Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XXXVIII, International Economic Development; International Debt; Foreign Assistance

32. Notes of a Meeting¹

Cancun, August 1–2, 1981

PREPARATORY MEETING OF FOREIGN MINISTERS FOR CANCUN SUMMIT

Saturday AM Session (10:00 a.m.–1:30 p.m.)

Mexico—It has been a long itinerary, and we have overcome many obstacles to get here. It is time to overcome the forces of confusion and private interest. We must reorganize the political functioning of the world.

Brazil—Let’s go to first agenda item—Evaluation of Recent Developments. We need a frank and broad discussion on an intellectual scale. The October meeting has no precedent. We cannot expect at that meeting to get to the end of our problems and views. This exchange will be useful, since the issue of negotiations is already being discussed. Hence, this meeting is not a matter of negotiations but its purpose is to establish a basic consensus on the need for action. It will not end with conclusions or decisions of a precise nature. Recent developments (such as Ottawa Communique)² cannot help much more than they already have. But they do indicate awareness, a general philosophy, and the importance and priority of the problem so that matters can be dealt with with the degree of importance that they have for all of us. There is no simple formula. The forces of the market are not enough.³ We need to create policies, to remove distortions, to create equilibrium. Then we can discuss procedures. Without being too optimistic or pessimistic, let us organize the October meeting with a sense that it can give impetus to North-South dialogue. That conclusion can be recorded in some way which does not have to be juridical but conveys importance of problem, its urgency, its deep-seated characteristics, a philosophical framework for the dialogue, taking it out of a routine mode and giving it a political direction. The meeting should end with a summary which reflects essential points of meeting.

Japan—North-South issues are not only economic but political and vital to international peace. We favor early launching of Global Negotiations (GNs). Japan will increase ODA by a factor of two over next 5 years. We seek to avoid confrontation at all cost. We want a constructive dialogue in a spirit of interdependence and solidarity. Our goal is a free and unobstructed exchange of views. We should avoid constraints on such an exchange. Formal agenda is not necessary. Even a framework for discussion must avoid imposing constraints. We should keep officials to a minimum. We should first exchange views on broad themes, then discuss development topics and finally consider the modalities of North-South dialogue. Each country should compile a list of topics it wishes to discuss and give this list to the Chairmen who will compile and distribute it.

Germany—We support the opening statement by Mexico. Economic situation is difficult, and we spend too much on armaments. Cancun must find ways to overcome economic problems. We suggest that the two co-sponsors of this meeting meet the press after this morning’s session and after each subsequent session. We need to overcome mistrust. Summit should be a “Summit of confidence.” Confidence-building should be result so that other discussions can go forward. We need to overcome notion that LDCs are one or that DCs are one. We should focus on energy, population growth, food security, and monetary questions. What should be the results? We agree with Brazilian colleague that formal decisions are not the goal. Otherwise we will end up discussing the communique rather than the substantive problems. But the consequences of our discussions should be drawn by the co-sponsors to show that points of departure have been achieved to bring about GNs and to achieve progress on food production, interdependence, opening of markets, and clearing the way for taking up GNs. Our aim is to build confidence without constraints on agenda.

Castaneda—Do you agree with suggestion that at end of this meeting, co-chairmen should brief press?

AGREED

India—This meeting is unique. It places a heavy responsibility on us. I cannot go into the details of what the leaders will discuss. But three points on our agenda are important. There were many uncertainties and misgivings when we met at Vienna in March. We were awaiting the outcome of policy reviews in some countries and of other events such as the Ottawa Summit.⁴ These other meetings, we knew, would have real bearing on the atmosphere of Cancun. We now view October with optimism. Ottawa communique has contributed to increasing public understanding. It reflects a collective commitment to mutually acceptable process of global negotiations. This is a vital point because past efforts have been unsuccessful and frustrations have been growing. The Ottawa reference to GNs is hedged in by certain conditionality and contingencies. But it is an advance. Specifically we suggest that between now and Cancun we seek to unscramble the language of the Ottawa communique. Could we present our heads in October with the terms of “a mutually acceptable process?” Could we also define for them “circumstances offering prospect of progress?”⁵ If we could make progress in next two months, the discussions of heads will be more important and meaningful. If we cannot achieve this progress, then the heads will have to start from the Ottawa communique and try to unscramble the language themselves.⁶ The heads will be seeking a meeting of minds to get GNs underway where substance will be considered. We would not like to go into the substantive areas now because Ottawa has already done so, and each head will have his or her own priorities. So in the Ottawa communique, we have a good basis for seeing how we should go ahead in preparing the ground for October. The question is how to arrange modalities so that October can give impetus to GNs.

