Foreign relations of the united states 1969–1976 volume XXXVII energy crisis, 1974–1980 department of state washington
Telegram From the Department of State to Selected
Download 8.4 Mb.Pdf ko'rish
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
Telegram From the Department of State to Selected
Washington, September 12, 1975, 2122Z.
217382. For the Ambassador. Beirut pass Baghdad Immediate.
Subject: OPEC Oil Price Decision.
1. OPEC Ministers will meet in Vienna September 24 to consider an
oil price increase. We believe that a price increase is unjustified. Al-
though the increased cost of manufactured and other goods is usually
cited within OPEC as justification for increased oil prices, the oil price
increases beginning in 1973 have so exceeded increases in prices of
manufactures that their price relationships are disproportionately
changed by a substantial margin. According to our analysis, from a
1960 base period, per barrel revenue on OPEC marker crude (Saudi
Arabian light) rose over 1200 percent to mid-1975 compared with an in-
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D750316–1098.
Confidential; Immediate. Sent to Abu Dhabi, Algiers, Beirut, Doha, Jakarta, Kuwait,
Lagos, Libreville, Quito, and Tripoli. Repeated to Caracas, Jidda, Tehran, USOECD Paris,
Bonn, Rome, Paris, London, USEC Brussels, Vienna, Tokyo, Dublin, New Delhi, Kinsha-
sa, USUN, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Luxembourg, The Hague, Brussels, Ottawa, Madrid,
Ankara, and Wellington. Repeated to Bern on September 24 under Robinson’s signature.
282 Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XXXVII
crease of slightly more than 100 percent in the price of manufactured
exports as computed by the UN. From January 1, 1973 to mid-1975, rev-
enue on marker crude increased 566 percent as against slightly more
than a 52 percent increase in the price of manufactured exports. The
first half of 1974 was admittedly a period of massive price increases
throughout the world economy. However, since that time the pace of
price increases in manufactured goods has slowed significantly and
prices of many agricultural and other commodities have dropped. As a
result, the purchasing power of oil exports appears to have been about
constant from mid-1974 to mid-1975. However, such statistical compar-
isons have not succeeded in swaying the producers in the past two
years. It now appears likely that OPEC’s actual decision on prices will
largely depend on the producers’ perception of their own requirements
and of what the market will bear, i.e., the degree to which a price in-
crease might diminish demand for OPEC oil and the combined effect
on OPEC revenues.
2. We are concerned with the adverse economic and psychological
effects of an OPEC oil price increase. The incipient world economic re-
covery would be hindered, inflation would be exacerbated and the co-
operative atmosphere needed for the resumed producer/consumer di-
alogue would be jeopardized. We wish to make our concerns clear to
the OPEC countries. Secretary Kissinger again publicly opposed an in-
crease in his September 1 address to the UN Special Session delivered
by Ambassador Moynihan.
Special approaches on the price issue are
being made to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela.
other OPEC countries are requested to make appropriate high level ap-
proach and convey the following points with such additional details as
are deemed effective in the host country situation:
A. Since the producer/consumer preparatory meeting in Paris last
April, the United States has made a major effort to re-establish a basis
for dialogue and greater cooperation between the developing countries
and the industrialized countries. We reviewed our overall policy
toward the developing countries. We took into account the concerns ex-
pressed by the developing country representatives at the Prepcon. Sec-
retary Kissinger articulated our new approach in speeches in Kansas
City and Paris in May and outlined in detail both our general approach
and specific proposals on September 1 in his address to the Seventh
Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly. This US com-
mitment to a cooperative and innovative approach to the problems of
global development is based on our conviction that all parties to this di-
alogue must take into account the important interests and concerns of
See footnote 3, Document 80.
See Document 80.
April 1975–October 1975 283
others. In this regard, we believe that the governments of OPEC have a
responsibility to take account of the effect which any further increase in
the price of oil will have in the world economy and prospects for suc-
cess in the current effort to build a new approach to the problems of
economic development and cooperation.
