~---..

~PERSONAL AND
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIALNOT FOR PUBUCATION
IUTH&R IN WHOLE OR IN PARTBILDERBERG MEETINGSSALTSJOBADENCONFERENCE
11-13 May 1973

j
l
l

i
l

'•

~~

BILDERBERG MEETINGSSALTSJOBADENCONFERENCE
l l-13 May 1973

CONTENTS

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

5INTRODUCTION . . . .

9

FIRST ITEM OF THE AGENDA"The Possibilities of the Development of a European Energy Policy, andthe Consequences for European-North American Relations."
Summary of and Introduction to the International Working Paper
Summary of and Introduction to the American Working Paper.
Discussion : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13
22

35

SECOND ITEM OF THE AGENDA"Conflicting Expectations Concerning the European Security Conference."
St:mmary of and Introduction to the Norwegian Working Paper
Summary of and Introduction to the American Working Paper.
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73
81
89

_JI

r

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

CHAIRMAN:
H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF THE NETHERLANDSHONORARY SECRETARY GENERAL FOR EUROPE:ERNST H. VAN DER BEUGELHONORARY SECRETARY GENERAL FOR THE UNITED STATES:
JosEPH E. JOHNSONHONORARY TREASURER:
C. FRITS KARSTENAGNELLI, GIOVANNI

ITALYANDERSON, ROBERT 0.

UNITED STATESBALL, GEORGE W.

UNITED STATESBAUMGARTNER, WILFRID S.

FRANCE

B1>NNETT, SIR FREDERIC

UNITED KINGDOMBEYAZIT, SELAHATTIN

TURKEY

BIRm, M. NuRI

TURKEY

BJ0L, ERLING

DENMARKBJORGERD, ANDERSSWEDENBoITEUX, MARCELFRANCEBREUEL, BIRGITGERMANY

BRZEZINSKI, ZBIGNIEWUNITED STATESBUNDY, WILLIAM P.

UNITED STATESCITTADINI CESI, IL MARCHESEITALYCOLLADO, EMILIO G.

UNITED STATESDEAN, ARTHUR H.
DRAKE, SIR Eruc

UNITED STATESUNITED KINGDOM

DuccI, RoBERTO

ITALY

GIROTTI, RAFFAELE

ITALY

5

GRANIER DE LILLIAC, RENE

FRANCESPAAK, FERNANDGREENHILL, SIR DENIS

UNITED KINGDOMSTEHLIN, PAULCANADA
DENMARKSTILLE, UGO
STOLTENBERG, THORVALDHALLGRIMSSON, GEIRICELANDSTONE, SHEPARD

HEALEY, DENIS

UNITED KINGDOMSTRANG, GUNNAR

UNITED STATESTAVERNE, RICHARD

GRIFFIN, ANTHONY G.

s.

HAAGERUP, NIELS j.

HEINZ II, HENRY J.
H0EGH, LEIFNORWAYTERKELSEN, TERKEL M.

HouTHUYs, JozEF

BELGIUM

TrnEMAND, OTTO G.

JANSSEN, DANIEL E.

BELGIUM

UDINK, BEREND J.

KERSTEN, OTTOINTERNATIONALUMBRICHT, VICTOR H.

KoHNSTAMM, MAx

INTERNATIONAL

WAGNER, GERRIT A.

LAPHAM jR., LEWIS H.

UNITED STATESVVALLENBERG, MARCUS

LEHTO, SAKARIFINLANDWICKMAN, KRISTERLENNEP, jONKHEER EMILE VAN

INTERNATIONALWILSON, CARROLL L.

LEVY, WALTER].

UNITED STATESWisCHNEWSKI, HANs-]iiRGEN

LIED, FINNNORWAYWOLFF VON AMERONGEN, OTTO

LoMBARDINI, Srno

ITALY

LuNs, JosEPH M.A. H.

INTERNATIONALLOUGHEED, PETERCANADA

MACDONALD, DONALD S.

CANADAMAUDLING, REGINALDUNITED KINGDOMSvENssoN, NILSMERLINI, CESAREITALY

LINDGREN, HuGo

SWITZERLAND

VERNEDE, EDWIN

MOYERS, BILL D.

UNITED STATESGETCHELLjR., CHARLES W.

NEWHOUSE, jOHN

UNITED STATESUNITED KINGDOMPALME, 0LOF

SWEDENPERKINS, JAMES A.

UNITED STATESPHILIPS, FRITS J.

NETHERLANDSRITCHIE, ALBERT E.

CANADA

ROLL, SIR ERICUNITED KINGDOMROTHSCHILD, BARON EDMOND DE

FRANCE

RozEMOND, SAMUELNETHERLANDSSCHMIDT, HELMUTGERMANYSEYDOUX DE CLAUSONNE, ROGERFRANCESIMON, JoHN M.

UNITED KINGDOMSMITH, GERARD

c.

ITALY
NORWAYUNITED STATESSWEDEN
UNITED KINGDOMDENMARKNORWAYNETHERLANDSSWITZERLAND
NETHERLANDSSWEDENSWEDEN
UNITED STATESGERMANYGERMANYSWEDENSWEDENNETHERLANDSUNITED STATESUNITED STATESSNoY ET D'OPPUERs, BARONBELGIUM

SOMMER, THEOGERMANY·

6

FRANCEIN ATTENDANCE:METTLER, ERICH

OWEN, DAVIDINTERNATIONAL

7

I

INTRODUCTION

The twenty-second Bilderberg Meeting was held at the Grand Hotel Saltsjiibaden in Saltsjiibaden, Sweden, on 11, 12 and 13 May 1973 under the chairmanship ofH.R.H. The Prince of the Netherlands.
There were 80 participants, drawn from a variety of fields: government andpolitics, universities, journalism, diplomacy, industry, transport, trade unions,the law, banking, foundation administration and military service. They camefrom thirteen Western European countries, the United States, Canada andvarious international organizations.
In accordance with the rules adopted at each Meeting, all participants spoke
in a purely personal capacity without in any way committing whatever government or organization to which they might belong. To enable participants to
speak with the greatest possible frankness, the discussions were confidential
with no reporters being admitted.

The Agenda was as follows:
I. The Possibilities of the Development of a European Energy Policy, andthe Consequences for European-North American Relations.
II. Conflicting Expectations Concerning the European Security Conference.
At the opening of the meeting, H.R.H. The Prince of the Netherlands read atelegram of thanks and good wishes which he had sent to H.M. Gustav VI
Adolf and the reply which he had received from the latter.
His Royal Highness expressed his regret at the absence of Professor John
Pesmazoglou, whose request for permission to leave Greece had been denied,and of Mr. Gerhard Schroder of West Germany, whose political commitments
had prevented him at the last moment from attending.
After recalling the Bilderberg rules of procedure, The Prince turned to thefirst item of the Agenda.

9

I

THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT
OF A EUROPEAN ENERGY POLICY, AND THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROPEAN-NORTH AMERICANRELATIONS

The background for discussion of this topic consisted of two working papers- one written by an International participant, the other by an American
participant - which had been distributed before the meeting. These papers,
and the comments of their authors in introducing them to the meeting, aresummarized below.

..

..

..

GUIDELINES FOR A EUROPEAN ENERGYPOLICY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON RELATIONSBETWEEN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA
The International author of this working paper began by pointing out that
there was fairly widespread agreement as to why the energy situation was
alarming. The relevant figures were generally known, and diagnoses of theenergy trend differed little. The problem was what treatment to apply: weneeded an effort of imagination to avoid lapsing into fatalism, and a strong
sense of realism to guard against a Utopian approach.
In this spirit, he proposed to examine the guidelines of a common energy
policy for the European Community, and then to consider how the mainenergy-consuming countries might cooperate with one another.

I. The Community energy policy. Mapping out a Community energy policy was along-term task. So far it had produced a limited number of specific measures,
but a new impetus was called for now, inspired by an overall vision.
A. Gradual materialization of the Community energy policy
Since the ECSC and Euratom treaties had dealt specifically with coal and

~
j

I

j

13

nuclear energy, the Rome Treaty contained no special provisions for energy
as it did for agriculture and transport. This omission was explained in part by
the fact that energy was plentiful and readily available.
During the first decade of the Rome Treaty, however, the idea of a common
energy policy had gradually taken shape, and by 1968 a detailed inventory
had been drawn up of the principles and objectives which should guide European
activity in the energy field. This had been followed by various specific measures:aids for coal; the regulation obliging member states to accumulate oil stocks
equivalent to 65 days' use; and the systematic use of economic reports andforecasts.
More recently, the development of the Community energy policy had beenmarked by proposals for the extension of the joint enterprise system to· thehydrocarbon sector, the setting up of European uranium enrichment facilities,
the increase of compulsory oil stocks from 65 to go days, the introduction ofa
harmonized system to combat the effects of momentary interruptions in
supplies, and the establishment of import arrangements for hydrocarbons.

B. Fresh impetus for the Community energy policy
The enlargement of the Community offered numerous areas of activity inwhich greater European initiative could be developed, including the energy
sector.

The reasons. During the past two or three years, a new attitude to -energy
problems had emerged, both within the Community and in the world at large.
There were many reasons for this, ranging from the increasingly effective way
in which the oil producing countries were directly influencing energy patterns,
to concern about energy industries' respecting the environment, and finallyto anxiety about the world's energy supplies toward the encl of this century.
Although energy problems were still closely bound up with technical andeconomic factors, they were increasingly colored by political considerations.
The European Community, heavily dependent on the outside world for its
energy supplies, could not evade the problem without imperiling its own
subsequent development. It was therefore encouraging that the participants in
the Paris summit meeting of October 1972 had asked the Community institutions to draw up an energy policy to ensure reliable long-term supplies on
satisfactory economic terms. The Commission's main present concern - as its
latest proposals showed - was the question of supplies.
1.

2.

14

New objectives of the Community energy policy. Progress in developing theCommunity energy policy would require systematic attention to the major
problems arising from present trends; recognition of the priority of supply
strategy; and equipment of the Community institutions with certain means ofcontrol.
(a) General problems. No energy policy could be conceived today which did
not encompass these aims:(i) respect for the environment through research projects to combat pollution caused by the production, transport, storage and consumption of energy,
these projects to be incorporated in the Commission's general plan of action on
the environment;(ii) more rational use of energy to reduce the problems of supply andenvironmental protection and offset the potential increase in energy costs;(iii) research to achieve more efficient production and use of energy, andto discover new sources of energy, new resources, or ways of using resources
already known;(iv) developing contacts between the Community and other energy importing countries with a view to better mutual information and the adoption of
joint solutions;(v) improving economic and social cooperation with the energy exporting
countries to promote the aim of stable relations between equal partners.
(b) Priority measures on supplies. The Community's main energy problem wasto ensure reliable supplies in an increasingly uncertain market. Therefore, theenergy supply trend had to be carefully watched and, if necessary, directedfrom a Community standpoint. Apart from the problem of financing very
considerable investments, this meant that the Community had not only tosupervise the conditions of competition but also to be able to influence thecompetitive positions of the various forms of energy. Concrete measures weremost pressing in these fields:
Mutual information - The information which had been obtained on importsof hydrocarbons, on investments, and on foreseeable trends in these two
fields, had to be supplemented by information on prospecting for hydrocarbons,on the gas industry and on uranium reserves and resources. This would give
the Community a better idea of the prospects offered by the large hydrocarbon
reserves in the North Sea.
Reliable supply sources - An urgent decision was needed on the implementationof a new system of aids to coking coal to help maintain its production in theCommunity. The problems of maintaining a coal consumption capacity inpower plants also had to be studied, as part ofa general policy for power plant
15

j

I

fuel supplies. The existence of a major coal industry in Great Britain ma0e thisespecially important.
With regard to hydrocarbons, the object ought to be to encourage prospecting on Community territory or territories considered as reliable, and if not
to establish the principle of Community priority for supplies of natural gas
tapped from its own soil, including the continental shelf, then at least to prevent
national export restrictions contrary to the Treaty of Rome.
As regards nuclear energy, it would be necessary to make use of the facilities
offered by the treaties and to adopt measures on nuclear fuel supplies, andespecially the establishment of European uranium enrichment plants.
Measures to overcome supply difficulties - In addition to preparing concerted
measures to be taken when oil crises occurred, it was important to continue
developing a Community policy on the stockpiling of oil products. Concrete
proposals were also needed on the stockpiling of Community or imported coal,and of fuels for conventional power plants and natural or enriched uranium,
Smooth functioning of the common market - This could not be ensured without
first solving certain general problems, such as the liberalization of public
works contracts, the notification of intended mergers, and direct and indirect
taxation in the energy sector.
For oil, it would be necessary to harmonize price arrangements and to
remove technical obstacles to trade. In the electricity and nuclear energy
sectors, there had to be better coordination of national development programs
and of safety criteria and technical standards, as well as of the location of power
plants and the awarding of electricity licences. Finally, national and Community regulations on nuclear plant safety had to be harmonized.
Structure of the energy industry - A considerable step forward would be achieved
here with the notification of intended mergers and the solution of problems
connected with direct taxation. Information about new investments would
enable the Community to follow the structural development of the energy
industry.
Common import arrangements - The Community had rapidly to establish importarrangements for oil products and a definition of their origin. The implementation of procedures would depend on particular market conditions.
(c) Establishment of Community means of control. To keep fully informed about
the energy market, the Commission was - in addition to the ways and means
already enumerated - now setting up a system of regular price surveys for thevarious energy products. The Community also had to be empowered tocoordinate national measures (existing and proposed), and to harmonize
scientific and technical research. Finally, the Commission had already present16

ed the regulation on joint hydrocarbon undertakings which should encourage
major research schemes in the hydrocarbon sector or oil stockpiling projects,
thus helping to solve supply problems and to establish the common market.
The emphasis laid on the way in which the Community energy policy wasconceived should not lead us to neglect the Community's energy relations
with the other energy consuming countries. That, together with the Community's relations with the energy exporting countries (not discussed in thispaper), constituted one of the principal factors at issue.