Austria—Our discussion thus far shows that decisions of past are still valid. The Cancun Summit can contribute to North-South relations. We want a meeting that will not deal with tactical matters. The leaders should exchange views on general problems of North-South relations. We do not intend to bind our heads to a strict agenda.⁷ We want to offer a framework for a general discussion which might focus if they want on one or two subjects. This Summit should not take decisions; it is not a negotiating forum. We seek a meeting of the minds and a change in political atmosphere of North-South issues. The results will be summarized by the co-chairmen. There are some remarkable references in the Ottawa communique. We should listen to Canada on these results. We don’t need to say much about the global round because there has been no progress.

Castaneda—Let me call first on UK and Nigeria before we turn to Canada.

UK—The role of the LDCs is vital. This subject deserves treatment by the heads. We are impressed by the Brandt Commission report. There is no need to prod public opinion in the UK. We understand that this report was the inspiration for this meeting.⁸ We are aware of our interdependence and the benefits to all of growth in the Third World. Humanity and good self-interest are the reasons for this Summit. It can improve the understanding of governments in developing their own national policies. We agree with our German colleague that we do not want a structured meeting. If we do what we are doing this morning—tour de table—we doubt that heads will be as brief. If we have communique, the meeting will focus on what the leaders said they said with no discussion of what they actually said. We should have no tour de table, no communique, no agenda. The discussion should take place across the table on the four issues mentioned in Vienna and anything else they may wish to discuss. Then we should reach as much agreement as possible and give it to the press.

Nigeria—Let’s also have report on the Caracas meeting.⁹ LDCs are doing something just as DCs did at Ottawa.

Canada—Prime Minister and I were very pleased with the North-South discussions at Ottawa. An optimistic interpretation is justified by the communique. We were happy that sufficient time (most of an afternoon) was given to this subject at Ottawa. The largest section in the communique was devoted to North-South issues. The discussions reflected the common magnitude of the problems and our common determination to meet them. Paragraph 9 gives the key political principle of respect for independence of LDCs. Paragraph 10 gives the key economic principle. Subsequent paragraphs translate principles of paragraphs 9 and 10 into process on Cancun Summit and global negotiations. There is no timetable on global negotiations; it may be slow process. But there is disposition to pursue meaningful process, including through global negotiations. This represents an advance over the OECD communique. Other areas of agreement are also significant—willingness to cooperate with surplus oil countries in energy development; recognition of importance of good development; commitment to IFIs; direct aid to poorer countries. Moreover, other sections of the communique besides North-South section have relevance for North-South. Introduction speaks about working with other partners. Trade section resists protectionism, supports GATT. Macroeconomic section speaks of relation between revitalization of growth in DCs and development in other countries. We hope to carry this spirit of Ottawa into Cancun. The Indian Minister’s comments were helpful. But in one area he was not specific. He rightly called for further efforts to unscramble conditions for global negotiations. We think, however, that the forum for this would not be this forum but in the UN. And I see that he agrees with that. Ottawa is far from being an exact guide for Cancun. But at the last Summit among the seven in Venice, the structure got the better of us. We stifled real dialogue. We resolved to have simpler summits in terms of structure. We agreed to have just a bare framework. For the Cancun Summit, we have four subjects. Perhaps this is as far as we would like to go. The meeting could begin with general discussion and then devote a session to each of four topics. Another lesson from our Summits is that with 21 countries, we should spend no time on communique. Let the co-chairmen summarize the conclusions and if others disagree, they can dispute the co-chairmen’s summary afterwards. Anything more will consume too much time. We do not want to get bogged down in this procedure.

China—The objective of LDCs is to achieve economic independence. But the old economic order means unjust treatment of LDCs in which they have no say or decisionmaking power. This is the crux of North-South issue. Economic development of DCs depends on LDCs—need energy and raw materials and markets of LDCs. The maintenance of the old order therefore does not serve DC interests either and will lead DCs to a narrow development of their own economics. We must establish NIEO with principle of equality. This bears on world peace. We hope Cancun will go beyond economic analysis and weigh consequences from overall strategic point-of-view. We must start with immediate issues but must not forget context of long-term objectives which is to establish NIEO. Ottawa attached certain importance to North-South relations. We welcome this though it is short of our expectations. We hope Cancun will help GNs get underway as soon as possible. This Summit should appraise North-South relations from both political and economic perspective. It should put forward suggestions and give strong impetus to GNs.