B. In the case of the US, we are concerned about our ability to
maintain public support for a forthcoming and cooperative approach to
the problems of international economic development and the producer/
consumer dialogue should the member countries of OPEC increase the
price of oil again. Americans can see no justification for a further in-
crease when the purchasing power of oil has already risen so dispro-
portionately as a result of past increases. Our commitment to a forth-
coming and cooperative approach to global economic problems would
of course remain; but in a practical sense our ability to explore specific
new approaches might be jeopardized.
C. Recession in the industrialized countries is adversely affecting
the global economy in 1975, including the level of earnings of the oil
producing nations as a group. A further OPEC price increase would re-
duce the resources and worsen the payments balance of all oil import-
ing countries—both developed and developing—just as progress in the
fight against recession and inflation has become apparent. A price in-
crease would at the very least reduce the progress toward recovery in
the United States and it could plunge some countries into extremely se-
D. We trust that the member countries of OPEC will give proper
recognition to our concerns and to the possible consequences of an oil
price increase—not least of which is hindrance of progress toward a
more rational and prospering global economic structure.
Despite these de´marches, the OPEC Ministers agreed at the meeting in Vienna to a
10 percent price increase for the next 9 months. The price of marker crude would remain
at $11.51 until July 1, 1976. (Telegram 8283 from Vienna, September 27; National Ar-
chives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D750336–0380) The next day, the Embassy in
Jidda reported that Saudi Arabia “played a decisive and constructive role” at the meet-
ing, demonstrating a “willingness to stonewall almost to the end,” thereby preventing “a
price rise substantially greater than 10 percent.” It recommended a Presidential letter to
King Khalid “commending the courage and responsibility of his government.” (Tele-
gram 6626 from Jidda, September 28; ibid., D750336–0551) On October 2, Ford sent Kha-
lid a letter in which he wrote: “While I regret that any price increase was thought neces-
sary, I recognize that had it not been for the resolve and responsible leadership of Your
Majesty’s Government, the increase in the price of oil would have been even greater.”
(Telegram 234641 to Jidda, October 2; ibid., D750341–0276)
284 Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XXXVII
Telegram From the Department of State to the Mission to the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Washington, September 17, 1975, 1940Z.
221442. Subject: Letter to IEA Chairman Davignon. Please deliver
the following message from the Secretary to IEA Chairman Davignon:
Begin text of letter:
Dear Viscomte Davignon: Over the next few
months, we face a series of critical tests for our cooperation in energy.
On the one hand, we must meet our December 1 deadline for adoption
by the IEA of a serious and comprehensive program for our continuing
cooperation. At the same time, we must maintain the closest coordina-
tion within the IEA as we move forward with a dialogue with the pro-
ducer countries, assuring the Agency remains the principal forum for
all aspects of our energy relationships.
The adoption of a long term program is critical to the continued vi-
tality of the IEA. Unless we demonstrate our solidarity and our deter-
mination to take the difficult decisions necessary to reduce dependence
on imported oil, we risk that the IEA will not be taken seriously either
by our own publics or by the producers. I realize that the difficulties ex-
perienced here in this country in establishing an energy program have
made progress difficult in the IEA. However, with the recent action on
decontrol of our oil prices,
I am confident that we are beginning to
move domestically, and we must now push vigorously for rapid action
within the IEA.
As we prepare for the dialogue, we must give particular attention
to the role of the IEA and ensure that industrialized country positions
are fully coordinated.
In our view, the IEA must play a major role in the overall diplo-
matic activity related to the dialogue. It should also continue to serve as
the principal forum for the coordination of our substantive positions on
all energy and energy-related issues, with the two OECD ad hoc groups
providing a similar function for the commissions on raw materials and
development. With regard to the fourth commission, we believe that
the IEA, through its ad hoc group on financial and investment issues,
should serve as the primary point of coordination on all financial ques-
Source: Ford Library, National Security Adviser, Presidential Country Files for
Europe and Canada, Box 4, France—State Department Telegrams from SECSTATE–
NODIS (4). Confidential; Immediate; Nodis. Drafted by Bosworth, cleared by Katz and in
EUR/RPE, and approved by Kissinger.