II. Energy cooperation between the Community, the US and Japan
A. The reasons for cooperation: Chief among these was the fact that the Community, the US and Japan were all dependent, at least in the medium term,on other countries for their energy supplies, with all the economic, political andsecurity problems that this implied.
Because of the increasingly global scale of the energy supply question, allindividual efforts to improve a pattern of supply required consultation with theother major importing regions. Governments of the consumer countries could
no longer escape the responsiblility of ensuring reliable energy supplies. And
if they did not cooperate, this responsibility would lead them to competitive
bidding and finally into a clash.
The task of improving relations between energy importing countries should
begin with consultations between Europe, the US and Japan. These three
regions, which represented about 60 per cent of world energy consumption,accounted for an even greater proportion of world trade in energy products, as
they absorbed 80 per cent of world energy exports.
Two other reasons for cooperation were bound up with the world responsibilities of these countries. First, an energy crisis or an increase in energy costs
could irremediably jeopardize the economic expansion of developing countries
which had no resources of their own. Secondly, the misuse or inadequate
control of the financial resources of the oil producing countries could completely
disorganize and undermine the world monetary system.
B. General principles and limits of cooperation: The European Community had
already made it known unofficially that it favored energy cooperation with the
US and Japan, primarily to eliminate futile outbidding between the importer
countries for supplies, especially from the Middle East. The proposed cooperation could also reduce waste of financial resources on individual projects inscientific and technical research, environmental protection and rational use ofenergy. Moreover, it could speed up the achievement of the desired results.

17

Founded on the principles of non-discriminatory treatment and reciprocity
of commitments, this cooperation should not inhibit the Community or leadto the unilateral dependence of Europe or Japan on the US, whose industrial
power, financial strength and unity were likely to give it the dominant role in
the proposed consultations. Europe should define and retain its identity, andbe able to implement its own measures and make its own choices. Europe's"personality" was already apparent in its relations with the developing
countries, some of which were exporters of energy, and of hydrocarbons inparticular. Geography and history affected these relations, as did the awarenessof the mutual benefit to be derived from an increased interdependence of theCommunity's markets and the developing industries of the producer countries,
which was bound to serve the general interest.
However, the objective of cooperation between consumer countries should
not make the Community forget its weak points vis-a-vis the US and theeconomic and political risks implied. The American oil companies held about athird of the European market (transport by pipeline, refining and distributing);
this had hampered the development of the European companies. It would
therefore be alarming ifthe US companies, for reasons of profitability, were led
to redirect their production towards the US market. Recent American imports
oflow-sulphur fuel oil refined in Europe, and their impact on European prices,
illustrated Europe's sensitivity to American market phenomena.
On the international level, American strategic and political commitments,
both in the Middle East and along the Community's supply lines, might
constitute an indirect threat to supplies of hydrocarbons to Europe. These same
factors were encouraging certain countries in that region to establish privileged
relations with the US, thereby prejudicing supplies to other consumer countries.
This underlined the need both for close cooperation between the consumer
countries and for the assertion by Europe of some political presence in the
Middle East.
Finally, in the nuclear sector, Europe was still too dependent on US technology. The situation in the fuel cycle industry was comparable, if less serious.
The recent US decisions on the prices and terms of sale of enriched uranium
reinforced Europe's and Japan's fears as to what might happen ifthere were no
consultations with the US, and also as to what obligations and limits suchconsultations should involve.
On the other hand, the proposed consultations should not look as if they
were creating a bloc of energy importing countries as against the bloc of energy
exporting countries, and even less as if they were a defensive reaction of theindustrialized countries. It had to be made clear that, although this cooperation
was designed to improve the conditions of supply of the consumer countries, it

18

was aimed above all at stability and controlled development, for the benefit ofboth exporting and importing countries. Furthermore, this cooperation should
not prevent the establishment of more favorable relations between consumer
and producer countries, which could be achieved, for instance, by a kind ofcommodity agreement on energy between all concerned; this would particularly favor the expansion of the developing countries with no energy resources
and the stabilization of the international monetary system.
C. Areas suitable for consultations between the Community, the US and Japan. Consultations should be as diversified as possible and could embrace nearly all
aspects of energy policy.
1. The objectives ef cooperation, The main concern of energy policy now was
not so much cost as the assurance of reliable long-term supplies, capable ofadjusting to the expected increase in demand. The question was thus how to
try to avert crises and how to cope with them if they occurred.
Coping with temporary interruptions in supplies required close consultation
between the Community, the US and Japan concerning the creation and useof emergency stocks, aimed at a harmonized rationing system and perhaps aprovisional pooling of transport facilities and available resources.
Crises could be avoided both by improving the present rules of the game andby modifying the factors in a short-term economic situation marked by excessive dependence on certain hydrocarbon producing countries. The rules of thegame would be improved by increased consultation between governments, andbetween governments and companies, when a crisis threatened. With producing
countries now holding fundamental responsibilities in the oil sector, thegovernments of the importing countries had to be more fully informed of theintentions of the companies before and during any negotiations. It was nolonger tolerable that negotiations should be conducted without the participation of the consumer countries which bore the ultimate consequences. Throughclose consultations, the producer countries would be clearly informed of the
responsibility assumed by the consumer countries, which would facilitate theposition of the companies.
The risk of crises would also be reduced by consultations among the energy
consuming countries leading to greater diversification of resources and thedevelopment of new sources of energy, for example by encouraging prospecting
on the ocean floor and the continental shelf, and by harmonizing scientific andtechnical research projects. Such cooperation might often imply direct governmental financial assistance.
Finally, the development of coherent and better defined energy policies,

19

through consultations between the Community, the US and Japan, would help
to clarify the situation and reduce the risks of crisis.
2. Procedures for cooperation. Cooperation could take the form of systematic
exchanges of information, harmonization of energy policies where necessary,and specific cooperation projects.

(a) Information exchanges were especially important on the following subjects:- the current energy situation and estimated trends, including periodic joint
reports;- the results achieved by public bodies and private industry in their efforts
to develop energy resources;- any specific problem which could be more easily solved by joint action of
the energy importing countries;- measures taken or planned which might alter the supply situation, including the structure of the energy industry and market operating conditions.
(b) Harmonization ef energy policies of the Community, the US and Japan
should be sought. On the domestic side, common safety standards could beenvisaged for energy plants, especially in the nuclear sector. Similarly common
specifications could be adopted for products, notably the maximum content of
noxious substances, which would help solve environmental problems andavoid difficulties on consumer markets. Finally, harmonized compulsory
stockpiling policies and concerted arrangements for rationing, administeringand allocating available resources when necessary, should be an excellent way
of coping with crises. With regard to external energy policies, some degree of
harmonization would prevent the Community, the US and Japan from engaging in unbridled competition and futile outbidding in the scramble for oil.
In cooperation with the companies concerned, the public authorities should
consult each other on the supply policies they intended to pursue in the various
regions possessing energy resources. The advantages of such consultations
were obvious but the practical procedures might be difficult: it was hard, forinstance, to imagine any rigid allocation of resources between the main importing regions now that these resources were increasingly controlled by the
producer countries. At all events, no consultations should be undertaken
without the governments of our countries first adopting a common attitude
towards the oil companies, and the means to ensure that this attitude wasrespected.
Finally, with an eye to future negotiations between the producer countries
20

and the companies, particularly on the question of taxation, the Community,
the US and Japan should at least coordinate the instructions which they would
then be giving the companies.
(c) Specific cooperation measures, reaching beyond the exchange of informationand harmonization of energy policies, would be possible in certain fields, suchas environmental protection, the rational use of energy, and scientific andtechnical research, (e.g., desulphurization, automobile emissions, processes
for improving output or reducing consumption; coal gasification; nuclear
explosions for storage purposes; and use of new resources).
To meet the need for larger and more diversified hydrocarbon resources,
we should also envisage cross-financing for oil prospecting on the continental
shelf and ocean floor, either in the countries concerned (North Sea, US or
Japanese continental shelf areas) or elsewhere (Canada, Venezuela, USSR).
Finally, cooperation was needed above all in nuclear energy, to improve
its reliability and to give it a more prominent place in the pattern of supply.
Joint efforts were possible in numerous fields, the main ones being reactor
safety, uranium enrichment, construction of breeder reactors, and the possibilities offusion and the use of nuclear energy for non-electrical purposes.
(d) The framework for energy consultations between the Community, the US andJapan, if it were to be effective, would have to be flexible and to allow maximum contact. Consultation procedures would be too diversified for an institutional framework to be immediately useful, but it would take its own
shape with time.
It was clear, though, that cooperation had to be accompanied and guided
by advice from energy producing and energy consuming circles in our various
countries. It had also to be based on contracts among the industrial circles ofour countries which, with financial, technological and research facilities at theirdisposal, were in practical daily contact with reality.
With regard to relations between the public authorities, a body should be
set up for periodic policy consultations between the energy officials of the Community, the US and Japan.
Finally, energy cooperation should fit into a context of more general consultations covering monetary matters, world trade and certain aspects of foreign
policy. These general consultations between the Community, the US andJapan were an ambitious undertaking, in which energy consultations - becauseof their urgency and the apparent widespread agreement thereon - could
constitute one of the cornerstones.

"

"

..
21

In introducing his paper, the author alluded to the prospects for agreementin the near future by the member governments of the European Community(EC). He felt that a consensus would soon emerge on the need for cooperation
with other principal consuming countries, notably the US and Japan, in order
to avoid overbidding for crude oil, to accelerate research on new resources andon fuel efficiency, and to be able to deal with a fuel crisis.
This cooperation should be based on certain fundamental principles: equality
among partners, non-discrimination, respect of mutual engagements, avoidance of the bloc approach, and recognition of the needs of the developing
countries. The experience of the OECD should make it a useful forum in which
to begin this Atlantic-] apanese collaboration, although its procedures might
have to be revised.
In its relations with the producing countries, it was important that theEC be seen by them, not as a hostile bloc, but as a trading partner with whomthere was a relationship of mutual interdependence. To enhance its credibility
as a partner, Europe needed to wield better control over oil imports, supply
costs and prices. In addition, the oil Companies had to keep the European publicauthorities better informed about their plans for imports, investments andcrisis management.
With regard to other energy sources, Europe ought to review its coal reserves~ by regions rather than on a national basis - to see where coal might again becompetitive on price with oil. Natural gas was another excellent energy source·
if used efficiently (i.e., not in electric power plants) and conservatively, so as not
to provoke export restrictions. Its distribution in Europe would be improvedby more pipeline construction. Finally, a European capacity for uranium
enrichment was needed for the development of nuclear energy.
The author observed that efforts to improve the environment seemed,
initially at least, to increase fuel consumption rather than slow it down. But
an effort in this field had to be made on the Community level, as national
programs tended to disrupt the distribution and consumption of energy.

*

*

*

AN ATLANTIC-JAPANESE ENERGY POLICY
I. Summary
The conclusions of the American author of this working paper could besummed up as follows:
22

The prosperity and security of the free World depended on sufficientavailability of energy on satisfactory economic terms. During the next ten to 20
years, oil would provide the mainstay of the world's energy supplies. Becauseof the size of known reserves and the lead time for developing new resources,
our growing needs would be supplied mainly by huge increases of imports from
the Middle East.
The cost of these oil imports would rise tremendously, with difficult implications for the balance of payments of consuming countries. Serious problems
would be caused by unprecedented foreign exchange accumulations of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.
A complete change was underway in the political, economic, strategic andpower relationships between the oil producing, importing and home countries
of international oil companies and the national oil companies of producing andimporting countries.
An energy policy for the oil importing countries was an urgent necessity. It
could not be limited to the Atlantic nations, but had to include Japan, theFree World's second strongest economic power and one of its largest oil importers. It should also encompass South Africa, Australia and New Zealand,and should take account of importing developing countries in Latin America,
Africa and Asia. But the suggestions in his paper would refer mainly to the
Atlantic group plus Japan as the nations with major world influence andresponsibilities.

II. Basic Data on Energy Supply and Finance
If present US policies and trends were left to take their course, oil shipmentsfrom abroad would advance from about 4.7 million barrels a day in 1972 toover 1 r million barrels a day in 1980.
Except for the North Sea and the unknown potential in Japanese offshore
waters or in other "safe" areas, America's allies had limited possibilities ofdeveloping dependable alternative supplies based on synthetic oil or gas
because of their small coal, shale and tar sands resources. Even with the most
optimistic estimates for the North Sea, the oil imports of Europe and Japancombined were estimated to advance during the same period from some r8 _million barrels daily to 30 million.
The preponderant part of all these imports would have to come from theMiddle East, whose output would rise from 18 million barrels daily in 1972, to35-40 million by 1980. For the first time, the US would be competing with
Europe and Japan for major oil supplies from the Middle East, whose share in
total US oil imports would, by 1980, amount to about 50-55 per cent and in23

those of Western Europe and Japan to 75-80 per cent. Middle East reserves
would cover these requirements, but without large new discoveries this situation
would probably change during the 198o's.
The USSR was likely to remain self-sufficient in oil and other energy
requirements and might continue to be a net exporter of oil and natural gas.
The fotal value of US net imports of energy materials, mostly oil, might
easily reach $18-24 billion annually by 1980, those of Europe $23-31 billion,
and those of Japan $12-16 billion - as compared with $2.3, $8.5, and $3.1
billion in 1970, respectively. Revenues accruing to Middle East producing
countries could amount to $40 billion annually by 1980 - as against $9 billion
in 1972 - with Saudi Arabia accounting for perhaps half of the 1980 total. In
countries such as Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi most of these funds could not
possibly be absorbed in their internal economies.
The US thus had to share with Europe and Japan the deep concern about
the physical availability, the terms of trade, the balance of payments impact,
and the investment and monetary consequences of heavily increased oil
imports. But the US carried the additional responsibility of protecting its
capability to perform its global defense commitment, especially since theSoviet Union and China did not primarily depend on external sources ofenergy. The US could not afford an increasing over-dependence on a handfulof foreign, largely unstable, countries. This would jeopardize its security (andthat of its allies) as well as its prosperity and freedom of action in foreign policy
formulation. But the US had a practical alternative: accelerated developmentof its large domestic resource potential for conventional and synthetic hydrocarbons and nuclear energy.
If realistic action to increase domestic energy supplies were taken withutmost urgency, US dependence on energy imports by the early 198o's might
be limited to 20 per cent, instead of over 30 per cent if present trends continued.
That probably would not exceed the "danger" level. As of now, though,continued dependence of Europe, Japan and the US on Middle East oil
appeared inevitable.

