Office of the Historian

81. Memorandum From the United States Representative to the United Nations (Kirkpatrick) to President Reagan1

Washington, December 30, 1981

SUBJECT

  • Global Negotiations
1.
As you know the group of less developed nations (the G–77) at the United Nations rejected the revisions we proposed in their draft resolution (“Kittani text”) on global negotiations.2
2.
The G–77 was divided but their leadership made counter proposals, which I rejected on our behalf—in spite of some urging by the Europeans that the U.S. reconsider.
3.
As of the recess of the General Assembly in December, we had come out of these troublesome negotiations reasonably well. We were perceived by most as “positive” and “forthcoming”. We got a good deal of credit for “trying” to accommodate other nations’ interest in launching global negotiations; we split their ranks and prevented a [Page 226] generalized condemnation of the U.S. We avoided becoming involved in global negotiations. So far, so good.
4.
The State Department has now proposed to you that our government “take the initiative” on the issue by proposing a U.N. conference on Global Growth and Development. (Secretary Haig’s memorandum to you of December 27, 1981, # 8137007).3
5.
Unfortunately I had no opportunity to discuss this proposal with Secretary Haig before it was transmitted to you. I therefore feel it necessary to let you know directly that in my view we should not propose or encourage such a conference—at least at this stage.
a)
We have already demonstrated our “seriousness” about following-up Cancun. Nothing else is required at this stage to prove our good will.
b)
The U.N. is not a good arena for solving any problems including problems of development. Furthermore, U.S. “initiatives” are not generally well received there.
c)
The U.S. will not be influential in any U.N. conference. Therefore we should not encourage one.
6.
Furthermore, there are different views among other nations about what the U.N. should do now: some want to forge ahead with new efforts on global negotiations; some want to try a “sectoral” approach and consider only food or energy. The Europeans are especially eager to have negotiations on energy. Some of the least developed want to focus first on food.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that we do nothing for now;4 specifically, I do not think we should propose a U.N conference on “global growth and development” which would be an expensive boondoggle that could easily turn into a “first phase” of global negotiations.

A case by case approach has a better chance of success.5 Therefore, our best course would be to work quietly in support of other nations’ initiatives for conferences on specific subjects.6

  1. Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 56, Records of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, 1950–1985, Meeting and Policy Files, 1979–1992, 56–10–60, Box 3, [No folder title]. No classification marking. Copies were sent to Bush, Haig, Clark, Meese, and Nance.↩
  2. See Document 79.↩
  3. See Document 80.↩
  4. Nau circled “for now.”↩
  5. Nau underlined “case by case approach,” highlighted this sentence, and wrote: “What is this?” in the right-hand margin.↩
  6. Nau underlined “other nations’ initiatives for conferences on specific subjects.”↩