Ford allowed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, which authorized con-
trols over the price of oil, to expire at midnight on August 31.
April 1975–October 1975 285
tions directly related to energy. The OECD’s temporary working party
under Mr. Van Ypersele
should coordinate all other financial issues.
We must also begin to consider how best to organize the overall in-
dustrialized country coordination. We will probably need a group
comprised of the chairmen of the OECD ad hoc groups, yourself as the
representative of the IEA, and appropriate representation from the in-
dustrialized countries in the group of 27. This group might be linked to
Tom Enders will continue to have direct responsibility for the U.S.
role in the IEA and all aspects of IEA activity. He will keep me closely
and directly informed on all developments. We want to continue to
work closely with you. I understand that you tentatively plan to visit
Washington in October. If my schedule permits, I would very much
like to see you during your visit. Sincerely, Henry A. Kissinger. End text
Jacques van Ypersele de Strihou of the Belgian Finance Ministry.
Telegram From the Department of State to Selected
Washington, September 27, 1975, 1644Z.
231000. Subject: Preparation for Prepcon II.
1. Prepcon II will convene in Paris October 13. The ten participants
will decide on a number of procedural questions in preparation for the
subsequent Ministerial conference.
2. To assist our preparations for this meeting action addressees are
requested to approach host government at appropriate levels to seek its
views on the following issues:
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D750336–0417.
Confidential; Immediate. Drafted by Raicht; cleared by Enders and Preeg and in ARA,
NEA/RA, AF, and E; and approved by Robinson. Sent to Algiers, Brasilia, Caracas, Jidda,
Kinshasa, New Delhi, and Tehran. Re-peated to Bonn, Dublin, Rome, Luxembourg, The
Hague, Copenhagen, Brussels, London, Vienna, Oslo, Ottawa, Tokyo, Wellington,
USOECD Paris, USEC Brussels, Ankara, Madrid, Bern, Stockholm, and USUN.
286 Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XXXVII
A. Site for Ministerial-level conference. Group of seven meeting in
mid-August indicated preference for Geneva or Paris.
USG would also
prefer neutral host country. Our preference is Vienna. We learned to-
day that Austrians have decided to offer Vienna as site for conference.
Austria is also prepared to chair Ministerial, but will not press for chair-
manship, as GOA considers having Vienna as site for conference more
B. Chairman: Group of seven consensus at August Geneva caucus
favored “neutral personality” which could even come from one of par-
ticipants in the conference. US believes we should adopt same balanced
approach the Ten have agreed to for the commissions and favors rota-
tating co-chairman selected by each side from amongst participants.
C. Secretariat: We wish to minimize institutional structure at this
early point in the dialogue. Therefore, we favor limiting secretariat to
small, temporary group providing technical services only such as inter-
preting, translation of documents, distribution and other housekeeping
D. Site (S) for commission meetings: This issue has not been dis-
cussed by either side and US has not yet formulated a position. Obvi-
ously, discussion of this question must await conclusion on chairman-
ship and site issues, however, we would appreciate indication of views
on this question.
E. Observers at commission: French aide-me´moire
“observers from organizations directly concerned with the problems
considered may sit on the commissions with the right to speak.” In oral
statement by French, it was indicated that both IEA and OPEC would
be invited to participate in energy commission. At August meeting of
group of seven in Geneva, consensus emerged favoring right of any na-
tion participating in conference to observe commission’s work. Com-
missions will be limited to 15 members. Obviously, right of all coun-
tries to sit in on work of commissions could vitiate purpose of limiting
size of commissions and we would oppose this. USG has no fixed views
on observer organizations in other commissions, except for IEA in
energy commission. We welcome views of host governments. What or-
ganizations do they envisage for each commission.