III. Changes in the Power Structure ef International Oil
From 1946 until the late 195o's, the international oil companies - on thebasis of their rich Middle East concessions and benefiting indirectly from thepower of the US - had been able to supply the bulk of the energy requirementsof the Free World, reasonably, freely and on favorable commercial terms.
Moreover, the US had been independent of oil imports and had possessed a
24

sizeable reserve productive capacity from which our allies could benefit during
the Iranian and the first Suez Crisis.
By 1960, when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries(OPEC) had been established, the relative power of the US had begun to
decline as Europe, Japan and the USSR acquired new strength. The developing countries had also begun to play a more important role in world affairs.
The establishment of OPEC and its growing influence had been due in part to
the inability and inflexibility of the international oil companies and their homegovernments to anticipate and adjust to the changes that had begun to erode
their previous influential position in oil producing countries.
From 1960 to 1972, OPEC had succeeded in achieving, to begin with, minor
increases in the government take of oil producing countries, and since theearly seventies in enforcing a quantum jump in the royalty and tax paymentson their production. This had been capped in 1972 by the participationagreement, which meant an immediate 25 per cent interest for the Arabproducing countries in the Persian Gulf in existing concessions, leading to 51
per cent control within nine years. Middle Eastern national oil companies
would thus become the largest sellers of crude oil.
By 1984, most of the important Venezuelan concessions would also havereverted from the oil companies to the government. Algeria, Libya and Iraq
had already taken over a substantial part of the previously foreign-owned
production, and the current Indonesian contracts left the Indonesian National
Oil Company free to dispose of much of the oil discovered by foreign companies.
During the same period, American reserve productive potential had begun
to disappear, and by 1972 the US had become one of the largest importers of oil.
IV. Dominant Position of the Major Oil Producing Countries
The conclusion of the participation negotiations had left little doubt thatthe major oil producing countries had acquired immense potential power - aslong as at least two important producers maintained a united front. Saudi
Arabia alone, with its overwhelming lead in reserves and production, would
have a pivotal role in supply within a few years.
The power of these countries was based not only on their control overimmense oil resources, but also on their prospective command of unprecedented
financial resources. Moreover, large monetary reserves would enable them torestrict oil production for political or other reasons.
The producing countries' control over their oil production and exports
would be based not only on their participation in the producing companies,
25

but stemmed primarily from their sovereign power over companies operatingin their countries. Fiscal arrangements and payments to the producing countries
were subject to their virtually unilateral determination, as reflected in the
demands leading to the Teheran and Tripoli "dictates". Demands for national
ownership of tanker transportation, reinvestments in oil exploration, refining,
petrochemical, LNG facilities, and related industries were bound to be made.
Levels of production and the size and direction of exports would be dictated forconservation, economic, political or strategic reasons.
However, the development of the oil resources of the Middle East did notreflect any extensive industrial involvement of the economies of those countries
or any important contribution by their people to the huge flow of oil outward
and of revenue backward. Operations were limited fundamentally to a small
enclave.
Although a substantial part of the national companies' entitlements would,
for some period, be sold back to their foreign partners for distribution, it was
only a matter of time before the national oil companies would dominate themarket for non-integrated third party sales of crude oil. Effective competitionin crude oil sales between the producing affiliates of the international oil
companies and their partners, the national companies of the producing
countries, might become difficult if not impossible, as the producing countries
might not only set levels of production but also fix the tax-paid cost and theprices at which the increasing quantities of crude to which their companies
would become entitled would either be sold back to their foreign partners oroffered by them to their own customers.
In addition, national oil companies of some of the producing countries
would obviously work out deals for joint refining and marketing in importing
countries. Likewise, the producing countries were likely to seek control of anever-expanding tanker fleet to carry their oil exports.
It was quite possible that by the early eighties the surplus funds annuallyavailable to Saudi Arabia could surpass$ 15 billion. The inflow of foreign funds
to the treasuries of a few Middle East governments, and to a small number of
their citizens, would far exceed any accumulation of foreign exchange holdings
in modern times. Such amounts could not continuously be placed into longterm or short-term investments without risking severe international repercussions and restrictions on the free flow of capital. It was unlikely that theUS, or any other developed country, would permit continued massive foreign
investments that could result in takeovers of important companies or industries. Moreover, the reverse flow of dividends and interest would add an
additional burden to the oil import bill of many countries.
This accumulation in the Middle East of oil and of money power - obtained

26

like manna from heaven, and not yet accompanied by any substantial contribution in political, managerial or technical competence - could produce
potentially explosive shifts in the balance of power. Not the least of the clangers
posed by this concentration of oil power and "unearned" money power was thepervasive corruptive influence it might have on political, economic and commercial behavior in both the relatively unsophisticated societies of the producing countries and in the dependent industrialized nations. Lust for immense
power and greed for money in unheard of amounts could easily corrode part oftheir - as well as our - political and social structure.
Any assessment of the future dependability of the area as the center for oiland money power was complicated by the many deep-seated conflicts such as
those of Iran vs. Iraq, Iraq vs. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia vs. Oman and Abu
Dhabi, Libya vs. the traditional Arab countries, and so on. There was theunderlying rivalry between Iran and the Arab states of the Gulf for hegemonyin the area, as well as the perennial dangers of the Israeli-Arab issue.
All these confrontations fundamentally affected the producing operations
and government arrangements of the oil companies, who were likely to be
drawn sooner or later into any local conflicts. Moreover, the producing
countries would hold them responsible for their home government policies andexpect them to support local political, strategic or economic interests. The
companies would inevitably be asked to match any arrangements which theiraffiliates, or any other international oil companies, had made with governments of most other Middle East oil countries. And the rivalry between the
Arab countries and Persia would compel either of them to claim that it had
struck the most advantageous bargain with the oil companies.
Finally, none of the national governments was really stable and the societies
involved were still largely backward; thus there were always serious doubts
whether existing arrangements would survive any current regime.

V. Limitations on Oil Companies in the Producing Countries
Participation was mainly a device through which the producing countries,
smoothly and by arrangements with the international oil companies, planned
to obtain complete control over their countries' total oil operations. It represented a grand design for an alliance with the oil companies under which
the oil producing countries, while pursuing their national objectives, would still
be able to take advantage of the distribution, financial and technical capacitiesof the oil companies.
As explained by Mr. Yamani, the Saudi Arabian Minister of Petroleum, theweight of the national oil companies in producing countries should be com-27

bined with that of the international oil companies so as to:(1) protect concessions from nationalization by forging a link between oil
companies and producing countries;(2) control oil operations while hanging on to foreign capital, expertise andmarketing outlets;(3) prevent competition between producing countries as sellers of crude inopen market, to avoid a drop in prices and revenues;(4) maintain thereby price stability, and even secure an immediate increase
in world crude oil prices;(5) achieve a position of influence in the oil markets;(6) make it difficult for any producing country to insist on an "abnormal"
increase in production.
As the Kuwaiti Finance and Oil Minister had put it, the true connotationsof participation were nationalization or takeover. "What we called phased
participation is in fact phased nationalization."
The national oil entities of the producing countries would in due course
become practically the largest suppliers of oil - only somewhat delayed by thephasing out of "buybacks" by the foreign concessionary companies. In themeantime, they would try to use their private company partners, whose
interests would be tied up inextricably in joint production ventures, to assure
market stability.
The role of the international oil companies was thus changing from that of abuffer and bridge between producing and importing countries to what mightturn out to be that of junior partners of the producing countries. They would
be unable to continue to act as an independent-intermediary commercial force;
instead, the producing countries would tend to treat them as service companies
under their control that would undertake worldwide logistic, technical,financial, production and distribution operations.
Whether the companies liked it or not they would be compelled to protect
their huge interests in the producing countries by adjusting their policies andactions to suit the wishes of the producing countries, hoping that nevertheless thepattern of their operations in their home countries and the importing countries
would not be seriously upset. They could not be expected to take a strong standin negotiations with the sovereign of the country on which their whole prosperity depended and whose national companies were their partners and would
eventually acquire control of their operations. They would have to argue thatthey were serving the interest of their customers by not risking a confrontationthat could lead to interruption of supplies; and as long as the companies wereable to recoup escalating costs from the consumer, they would also protect theirown commercial viability.

28

In such circumstances the importing countries and home governments
could simply not afford to remain passive. The companies, as private commercial organizations, could not be expected by themselves to protect not only
their own interests but also those of their customers. Thus it was doubtful
whether the kind of negotiating problems we were facing now could be handledsolely through a common posture of the companies or by any other kind ofintercompany arrangements. A broad understanding on energy policy among
the various importing and home governments was needed to counter the powerof the producing countries to impose excessive demands on the international
oil trade.

VI. New Role of the Oil Companies in Importing Countries
During the next decade and probably much longer, the international oil
companies would continue to be a most important factor in the refining anddistribution of oil in the Free World, based on their predominant investmentsin the local oil industries. They would also be the most diversified source of
crude, while playing a leading role in exploration, new technology, andexpanded upstream and downstream investments.
Nevertheless, the international oil companies and their home countries,
especially the US, were now facing a lack of confidence by many importing
countries with regard to their supply capabilities as well as their commitment
to protect the interests of their worldwide customers. Europe and Japan should
recognize, though, that it would be constructive if America, through the
improved exploitation ofits domestic resources, were to lower its dependence on
Middle East oil and thereby reduce the competitive bidding-up and depletionof Middle East reserves.
The US had additional possibilities to put a "first mortgage" on some of therichest oil resources in the Middle East. The Saudi Arabian government
would like to conclude special deals with the US for increasing oil deliveries.
Iran would doubtless be keen to do likewise. However, any preferred treatment
for the US as a customer for Saudi Arabian or Iranian oil would imperil its
relations with other importing and producing countries.
The prevailing European fear was reflected in a 1972 draft recommendationof the Western European Union, which said in part:" ... much of the oil imported by Europe is shipped under the American
flag. The Middle East oil question is therefore mainly a commercial matterfor the United States. For Western Europe, on the other hand, it is a vital
matter and the interests of consumers do not tally with the interests of theinternational companies ... Europe has no interest in becoming involved in a29

vain conflict for defense of the oil companies; its interest is to collaborateclosely with the Arab states. The disadvantage of such a policy might be to
make the European market over-dependent on the Arab states. But that isalready the case since the Arab countries can cut off supplies of oil to Europe
whether it pa,sses through the international companies or is supplied direct ... "Whatever their motivation, the national companies of importing countries
would expand their foreign supply operations. Any new such ventures would
be subject to the same kind of political and economic risks as those of theinternational oil companies.
Investments by the producing countries downstream in importing countries
were unlikely on a massive scale; even if this should occur, it would not provide
much more security if the producing countries should decide to withhold
supplies. Moreover, foreign crude secured by a national oil company of animporting country would probably be given preference in the home market.
The resulting dependence on a limited number of sources of crude would makethe importing country even more vulnerable to interruption and to cost
increases.
A continuous process of yielding valid rights, not through genuine bargaining but under threats, was bound to undermine the prestige of the importing nations and companies as well as the respect for any arrangements concluded with them. Only a coordinated energy policy by the importing countries could prevent such harmful consequences.

VII. Interests of the Home Countries of the International Oil Companies
The interest of the home countries in their international oil companies hadin the past centered around their supply capabilities, their support of thegeopolitical power position, their contribution to the balance of payments, andtheir role in meeting increasing worldwide oil requirements. Importantchanges were now occurring in the two most important home countries, theUS and the UK.
The first Suez Crisis and the Six-Day War had shown that even US, British
or French-controlled foreign oil could be embargoed for shipments to the homecountries. While the US was becoming one of the largest importers of Middle
East oil, the UK - with the development of its North Sea resources - would bemuch less dependent on imports.
At the same time, the possibility of using control over foreign oil for politicalstrategic purposes of the home countries was disappearing fast. The producing
countries could now supply or withhold oil to suit their own interests.
The balance of payments concern of the US might in the future be directed30

more towards the escalating foreign exchange costs of oil imports than to thebenefits of profit transfers from international oil operations. On the other hand,
the North Sea development might relieve the UK oil trade bill sufficiently tomaintain a predominant interest in the profit transfers of British foternationaloil companies.
An additional qualifying factor, however, was the interest which producing
countries had in maintaining an effective relationship with the US - the mostimportant political, economic, and military power of the Free World, which
was also one of the largest and highest priced markets for imported oil. This
explained Saudi Arabia's and Iran's interest in special oil supply arrangementswith the US. Moreover, the US offered a big outlet for their capital investments,
and was one of the largest sources of capital equipment, consumer goods,
military hardware and advanced technology.
Finally, the US was the only power that could assure protection against
communist incursions (Soviet and Chinese) as well as domestic subversion, so
as to maintain the security of the Persian Gulf area.
Because of its domestic potential in conventional and non-conventinalhydrocarbon and energy resources, and its opportunity for a special relationship with Saudi Arabia and Iran, the US could "go it alone'', ifit ever wanted
to. The UK, after development of the North Sea, would be less dependent on
Middle East oil than any of its Common Market partners. It was, nevertheless,apparently the UK, at the Paris Summit of October 1972, which had pressed foran early formulation of a Community energy policy to guarantee lasting supplies
under satisfactory conditions.
The ultimate interest of the most important Middle East producing countries
not under Soviet domination was to guard their independence, which could
only be achieved through close American links. The US would thus continue todominate the international oil scene, not because of the foreign oil interests of its
companies, but because of the world balance of power. An energy policy
applying solely to the Community should be only the first step towards a
policy that had to encompass the Atlantic group of nations and Japan.

VIII. Needfor an Atlantic-Japanese Energy Policy
US relations with Europe and] a pan were in disarray, with many outstanding
unresolved problems on defense, trade, monetary issues, and so on. Instead ofseeking a grand design to resolve all conflicts, it might prove more fruitful totackle first those problems where chances of an Atlantic-] apanese policy weremost promising. The future energy position of the Atlantic-Japanese complexof nations was one of the most important issues confronting not only31..

each of them individually, but also as a group.
A joint or coordinated policy was urgently needed because any delays inwhich conflicting approaches to producing countries were made by the individual members of the Atlantic-Japanese group of nations would accelerate thedisintegration of our partnership and encourage the arbitrary demands of the
producing countries. Such coordination did not need to inhibit any of thepartners from pursuing separate initiatives within the broad spectrum of
Middle East relationships and within the framework of an Atlantic-Japaneseenergy policy.
The OECD Oil Committee was the most significant international organization encompassing the Atlantic-Japanese group of nations, providing themwith exchange of information and expert analyses on oil developments, as wellas policies for emergency stockpiling and apportionment of supplies in theOECD European area.
The Common Market was now engaged in a difficult effort to establish anenergy policy that would secure lasting supplies under satisfactory economic
conditions. But individual national policies could severely slow up the establishment of a Community policy. In the light of new power relationships, aneffective Atlantic-Japanese energy partnership had to go further than either
the OECD or the Common Market had advanced so far, although such a
policy would build on their achievements.
Fortunately there was a substantial consensus on the need for a coordinatedor joint approach to the energy problem in the US as well as the Common
Market and Japan, as reflected in official pronouncements during the past two
years.

