Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume IX, International Development and Economic Defense Policy; Commodities

361. Telegram From the Mission in Geneva to the Department of State¹

Geneva, December 19, 1967, 1605Z.

2112. Subject: Cocoa Conference.² Ref: Geneva 2099,³ Dept 86440.⁴

1. Executive Committee met for final session Tuesday⁵ am. Chairman Ali in brief report outlined items under consideration for package deal by Group of 14. He said he had been optimistic until he was informed yesterday by one consumer that it could not accept two elements of the package. He pointed out that considerable progress had been made on administrative and legal articles, and enumerated a number of controversial points that were now agreed. He suggested that the Executive Committee adjourn at this stage and leave it to the discretion of Dr. Prebisch as to when conference should be reconvened. He also suggested the possibility of meetings of the Group of 14 in the interim, at the call of Dr. Prebisch, and said the Secretariat would prepare and circulate a new draft agreement showing the position as of the date of adjournment.

2. Eighteen countries then spoke, many at length, to the Chairman’s report. The Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Ecuador were the most critical of the United States, all saying it would be senseless to schedule any more meetings until the United States gave some positive indication that it had the political will to join an international cocoa agreement. Others like Cameroon, Ghana, Brazil also singled the U.S. out as responsible for the lack of progress, but the tone of their remarks was less harsh. On the whole the reaction was not as strong as the USDel expected, with the possible exception of the Ivory Coast. All speeches were flavored with references to UNCTAD II, and U.S. failure to accept the principles of UNCTAD I.

3. Consumers all expressed disappointment at the outcome but emphasized progress made. They all expressed belief a cocoa agreement was negotiable and indicated willingness to cooperate in any future negotiations at any time.

4. USDel made low-key factual statement emphasizing impossibility do six weeks work in three and suggesting that when new draft circulated it would show that substantial amount of progress had been made at this meeting. We also reassured producers of our desire to resume negotiations at any time Prebisch considered opportune. To defuse any contention that conference had broken up on one single issue of sales quota mechanism we enumerated twelve additional problems with significant policy content which had not been settled or in some cases even discussed, and we noted two proposals we were unable to accept went beyond memorandum of agreement and that we had made our own proposals on them and were prepared to resume discussions at next session.

5. The meeting agreed to leave the decision as to whether and when working groups should be called or the conference reconvened to the discretion of Dr. Prebisch. There was no mention of the possibility of a January meeting—all references were to resuming work in April after UNCTAD II. Secretariat and Chairman will issue press release later today.⁶

6. Netherlands did not withdraw support of amendment on proc-essed cocoa. After talk with his Minister, Dutch Del got approval maintain support on grounds (1) they had asked for U.S. support initially and could not back down now (2) withdrawal would not lessen criticism of Dutch at UNCTAD II.

7. We had already or have carried out other suggestions Dept’s 86440. Some delegations background statements to press used such words as “breakup” or “failure” but concluding tone meeting was more constructive and we believe Chairman’s press release will be also, although U.S. will probably be spotted as obstacle to agreement on quota and buffer stock mechanism issues.

Tubby

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, INCO–COCOA 3. Limited Official Use; Priority. Repeated to Abidjan, Accra, Bonn, The Hague, Lagos, London, Rio de Janeiro, Yaounde, and USUN.
2. The UNCTAD cocoa negotiating conference met in Geneva November 28–December 20.
3. Telegram 2099 from Geneva, December 18, summarized a package agreement made by Chairman Osman Ali that morning. Although several other “consuming” nations were prepared to abandon a previously agreed position and accept the package, the U.S. delegation objected that some of the proposals in it “went much too far and could not be accepted.” Despite producers’ expected criticisms of the U.S. position, the U.S. delegation concluded that “we will maintain that an agreement acceptable to all is possible with further orderly negotiations.” (Department of State, Central Files, INCO–COCOA 3)
4. Telegram 86440 to Geneva, December 19, agreed that the United States could not accept the package “in view unsatisfactory nature several specific aspects Chairman’s proposal” and supported the delegation’s suggestion to explain to delegations “that certain progress has been made, that the issues are difficult and more time is needed, that we are committed to working out a viable agreement, and that we are prepared and hope to resume negotiations in near future.” (Ibid.)
5. December 19.
6. Text of the substantive paragraphs of this December 19 press release was transmitted in telegram 2116 from Geneva, December 20. (Department of State, Central Files, INCO–COCOA 3)