The group of seven LDC/OPEC nations that had participated in Prepcon I (Alge-
ria, Brazil, Indian, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Zaire) met informally in Geneva
August 10–12. (Telegram 6343 from Geneva, August 14; ibid., D750281–0169)
Telegram 231097, September 28, informed the same addressees as this telegram
that the United States, “in view of apparent growing support from EC countries,” would
support Paris as the site of the Prepcon. (Ibid., D750336–0571)
See Document 78.
April 1975–October 1975 287
F. Agenda: There has been no discussion of an agenda for the Min-
isterial conference. Participants will recall difficult negotiations on this
issue at April meeting which we are anxious to avoid. We believe
agenda for conference should be short and non-controversial.
G. Terms of reference for commissions: Consensus contains broad,
general statement regarding scope of commissions’ tasks. Does host
government envisage broadening these general descriptions or in-
cluding more detailed guidance at conference or is it agreeable to let-
ting each commission determine work program for itself. To avoid con-
troversy on this potentially difficult question at Prepcon, US would
prefer latter approach.
3. IEA Governing Board will meet October 10 to develop consen-
sus on above issues.
We would, therefore appreciate replies by Octo-
ber 3 at latest.
4. Request for reports on substantive issues will be forthcoming in
Regarding the second Prepcon, the IEA Governing Board at its October 10 meet-
ing “agreed on a common position on all anticipated procedural issues.” The U.S. repre-
sentative on the Board proposed that the IEA “demonstrate greater interest in the energy
problem of non-oil LDCs by adopting program to deal with these problems.” The Board
also debated the “future work of the Agency” and reached the consensus that the IEA
“should continue to concentrate on development of Long-Term Program, which will es-
tablish a comprehensive political framework which would provide guidance and direc-
tion for specific cooperative program.” (Telegram 26516 from USOECD Paris, October 11;
National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, D750354–1085)
288 Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XXXVII
Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of
Paris, October 16, 1975, 0557Z.
26805. Kuwait pass Baghdad. Subject: Prepcon II—Third Day. Ref:
1. Summary: Prepcon II concluded successfully at 4:10 a.m. Oc-
Last day spent in tedious negotiation of general guidelines
for the commissions which the Prepcon would recommend to the Min-
isterial conference. On Wednesday morning,
U.S. obtained EC and
Japanese approval for packet of material containing revised non-paper
(reftel) interpreting relevant paras of French consensus relating to work
of four commissions (paras 4.3–4.6) and annexes containing lists of dis-
cussion topics proposed by seven, and U.S. subsequent negotiations
with seven led to other changes but retained connection to relevant
paras in consensus.
It was subsequently agreed that the two lists of
topics for discussion by commissions would be detached and filed as
official Prepcon documents. In final plenary Japanese delegate stated
that while Japan might wish later to submit its own list of topics for dis-
cussion, the US list generally covered the subjects his country wished to
discuss. Final communique´ incorporated negotiated guidelines and
Prepcon agreements on procedural issus.
2. Final conference communique´ follows: Begin text:
Final Declaration of the Preparatory Meeting for the Conference on
International Economic Co-operation, Paris, 16 October 1975
1. The participants in the preparatory meeting for the international
conference proposed by the President of the French Republic, which
was held in Paris from 7 to 15 April 1975, met again at the International
Conference Centre from 13 to 16 October 1975 under the technical
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files, P760140–2253.
Confidential; Immediate. Repeated to Bern, Stockholm, The Hague, Madrid, Copenha-
gen, Oslo, London, Dublin, Wellington, USUN, Tokyo, Ottawa, Caracas, Brasilia, Vienna,
Luxembourg, Brussels for the Embassy and USEC, Bonn, Rome, Ankara, Tehran, Jidda,
New Delhi, Kinshasa, Libreville, Lagos, Tripoli, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Doha, Quito, Ja-
karta, Baghdad, USOECD Paris, and Algiers.
Telegram 26678 from Paris, October 15, transmitted the text of the U.S.