IX. Outline for an Atlantic-Japanese Energy Poliry
The major goal of an Atlantic-Japanese energy policy had to be to cope withthe common problems of the security of oil supplies and the related financial
issues. Future oil bargaining should no longer be lopsided in favor of the
producing countries, but should also engage the extraordinary political,
strategic and economic power of the Atlantic-Japanese group. Such "countervailing power" to OPEC would place international oil supply and financial
arrangements on a rational and manageable basis. Fear had been expressedthat such a grouping of importing countries might provoke a confrontation
with producing countries, but this overlooked the fact that the balance of power
had been tipped during the last few years.
Subjects to be reviewed under a joint or coordinated energy policy could
include the following:

32(r) Demand and supply, including tanker, pipeline, and refining availabilities.
(2) Research for new energy resources, especially atomic energy and nonconventional sources.
(3) Investment incentives and guarantees for resource development.
(4) Arrangements by importing countries for supplies from producing
countries.
(5) Stockpiling, rationing and sharing of availabilities in case of emergency.
(6) Research on energy conservation (battery-powered cars, nuclear fueledshipping, etc.)(7) Economic development and technical assistance for producing countries.
(8) Costs and balance of payments effects of oil imports of member countries
and of developing countries.
(9) Government revenues of oil producing countries and their impact onworld trade and capital flows.
(10) Dependency of Middle East producing countries on industrial andagricultural goods, military equipment, shipping, services, technical knowhow, etc., of the Free World's oil importing countries; and strategies for copingwith an oil supply, trade or finance emergency.
Administration of the energy policy might be entrusted to a new high level
International Energy Council, composed of member states with an experienced
permanent staff. Its organizational structure, powers and procedures would
have to be negotiated. Although agreement would not be easily achieved, it had
to be tried, and there was no time to lose.
It might be feasible to restructure the OECD Oil Committee or its HighLevel Committee to handle implementation of an Atlantic-Japanese energy
policy, rather than start from scratch with a completely new body. However itwere to be set up, the competence and functions of the International Energy
Council had to be clearly delineated.
An arrangement for sharing import availabilities and stockpiling, applicable
to all nations of the new Atlantic-Japanese partnership, might be the keystone
for a broadly conceived energy policy such as outlined above. It could lead to acoordinated policy on oil supply, trade and financial problems. There was nolonger any need for the hectic and improvised confrontations between oil
companies and producing countries.
The oil companies, however, could not depend solely on their own strength.
Firm backing by all major importing countries was essential for a credible
negotiating stance.
OPEC unity might eventually erode, bringing producing countries to compete with each other for export sales to the companies whose purchasing power

33

would derive from investment in and control over transport, refining andmarketing facilities - the power to dispose.
Economic and technical assistance to the developing producing countries
would advance their standard of living, diversify their activities and expand
their trade. In due course, their integration in the world economy would
discourage radical measures which might sever these links.
The importance of the Middle East as a supplier of oil to the rest of theworld made it an attractive target for Soviet subversion. The communist
world was tempted to encourage all the nationalistic and centrifugal tendencies
in the Persian Gulf. However, any serious threat to oil supplies could easily
lead to a confrontation between the major powers. Only friendly relations with
the Free World could hold the Soviets at bay. A united Atlantic-Japanese oil
posture offered the best safeguard for the security and prosperity of the importing as well as producing countries. Far from leading to a confrontation
with OPEC, it was in fact the only way to avoid confrontation.
Inevitably, a new Atlantic-Japanese policy, designed to achieve energy
security for the Free World, would bring greater involvement of governments
in what had previously been industry affairs, with all that this implied. But
there were no realistic alternatives, and the time for action was now, if notyesterday.

.

..
"

In his introductory remarks, the author said that the private international
petroleum companies - which up to now had assured the production, refining,transportation, marketing and financing of oil - were no longer able to handle
by themselves the political problems confronting them in the producing, andeven the consuming, countries. To the conflict of interest among the oil companies had been added the problems of internal strife and disputed successions
in the unstable Middle East.
The Western world could not afford to pursue its passive and disunited
course, hoping to gain individual advantages, company by company andcountry by country, through a "rat race" of catering to the whims of Arabrulers. In this process, we were dissipating our major asset: the Western politicaland military strength, on which the producing countries depended for theirinternal and external security. By undermining respect for the dignity ofagreements, we were foregoing every chance for lasting security of supply.
Our central problem was the imbalance of negotiating power between theimporting countries and the Middle East producers, which could be redressed
34

only through coordination of policies among Western governments. Otherwise,
we had no choice "but to run away and sue for peace''. Hopes for a reasonableavoidance of confrontation would be in vain so long as the balance of power
remained lopsided.
The author had no illusions that energy cooperation between the Atlantic
community and the Japanese would be easy, but he concluded that "whatever
the odds are, we must try to establish a situation where the oil supplies of theWest, on which its security and prosperity depend, are handled in a rationalmanner, by a community of countries cooperating effectively with producing
countries, and not on the run."

*

*

*

DISCUSSION

I. Nature and Scale of the Energy Problem.
According to the author of the American working paper, the "energy
problem" was compounded of four principal issues:
I. The continued requests for price increases from Middle East producing countries, accelerated by the devaluation of the dollar. The international oil
companies might wage a rear-guard action, but in the end they would yieldrather than risk interruption of supplies. They believed it was up to the economies of the consuming countries to absorb these price increases.

2, The threat to the availability of supplies, coming not only from the producing
countries' legitimate interest in conserving their principal resource, but also
from their disinclination to take oil out of the ground in exchange for money
which they did not need and whose real value was declining.

3. The use of oil for political purposes, as in the Arab - Israeli conflict, where thevital interests of the Western world were subject to a kind of blackmail.
4. The attack against the oil companies' ownership position, with Libya now
emulating Iraq, for example. This would be bound to discourage the search for
new reserves in politically questionable areas. Moreover, it would impose
strains on importing countries like Japan, who would be unlikely to endure
35

arrangements had to be made to assure consumers that supplies would be
distributed to cover essential needs in a fair way. Existing emergency arrangements were outdated, as they did not take account of the growing import needs

shortages in order to protect ownership rights of American or European oil
companies.
These various issues added up to a political crisis, not an oil crisis, in the viewof a British participant. Middle Eastern countries had taken over quantities ofoil contrary to their agreements, with two importants practical consequences.
First, there was no limit to the price increases, and to the resulting impact on
the balance of payments of consuming countries. Second, there was no particular incentive for the producing countries to develop the additional oil wells
which would be needed if the civilized world were to continue using energy at
the rate predicted. With a rising value to their asset, it was in their interest to
leave it in the ground, regardless of world shortages. Producing countries would
thus be able to determine the standard of living of consuming countries, and to
enforce their political will upon them. It was not just a question of price (as an
American participant had suggested) but of quantity. A French speaker agreed
with this analysis.
The announcement of Libya's price demands, which had been made just as
this meeting convened, happened to furnish an excellent illustration of thesort of problem faced by the oil companies. Thatcountrywasresponsiblefor onesixth of Europe's oil supplies, so that one's access to a daily hot bath depended
very much on the attitude of Colonel Qadhafi, as the British speaker put it.
For several years, the oil companies had been trying to explain to theirrespective governments that oil supply arrangements could no longer be
regarded as a purely commercial matter, as agreements could not be enforced.
The companies were not seeking to be relieved of their commercial responsibilities, but it was now essential that consuming governments become involvedin what was essentially a political confrontation.
The implications of the Libyan situation were also discussed by a Netherlands
participant. The potential off-take of high quality Libyan crude had alreadybeen reduced from three million barrels a day to two million, which had
caused oil prices to harden in recent months. Having taken away some foreign
oil production "on very strange grounds'', the Libyans were now making new
demands which could amount to nationalization. The danger was that theoutcome of these Libyan negotiations might well be taken as a model by othergovernments where we so far had reasonable understandings, not only in the
Middle East but in places such as Nigeria.
If one major producing country were to fall out, a drastic oil shortage would
result. Nervousness about this eventuality was leading Europe and Japan to ascramble bordering on a psychosis, with capacity taken up to excess and prices
running wild. As there were no longer shut-in reserves, such as the US and
Venezuela had been able to offer in the 1967 Suez crisis, new contingency

36of the US and Japan.
An American participant said that the emergency we faced could be summed
up in these statis~ics: Although we were consuming 40 billion barrels of oil ayear, the amount of shut-in reserves that could be opened up and quickly madeavailable was down to under 200,000 barrels a day, much of it in very heavy
crudes that had no market because of their sulphur content. For the next threeor four years, the problem would be to find and process crudes into products
whose sulphur content would be acceptable under the new environmentalist
requirements.
With reference to the question raised by a French participant about thepossiblity of important new oil discoveries, the American speaker conceded that
there were indeed vast reserves of hydrocarbons, but they were clearly finite.
Although many parts of the world had not been actively explored, geologists
had a pretty good idea of what could be found. Moreover, our rate of consumption had recently overtaken the rate of finding new reserves. It was
unlikely that this trend would be reversed, and within five to ten years wemight in fact be consuming hydrocarbons at a rate 50 per cent greater than
the rate of new discoveries. Even in the Middle East, which we thought of as
being well endowed with reserves, production would probably peak out in the
198o's.
The author of the American working paper said that it was most improbablethat we would find another Middle East within the foreseeable future. Even iflarge new discoveries were to be made, a lead time of five to eight years would
be needed to obtain substantial production from them.
II. What Can Be Done about the Supply Situation?
A. The geopolitical background in the Middle East
As it was generally agreed that we would be dependent on Middle East oilfor at least the next decade, several speakers alluded to the importance of thepolitical forces at work in that part of the world.
According to an American participant, any analysis had to begin with arecognition of the predominant role to be played by Saudi Arabia, which
would supply well over half of our additional oil requirements. That country,
which had recently achieved a daily production of seven million barrels, after
being at four or five million barrels for some time, was expected to move up to
15-20 million barrels. The security and prosperity of all of our countries thusl37

depended "on how King Feisal feels", in the words of another US speaker. Ourdependence was rendered more precarious by the fact that Saudi Arabia was
not a developed society with a large number of people who could make a major
contribution in the GATT, or anywhere else where their power would entitle
them to be. What would our response be if that country, following what it
deemed· to be its own self-interest, took steps that would undermine ourprosperity and security?
A Canadian participant said that, although Saudi Arabia appeared now to
be a country with whom arrangements could be made, experience in the
Middle East had shown that regimes which were seemingly solid and incontrol of the domestic political situation could be replaced overnight. Although
we were dependent on Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Truda! States, we had torecognize that there were pressures underway there to bring about changes ingovernment. There was not only the Soviet interest in upsetting regimes aroundthe Persian Gulf, as part of their long-term aim of controlling the Middle East,
but there were also contests among the Arab states themselves. The one issue
which appeared to unite them was the conflict with Israel, which posed serious
political questions for the US and others in the bargaining for oil.
An American participant foresaw that the Arabs, emboldened by their new
power, would increase their pressure on Israel over the next two or three years.
The Israelis in turn, who were already nervously anticipating this, would find
it increasingly difficult to propose the terms of a settlement which would be
acceptable to all factions within Israel. This issue would turn out to be extremely divisive in the US, and an effort had to be made urgently to settle theconflict. It was a mistake, though, to regard Israel as America's problem, andthe active cooperation of other Western governments was essential.
A fellow countryman was convinced that leadership in seeking a settlement
had to come from some other country than the US, which was unfortunately
regarded by the Israelis, as well as by both Arab extremists and conservatives,
as an ally of Israel. This limited its ability to play a serious role in formulating asolution.
A British speaker agreed that settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute was
essential to progress in the Middle East. He had been struck, during recent
trips to that part of the world, by evidence that the Arabs were deliberately
trying to drive a wedge between Europe and America. Europe should feel
responsible for seeking a solution, but he said "it will be difficult to take a lead
unless the Americans are with us". Many Arab leaders, fearful of being overthrown, "could not afford not to go along with the extreme left-wing lunatics"
against the West in the matter of oil policy. The bitterness of the Arab-Israeli
conflict, combined with the hostile Arab attitude toward the US, made it

