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

28. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, July 16, 1981, 10:30–11:30 a.m.

SUBJECT

• Summary of Richard Allen’s Meeting with Ambassador Andres Rozental of Mexico

PARTICIPANTS

• Richard V. Allen, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
• Charles Tyson, Staff Member, NSC
• Henry Nau, Staff Member, NSC
• Ambassador Andres Rozental, Coordinator for the Cancun Summit
• Jorge Navarrete, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico
• Florenzio Acosta Burgunder, Minister, the Embassy of Mexico, Washington, D.C.
• Georg Lennkh, Assistant to the Federal Chancellor of Austria
• Nikolaus Scherk, Minister-Counsellor, Embassy of Austria, Washington, D.C.
• Carmen Moreno, Director General for Economic Multilateral Affairs, Mexico

Allen noted that this visit was appropriate coming in the throes of the Ottawa preparation. There is a direct link in that Ottawa is a step to Cancun. The President is looking forward to Cancun. He is pleased to have been invited and will be exceptionally well-prepared. Charles Tyson has already been to Cancun to review the site. How can we cooperate with you in this event?

Navarrete thanked Mr. Allen for this opportunity. He agreed that Ottawa and Cancun were linked. He is looking forward hopefully to results from Ottawa which will improve the atmosphere of Cancun. The biggest step that Ottawa can take is to devote enough time for substantive exchanges on North-South issues and to reflect in the Communique the common or main lines of approach by the industrialized countries to North-South issues. One specific step is a concrete reference to Global Negotiations. Many countries are expecting a reaffirmation of willingness to start discussions again as soon as possible. Together with general guidelines on a common approach to North-South issues, this would improve the atmosphere and signal the basis for a consensus at Cancun. These expectations may not be met because other problems may preoccupy the leaders at Ottawa. But I would stress the importance of Ottawa results in three areas: devoting attention to North-South issues, a reference to Global Negotiations, and showing positive spirit for future discussions at Cancun.

Lennkh suggested that the relationship between Ottawa and Cancun was perhaps not so concrete. We have a new situation today in comparison to 9 months ago. The US has changed its attitude 180°. Carter said no to Cancun and would have been interested only if it had been concrete. Reagan has said yes to Cancun but wants it to be general and philosophical. Many countries are apprehensive about the US position towards North-South. Gandhi wrote to Kreisky about US attitude. Yugoslavia has suggested the need to approach the US to encourage it to make a gesture towards the Global Negotiations. Ottawa cannot make a major breakthrough to be sure. But the question is what should we expect at Cancun. Everyone is looking at Washington.

Allen responded that he was pleased, puzzled, enthused, and amused all at the same time. Recently in Plains, Carter reaffirmed that he had no intention of going to Cancun. Reagan has reversed that policy. But we don’t consider this our meeting. We regret that everybody is looking to the United States. Of course they may be worried about the weight of the US once we climb into the water with other countries, but Cancun is a meeting to which the US has been invited like other countries. We have some ideas but they are only our ideas. They should not prejudice the agenda or discussion. It is nice to hear that some countries have noticed that US policy has changed. It is better to hear that than to hear about continuing apprehension. There is room for some small recognition of the steps we have taken. The President gave careful consideration to this. He saw both benefits and risk. The risks naturally are always there. The US and the President will participate as one of the invited guests. We are puzzled about what the objectives are. You have mentioned Global Negotiations. In our discussion with Prime Minister Trudeau, we found no acceptable definition of global negotiations.² Let me clarify our view of the global negotiations process. To begin with, the US has not been an active participant in North-South issues. Going to Cancun is a big step. We recognize a connection between global dialogue and Global Negotiations. Our reluctance on the terminology of Global Negotiations reflects US understanding that negotiations create expectations of concrete legal results, implying obligations for performance. From our conversation with Lopez Portillo in Mexico, we understand that others also do not see this meeting as negotiating fixed agreements. We must build a constituency for global negotiations in this country. We will have to be able to explain it. Given all of these constraints, we are convinced that we should be listeners at Cancun. This implies no obligation but nevertheless a responsibility to come away with a greater understanding and sharpened definition of what global negotiations are all about. We mentioned Ottawa as a step toward Cancun. However, we don’t necessarily see links. We will not try to coordinate a position among the Ottawa countries. We don’t see Ottawa as an opportunity to align ourselves against others. We will discuss our views toward Cancun but won’t come up with agreed posture. I hope that you now better understand our reluctance to use terminology which may be familiar to you but is unclear to us.

Navarrete said that it is necessary to distinguish between global dialogue and Global Negotiations. The Global Negotiations was taken up in the 1979 UN resolution. The elements of the process were specified. The problems arose later in translating the resolution into a concrete agenda and procedures for negotiations. We need to do more work in the dialogue, not to define Global Negotiations, but to determine how to translate it into practice. Perhaps discussions at a high level in Ottawa and Cancun will facilitate the environment to launch Global Negotiations. This will be expected by LDCs from Cancun. It will be a measure of success or failure whether Cancun produces a clear understanding for facilitating agreement on Global Negotiations. This is important, especially for non-participating countries. The rest of the discussions at Cancun will be loose providing an opportunity at a high level to establish importance and priority of North-South issues. This involves a general recognition of how the world economy is working at the moment and some guidelines for future negotiations. These results at Cancun could provide impetus elsewhere, particularly in New York. It is important that Ottawa not be seen as the advance countries getting together to push a common point-of-view. This will provoke a similar LDC meeting and subsequent bloc confrontation. From Ottawa, we expect a message as positive as possible on substance and a reference to Global Negotiations.

Allen indicated that Ottawa would not disappoint them. It is always, of course, a matter of degree. We approach Cancun with an open mind, without ulterior motives. We have the impression that developing countries may be further away from a definition of Global Negotiations than they think they are, but Cancun gives us a chance to listen. Then we will have to wait and see.

Rozental stated that it was important that there be no link between Global Negotiations and Cancun. This link emerges, however, because there is currently no Global Negotiations in New York.

Allen interjected, “so Cancun is the vehicle for that?”

Rozental replied that he would like it to be. Cancun can’t resolve Global Negotiations issues, but it can show political will.

Allen said, let me tell you what Trudeau said. Global Negotiations must replace the dialogue since the latter means nothing more than talk, talk, talk. Now, in our vocabulary we don’t use the word global that often. It is a geographical term. The French word means universal. In our constituency there is no understanding of these terms. That further explains our reluctance. Moreover, we tend to get attacked in these meetings, which also doesn’t help us with our constituency. That is why it is nice to hear good things about the US every now and then.

Rozental responded that it is also important to them that good things be said. He noted that Kreisky and Lopez Portillo have spoken very favorably about the US attitude toward Cancun.

Allen said, yes indeed, and we need to hear it often. Could there have been a Cancun without the US?

Lennkh said probably not. The US is terribly important.

Navarrete added that others look to the US because of the size and weight of the US and because the US attitude is often the main roadblock in North-South discussions.

Allen concluded by pointing out that he did not want to be understood to say that we were acting like Jesuits in seeking a precise definition of Global Negotiations. One of Allen’s old professors in Germany used to say that a definition can never define something. But we need to pass through the process together of developing this definition and getting a better understanding. The Latins have a greater appreciation for imprecision than we do in the US.

1. Source: Reagan Library, Douglas McMinn Files, Economic Summit Files, Mexico—General; NLR–369–11–13–1–5. Confidential. The meeting took place in the Situation Room. No drafting information appears on the memorandum.
2. See Document 23.