Bangladesh—Economic and political aspects are inseparable. We welcomed the recognition of interdependence in both political and economic areas at Ottawa. We hesitate to use North-South destination [designation?]. There are many wealthy countries in South. We must recognize differences among countries, as Mr. Genscher pointed out. We are particularly glad to see recognition at Ottawa of special needs of poorer countries. We also need to consider the results of the Caracas meeting, as Nigeria suggests. We should also keep in view the results of the LLDC conference in Paris.¹⁰ Many countries are struggling for their very survival. There is too much emphasis on political security. This must be matched by an action program for economic security. Economic situations lead to explosive conditions and even armed conflict. Interdependence is growing. Inbalances in interdependence are dangerous. Agree with India that global negotiations language should be spelled out. Otherwise Cancun cannot give this matter an impetus.¹¹ We will get bogged down again in technical matters after Cancun. With Tanzania we have the distinction of being among the 31 LLDCs. We hope Cancun will mark a new era of hope, like that we had after World War II. But after World War II came a change in views of DCs. We expected to telescope our development drawing on techniques of DCs and our own rich resources, but this did not happen. Now it must.

US—We are committed to the process that has been started here. We will work with countries that share our concern for world growth and development. Cancun is an exciting and unprecedented event. It is a unique experience for the US. Too long North-South dichotomy has meant confrontation and sterility. Today necessity leads us to view problems differently, to deal with common worldwide economic crisis. Perception of interdependence has become the reality. It requires that we cooperate for common good. Development still dependent on national policies. Discussions here are very encouraging. Consensus emerging that we need to nourish. Support UK and Japanese colleagues that we cannot permit bickering and confrontation in this age of necessity. We want a free, open discussion in October. We must be realistic to produce results over time. This is an unprecedented opportunity, a unique event to exchange perspectives. It is essential as a beginning, a new beginning. Then we can search out key problems, recognizing differences among all of our countries. We must shape progress sensitively to the uniqueness of each of our countries. We will come to the October meeting not on the basis of East-West or North-South issues but ready to stand shoulder to shoulder for our mutual benefit. Time is running out.

COFFEE BREAK

Castaneda—Let’s go on to the topics of the October meeting and how we will structure this meeting.

Venezuela—We should not negotiate in, or institutionalize, this forum. UN is place for that. Let me respond to point made by Nigeria. Venezuela aspires to the establishment of NIEO and as head of G–77, we would like to report on the Caracas meeting. Caracas affirmed that economic cooperation among LDCs is part of establishing NIEO. The problem in world is structural imbalance and lack of negotiations to establish a NIEO. ECDC (Caracas meeting) does not substitute for global forum. Cooperation among LDCs exploits complementarity among their economies—trade, technology, food, energy, raw materials, finances and technical cooperation. We decided at Caracas to set up adequate mechanisms for follow-up to ensure application of program of action agreed to in Caracas. ECDC market new departure. It ended the Arusha period and began cooperation among LDCs. We hope that the political will of Caracas and Cancun will be expressed in concrete action at UN. Only then will Cancun be a Summit of confidence.

Yugoslavia—We will not come here to develop confrontation or to negotiate, but to hold a constructive dialogue in a spirit of mutual understanding. We seek to achieve a meeting of minds to contribute to solution of most acute problems. Already significant measures have been taken, not only at this meeting but at other recent ones—Vienna, Caracas, etc. At Caracas we stressed self-reliance but not anarchy. Progress among LDCs must help progress in global context, which is purpose of this Summit. In NY this week, G–14 (LDCs attending Cancun) reviewed meeting at Ottawa.¹² Positive reading was given to paragraphs 9–12. We found new ray of hope that common benefit can be reached through common cooperation. GNs is one of our main concerns. There is no formal link between GNs and Cancun. But we would like to do our best to reach agreement to launch GNs as soon as possible. We have a few suggestions regarding this. We would like to stress the one made by India. What did he mean that we must organize now? The outcome in October should help achieve understanding in General Assembly this year. Public opinion has connected Cancun and GNs. And progress on GNs will be a measure of Cancun’s success. If message of Cancun is positive, then Summit will be a success. If we say nothing about GNs no matter what else we do, Cancun will be a failure. We would note the letter of invitation in which interconnections are made clear. We want a generally defined agenda but not an abstract one. It should be concrete to indicate critical substance of major economic questions today. We should put into this framework the issues that will go into paper distributed before this meeting. We must give full attention to these matters before October.