38

unlikely that even our more moderate friends could exercise any useful influenceon our side.
In the eyes of an American observer, the Arab-Israeli situation was particularly harmful in that it constantly inflamed and aroused Arab radicalism,
which threatened the survival of conservative rulers such as King Feisal.
However, it was unrealistic to expect, as Europeans sometimes did, that asolution would be achieved by the US reversing its policy and putting pressure
on Israel to settle. "That simply is not in the political cards ... We are goingto have to live with that, using such quiet measures of persuasion as we can."Another American participant referred to the interrelationship between
Soviet policy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Soviet objective was a prolonged stalemate, which would intensify the process of Arab radicalization,
stimulate stronger feelings of anti-Westernism, and in turn provoke Western
animus toward the Arabs. Hence the Western response ought to focus much
more directly on the need to promote actively an Arab-Israeli settlement.
In response to questions put by a German and a British participant, theAmerican speaker replied that the Soviets' internal economic needs mightmake them more amenable to adjustments, and less obstructive to a Middle
East settlement, than they would be if conditions at home were more favorable.
Their willingness to discuss the sale of natural gas to the West illustrated thisnew receptivity to policies of accomodation.
Two Italian participants supported the notion that the governments of oil
consuming countries ought to collaborate to resolve the conflict in the Middle
East, as a counter to the active Soviet intervention there. One of these speakers
said that any overall program of economic cooperation between the oil producing and consuming countries had to have a political background, which
could not be achieved so long as the Arab-Israeli dispute was unsettled.
The impact of a possible change in Soviet policy on the question of the
Middle East oil supply was discussed by an American participant. Since, as
the author of the American working paper had pointed out, it was an asset for
us that Saudi Arabia depended on the US for its security, then a mood ofdetente could produce a negative effect if the USSR were no longer to be
regarded as our eternal adversary in the Middle East. On the other hand, themore dependent the Soviets became on economic dealings with the West, theless satisfaction they would derive from the prospect of uncertain Western oil
supplies. Thus, before the end of the seventies, we might be consulting with theSoviet Union about Middle Eastern oil.
A French participant, who had recently been posted in Moscow, spoke of thediverse forces which were moving the Soviet Union toward detente with theWest, particularly their desire to raise the standard of living of the people,
39

resulting in the new priority given to consumer goods in 197i. This policy had
represented an important departure for the Soviet leadership, and Brezhnev
still bore the risk that it might not succeed. The success of the current rapprochement with the US was thus very important to his policy. This did notmean that long-term Soviet aims had changed, but developments currently
underway might hold important consequences for Soviet policy, in the Middle
East and elsewhere. While agreeing that the Arab-Israeli confrontation had tobe resolved, the speaker thought that the perspectives for that were much moredistant than our immediate concern, which was to be adequately supplied withoil.
Another French speaker felt that the Arab-Israeli war was not a principal
aspect of the energy crisis, as not all of the countries involved were oil producers.
This view was echoed by a British participant, who said that the confrontation
with the OPEC countries had very little to do with the Arab-Israeli problem.
Another British speaker, who recognized that the prolongation of the ArabIsraeli conflict posed a major threat to oil supplies, nevertheless challenged theargument that the time was ripe for a joint Western approach. Although there
were long-range global implications, it was now a regional problem. Proposing
a solution based on outside guarantees was dangerous, in that it fostered an
unrealistic belief among the Arabs that we were capable of putting a great dealof pressure on Israel.
The essential problem at the moment was not with Palestine, but rather withrelations between Israel and Egypt. The West had to pay more attention to
Israel's genuine concerns about her security, particularly in Sinai. A coherent
demilitarization program there would allow Israel to be more generous on the
territorial question, which was so important to the Arabs in any settlement.
Another crucial area of concern to the Israelis was freedom of navigation in
the Red S.ea. This was why they were determined to remain in Sharm el
Skeikh, and why they were anxious about their rights in the Bab al Mandab
Straits and the Straits of Tiran. Although the West's role in promoting asettlement in this area would probably be fairly limited, it would be helpful if
the Western maritime powers could grasp the urgency of this problem and lend
their support to the need for an international maritime treaty. No grandiose
plans were required, but more serious public discussion about Israel's legitimate
security concerns might break the present stalemate and lead Egypt to arational settlement.
Achieving stability in the Middle East by solving the Arab-Israeli dispute
would initially aggravate the oil supply problem, in the estimation ofa Turkish
participant. If Middle Eastern governments were relieved of the pressure ofthis issue, they would be free to concentrate on the optimal use of their natural

40

resources, which would probably result in more conservative production.
For the longer run, though, the speaker took a more optimistic view about
the political evolution of the Middle East than that expressed by many of theother participants. As the Middle Eastern rulers became more responsible
toward their people - giving them an infrastructure of schools, industries, tradeunions, and other democratic institutions - public opinion in those countries
would not tolerate "silly prejudices or extremist attitudes toward international
issues". With this drastic change in the policical power structure of the Middle
East, the oil issue would become simply an economic question. The laws ofsupply and demand, of elasticities and marginalities, would prevail. If theterms of trade were then to move against the consuming countries without any
economic justification, the Western nations could act together to adjust the
selling prices of the industrial and technological goods and services needed by
the Middle Eastern countries, without which their money would be "anabsolute embarrassment". The coexistence thus produced by natural economic
forces would at last bring stability to the Middle East.
An opposite view was expressed by a Swedish participant, who predictedthat Arab public opinion would become increasingly radical and nationalistic.
As the wealth of those countries increased, their people would begin to ask
what the money was being used for and to formulate extensive domestic
demands. The resulting instability, which could not be resolved by Westerninterference, was sure to greatly change the picture in the long run.

B. Negotiations with the producing countries

A British participant contrasted the implication in the American working
paper - that confrontation must be avoided at all costs - with the author's
admission during the discussion that we were now confronted with the Saudi
Arabians. "Messing around with words is not doing us any good", the speakersaid. "The fact is, we are confronted."
And yet he was not alarmed at the prospect. Any cooperative action aimed
at a fair sharing out of available supplies between nations was bound to be
greeted "with a howl of rage" as provocative. The producing countries had
two ways of applying pressure: first, by singling out a particular country withwhom they happened to be displeased at the moment (e.g., the US over its
Israel policy); and second, by picking off one or more of the international oil
companies, from whom they thought they could extract higher prices.
Defending this double front was not easy. Formal international agreements
would probably take years, not months, to work out. In the meantime, the oilcompanies were "in the firing line," trying to contend with ground rules
dictated by sovereign states, backed by threats of expropriation.

I

l

41

II

·...

_________J··f <i ;•.
-

hi!:~

To solve the immediate, short-term problem, the speaker proposed theurgent establisment of an interim "action committee" to formulate a joint
answer "to attempts by producing countries to turn the heat on". This body
could be composed of, say, nine representatives of the international oil companies and nine representatives of the three main consuming blocs: Europe, theUS andjapan. It could have an unaggressive, diplomatic-sounding name, suchas "The Committee for the Rationalization of Supply." The point was thatits workings ought to be quick and flexible, able when necessary to provide
decisions in a week's time or less. We therefore would need a plenipotentiarygroup of government delegates, empowered to sit beside the oil companies andto defend the point of view of the consumer governments.
One had heard "the most wonderful plans for sorting out these energy
problems in 1980 or 1990", but meanwhile there was an immediate andserious confrontation to be dealt with. Even if they got no help, the oil companies would "soldier on, and would no doubt have to back away again." Butno one could accuse them of not having given ample warning of the crisis.
An American participant agreed that there was an urgent supply problem
and that private companies had been shown to be completely inadequate indealing with the sovereign governments of producing countries. The OPEC
nations were convinced that the consuming countries could not mount a solid
effort to face up to them, and they were moving with impunity on that assumption. Negotiations therefore had to be placed forthwith on a sovereign-tosovereign basis, with Europe, the US and Japan participating. If any major
power remained outside, trying to make private arrangements, it would showthat the consuming countries could not work together effectively.
Another American asked what good unity and firmness would do in the faceof a decision by producing countries to keep their oil in the ground, and a
Norwegian participant was not sure what cards the Western governments
could play to exert more pressure on the producing countries, if we resorted tosovereign-to-sovereign negotiations. The speaker replied that, at some point,
the developed world would have to "take unusual steps" to protect its supplyof energy, in order to avid widespread unemployment and social unrest.
Economic boycotts or shut-ins would obviously be against the interest of theworld community, to which the producing countries had a definite responsibility. Whatever measures might be envisaged, sovereign governments could
present a more convincing front than private entities.
A British participant wondered whether a sovereign-to-sovereign confrontation was necessarily the best answer. Although it might be effective on questionsof price or distribution, there were dangerous political undertones. If public
opinion or radical leaders in producing countries realized they were dealing42

with governments whose policies they disapproved of, they could use the oil
supply issue as a means of exerting pressure. General Gowan had already said
privately, for example, that ifBritain should adopt a Rhodesian solution which
he could not support as an ardent African nationalist, he would be quite
prepared to "punish" her by a temporary boycott of Nigerian oil shipments.
Similar sanctions might be applied with respect to the Middle East conflict.
Before giving unqualified endorsement, therefore, to the concept of sovereign-tosovereign negotiations, we ought to assess the political consequences, to be
sure we were not "jumping out of the frying pan into the fire".
According to another British speaker, during the next ro to 15 years the
problem would be not so much the physical availability of oil in the world as
the fact that supplies were concentrated in the hands of countries which were
exploiting the situation for purely economic reasons. While the Western nations
had allowed themselves to be divided and picked off one by one, a national
sense of common economic interest had united such diverse leaders as the
Shah of Persia, the King of Saudi Arabia, Colonel Qadhafi, and the prime
ministers of Venezuela and Nigeria in a solid front. Our basic objective should
be to break that monopoly.
To accomplish that, we would need "to use every single political weapon in
our armory", and the speaker alluded to the significance of the fact that someof the members of OPEC were totally dependent on the West for their security.
The job would be more difficult now that Western foreign policy had managed
to produce such unwanted effects as the solidarity between Saudi Arabia andIran; "a right stand earlier on might have changed the whole bargaining
situation." In any case, some means had to be found now to deal with thesophisticated sense of common economic interest of the OPEC countries.
An American participant suggested that it was idle to talk about "breaking
OPEC". Their common interests were much stronger than anything that could
be stacked up against them. Furthermore, the Saudi Arabians could run an
economic monopoly on their own, without OPEC, and were sophisticatedenough to realize that they could set the price of oil. Admittedly, bilateralarrangements by consuming countries were clearly undesirable, leading as
they did to a competitive scramble with resultant political friction between
the developed nations. But the speaker doubted that anything more than "someform of relatively mild cooperation - not a formal confrontation" was realistic
in the near future.
Negotiations with the producing countries had to be carried out by the oilcompanies. There was no one else "in the front line'', nor was there soon likely
to be. It had been suggested that perhaps governments could somehow set
guidelines within which the oil companies could conduct their confrontation43

suffice; they would get that anyway. It was likewise foolish to advocate politicalor military interventions. We needed instead to offer them the prestige of being
accepted and involved in our councils of trade and monetary matters.
An American speaker sensed that the Arabs had for years felt excluded fromparticipation in the world community, and that this feeling had been intensified by the instability and backwardness of their societies, resulting in psychological complexes. With the accumulation of Middle Eastern wealth, and theemergence of a new middle class of bureaucrats, there was the danger of Arabnationalism becoming increasingly radicalized. Our area of maneuver in
responding to this had been greatly reduced by the Soviet political presence.
The main thrust of our efforts therefore ought to be directed at shaping new
relationships with the Arab states, to give them a stake in the emerging global
community. Europe, America and Japan had to try to work in concert tocreate "institutions and opportunities in which the Arabs can participate witheconomic profit and witl1 political dignity."
An Italian participant said that errors in economic and political forecasting
had brought us to our present position of absolute dependence on the Middle
Eastern countries for our oil supplies. Their requested price increases were
simply a reflection of the law of supply and demand which we had always
espoused. If we believed that better relations with the Arabs were needed tosecure our needs, we had to be prepared to offer them "something more than atype negotiations. This could be awkward, though, if the governments had noreal power to exert and if their being prominently involved risked making
matters worse. The companies certainly ought at least to keep their governments
informed about the implications of what was going on, but beyond that the
speaker was dubious about governments' playing any really useful role innegotiations.
A Netherlands participant, who was also sceptical about the chances ofgovernments' having much more success in negotiations than the oil companies
had had, said nevertheless that "it would be a comfort if we had a better place
to talk than we have now."
A Canadian speaker felt strongly that governments ought to become much
more involved in negotiations, as the private oil companies had really ceased
to be principals and had become essentially agents. Aggressive confrontation
with the producing countries might not be as effective as less direct means,however. Emphasis on "breaking up OPEC" was misdirected. The firstproblem to be resolved was rather the absence ofa common political will among
the consuming countries.
The moral aspects of this subject had been too easily overlooked, in the
judgment of a French participant. There was something shocking about theidea that the developing countries - in the Persian Gulf, in Chile, or elsewhere - could simply take over and use the assets and techniques which international companies had invested there. Those companies did not belong to ahandful of individuals, but to thousands of people throughout the free worldcommunity who had invested their savings in them. To accede to their expropriation would be to help to destroy a system for which we had been working
for over a century, and which was the foundation of our prosperity. We
therefore had to try to maintain good relations with the developing world
while insisting that certain fundamental guarantees to investors be respected.
The spread of inflation had added another dimension to the problem: we could
not allow the price of essential raw materials to be set entirely in accordancewith the wishes of the producing countries, without standing up for the vitalinterests of our consumers. In the last analysis, this was the duty of our governments, and not of the oil companies.

common merchandise agreement."
A Netherlands participant thought that our relations with the Arabs would
be much improved if we were to meet with them more regularly, and not justin the urgency of a crisis, when conflicting emotions were bound to be dominant.
The speaker had observed that sitting around the same table for several years
gave people a foundation of mutual understanding and friendship upon which
they could negotiate their differences. He suggested therefore that it might beuseful to form an unofficial "working committee", composed of delegates fromthe producing countries, the oil companies, the OECD and public representatives. In giving each side a chance to gradually appreciate the problems of theothers, this might in ilie end be more productive than more formal strategies.
The response of a British participant to this proposal was that his professional
negotiations with the Arabs had not been facilitated by his having been onvery friendly terms with them for some 15 years.
Integrating the Arabs into the councils of the West was a commendable
objective but an extremely difficult one to achieve, in the opinion of an International speaker. Lacking a middle class, those countries had very few people
who were experienced and competent in international relations. While theirleaders expressed perfectly reasonable reactions in private, they felt constrained

C. Transforming our relations with the Arab states
Several speakers expressed the view that negotiations with the producing
countries would be more fruitful if their context were broadened beyond theconfines of the oil supply question. A Netherlands participant said that it was
outdated to treat the Arab countries as if they were of secondary importance inthe world's economic system. Simply offering them more money would not

45

44

t

by the fanatical quality of public opinion from openly supporting any line
which might be considered by their extremists as being pro-Western or against"the sacred cause of Arab nationalism."
A further reservation was voiced by a British participant, who felt thatbringing the Arab governments into consultations about the whole range of
economic and monetary problems would simply enable them to identify ingreat detail the weaknesses of the Western bargaining position. Moreover, it
would inevitably bring into question their major political preoccupation in
the Middle East, about which Europe and the US seemed unlikely to agree ona solution.
Another British speaker, while not objecting in principle to the idea ofbringing the Arab countries more into our political and social consultations,thought that this was an extremely long-term project. It did not offer an
immediate inducement to the producing countries to maintain the flow of theiroil supplies.