“non-paper,” which revised the proposed “new language describing four commissions”
introduced by the seven OPEC/LDC countries. (Ibid., D750356–0877) The new language
introduced by “the seven,” as they were called, was transmitted in telegram 26677 from
Paris, October 15. (Ibid., D750357–0032)
Telegrams 26530, October 13, and 26676, October 15, from Paris, reported on the
first and second days of Prepcon II. (Both ibid., D750355–0374 and D750356–0870)
The consensus proposal in the French aide-me´moire; see Document 78.
April 1975–October 1975 289
chairmanship of Mr. de Guiringaud, Ambassador of France, with a
view to pursuing preparation for the dialogue on energy, raw mate-
rials, problems of development, including all related financial
2. The ten delegations confirmed the agreement of their authorities
on the convening of an international conference on these questions.
They decided that the conference will be called the “Conference on In-
ternational Economic Co-operation”, that it will be held in Paris, that it
will be composed of 27 members designated as indicated below, and
that it will be convened at Ministerial level on 16 December 1975 for a
session of two or possibly three days. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations will be invited to the Ministerial conference.
3. The European Economic Community, the United States and
Japan, on the one hand, and the seven developing countries partici-
pating in the preparatory meeting (Algeria, Brazil, India, Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela, Zaire), on the other hand, will assume responsi-
bility for the designation, from among their respective groups and ac-
cording to the procedures which the industrialized countries and the
developing countries, respectively, deem appropriate, of five industri-
alized countries and twelve developing countries, to be added to the
present participants so as to bring to twenty-seven the number of par-
ticipants in the conference. The French Government will be notified,
within a period which should not exceed one month, of the list thus es-
tablished of the delegations to be invited to the Ministerial conference.
4. The ten delegations also decided that the conference should
have two co-chairmen chosen respectively by each of the two partici-
pating groups from among its members, and that they should preside
alternately over the meetings in a manner to be agreed between them.
The participants in the preparatory meeting recommend that the two
co-chairmen should be designated as soon as possible after the lists
of participants in the conference have been completed, and they sug-
gest that the two co-chairmen should begin, immediately after being
designated, to take together all necessary steps, in liaison with the
host country, to ensure that the Ministerial conference proceeds
5. The preparatory meeting proposes to the Ministerial conference
that it set up a commission for energy, a commission for raw materials,
a commission for development and a commission for financial affairs.
Each of these commissions should consist of fifteen members, ten of
them representing developing participants in the conference from
among its members.
6. In determining the composition of its representation in each
commission, each of the two groups at the conference should choose
from among its members those who, because of their special interest
290 Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XXXVII
and the overall significance of their participation, seem best suited to
take part in order that the work may be carried out in an effective and
7. The chairmanship of each of the commissions should be as-
sumed by two co-chairmen designated by each of the two groups re-
spectively. Joint meetings of the co-chairmen of the commissions may
be planned if the need arises.
8. The preparatory meeting recommends that the intergov-
ernmental functional organizations which are directly concerned with
the problems considered, and which the Ministerial conference deems
to be able to make a useful contribution to their discussion, be repre-
sented on a permanent basis in the corresponding commissions by ob-
servers with the right to speak but without the right to vote, and hence
not participating in the formation of a consensus. In addition to the
United Nations Secretariat, the list of these organizations should in-
clude, in particular, OPEC, IEA, UNCTAD, OECD, FAO, GATT,
UNIDO, UNDP, IMF, and IBRD. Furthermore, each commission may
invite appropriate intergovernmental functional organizations to par-
ticipate as observers ad hoc in the examination of specific questions.
9. Members of the conference wishing to follow the work of a com-
mission to which they do not belong should be entitled to appoint a
representative in the capacity of auditor without the right to speak.
10. The activities of the four commissions whose establishment is
recommended by the preparatory meeting will proceed on the basis of
the relevant paragraphs of the aide-me´moire annexed to the French
(A) It is understood that the commission on energy will facilitate
all arrangements which may seem advisable in the field of energy.