Castaneda—That concludes the discussion on evaluation of recent events. No action or decision by us is required. Let us go on to definition of main subjects for October. We have reached consensus that Cancun should not have formal agenda in UN sense but a framework for discussions reflecting complexity of world economies and problems. One formula might be the adoption of a framework of discussions that 1) stresses an exchange of views on future of North-South relations, and 2) identifies a few areas of concern described in a general way—four subjects are nucleus here although we may refer to other matters. Thus the framework for discussion includes future development of cooperation and world economy in terms of food, commodities/trade/industry, energy and monetary and financial issues. We should instruct co-chairmen to organize meeting in October on these four subjects.

France—This meeting is unprecedented initiative in present world situation which especially affects weaker nations. We are in a period of transition—1980s are different from the past. We should prepare together and make transition less painful. We are impressed by Vienna communique which indicated this meeting would have no negotiations and would not reach decisions.¹³ It should however facilitate agreement in launching GNs. It should seek and promote convergences. Discussion must be political, global and informal. We agree with the proposals in your document (reference is to document on Procedures for the Preparatory Meeting distributed at beginning of morning session).¹⁴ Chairmen should summarize results—no communique. Let’s leave open possibility that agreements which may have been reached could be added to this summary. For example, the message of the Summit could be upbeat for the future of development of international cooperation and world economy. We are not going to have a UN style meeting. There is no substitute for GNs in NY. We consider GNs indispensable and should start as soon as possible. We accept the four topics. They could be accompanied by a commentary on their meaning. Could you accept in your document a reference to mobilize public opinion on these matters? People think North-South issues can be left to governments. They need to be educated. Let us avoid excessive generalizations and formal speeches. Purpose is to promote some progress in North-South dialogue. We need precise and concrete discussion. Hence we oppose opening with general speeches. If made, they will be prepared in advance. Why not distribute them before the meeting? Then we can exchange more precise views. We propose that for each of four topics, co-chairmen designate principal speakers who would speak on their own behalf. They could present proposals, perhaps provocation. This would lead immediately to substantive discussions. One month before, co-chairmen could ask individual countries to speak on particular topics. Our heads do not know the language of our dialogue. We should maximize opportunity for leaders to speak directly without large delegations.

Castaneda—Those are interesting suggestions of delegation of France.

Japan—Discussion should lead to early launching of GNs and progress in specific areas—commodities, common fund. Finance, food, energy and development of human resources could be discussed in that order. Each head would notify co-chairmen of their priorities, and chairmen could distribute this to others. We would be cautious about France’s suggestion. If we prepare statement in advance, then focus will be on paper and not on general discussion. We oppose issuing of formal statements. Also, in reference to China’s reference to NIEO, we have a short history of development. NIEO may include unrealistic items. We should be realistic!

Brazil—There are some common points that should be underscored at Summit. We cannot prescribe straitjacket for heads. We need flexibility and informality. We have no problem with prior announcement of subject matter. These are only suggestions. We don’t need speeches. Written statements are useful but risky to circulate in advance—freezing positions. We may recommend things to heads of state to facilitate exchange of information—sensitize one another. But we can’t calculate the procedure before the fact. The spirit of meeting should dominate; participants should understand this.

Germany—We like the suggestions made by Mexico. There should be exchange of general themes and then on specific topics. Blocs of subjects could be introduced by certain countries, not representing any group. This would amount to a combination of Mexico’s and France’s suggestions.

Nigeria—Is your proposal that there is only one item on the agenda, namely the future of development and the world economy. Then four items will be discussed in this context. Meeting may be too long if this is the only subject. We support Mexican recommendation that two speakers should introduce each topic; they should speak from global not self-interest.

Sweden—We must achieve something. Yet we can’t expect concrete results. Perhaps some kind of statement by co-chairmen showing political will. We should agree that somewhere sometime we will undertake centralized negotiations. No papers should be distributed. We should leave it to heads to make their own deliberations. Preparations can seek to ensure that interventions by heads cover all subjects of importance. Mutual understanding at Summit should include procedure, where we will take up all the issues involved. We don’t know about idea of having one speaker from North and then one from South. But perhaps, as Japan suggests, heads can notify chairmen about the topics they will address.

Saudi Arabia—Intentions expressed here encourage us that Summit will be of use and fruitful. There is a consensus that we should avoid pitfalls such as negotiations between North and South. If there is a meeting, let’s do a joint assessment, not negotiations. Also we must give impetus but not substitute for GNs. By not taking up GNs, we should not feel that we are avoiding the issues. Indeed because we see the problems, we are here. Although GNs is stopped, past efforts have not been fruitless. We should begin where GNs have stopped and apply new political will (not replay discussions of past year). It is important to think about not only what we say after Summit but what we do. Unless we come to agreement on GNs, this is what we are looking for. Under what forum, when will they start? Cancun should assist in every way to have GNs start and on a good basis. Perhaps the UN Secretary-General could address Summit and put this meeting into the context of GNs.

