104.