Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume E–15, Part 2, Documents on Western Europe, 1973–1976

89. Memorandum From the Counselor (Sonnenfeldt) to Secretary of State Kissinger¹

Washington, April 22, 1976.

SUBJECT

• The Quadripartite Consultation Forum: Your Meetings with Crosland and Sauvagnargues

Your periodic meetings with your German, UK and French colleagues, and the intervening sessions of the “Political Directors” which I have attended, have become one of the more rewarding means of Western consultation and policy coordination. Their occurrence, although it has vaguely seeped out, has largely remained secret; it is potentially explosive—domestically in France and, more broadly, within NATO, the EC and the international community generally—since it smacks of a directorate that tends to undercut or supersede other intra-Western forums. The fact that in actuality while it may be a pseudo-directorate, it distinctly reinforces, rather than undercuts, existing Western institutions will be lost sight of if its existence and the topics dealt with become common knowledge.

You will be meeting with two of your colleagues from this new institution, and possibly Genscher also, before the next regular meeting in Oslo. Schedules permitting, we are trying to have another political directors meeting before Oslo, possibly here in Washington during the Giscard visit when De Laboulaye will be here anyhow and the others are thinking of coming.

Topics currently under consideration include (1) Yugoslav contingency planning, (2) Italy and Communism in Western Europe, (3) the Northern Flank. There has also emerged, among my colleagues, an intense interest in using the forum to vent problems ranging from Southern Africa, Spanish Sahara, Lebanon, Cyprus to Spain, Portugal, Malta, Turkey, Greece, i.e., literally no problem of common interest has been excluded. The French, indeed, while becoming extremely legalistic about what topics can properly be taken up in the NAC, have been eager to use the four-power forum without limitation. Further, as I have reported to you, my three European colleagues have often used our meetings to air sensitive internal EC problems in my presence.

You may want to talk to your colleagues individually about the future of this operation. Carefully handled, it is clearly in our interest to maintain it, including for its utility to fertilize and envigorate other, broader forums in which all participate such as NATO itself. But it does run the risk of exposure. And with changes in personnel (Crosland vice Callaghan; Van Well may soon be promoted, Campbell may be reassigned, and my days are numbered), continuity will become a problem. Furthermore, with the discussions now ranging far afield from East-West and intra-Western problems, my ability to contribute is in any case circumscribed, given the disparity in responsibilities between my colleagues and myself. (My colleagues are so sensitive about the forum that they are reluctant to have it widened by excessive introduction of experts, though we have of course brought in Haig and his two Yugoslav planners, and, occasionally, an African or other senior expert.)

I attach a copy of my report on the last two political directors meetings and the account of the last Ministerial meeting for your reference.

1. Summary: Sonnenfeldt discussed the evolution and sensitivity of the quadripartite Foreign Ministers consultation forum.

   Source: National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Office of the Counselor, Helmut C. Sonnenfeldt, 1955–1977, Entry 5339, Box 6, Quadripartite Memcons, Feb. 1976–. Secret; Eyes Only. Sonnenfeldt did not initial the memorandum. Tab A, a memorandum of conversation for a February 20 Political Directors meeting; Tab B, a memorandum of conversation for a March 26 Political Directors meeting; and Tab C, a memorandum of conversation for a January 23 Ministerial meeting were not attached. The February 20 and March 26 memoranda of conversation are ibid; the January 23 memorandum of conversation was not found.