Philippines—We are encouraged to note wide areas of agreement. North-South has political dimensions. We share France’s view that we must mobilize public opinion. Also share France’s view that agreements must be reached and announced. Further we support idea of UN Secretary-General speaking.

END MORNING SESSION

Saturday PM Session (4:30 p.m.–6:30 p.m.)

Austria—Let’s move to procedural questions.

Algeria—We do not believe that we have reached agreement on the previous agenda item. If we think we have reached agreement, our discussion of procedure will bring us back to agenda. Two elements are important: the letter of invitation from March says meeting is political, exchange of views in open, informal atmosphere—no negotiations.¹⁵ Makes clear that goal is exchange on essential issues. What are the new developments since April 1981? ECDC and Ottawa meetings. Caracas stressed cooperation among LDCs. Ottawa embraces cooperation among DCs and LDCs. This is new since April 1981. Yet we don’t see any mention of GNs in our papers or discussions. We must take this into account since it is a consensus of this morning’s meeting. Hence, we suggest modifying the framework of discussions for October by referring to exchange of views on international cooperation for development through GNs which should be undertaken under auspices of UN as soon as possible. Now the subtopics proposed here are not same as for GNs. So we are outside the terms of GNs. The four issues should be discussed as one, as interrelated. There is also problem of definition of these subtopics. We cannot limit heads. Hence, why subdivide the general topic? Summit must be above all political. Is this consistent with a substantive or technical agenda? A single theme is preferable (as stated above). The proposal of Saudi Arabia deserves attention. The Secretary-General could be invited to discuss GN. Then after his introduction, discussion could follow. Heads could also then discuss other topics as well. Then views could be summarized by co-chairmen. Cancun is a step forward to great negotiations. Two items essential: 1) need to set up NIEO—take advantage of current international situation for launching GNs, and 2) take into account that we are limited to a few countries and do not represent other countries. That is why only one general subject should be addressed.

Austria—Have heard Algerian suggestions and must discuss them. Nigeria also suggested this morning that there is only one issue but that heads could discuss other issues if they wish. Perhaps we can list topics as “including.” Impetus to GNs could be result, in my opinion, but not part of terms of reference. Let us consider suggestion that Secretary-General speak as accepted.

US—I am sorry that I could not stay until the end of the first session today, so that I was unable to make all the observations that I would like to have made with respect to the organization and topical procedures for the October meeting. I understand that a wide range of views was expressed and various ideas suggested with respect to how the topical discussions might be structured. I can fully appreciate the problem. As the distinguished representative of India said this morning, we are trying to structure an unstructured meeting. This presents us with a bit of a dilemma.¹⁶ We have agreed that it should not be a negotiating session. We have agreed that no concrete results should be expected, and for that reason we have agreed there should be no communique. We have further agreed, given the character of the meeting, that there was no need for preparatory papers. We are also agreed that we must avoid making Cancun a confrontational event. At the same time, we all want as clear a delineation of issues—of diagnoses and analyses—as possible and temptation understandably exists to try to see what we might do to make the discussion more focused in terms of the four topics which will represent the principal items on the agenda that we can accept.¹⁷ We have to try to strike a balance. It is vitally important that we respect the principles that we have agreed on and which define the personality of the October meeting. The points of agreement which I listed already define the structural character of the October meeting. Is there any need to go beyond this particularly if one recognizes that some of the suggestions or some of the proposals that have been made would in fact contradict what has been agreed to. From my understanding of the discussion that took place, it seems to me that there are certain things that would improve the arrangements for the October meeting while not undercutting its essential character. For example, it seems to me to be absolutely essential that heads of state and government have an opportunity to make an opening statement. Such statements are crucial if their discussion in October is to be informed by a sense of design and political perspective. Otherwise, we will be asking our leaders to address technical issues which are best left to the technicians. At the same time, as was mentioned by a number of speakers, we do not wish to consume all the time available with opening statements. A compromise suggests itself. We should recommend that opening statements be limited in time to, say, about 10 minutes each. Similarly, the topics which the heads of state and government may wish to address in the course of their discussions in October are necessarily going to be defined in fairly general terms.¹⁸ This is desirable since there will be so many perspectives on them. But we should not seek to constrain and control our leaders and fit them into a procrustean bed. That would be artificial. Rather, we should seek to inform each other of the kinds of issues under each topic which might be registered so that each of our leaders can arrive at Cancun better informed about the questions and points to be made. The proposal made this morning that the two co-chairmen undertake to annotate each topic defining a series of sub-points for each—preferably in an interrogatory fashion—strikes me as a very useful one. Any one of us should feel free to submit suggestions to the co-chairmen for their use. What would result is essentially a syllabus of issues and questions under each of the agreed-upon topics. This seems to be about as far as we should go. To go further would be to over-structure the meeting and risk undermining the kind of meeting that we have all agreed we would like to see. Thus, I would find it unacceptable if two countries were designated to open the discussion on each topic, since we must assume that we are all interested in all the topics. Least of all, should one of these countries be a so-called representative of the developed world and the other of the less developed world, since this would only serve to cast the discussion in October in a confrontational mold, something which we expressly wish to avoid. In my intervention this morning, I suggested that it is terribly important to keep our priorities clearly in mind. We all wish for success and achievement over time. The problems of development and cooperation in the world economy will be with us for many years. If we are to achieve success it is essential that we take our first steps in this new beginning surely and carefully. Finally, a word about the letter referred to by Algeria. It talked about facilitating, not taking decision. The UN is forum for GNs. This is not. This does not mean we will not contribute to that subject at this meeting. Reagan in his response to the letter of invitation said procedural issues pending in other forums should not be taken up.¹⁹ We came here with that agreement. We hope we can stick with that.