(B) It is understood that the commission on raw materials will take
into account the progress made in other international forums and will
be entrusted with facilitating the establishment or reinforcement, as the
case may be, or arrangements which may seem advisable in the field of
raw materials—including foodstuffs—which are of particular interest
to developing countries.
(C) It is understood that the commission on development will take
into account the progress in other international forums and the results
achieved, and will be entrusted with facilitating the establishment
or reinforcement, as the case may be, of arrangements for accelerating
the development of developing countries, on the basis of close
See footnote 4, Document 78.
April 1975–October 1975 291
(D) It is understood that the commission on financial affairs may
discuss financial issues, including their monetary aspects, of impor-
tance to member countries, while respecting the jurisdiction of interna-
tional institutions (IMF, IBRD).
(E) It is understood that the four commissions should function in
parallel and that the results of their work are linked and should be sub-
mitted to the Ministerial conference.
11. It is agreed that any delegation may raise any subject relevant
to the themes of the dialogue for discussion in the commissions.
12. It has been agreed in accordance with the relevant paragraphs
of the above-mentioned aide-me´moire that the Ministerial conference
will be called upon to set the general guidelines for the work of the
13. The preparatory meeting recommends to the Ministerial con-
ference that the relevant paragraphs of the above-mentioned
aide-me´moire, as interpreted and clarified above, as well as the
above-mentioned guidelines for the commissions. [sic]
14. Some delegations have already tabled with this preparatory
meeting documents proposing subjects to be discussed in the commis-
sions. The preparatory meeting recommends that the Ministerial con-
ference agree that these and any other proposals which may be tabled
subsequently in accordance with the general guidelines be discussed in
15. As regards the practical measures, the preparatory meeting rec-
ommends that the conference adopt English, Arabic, Spanish and
French as official languages and working languages.
16. The preparatory meeting recommends that the conference
adopt the rules of procedure which it itself had adopted, and which are
based, in particular, on the principle of “consensus”, according to
which decisions and recommendations are adopted when the chair has
established that no member delegation has made any objection.
17. The preparatory meeting considers that the conference should
have an international secretariat with an exclusively administrative
and technical function, the Ministerial meeting being responsible on
the basis of proposals by the two co-chairmen, for determining its orga-
nization, establishing its operational procedure and allocating the fi-
nancial costs in respect of it. It is understood, however, that pending a
decision on the provisions to be adopted for the continuation of the
work, the French Government will assume responsibility and provide
the secretariat for the Ministerial meeting scheduled for December
1975, under the conditions in which these services were provided for
the preparatory meeting.
18. The preparatory meeting finally recommends that the Ministe-
rial conference decide to meet again at Ministerial level in about twelve
292 Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume XXXVII
months’ time. One or several meetings of the conference at the level of
government officials could possibly be held at least six months after the
first meeting of the conference.
19. In conclusion, the participants paid tribute to President Giscard
d’Estaing for the initiative taken by him, thanks to which a dialogue
was successfully initiated, and to the French Government for all the ef-
forts it has made towards that end. End text.
3. Conference concluded with constructive and conciliatory atmos-
phere similar to that existing at start of meeting. General sentiment was
that, despite difficulties Tuesday night,
first step in dialogue scenario
had successfully set stage for December Ministerial and inauguration
of substantive work in the four commissions.
4. In brief press conference at close of Prepcon, de Guiringaud ap-
plauded cooperative spirit which led to agreement on final declaration
and lists of topics for discussion in commissions. He released to press
final declaration of Prepcon, French aide-me´moire and lists submitted
by group of seven and U.S. Recommend Department make these docu-
ments available to press, emphasizing that para 10 of final declaration
incorporates relevant paras (4.3 to 4.6) of aide-me´moire.
5. Under Secretary Robinson followed with short press conference
praising the cooperative attitude of the participants and stressing the
importance of the dialogue to increased international understanding.
6. Septel contains lists of topics for commissions submitted by U.S.
Download 8.4 Mb.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling