202. Memorandum From the Permanent Representative to the United Nations (Kirkpatrick) to Secretary of State Shultz1
SUBJECT
- The Non-Aligned Movement
Considered from the perspective of U.S. interests the most important facts about the Non-Aligned Movement are 1) that it comprises a clear majority of the states of the U.N. and 2) that the Soviet client states in the NAM are able to “drive” the organization, much as a Communist minority in a non-Communist trade union can through superior organization, mobilization, and effort control an organization many times larger than itself. This basically is the reason that the NAM so often takes the Soviet side of issues. It is the reason the Non-Aligned Movement so often behaves like a movement aligned with the Soviets.
The NAM operates, it is said, on the basic consensus but this “consensus” is manipulable and manipulated.
By coming early, staying late, talking more and manipulating more effectively, Soviet client states and sympathizers can effectively neutralize the unorganized truly non-aligned states.
This remains as true under India’s presidency as under Cuba’s. Only the tone has changed.
Once a position is taken an effort is made to make all members of the NAM feel bound by it! Any such disciplined NAM behavior is negative from the point of view of US or Western interests. We do not want the NAM members who constitute a clear majority of the UN, to feel bound by a position on, say, Central America taken in an arena when Cuba and Guyana are present and effective and Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador are not.
[Page 856]Since the NAM takes positions unfriendly to US and Western states we do better when the role of the NAM is minimal and when nations vote their own, separate national interests.
In the Security Council, for example, India makes an effort to have the NAM caucus in that body meet and take a common position on all issues. Eight of fifteen members of the Council are also members of NAM, and of these eight India, Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Upper Volta reliably take pro-Soviet positions while Malta, Egypt, Peru, Pakistan do not. Since the pro-Soviet states do not adopt positions unacceptable to the Soviets it is perfectly clear that the US interest is served when there is NO unified NAM position and each state votes its own views and interests.
We, therefore, were careful at the beginning of the new Council to inform Pakistan, Peru and Egypt (all new members) that it was not necessarily a natural or normal practice for the NAM caucus to take common positions.
Similarly in the General Assembly and other specialized bodies, US interests are best served when our friends will speak up for us in NAM meetings but finally reserve this right to vote their own interests.
It is never in the US interest to emphasize or strengthen the Non-Aligned Movement. Quite the contrary.
The appropriate public posture for the US is that we respect true non-alignment, but not “non-alignment” on the Soviet’s side, and to make clear we expect that on matters of real concern to us, our friends take our interests into account whether or not they are members of the NAM.
- 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 5/1–31/85. No classification marking. Under a May 2, 1985, covering memorandum, Rodman sent Walters the memorandum, writing: “Last summer, Mike Armacost and I were involved in an exercise for the Secretary that sought to ‘look ahead’ to 1985. We were looking for new initiatives or for new thoughts on basic strategy in a number of areas. IO and S/P did papers on strategy toward the United Nations and strategy toward the Non-aligned Movement. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, when shown our papers for her comments, did two papers of her own. Perhaps you have already seen them. In any case, I am attaching these four papers in the hope that they will be useful to you.” (Ibid.)↩