Nigeria—Three items. This meeting is no substitute for UN. It is totally independent. Structuring topics of GNs is matter for UN. We also feel that suggestion for Secretary-General to speak should be reconsidered. Brandt report said this exercise should be far away from UN. Perhaps Brandt should be invited to give introduction. Now way to give impetus to GN is to create better awareness and understanding. Some may have complete knowledge. DCs have such capabilities. We don’t. Enlightening our heads will be important. Proposal of bloc speakers simply reflects that our perspectives are different. It does not imply confrontation. Perspectives could be complementary. For example, our view might add something to perspective of US and we know theirs will add to ours.

Austria—Any other comments on Algerian proposal?

Japan—We have difference with the US. Heads should start off with commitment to cooperate. On question of bloc speakers, how will we choose representatives? We need to be cautious about proposal for Secretary-General to speak.

Saudi Arabia—My conception is that there is a global negotiation. It has reached this stage, with great effort. It is now at a standstill. Cancun must push this further. We have to have some criteria for this. If we put different criteria here, then we break away from GNs. And this group of countries does not represent anyone but themselves. The GNs have achieved some results as mentioned by Algeria. If we now choose different categories, how can we say that we support global negotiations? Issues though separate have to be dealt with collectively. Dangerous if we give impression that we are circumventing GNs by focusing on different issues than in GNs. Not having criteria specified does not mean that we avoid issues. If we want to hold to Vienna letter, then we have to be careful to do what we have agreed to do and not put forward different criteria. If we have to use criteria, use GNs criteria. Main point is not to derail GNs.

US [UK?]—We support the chairman’s original summing up. It is foolish to have heads attend a meeting so formless it could accomplish nothing. It is equally foolish to do the opposite. We suggest to our American colleague not to encourage statements. Heads will come with statements which will not be 10 minutes. We hope we can avoid that.

Canada—We suggest a compromise for our Algerian and Saudi friends. We should not mention GNs in our agenda. But there is an empirical link and we need to ensure that we not set off in different direction from GNs. Hence can we agree that there be nothing negative implied here working against the GNs?

Japan—This Summit must be the first step toward GNs. But it must also be independent of GNs. Hence, we should not discuss the subjects that are before GNs. There is no difference of view here with Saudi Arabia.

US—If heads want to make statements, limit them to 10 minutes. They don’t all have to do so. Heads will say what they want—GNs or anything else. Ottawa heads complained about too much programming.

Austria—Let me try to suggest a possible wording of the framework of discussions. We can reiterate the letter of invitation—where the link between GNs and Cancun is stated. Then we can indicate that the list of four topics is not exhaustive. It is indicative. Hence, we can introduce these topics by saying “including areas such as.” In that way we do no damage to GNs.

Algeria—As US said, nothing prevents heads from bringing up anything they want. Hence why not include GNs as a subtopic?

Austria—There is a strong majority feeling to focus on important questions in order to give meat to the skeleton; we need to stay away from the abstract. We must mention some topics to give concreteness to framework but this does not exclude other issues.

Saudi Arabia—Point of clarification! Then why don’t we take away mention of the other categories as well as GNs. There would still be the general link between GNs and Cancun.

Austria—There will be a link—we will reiterate the letter of invitation.