D. Sharing available supplies
A US speaker said that the struggle for shares of available oil supplies would
impose unprecedented strains on the world. If it became an issue between the
US and Europe, "it would be the greatest single threat to the solidarity of theAtlantic community that we've ever seen." Resolution of this problem would
require urgent and extraordinary measures. Another American participant
remarked that the very tight supply situation during the next two years
threatened to provoke a scramble which would cause substantial political
friction among the industrialized nations. In dealing with this crisis, it would
be impossible for the oil companies to take it upon themselves to allocate
available supplies among the various consuming countries. This job had to bedone by the governments, who therefore ought to reconstitute and modernize
the old OECD emergency plan as soon as possible. Governments should also
move ahead on OECD exergency stockpiling plans, although they could not
be implemented for at least three of four years because "we can't stockpile a
deficit in supply."
The notion of using the OECD Oil Committee as a forum for cooperation
on supply arrangements was supported by several other interventions. A
Belgian participant said that this would allow us to coordinate the positionsof all the leading consuming countries, while making use of the establishedcontacts between the OECD and experts in the petroleum industry. In his
opinion, a broad range of responsibilities should be entrusted to the OECD Oil
Committee.
The fact that the OECD committee was already functioning was cited by a46

Swiss speaker, and a Netherlands participant agreed that it would be easierpolitically to use this existing vehicle than to create a new one. However, topermit the necessary cooperation by the oil companies, there would have to bea specific, formal relaxation of the US anti-trust laws. In the allocation of
supplies, the immediate general interests of all consumers should take precedence over national and regional policies and longer range plans.
To a Canadian speaker, it was important that any multinational action
taken by the importing countries (a) should not be limited to the US, the EC
and Japan, but should include other major consumers as well, and (b) should
not appear provocative to the exporting countries. In light of these objectives,
it made sense to expand the range of activities already underway in the OECD
Oil Committee. The fact that oil supply questions had not heretofore been
given sufficient priority within the OECD was the fault of the member governments and not of the secretariat.
An American participant remarked that he sometimes worried more about
getting along with the Japanese than with the Arabs. One had heard reportsof the Japanese touring the Persian Gulf and categorically rejecting any idea ofcooperation on any level, let alone joining in a sort of united consumer front.
As they were much more vulnerable than the US or Europe to a cut-off in
Middle East oil supplies, they might well be tempted to break away and maketwo or three pre-emptive deals. This was a critical danger that America andEurope should be working in concert to avoid.
A general description of the activities of the OECD in the energy field wasprovided by an International participant. A comprehensive long-term energy
assessment project had been begun in 1972, aimed at reviewing the outlook up
to 1985 for energy resources, supply and demand relationships, environmental
considerations, technological developments, implications for the monetarysystem and the developing countries, and so on. \'\lithin five months, such asense of urgency had developed that the project had been split into two parts:
one to continue the long-term assessment, the other to concentrate on the
short-term supply problem and the need for cooperation between now and1980. A paper on the latter subject was scheduled to be completed very shortly,
which would enable member governments to assess the problems and to decide
on a course of action.
In any case, it was clear that the Oil Committee and the High Level Groupwould need to change their procedures and working methods in order to deal
with emergencies and to try to prevent them. The present emergency scheme,
designed for Europe, would need to be extended to cover North America andJapan as well. The speaker was confident that appropriate ways would befound within the OECD to associate the efforts of governments and the petro-47leum companies in meeting their responsibilities in this field.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the speaker said that thequestion of direct contacts between the OECD and the oil producing countries
had not yet been discussed between the member governments. However, hethought that the possibilities there were definitely limited. On the same subject,
the British participant who had proposed the creation of an "action committee"
said that he would not exclude the possibility that the OECD Oil Committee
could form the basis for such a body, but it would have to be thoroughly
reorganized to enable it to take the kind of direct action in dealing withproducing countries that he had in mind.

E. Alternative sources and forms of energy
A French participant wondered if cooperative development of the Soviet
Union's oil and gas reserves would not serve the double purpose ofreducing ourdependence on the Middle East and improving East-West relations. To thissuggestion, a German speaker replied that the Rusians were already net
importers of natural gas (as they were buying it from Iran), and had alreadyreached the limit of their possibilities for at least the next few years. They
might develop more production with American help, but this would go to theUS, not to Western Europe.
An American participant described the proposed US-Soviet natural gas
deal as "most extraordinary." In essence, the Russians were hampered in developing their Siberian resources by both technological and budgetary constraints. They had therefore asked the US to finance this development (which
would take five to eight years), in exchange for which they would sell the gas
to American consumers at four times the price they were now paying. During a
subsequent eight-year period, the Russians would reimburse the US development loan, after which there was a vague commitment by the US tocontinue to buy gas in return for the Soviet's earmarking those revenues topurchase American goods. In short, the US payments deficit would be
increased to allow the USSR to maintain its military budget. The only possible
justification of this deal was that of political advantage, which was used "tocover all kinds of crimes."
Another American speaker thought it extremely doubtful that the USSoviet gas deal would ever go through.
A Norwegian participant advocated the intensification of exploration andproduction in areas much nearer to the major consuming countries. Transport
costs from Alaska and the North Sea, for example, would be less in the longrun than the expense of shipping oil around Africa.
In the opinion of a French speaker, we had lost sight of a fundamental eco-48

nomic rule: energy, like any commodity, had its price. For too long, Europe
and America had consumed cheap fuel without setting aside financial reserves
for its replacement or substitution. We had now belatedly to recognize thatprices needed to be high enough to meet the demands of the producing countries as well as to cover the costs of research and development for new fuelsources, notably atomic energy. And we would only be credible in the eyesof the Arabs if we moved to develop alternative resources.
An American participant argued that any effective program of international
cooperation or consultation had to be built on the foundation of various
national programs, designed explicitly to meet the strategic goals of eachcountry and endowed with the institutions, the people and the money to carrythem out. With these underpinnings at the level of national capabilities, wewould have the basis for an international coordination and harmonization ofenergy policies.
As an example of an appropriate national program, the speaker proposed
the following "plan for American energy independence" :r. The existence of a national energy emergency should be recognized,
based on sharply increased oil imports from the Middle East, the precarious
reliance on them for the continued operation of the economy, and the huge
anticipated drains of foreign exchange. The legal precedents for declaring an
emergency in such circumstances were well established.
2. A National Energy Authority should be created with a ten-year life. Its
mission would be aided by an Energy Finance Corporation.
3. These long-range strategic goals should be adopted:(a) Allow for an annual growth rate of 3 per cent, instead of 4 Y. per cent,until 1985.
(b) Aim by 1985, to meet 50 per cent of US energy needs from coal- and a'minor part from shale, largely in the form of gas from coal - at costs ofless tlran a dollar per million BTUs. This would allow reduction of oil
imports by 1985 below five million barrels a day, or ten per cent offorecast demand. Ten per cent of US energy needs should be met by thenwith nuclear power.
(c) These objectives would require:
i. an increase in annual coal production from 500 million tons to twobillion tons, at a cost of at least $ l 5 billion;
ii. construction of shale oil plants with a capacity of one million
barrels a day, to determine feasibility and environmental impact;iii. requirement that some small percentage of refinery feedstocks besynthetic, from coal or shale;
iv. a "crash program" to evaluate the four coal gasification processes,49

"

so that within two years the best one or two could be chosen;
v. construction of coal gasification plants to process a billion tons ofcoal by l 985, at a cost of$ 50-60 billion;
vi. progressive insistence on stack gas desulphurization;vii. reservation of increased amounts of oil for transportation uses;
viii. construction of the necessary pipelines, railway facilities and otherinfrastructure.
All these steps could be achieved by contracts with public and private
authorities, using the Energy Finance Cooperation only when private capitalwere not available.
4. These short-range goals should be pursued by the National Energy
Authority:(a) Clear the way for a superport, to permit unloading of 250,000-ton
tankers on the east coast, at a cost of$ l-2 billion.
(h) Acquire inland sites for a strategic crude reserve of, say, one billion
barrels (roo days at ro million barrels a day), with fuel inventory andstorage costs of $ 6-8 billion.
(c) Acquire sites for clean refineries.
(d) Break the deadlock on the Alaska pipeline.
(e) Promote offshore east coast oil and gas exploration and production.
(f) End the stalemate on nuclear development by putting future plants atleast 500 feet underground in tight geologic formations, so that melting
would not be disastrous.
(g) Support various research and development activities.
The speaker believed that shortages of fuel oil, gasoline and natural gas
within the year would make it clear that the elements of a national emergency
existed, but that the US, like other countries, could successfully surmountsuch an emergency if it were willing to work hard at it for at least a decade.
Congressional and executive leadership were essential, though, in pushing
through an emergency program.
Seeing the US moving ahead on a credible, realizable plan to withdraw fromits dependence on Middle East oil should be welcomed by the OPEC countries, which were anxious to conserve and stretch out their reserves. It should
also have a 'beneficial effect on Europe and Japan, who would be promisedsome eventual relief from the scramble for Arabian supplies, and would at thesame time be encouraged to work on their own development and conservation
programs.
The foregoing proposals were welcomed by another American participant
as a good program to reduce the West's dependence on the Middle East, but
he thought that they would take nearer 20 years than ten to achieve, and would
50

cost more than the estimates given. A disproportionate amount of US steel
capacity would be required, and limiting the nation's growth rate to three
per cent would seriously impinge on economic activity and employment. Most
important, he wondered whether the program could be accomplished in the
public sector as quickly and efficiently as it could be by utilizing the resources
available in the private sector.
The proposals for US energy independence were endorsed by several otherspeakers. A German participant said that Europeans should press ahead in thesame direction. He called for a thorough energy review, both at national andCommunity levels, and wished that the EC could "invest the same kind of
intellectual and administrative talent in this problem as it does in that strange
construction called its 'agricultural policy"'. A Norwegian speaker thoughtthat the long-term aspects of the proposals were even more important thanthose relating to the next decade, for Europe as well as the US, as "the hydrocarbon as a source of energy is historically going to be an episode, and not anepoch." By the year 2000, hydrocarbons would be used chiefly as a raw material and for certain forms of transport. Conventional energy would be solar,
geothermal, nuclear and coal-based.
An American participant cautioned against a "quest for energy antarky on
the part of the US alone," which would have a pernicious effect on relations
between Europe, Japan and the US and be counterproductive for the energy
problem itself. In the opinion of another American, though, the program inquestion did not involve "going it alone" at all. The US would still be verymuch in the oil market, importing probably five million barrels a clay in 1985.
This would be rather a cooperative action, taking advantage of a particularsource of energy the US had in abundant supply and thus easing the straincaused by American buying from European refineries.
Although he thought it unlikely that the Arabs would not increase their oil
production during the next several years, an American participant said that"something other than hydrocarbons is absolutely essential for the longer run."If alternative forms of energy did not come into the picture by 1980-85, ourproblems would be infinitely worse than the ones we envisaged now for 1980.
Enormous volumes of coal were available, for one thing; only seven or eight percent of recoverable reserves had been consumed so far in the history of theworld. Shale reserves were also substantial. Governments should be concerting
their efforts in research and development for these and other resources.
German and Netherlands speakers recommended that Europe reconsider theclosing of its coal mines. They did not look competitive at this juncture, butthey might be ten years from now. A French participant, on the other hand,
did not believe that the European coal industry warranted additional invest5l

ment. Perhaps 100 million tons more of coal could be mined in Europe, but
200 billion tons would be needed by 1985 and twice that much by early in thenext century. The price of European coal energy would be at least two centimes
per therm, while it was estimated that nuclear power plants could produce
profitably at o.8 per therm.
The author of the American working paper stated that the reserves of shalein the US and of tar sands in Canada represented hundreds of billions of barrelsof oil content. One should not be misled by these figures, however, as theextraction costs would be substantial. To produce a million barrels a day of
shale oil, for example, would require handling perhaps 500 million tons ofshale, nearly as much as our present production of coal. There were also
environmental factors, such as the inadequacy of water resources in the areas
where shale was found and the problem of disposal of the expanded shale after
extraction. Consequently, we could probably count on production of no morethan 500-800,000 barrels a day of shale oil by 1980-85. Work on tar sands was
further advanced, and we could anticipate production of perhaps 600-700,000
barrels a day by the early 198o's. While shale and tar sands could thus makesignificant contributions to our supplies, much greater reliance should beplaced on coal and nuclear energy.
In the judgment of a Canadian participant, the enormous potential of tar
sands had not been generally recognized. The Athabasca tar sands in theprovince of Alberta contained reserves of some 50 billion barrels on thesurface and 250 billion barrels below it. In the light of technological breakthroughs and the increased price of crude oil, the exploitation of those surface
reserves had now become economically feasible. The construction of eight or
IO plants there would allow Alberta tar sands to take up perhaps 10-15 percent of the slack in US import requirements from the Middle East. In theprocess, industrial companies would be encouraged to work on further technological improvements which would make extraction of the underground reserves
profitable.
A British speaker referred to the lead time required for the tar sands project,and said that as soon as development was economically justified by the world
price of crude oil and/or some politically-sponsored incentive, the internationaloil companies would certainly be prepared to move ahead.
Another Canadian participant replied that, by 1975, the accelerating priceof crude oil should have passed the current production price of tar sand. The
speaker went on to say that nuclear energy offered the best early opportunity
to replace petroleum for the static generation of energy, i.e., for non-transportation uses. There were serious problems including enrichment, prolifera-tion and waste disposal, and the OECD was the best forum for a cooperative
research effort.
Two Swedish participants agreed that urgent international action wasneeded on nuclear enrichment and the handling of wastes. According to someestimates, the electricity companies would rely on nuclear power for half of
their production by the mid-198o's. Uranium enrichment capacity, still
confined largely to the US, would be fully utilized by about 1982, so Europe
had to move quickly in that direction.
According to a French participant, Europe had nearly reached its limit inhydroeletric production, coal was uneconomic, and solar energy lay too far
in the future. Nuclear energy gave the only promise of reducing our dependence
on petroleum. This meant that Europe had to devote itself, not only to the
problems of uranium enrichment and safety, but also to the task of greatly
enlarging its electric transmission capacities. The cost of developing nuclear
power plants and related transmission lines would not be any greater than aparallel program for, say, producing energy from North Sea oil. But even with
optimum growth of electricity based on nuclear power over the next quartercentury, France would only cut her dependence on oil in half, so that problem
would remain to be solved.
A British speaker, conceding that we would be greatly dependent on nuclear
energy a decade from now, wondered if we could calmly accept the risks
involved. Safety objections might be met by deep underground burial of
breeder reactors, but there would be a thousand of them in the US alone. The
disposal of hot wastes would require a solution which would be valid for hundreds of thousands of years, and the transportation of plutonium on a large
scale involved risks of highjacking. Although we could hope to find solutions
which were not yet evident, was it not prudent to question our whole trend of
economic growth, and to encourage only those forms of technology whichwere "environment-enhancing"?
A Norwegian participant asked what action the OECD was taking concerning the principal immediate problems connected with nuclear energy, which
he identified as: development of the fast breeder (difficult with enriched uranium reactors, he thought, because of a shortage of fuel); disposal of hot
wastes; and education of the public to take a rational attitude toward nuclear
risks. A longer-term problem was the need to advance work on nuclear fusion
technology.
An International speaker replied that the first two of those subjects wereindeed on the priority list of the OECD nuclear energy agency. The third- education of the public - did not seem to fall within the framework of theirstudy. The realization of fusion projects Jay beyond the year 2000, so it was

