Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXXIV, Energy Diplomacy and Global Issues

108. Memorandum From the Executive Secretary of the Department of State (Read) to Secretary of State Rusk¹

Washington, September 27, 1968.

E—Mr. Solomon’s underlying action memorandum² recommends that the United States position on INTELSAT membership eligibility at the 1969 conference should be in favor of an “all states” provision in the agreement (with appropriate safeguards as to recognition of states).

The recommended fall back position would be to support ITU membership as an INTELSAT membership requirement.

M—Mr. Rostow (Tab E) supports Mr. Solomon’s recommendation for universal membership.³ He notes that you and the President have supported the position that INTELSAT should become universal in membership. If the contrary view prevails among the present membership, we should insure that the definitive arrangements negotiated in 1969 should not preclude universal membership.

EUR—Mr. Springsteen (Tab F) opposes the “all states” membership position on the basis that the Germans will not understand why we espouse a position which would allow the East Germans to sign.⁴ The majority of the present membership also opposes the “all states” provision. EUR supports ITU membership as a requirement for INTELSAT membership.

H—Mr. Schnee (Tab G) raises a strong qualification to E’s recommendation. He notes that unless the “appropriate safeguards” under the “all states” provision bar the membership of non-recognized communist countries, especially Communist China and East Germany, there will be considerable Congressional reaction.⁵

BHR

Attachment

Washington, September 27, 1968.

Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Solomon) to Secretary of State Rusk⁶

SUBJECT

• Membership in INTELSAT

The purpose of this memorandum is to confirm and establish primary and fall-back United States positions on the INTELSAT membership issue for use during the 1969 Conference on “definitive arrangements” for INTELSAT.

1. INTELSAT was formed and operates under interim arrangements. Pursuant to Article IX of the 1964 Agreement establishing the interim arrangements (Tab A),⁷ we plan to convene a Plenipotentiary Conference in Washington on February 24, 1969, to negotiate definitive arrangements. We have proposed unrestricted eligibility for membership in the permanent organization (an “all states” concept). Other INTELSAT members oppose this concept, and we anticipate that membership will be a controversial issue at the Conference. Preparatory work for the Conference is going forward, both in the INTELSAT Interim Committee and bilaterally, and it will be advantageous for us to know as early as possible where we are going on the issues involved.

2. The 1964 Agreement on interim arrangements provides that to be a member of INTELSAT a state must be a member of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a 135-member specialized agency of the United Nations.

3. In August 1967 President Johnson sent a message to Congress on the “Global Communications System” in which he said: “Today I reaffirm the commitments made in 1962 and 1964. We support the development of a global system of communications satellites to make modern communications available to all nations… . We support a global system of commercial satellite communications which is available to all nations—large and small, developed and developing—on a nondiscriminatory basis.” On May 4, 1968, in your Law Day address at the University of Georgia, you said: “Next year we will enter into negotiations looking towards a definitive set of arrangements. These will determine whether we can preserve international cooperation in this field and whether we can expand the membership of this international institution [INTELSAT]⁸ to include all members of the world community.” We stated in our October 1967 proposals to INTELSAT (Tab B) that “participation in the global commercial communications satellite system shall be available to all nations”. All of these statements clearly imply “all states” eligibility, though none of them expressly states it.

4. During a discussion of the membership issue in connection with definitive arrangements which was held by the INTELSAT Interim Committee in March-April 1968, the U.S. spokesman was asked to clarify the United States position on membership. The U.S. spokesman said at that time that it is the United States position to favor unrestricted membership in INTELSAT. A summary of the discussion is attached at Tab C.

5. Having thus proposed an “all states” membership provision, we precipitated responses which indicate that we will be in a minority among the major states in INTELSAT on this issue. To date only Australia and some Latin American countries have supported preliminary consideration of an “all states” membership provision for the INTELSAT definitive arrangements.

6. In western Europe the opinion appears to be unanimously in favor of continuing to require ITU membership as a prerequisite to INTELSAT membership and we anticipate that more than half of the countries participating in the 1969 Conference will support adoption of the ITU membership requirement. A significant political implication arising out of the ITU criterion is that the Communist regimes not recognized by the United States (with the exception of Mongolia) do not belong to the ITU. Thus, neither East Germany, North Korea, North Viet Nam, nor Communist China would be eligible to join INTELSAT if the present ITU membership requirement is continued in effect.

7. As a political manifestation of our commitment to a universal global satellite system, it still may be desirable for the United States to support “all states” eligibility for INTELSAT membership. However, pressure from our allies may later make it advisable to abandon this position in favor of eligibility criteria based on membership in the ITU. We therefore recommend that you approve the following U.S. position and fall-back position with respect to INTELSAT membership. If we have made our position in favor of a universal system clear and it is publicly known, there would be no basis for charges that we had wished to make membership exclusive or isolate any non-member.

Recommendation

It is recommended that you approve:

(1) The United States position on INTELSAT membership eligibility at the 1969 Conference should be in favor of an “all states” provision in the agreement (with appropriate safeguards as to recognition of states).⁹

(2) The fall-back United States position on INTELSAT membership eligibility at the 1969 Conference should be to support ITU membership as an INTELSAT membership requirement.¹⁰

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967–69, TEL 6. No classification marking. The date is handwritten on the source text.
2. Printed below.
3. Not printed. Rostow commented: “The provision of commercial communication by satellite should not be a political issue, any more than the international arrangements for delivering mail.” There is some confusion over the dating of items in this package. The October 2 Rostow memorandum appears to have been added to the package after the Action Memorandum was submitted to the Secretary on September 27. Rusk did not make a decision until October 10.
4. Dated September 17, not printed. Springsteen believed that this was particularly important in light of East German aggression against Czechoslovakia. He felt that an “all states” course would be “too costly in terms of principle.”
5. Dated September 13, not printed. Schnee added, “Barring some dramatic change in our relations with Communist China and the Soviet bloc, I think the majority of Congress will continue to support the current ‘hard on Communists’ line.”
6. Confidential. Drafted by Stephen E. Doyle (E), Thomas E. Nelson (E), and William K. Miller (E); and concurred in by Allen (IO), Barnett (EA), Springsteen (EUR), Belman (L), and Schnee (H).
7. Tabs A–G are not printed.
8. Brackets in the source text.
9. Rusk initialed the “Disapproved” line on October 10.
10. Rusk crossed out “fall-back” and initialed the “Approved” line on October 10.