Germany—Further clarification leads to less clarification. Can we agree with summing up plus two recent clarifications? If we go on, more may be less!

US—We agree with that, Mr. Chairman.

Ivory Coast—We understand Algeria’s point-of-view. This meeting has the goal of the rebirth of GNs. Genscher’s proposal is agreed.

Austria—I think we have agreed. Now to go on to the procedural issue. We agree there should not be general debate. Nevertheless heads who want to do so can make short statements (if possible even less than 10 minutes). This morning two proposals were made. One was to have an introduction of each topic by a representative of DC and LDC. Some opposition to this. Hence recommend that we not accept this idea. Second was to have heads inform chairmen beforehand of topics they would address in order to allow chairmen to structure unstructured meeting. Do we agree on this?

Mexico—No objection. I think we can agree. We want to go back to France’s proposal. We don’t agree completely with Austria. What France proposed has great merit. We must have an introduction for each topic. We could think of two representatives, since two groups are represented. We are not introducing confrontation. Confrontation is a question of the spirit of the meeting, not the existence of different points-of-view. Countries chosen to do this could present a document. We don’t insist upon this. But a written document is a good idea. This could be combined with suggestion of representative of Japan who said chairmen could choose delegations to introduce subjects.

France—We did not propose speakers as representatives of groups but in their personal capacity. Chairmen can select leaders to introduce topic. They would merely be first speakers not representatives of groups.

Algeria—Sorry but I thought there were not to be only four topics. Hence why are we talking about only four subjects?

Saudi Arabia—Subtopics do not exclude other topics. But if we discuss procedures for four subtopics, we are limiting agenda.

Austria—Yes, it is difficult to provide procedures for these items when they are only examples. Let’s come back to Japanese proposal to invite participants to submit topics six weeks before meeting. Then Chairmen will organize discussions in ways that meet French, Algerian and Mexican suggestions.

Germany—We seriously question if this is the way to initiate free discussion. This means a head can speak only if he or she has registered to do so. That’s not a good idea. This leads to prepared statements. It is better to have people react to discussion. But if you fix on subjects weeks ahead, you will defeat idea of free and flexible discussions.

Austria—Much truth to this.

US—That’s the essence of problem. We propose we drop further discussion of procedures.

Austria—Any objection to this? There will be no special procedure for structuring discussions. It will be left to chair to organize discussions, to try to have a useful anarchy. Now we must address the question of papers for Summit. Any participant should be free to present any paper he or she may wish to present. No one obligated to do so. Do you agree?

All—YES!

Austria—All papers would be background, not to be discussed necessarily at Summit. We want to come back to the proposal for Secretary-General’s participation and statement on global round. Are there objections?

Mexico—We support inviting Secretary-General as special guest not as observer. The US opposes observers. We agree. We should also leave the subjects of his talk to him. He might want to discuss subjects other than GNs.

Canada—We agree to the invitation to Secretary-General. But he should not have more rights than other heads. He should not be the first speaker.

Austria—He can address this meeting as any other.

US—We are impressed by the earlier comments by Nigeria. We have no objections but we are on the verge of giving this meeting a character that is different than the role envisioned for heads of government. This could lead to other suggestions, such as Brandt’s participation.

Saudi Arabia—Let me clarify my suggestions. Secretary-General would be an unbiased reporter on the problems of the international community. But since we have chosen structured anarchy for others, this would also apply for the Secretary-General.

Austria—With this explanation, do we agree that he be invited with no more but actually less rights than others since he is a special guest?

AGREED

Austria—There will be two seats at the table and two behind.

Saudi Arabia—Could we have two 3 hour rather than three 2 hour sessions? This cuts down on movement.

Canada—We hope hosts will use their discretion to make necessary decisions. With respect to informal dinner, we have found them extremely useful in our DC Summits. Best discussions occur at those sessions. We encourage hosts to do that.

Mexico—Perhaps two separate dinners for heads and for Foreign Ministers or whatever. At dinner, we can discuss next day’s events. But it is tiring to have dinner on same night people arrive. That was evident last night. First night is not the best time. Perhaps we could hold it on next night but of course it is better to have it before the plenary sessions.

France—What is meant by working documents in paragraph 22?

Austria—Documents here.

France—Documents produced by chair should be in all languages.

Austria—Working languages in UN are English and French.

France—Exactly!

Ivory Coast—Then documents will be distributed in English and French? My head does not know English. We must be able to translate for him into French.

Austria—Okay! Host will do documents in English and French. We will prepare press release and discuss it tomorrow morning.

Saudi Arabia—Do we need to review press release?