53
52

11
11

i
i

---------•llllllllllllilillfli!!llllll!!!!ii!!l!!:'tt:W~~V1~:t~:iii;_~Ji~not on the pre-1985 priority list, but this subject would come onto the research
agenda in due course.
Referring to the implication in a previous intervention that uranium was inlimited supply, a Canadian speaker argued that it was a relatively common
mineral available at fairly reasonable prices. Fear of a shortage of uranium
should therefore not deter the development of nuclear energy. Although thefusion reactor was not likely before the end of the century, the technology ofreactors for the generation of electricity was well advanced and could soon
provide a substantial answer to the supply problem.
An Italian participant agreed with this forecast, but expressed disappointment that national rivalries had subverted Euratom. If Europe ever hoped tohave a measure of energy independence, it was essential to revive nuclear
research and development at the Community level. A German speakerconcurred in this prescription.
The author of the International working paper explained that the failure ofEuratom had been assured when the purely research aspect had become
subservient to industrial applications; then each country thought it could do
better than its neighbor and make more profit than by working in unison.
Unfortunately, this tendency was not limited to the nuclear field: producers ofcoal, oil and electricity were all in favor of rational energy policies, until
imports, or increased costs, or public controls interfered with their freedom.
We would all agree on energy policies for our neighbors, but not for ourselves.
A British intervention suggested that lack of a coherent European energy
policy should not be blamed on the EC as a whole, but on the Council of
Ministers, which had failed to implement sensible recommendations. Recent
Community debate on the energy question had in fact been "far more impressive than anything we have had in the House of Commons."
This position was endorsed by an Italian speaker, who pointed out the resultthat the Commission's statements on energy were becoming weaker andweaker. About all that was left of Community policy were the internal aspects,
whereas external relations - with the US, Japan, the producing and developing
countries - ought to be more important. At the same time, the speaker was
sceptical about the revival of Euratom, as he did not favor sector policies. If
Community nuclear policy were to be based mainly on research problems, hewould prefer to stress the industrial aspects.
A "global crash program" on nuclear fuels was advocated by an American
participant, who remarked that we had all mistakenly assumed 20 years agothat "the nuclear age was around the corner, and that a substantial amount ofour power would come from nuclear sources."
A Belgian speaker reminded the meeting that the word "nuclear" still

evoked an emotional public reaction. An educational program was needed toreorient our system of values, so that a nuclear reactor was regarded morefavorably than a fuel oil plant.

III. What Can Be Done about the Demand Situation?
A. The validity of consumption forecasts
A German participant asked whether the energy forecasts on which thediscussion had been based were necessarily inexorable. With so many Westerncountries approaching zero population growth, would consumption indeed
continue to grow as predicted? Could not the public be educated as well torenounce certain comforts to which they had become accustomed, such as air
conditioning, overheating and the proliferation of private transportation?
The author of the American working paper conceded that projections of
future requirements indeed covered a wide range. Differences between thehigh and low official estimates of import demand for the US, Europe andJapan were 10 million barrels a day for 1980 and 12 million for I 985. However,there was very little we could actively do to reduce consumption substantiallyin the next ten years. We could not build mass transportation systems withinthat time, and cutbacks in other areas would be marginal. Attempts to cut
consumption simply avoided facing the problem of our dependence on two or
three producing countries, who could "hold us for ransom" even if world
demand were reduced by 20 million barrels a day in the 198o's.
A British speaker pointed out that past experience showed that official
forecasts of energy consumption trends could be quite wide of the mark.
A Canadian participant wanted to know more about the nature of expecteddemand. Had the estimates been broken down between "what might be called
legitimate industrial producer demand and the unrestrained whims of consumers?" And how much waste could be avoided? Could not democratic
governments recognize that energy economy was an essential national strategy,
and devise systems of incentives and disincentives? Very minor restraints could
produce striking results, and the alternative was a menacing system of rationing
and increased prices.

.i

. f\

[i

B. Economic, political and social aspects of demand reduction
A Swedish participant said that a reduction in the demand curves frompresent projections was "largely a question of political will". The market had
to be manipulated by a price mechanism - taxes or other - and certain physicalrestrictions and infrastructure investments, such as in public transport. If
solutions were not found, industry would be the first sector to be severely hurt

\:I

ti
11

r;I
\i

i.1![I

55

r:

,·.~

54

,.

••

\

J

l ,. ilil'1hiilli( -'•'i· ,\,_;(1~·;1, :'•J<,\'/,:t~J; :'{~;:til

by energy shortages. It was therefore in the interest of industrialists to accept acertain amount of political intervention. It was difficult, though, for any one
country to "go it alone", and international targets and programs to reduce
consumption would help politicians to enact necessary measures which would
not always be popular.
The American participant who had proposed a plan for US "energy independence" believed, on the other hand, that international cooperation to
reduce consumption would be effective only if there were strong national
programs. The extravagant waste of energy in the US was appalling; per capita
consumption was three times as great as in Europe, but the quality of!ife was notproportionately better. This indicated substantial opportunities for saving if
appropriate incentives and disincentives were adopted, and the speaker thoughta reduction in annual demand growth from 41/ 2 per cent to 3 per cent was"politically saleable now".
A British participant asked whether the disproportionate per capita consumption of energy in America as compared with Europe - which was expected
to drop very little before the end of the century - was due more to inefficiency
in the industrial sector or to the extravagance of private consumers. The
author of the International working paper replied that the higher US consumption had two explanations: first, the much larger size of the country meantthat transportation costs were greater; and second, there had always been
more waste, since energy had been traditionally cheap in the US.
A comparison of working conditions today and a generation ago in US
factories, mills and offices was offered by an American participant. Much of
the improvement in workers' health and efficiency was attributable to theadvent of air conditioning and air cleaning, and American offices and plants
now routinely incorporated those features. Another, less positive, development
during recent years had been the steady decline in the reliability of commuter
railroad service, which had brought many Americans to rely increasingly on
their automobiles to get to and from work.
Thus, much more was at stake than simply checking "the unrestrained
desires of the consumer". The speaker warned that "a very sharp decrease in
the gross national product and a tremendous amount of labor turmoil" could
result from a wholesale cutback in American energy consumption.
Several participants referred to the particularly depressive effect which a
reduction in energy consumption would have on the vulnerable less-developed
countries, who were just now poised to make new advances on the social andeconomic scale. The consensus was that special preferential arrangements were
warranted to guarantee the "third world" import and consumption levels
sufficient to sustain its momentum toward development. A British speaker

56

pointed out, however, that 92 per cent of the automobiles in the world werelocated in North America, Japan and Europe.
The importance of an informed public opinion was stressed by a number ofparticipants. A Danish speaker said that people would be willing to suffer
hardships and restrictions if they understood the reasons for them. As things
were, perhaps three-quarters of the European population did not know whatthe "energy crisis" was all about, which made effective political action difficult.
The oil companies could not very well take the lead in an educational program,as they were rather unpopular and would be suspected of bias. An organizationsuch as the OECD, however, could possibly divert a small part of its long-term
research budget into the immediate task of bringing home to the people ofWestern Europe what was at stake, and what some of the solutions were.
An American participant felt that reduction of demand in his country would
be aided by a new energy crisis statement from the administration, suggesting
specific consumer actions and attitudes that would cut consumption. A changeof orientation in advertising by the energy industry in general would also be
helpful.
Another US speaker said that the energy crisis was so far too abstract andpotential for the public to grasp, and a Netherlands intervention suggested thatmany industrial leaders as well lacked a sense of urgency about the problem.
A Swiss participant countered that a perusal of newspapers and magazines
during the past six months would have made the man in the street well awareof the nature of the crisis.

i:11

!:,\
'·

I

.It

!i5:
'~

i
11

i

~~

!!~i
1:

C. Avenues towards better fuel economy

Ii

Reducing industrial and household consumption
A Canadian participant spoke of the great waste of energy (perhaps as muchas half of consumption in the US), and proposed that we attack the problem
on that front as well as on the supply front. It had been said that waste inindustry was even greater than among private consumers. We needed some
control over the end use of energy, "to divert it from socially unproductive tosocially productive uses." One method would be for utility companies to stop
giving quantity discounts and start charging quantity premiums.
A Netherlands speaker thought that industry in general could achieve
substantial savings on its fuel bill. He also pointed out that some of the northerncountries had done an excellent job of insulating their dwellings, bringing their
heating costs below those of the rest of Europe. A German participant addedthat Europe was not as overheated as the US, but that a lot of unnecessary air
conditioning was perhaps coming in vogue. Referring to a previous American
1•

57

!!d
f' ~

;l

1'
~;

r·

~·
,,~
t:

!i

:n
it\
.I

,11

,I
'I

i
\!
1:

I
Ii'

j
5

-------------------··><:,,; '\'f_""'!;t,.'\~\«.4<.iiintervention, a British speaker wondered whether it was really necessary torebuild office buildings in order to open their windows.
An American speaker said that we ought to train and use many moreexperts in the field of fuel efficiency and conservation. Most of the know-how
today was concentrated in the hands of people who stood to profit from thegreater use of fuels; it was unrealistic to expect them to advise on ways of
reducing demand.
Certain countries had set examples that were worth emulating. In Norway,
a high level of insulation was required to qualify for a house mortgage loan; in
Britain, a National Fuel Efficiency Service had given helpful advice during theperiod of postwar construction. A cooperative effort now among, for example,
the OECD countries could assure the development and exchange of new
expertise on fuel conservation.
2.

Improving transportation efficiency

Many of the participants were convinced that a radical change in our modesof transportation was the key to a substantial reduction in energy demand.
A Canadian speaker said that over 75 per cent of the energy input in
American automobile engines was wasted. He condemned the "monsters of
Detroit, which use twice as much fuel to go half as far as the cars built elsewherein the world." A US participant agreed that American cars were wasteful, butestimated their fuel consumption at simply twice as much per mile as European
models.
Another American participant was troubled by the apparent philosophicalassumption by many people in his country, including the young, that they had"some kind of right" not to drive small automobiles. One measure proposedby a German speaker was to limit automobile ownership to those over 2r. It
was essential to prevent the proliferation of private transport, even if thismeant subsidizing mass transport to the point ofreducing fares to zero.
A Belgian intervention emphasized the need for a "psycho-social andpolitical" reorientation of our values, to enable an efficient network of public
transport to replace our "absurd system" of urban transportation by private
automobiles, with its attendant problems of parking, road congestion and air
pollution. Although this reorientation would not completely solve the energy
problem, even a marginal reduction in demand would be welcome in the
supply crisis which lay ahead.
The fact was, as a British speaker mentioned, that family holiday travel byprivate car, for instance, cost a fraction of the railway fare. Could one realistically expect subsidies of public transport that would be large enough to closethat gap?
58

Another British participant sought to put this part of the discussion inperspective by pointing out that automobile gasoline accounted at most for
15-20 per cent of a barrel of oil. Although this was important, it was not the
major issue. "We're talking about fuel oil, diesel oil," he said. "Those are themain uses of energy. The automobile market is the least of our problems."
An American speaker, responding to a British question, feared neverthelessthat gasoline shortages and rationing could cause unemployment and "tremendous social disruption" in the US automobile industry. A German participant
was inclined to share that concern. He foresaw "enormous consequences" forthe automobile industry and for our economies as a whole if oil became much
more expensive or was in really short supply.
On this point, an Italian speaker offered the following statistics and forecasts:
The present world automobile market amounted to 34 million cars. Three
million people were employed in producing them, and another three milion
worked in related manufacturing. The automobile industry accounted foraround 15 percent of total energy consumption.
By 1980 and beyond, there was the chance of a smaller engine, an accelerated
switch from gasoline to diesel fuel, and possibly an electric or steam car.
Besides these changes in the motor car itself, there was the possibility that the
motor car would be supplanted in part by public transportation; but thatwould entail educating people to new conceptions of towns and different waysof living, which would take time.
In short, the forces tending to reduce the automobile's share of energy
consumption would not be felt for at least six to eight more years. At the sametime, the campaigns for cleaner air and greater auto safety would mean increased gasoline consumption through antipollution devices and bigger cars.
The US automobile exhaust device would require an additional million
barrels a day of gasoline in 1976, according to an American speaker. This wasmore than all the proposed production of oil shale - "a little counter-productive !" Two other Americans and a British participant argued that it wasessential that the US defer the imposition of its anti-pollution measures
beyond 1975. As one of them put, it, "the goals of the environmentalists are
excellent, but their timetable has proved to be impracticable." Exporting these
American standards to Western Europe would just compound the problem.
A French speaker referred to the relation between gasoline shortages and theslowdown in refinery construction due to environmentalist restrictions. Legitimate motives were involved, but one could never hope to regain the clean airof the horse and buggy days of 1850.

