33. Memorandum From Helmut Sonnenfeldt of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger)1
SUBJECT
- Copenhagen Meeting on the Year of Europe
The Danish Foreign Minister called in our Ambassador (Phillip Crowe) late last evening to brief him on the outcome of the EC meeting. Mr. Sykes called on me this morning with a similar report.
Andersen began by saying that he had a “positive answer”: the EC want a meeting with the President, they are preparing for it and a draft declaration will be given the US in ten days. He had promised his colleagues not to hand us a text, but he read it slowly for the Ambassador:
—If the President decides to come to Europe in the autumn, it would be desirable for a meeting to be arranged between the US and the European Community and its member states.
—The Nine would be interested in the views of the President on this matter, which could be dealt with in further talks.
—The Nine are preparing a draft declaration, covering a wide range of subjects, which might be made by the US and the Nine.
—The Danish Foreign Minister would be ready to meet with you during his visit to New York (he suggested meeting on Monday, September 24).
The Nine are now beginning to prepare their substantive positions on the following list of topics, proposed for discussion with the President:
1. Basis for a Constructive Dialogue.
A. Principles.
[Page 144]B. Cooperation with the US on a Basis of Equality, taking into account the development of the European Community toward a European Union.
2. A. Relations between East and West.
B. Other important foreign policy questions.
3. Cooperation with the Developing Countries.
4. Cooperation with the Industrial Countries.
5. World Trade.
6. World Monetary System.
7. The Fight Against Inflation.
8. Environment.
9. Science and Technology, in particular telecommunications, space and peaceful nuclear research.
10. The evolution of the world’s needs for natural resources.
US views on the suitability of the foregoing would be welcome.
He stressed three times the confidentiality of this communication and also the need to harmonize views to avoid any confrontation.
Sykes added that Sir Alec wanted you to have an immediate report, and to know that he was very pleased with the outcome, even though, as he had indicated previously, the achievement may be more modest than we had hoped.
Sykes said that Jobert was cooperating now that he knows where he is going (i.e., toward a declaration). Jobert had made it plain, however, that there would be no EC–US summit. Sykes also said that he presumed that one of the topics for your discussion with Andersen would be the possibility of a multilateral meeting in New York of Political Directors. Sykes reported that the probable forum of the President’s meeting with the EC—i.e., the President of the Council, etc.—was not changed but that this would be discussed by Andersen with you.
Sykes explained that the third document on European identity was being developed, but as a sort of internal European description of its goals, etc. (No one seems to know the relationship of this document to the US–EC exercise.)
Comments:
Procedurally, you will have to decide the tone and content of a reply to Andersen. State is preparing a draft reply to Ambassador Crowe for Andersen. If you have any guidance I will pass it to Stoessel.
At this stage of the game, we should not appear too pleased or eager. The Europeans have done what you warned them about, appointed a spokesman, who will not be empowered to do more than discuss generalities. The next step—a multilateral meeting—is still [Page 145] open and vague. The summit is ruled out, apparently, since the French almost certainly would not come to NATO.
Finally, despite the pleas of confidentiality virtually all of Andersen’s remarks are in the press this morning (Tab B). By leaking out the details we are under some pressure to “welcome” the achievements, even though the press is playing it (and your testimony on three documents) as a setback from our original aims.
Recommendation:
That our Ambassador in Copenhagen be instructed:
1. To inform Andersen you will try to arrange a meeting on September 24.
2. That we cannot comment further, without seeing the documents.
3. That the President’s trip is dependent on the substance of the Declaration.
4. That we need to know what is contemplated after you meet with Andersen, and what his authority or instructions will be. Can he, for example, negotiate the list of topics and the draft declaration?
- Summary: Sonnenfeldt relayed British and
Danish reports on the September 10 EC Foreign Ministers meeting.
Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 409, Subject Files, Year of Europe (May–Aug 73) (1 of 1). Secret; Sensitive; Eyes Only. Sent for very urgent action. Attached but not published is Tab A, telegram 2179 from Copenhagen, September 10; and Tab B, a September 11 Washington Post story entitled, “EEC Aligns Goals for Nixon Visit.” In the margin next to the first paragraph of the “Comments” section, Kissinger wrote, “I wish to see it.” Kissinger initialed his approval of the first recommendation, writing in the margin, “Not before Sept 25.” Kissinger initialed his approval of the second recommendation. Kissinger added the phrase “and the kind of meeting” to the end of the third recommendation, to which he initialed his approval. Kissinger initialed his approval of the fourth recommendation. Kissinger added a fifth recommendation by hand: “5. That I also wish to meet all other available foreign ministers.”
↩