Austria—No, if you so wish.

Canada—Can each participant make comments to press during Summit? Of course, they would do so only on their own participation.

Austria—Yes, I so understand it.

Tanzania—We do not need to meet to review release, as we did in Vienna. But could you read to us the agreed framework for discussions?

Austria—The framework for discussions would first make reference to the letter of invitation on nature of the Summit and the link with GNs. Then it would continue with paragraph 10 as modified. (Reference is to document on Outline of Procedure Proposed for the Preparatory Meeting, distributed at morning session.)

Algeria—We should say that items of paragraph 10 are not limiting.

Austria—We could add last sentence of paragraph 9.

Saudi Arabia—Is this the last meeting or do we meet tomorrow?

Austria—This is the end if there is no need to review release.

Saudi Arabia—Could you distribute your release to us to read beforehand?

Austria—That’s why I thought meeting tomorrow was necessary.

Japan—Can we have Japanese language also in October?

Austria—Japan and Germany provide their own interpreter.

Mexico—We propose short session tomorrow. We don’t want differences of interpretation of the press release.²⁰ Then we can schedule press conference for 12 noon.

Sunday AM Session (10:00–11:00 a.m.)

1. Algeria asked that reference to GNs in French version be capitalized as in English version. Accepted.

2. France sought to add possibility of joint communique on items agreed to at Summit. Rejected.

3. US asked that full paragraph from letter of invitation be used which refers not only to Cancun helping facilitate GNs but other forums as well. Accepted.

1. Source: Reagan Library, Executive Secretariat, NSC Trip File, Cancun (09/15/1981–09/30/1981); NLR–755–3–12–1–6. Confidential. The Saturday, August 1, morning session took place from 10 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.; the Saturday afternoon session took place from 4:30–6:30 p.m. The Sunday, August 2, morning session took place from 10 until 11 a.m. The notes were sent under an August 5 covering memorandum from Nau to Allen, through Bailey, in which Nau summarized the meetings. A stamped notation on that memorandum reads: “RVA Has Seen.” Allen wrote on the memorandum: “Henry—I have read all. You were thorough. Gives a good flavor of what we are to expect. I think we have the required procedural freedom to make our statement, don’t you?” In a note in the margin dated August 12, Allen wrote: “I also want to meet w/ you & Chuck and Norman on this matter.”
2. See footnote 1, Document 30. The final Declaration is also referred to as the Ottawa Communiqué. Paragraphs 9–20 of the Declaration addressed “Relations with Developing Countries.”
3. An unknown hand placed a checkmark in the right-hand margin.
4. See Document 30.
5. Allen highlighted this and the previous sentence in the left-hand margin.
6. Allen highlighted this sentence and wrote in the left-hand margin: “This is what is wanted—Heads must do it themselves!”
7. Allen underlined this sentence.
8. See footnote 2, Document 27.
9. A reference to the G–77 high-level Conference on Economic Cooperation among Developing Countries (ECDC) which met in Caracas in May.
10. Presumably a reference to the first UN Conference on Least Developed Countries held September 1–15 in Paris.
11. Allen highlighted this sentence in both the right and left-hand margins.
12. Telegram 2500 from USUN, July 30, summarized the July 29 Ministerial meeting in New York of the 14 LDCs participating in the Cancun Summit. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D810357–0180)
13. Telegram 3214 from Vienna, March 13, transmitted the text of the communique issued at the conclusion of the preparatory meeting for the North-South Summit, which took place in Vienna. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D810120–0586)
14. A copy of the “Outline of the Procedure Proposed for the Preparatory Meeting” of Ministers of Foreign Affairs for the Cancun Summit, dated July 31, is in the Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, General Commodity Subject Files, 1965–83, Lot 84D247: Policy—Cancun Meeting 1981.
15. In telegram 3231 from Vienna, March 16, the Embassy sent the text of a draft letter of invitation to the Cancun Summit from López Portillo and Kreisky to heads of state. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, D810123–0233) The official letter of invitation to Reagan was dated April 30. See footnote 2, Document 21.
16. Allen placed a checkmark next to this sentence in the right-hand margin.
17. Allen highlighted these two sentences in the left-hand margin.
18. Allen highlighted this sentence in the left-hand margin.
19. See Document 21.
20. For the text of Haig’s departure statement from Cancun, August 2, as well as his remarks to the press en route to the meeting on July 31, see Department of State, Bulletin, September 1981, pp. 33–34. Haig also sent a summary of his visit to Reagan in telegram 7011 from Cancun, August 2. (Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, Electronic Telegrams, [no N number])