59

3. The validiry effiscal measures
Opinions were divided about the effectiveness of tax incentives or disincentives.
A Belgian participant explained that, in the past, European countries had
generally not practiced "fiscal neutrality" in the energy field: the oil sector
had been taxed more heavily than coal or nuclear energy. Although thispolicy had admittedly been discriminatory, it had perhaps been right; otherwise the demand for oil products today would be even greater.
It might be constructive to increase some oil tax exemptions to finance more
research, but the principle of fiscal restraints on demand should be retained.
We had been privileged to enjoy cheap energy for the past 20 years, and we
now had to accept the inevitability of price increases.
A French speaker recommended heavy increases in taxes on oil, especiallygasoline, on condition that the proceeds be devoted to (a) constructing nuclear
energy plants for electricity, and (b) subsidizing commuter trains.
The reaction of a British participant was that increasing taxes on oil was asure way of stimulating the producing countries to demand a bigger "take".
The consuming governments already took more than the producers, and thiswould "only give more ammunition to the Arabs."
A German speaker suggested that this issue could be averted if some of thetaxes - enacted to restrict demand in the consuming countries - could bechannelled as aid directly to developing countries. This would not only
discourage the producing countries from seeking higher prices, but would also
be a step away from the dangerous "bloc-building" trend.
A British participant, agreeing that heavier taxes on oil itself would subject
us to more OPEC pressure, proposed instead that taxes be increased on those
automobiles and machines which consumed oil extravagantly. "Nothing would
do more to promote the use of small cars; this would not be rationing by thepurse, it would be exactly the opposite. We would discourage better-off people
from having bigger cars." He also advocated fiscal means to discourage theuse of private motor cars for city commuting, thereby aiding the developmentof mass transit systems which would use one-fifth or one-tenth of the energy.
A US participant intervened to remark that this speaker had "developed a
new devil: the American consumer, particularly the automobile driver."The author of the American working paper thought that increasing taxes
on fuel for industry or public transport would have little impact on demand.
It might have some effect on private transportation, but only marginally.
Even with the present high fiscal burden of $51 on a $13 ton of oil, gasoline
consumption was still rising 5-6 per cent a year.
An Italian speaker observed that the automobile was responsible for about
60

20 per cent of total energy consumption in the US and 13 per cent worldwide.
If higher taxation on gasoline and/or big engines were to reduce engine sizes by
40-50 per cent within eight years, the effect would be merely to cut the percentage of energy consumed by cars from 13 per cent to 1o per cent. Thus theimpact of fiscal disincentives would not be significant, in .his judgment.
A Netherlands participant reported that the attempts in his country toreplace the motor car with public transport by means of price policy had
failed. It would help to modernize the trains, but that would require hugeinvestments. In the long run, the only way to be sure of checking the use of
automobiles - which was essential - was by physical restrictions on the roads
and parking facilities.
The author of the International working paper agreed that elasticity ofshort-term demand in the transportation field was rather low. So far in Europe,
the heavy taxation of gasoline for general budgetary purposes had not reduced
demand, although it could eventually push much of it from gasoline over todiesel oil.
In general, though, the speaker warned against "rationing through thepurse strings." The acquisition of automobiles and household appliances bymore and more citizens represented commendable social and economic
progress, and government action to increase the price of fuel ought to be thevery last measure envisaged.

IV. The Monetary Impact of the Oil Crisis
A. Expected changes in patterns of trade, investment a~d payments
An International participant discussed the likely balance of payments
implications of oil developments during this decade for the OECD group, theOPEC members, and the less-developed countries.
As of 1972, the OECD area imported $17-3/4 billion worth of oil fromOPEC countries, who had a $6-3/4 billion trade surplus with OECD. It was
impossible to make accurate forecasts for several years hence, with the variations that might occur in volume and price, but the general order of magnitude
would be that, by 1980, annual oil imports from OPEC would increase as
follows: for North America, from $2 to $19 billion; for Europe, from $9.2 to$37 billion; and for Japan, from $2.4 to $19 billion. In total, $75 billion ofoil
imports from OPEC into the OECD area.
To arrive at the net balance of payment impact, one had first to deduct fromthat figure about $15 billion for revenues for transportation and profits of oilcompanies. Then there would be payments for goods and services importedby the producing countries, varying widely from one to another according to61their absorptive capacities. On average, these items would total $40 billion,
bringing the net figure down to $ 20 billion. To this would have to be added
the producing countries' earnings on their investments, say, $5 billion. The
net result would be a current account surplus for the OPEC countries in 1980
of around $25 billion with the OECD area. This would add up to something
less than one-half of one per cent of the gross national products of the OECD
area by that time.
The OECD group currently aimed at keeping a surplus on current accountof about one-half of one per cent of GNP with the developing countries,
representing our transfer of real resources to them. So, assuming no change inaid policies, the OECD area as a whole would no longer have a current accountsurplus, and its capital account and current account would be roughly inequilibrium. This overall picture would be very uneven, of course, ifit could be
split up for individual countries; some European countries would import lessenergy in 1980, the US andJapan much more.
However, as the US stood to benefit substantially from increased exportsof goods and services to the OPEC group, and as OPEC investment funds
would be flowing to the US, there was no need to be especially pessimistic
about the net impact on the American balance of payments, although there
was a new element of uncertainty in the picture.
Unfortunately, the prospects for the balance of payments of the developing
countries were much less encouraging. Even if they did not increase the volumeof their oil imports, tl1ey would still have to absorb OPEC price increases thatwere estimated to eat up more than half of the official development assistancethey would receive between now and 1980. The OPEC countries would thus
gain reserves which they would again invest in the OECD area, which -insteadof remaining in balance - would show additional surpluses gained at theexpense of the developing countries.
The latter in turn would have to cut down on their imports from OECD,giving rise to a major policy problem. As the OECD countries as a groupwould no longer have a current account surplus with the rest of the world,
they could not expect to earn back within the OECD area additional exports ascompensation for higher oil imports, and the only way to build up a current
account surplus again would be by increasing capital exports to the developing
countries. In short, there was no doubt that these oil developments would makeit substantially more difficult to get agreement on balance of payment aims andcorrective policies.
In answer to a British participant, who had challenged the basic $4 a barrel
figure as being "grossly over-optimistic," the International speaker replied that
it was not too far off the mark for estimate purposes. He cautioned, though, that

all his figures should be taken with great reserve. For one thing, he had notmade any assumption about price increases of industrial exports to OPEC
countries, although he assumed they would occur as a result of inflation in theOECD area and the higher cost of energy. This would tend to cause a deterioration in terms of trade for the non-OECD world, including the OPEC countries.
The British speaker countered that continued productivity increases in OECD
would tend to lower the prices of our manufactured exports, worsening ourterms of trade.
An American speaker pointed out that one official US estimate of the futuredelivered price had been as high as $5 a barrel - which was now perhaps on
the low side - but that certain cost factors would reduce the net return to the
producing countries by around $1. Two other American participants reported
that the author of the estimate just referred to - Mr. James Akins - hadsubsequently said that the $5 figure would prove to be too low, and might
indeed range up to $10-12.50 a barrel.
An American speaker said that his own analysis had confirmed the broadconclusions indicated in the preceding International intervention. Most of
our oil price assumptions were probably too conservative, but $12 looked
outside the upper limit. Balance of payments forecasts were always bound tobe wrong, especially when one tried to deal with isolated sectors, ignoring thetriangular aspects that existed.
It seemed clear, though, that the US would not fare as well as Europe orJapan on its balance of payments in energy. The trade of the principal OPEC
countries - those of the Persian Gulf and Africa - had historically been largely
with Western Europe, and if that trend continued, the US could look forward
to a $6-8 billion trade deficit. That was not an enormous figure as a percentage
of GNP, but it was large in relation to recent deficits. Europe could end up
with a net payments surplus by 1980 partly as a result of the North Sea, andthe Japanese could cut their deficit with the proceeds of tanker construction,
which might amount to $g billion.
A British speaker warned against underestimating the dynamic effect of thehuge US oil import bill. This was likely to make the Americans concernedwith exports on an unprecedented scale so as to alter world trade and monetary
patterns.
Reflecting on some of the figures projected above, an American participant
was impressed with the community of interest of the OECD group and thevulnerable developing world in assuring the continual flow of Arab oil at areasonable price. As this issue became more political, we should seek to capitalize on it.

6362

B. Consequences for the international monetary system
The potential impact of oil developments on the world monetary system was
dramatically indicated by an American participant, who said that before theend of the century some 350 billion barrels of oil would be produced in therelatively small geographical area at the headwaters of the Persian Gulf. This
production would be worth from one to more than three trillion dollars,
according to the price per barrel.
A French speaker said that the fixing of prices and the settlement of payments had to be done within the framework of a coherent monetary system,
which we did not have at present. Underlying the current demands for priceincreases was the realization by the Arabs that the purchasing price of thedollar had recently declined substantially and might continue to do so.
An International participant mentioned that representatives of the OPEC
countries were involved in the discussions of the Committee of Twenty for thereform of the monetary system. They were "talking sensible, businesslike
language"· in requesting a stable system which would enable them to invest
their oil revenues. Both the public and private sector should seek to enlarge thescope of their meetings with financial representatives of the producing countries, not only on monetary questions but also on development assistance,
where they could share significant responsibilities even if they did not become
normal donors.
These remarks were seconded by an Italian speaker, who added that earlyreform of the monetary system was essential to solve the liquidity problem andto encourage the OPEC countries to make longer-term investments. He did notforesee an early end to the US balance of payments deficit, as the freedom it
conferred on American monetary and fiscal policy would be hard to give up.
Even if there were an official intention to end it, the measures employed werelikely to be ineffective.
In the judgment of a Dutch commentator, the build-up of "hot money" in
the Eurodollar market was making it increasingly difficult to create an efficientmonetary system. So far, though, the oil money did not seem to be an especially aggravating factor, as it probably represented at most a quarter of the$100 billion Eurodollar market. In the most recent crisis on the foreignexchanges, when some $15 billion had to be taken in by the central banks ofEurope and Japan, probably not more than $2-3 billion came from the Arabcountries hedging against the dollar. The problem would be potentially worse,
however, as larger amounts accumulated in the hands of the Arabs, especially
if they clung to their preference for liquid, short-term investments.
An American speaker agreed that there was little evidence that the official
funds of Arab nations, or even of their of oil companies, had contributed to64

the recent large exchange movements. The monetary authorities of the producing countries had "behaved extremely conservatively and rather well."
A Belgian participant said that, while the oil producing countries had
admittedly not been exclusively responsible for the "hot money" flows, they
had had a sufficiently marginal role in the recent disturbances to give cause
for concern. This volatile new element in the short-term market made it all
the more imperative that we reorganize the monetary system. In that context,
we should give serious consideration to extending the application of the twotier exchange market (one for commercial, one for financial transactions),
which had already proved its efficiency in his country.
In the view of a Canadian speaker, the OPEC countries would sooner orlater become absorbed in developing their own economies, for which theywould need to import our technological and material resources. Consequently
there would probably not be the fundamental balance of payments disruptions
that we had feared. To what extent the balances being accumulated in themeantime could be called "hot money" was a matter of speculation. The
investment of short-term funds was bound to follow certain immutable laws ofsupply and demand.
A Norwegian intervention alluded to the difficulty of measuring the segmentof the Eurodollar market that constituted "oil money'', including freights fromflags of convenience tonnage. Elevating the dinar to the status of a major
convertible currency was a possibility that had been rumored in some quarters.
A British participant said that our work in reforming the internationalmonetary system should not be dominated by the oil issue. Conceivably,
though, the Arab countries would benefit indirectly from whatever solution
the Committee of Twenty might find to the problem of international reserves.
Perhaps the recent rise in the price of gold reflected the Arabs' concern about
the dollar. If gold advanced to three or four times its present level, as somepeople were predicting, the speaker would favor letting the producing countries "have all the gold in the world at that price, if they consider that a more
adequate reserve."
As big as the monetary impact of the oil situation might become in the
future, it would be "only a little addition - not much more than a tenth - tothe deep mess which we are in already," according to a German speaker. "Wehave first to solve the basic mess and then see to the oil problem, and not in theother order." Unless the US soon took impressive steps to restore international
confidence in the dollar, growing amounts of central bank reserves would be
set loose - and not just on the fringes of Europe, where the process had alreadybegun, but throughout the world. We would then have to deal with a Eurodollar market of $200 billion, twice as big as it was today.
65"

The quality of American discussion of this problem, both at home and withgovernments abroad, indicated that few had a convincing grasp of its complexities. American legislators and lobbyists were talking about tariffs and nontariff barriers to trade, but the effect of such barriers had been dwarfed by thecurrency devaluations and revaluations of the past six years. The US had notacted quickly enough to raise interest rates to attract funds from abroad, nor
did it offer incentives for the repatriation of capital gains, which were held
abroad "to buy more corporations in Europe and in other places." At the sametime, Americans deplored the fact that Europeans did not help them to overcome the gap in their trade balance.
Over the past several years, the US had become accustomed to consuming
more than it produced, while "insane developments of structure" in Japan andGermany had led those countries to produce more than they could consume.
Adjustments under the system of fixed exchange parities came too late or not
at all. It was too early to say whether floating rates would work any better.
Unless. confidence in the dollar returned, world monetary reform would bejust "an abstract academic exercise." America's friends would help her, but
first she had to set her strategy. Eventually we should work toward an international federal reserve system which could impose rules on foreign currency
accounts. If the Euro-markets had been subject to regulation in the way thatnational banking systems were, things would not have gotten out of hand as
they had done. It was important to recognize that the oil money question was
merely a part of this much larger framework.
An American participant replied to various points which had been raised in
the preceding intervention. He did not think that many of his compatriots
regarded the forthcoming trade negotiations as a substantial mechanism for
improving the US balance of payments. However, they would like to see achange in the EC's common agricultural policy and its trade preferences for
Mediterranean countries and EFTA neu~rals.
There were signs that the new exchange parities had "cut down to the bone,"and the speaker looked for steady improvement in the US balance of payments
over the next two or three years. The disparity in savings rates from one part of
the world to another .was disturbing, however. This suggested the need formore frequent parity changes or a really "clean float". America's propensity toconsume more than she produced should be cured in time by parity changes.
Raising interest rates to bring capital home implied a deflationary monetary
policy that would be difficult to pursue in the face of a 6 per cent unemployment rate. The repatriation of overseas capital gains was already subject torather strict rules, and would probably soon be further encouraged by tax
changes.
66

C. Investing the new wealth of the producing countries
According to an American participant, the OPEC countries would have a
net investable accumulation of funds of more than $ 100 billion between now
and 1980. Nearly three-quarters of that would be in Saudi Arabia; some
$13 billion in Kuwait; and $11 billion in Abu Dhabi, with a native populationof only about 20,000. Iran would probably spend most of its earnings, andVenezuela might even have a deficit. By the end of the decade, Saudi Arabia
alone would be accumulating $20 billion annually, roughly the present stock
market value of the biggest US companies.
While these were very impressive figures, they were not all that big in termsof the financial markets of the world. In 1971, the markets of IO major countries
had provided $197 billion in share capital and long-term loans, and the totalof new issues in the US had been $100 billion.
The Arabs had traditionally preferred liquid, short-term securities, but theindications were that they were now seriously studying conventional, longer~term investments.
A British speaker observed that it was the nature of the Arabs and thePersians - "possibly due to centuries of rather uncertain expectations of life inthose parts" - to shy away from long-term investments. "You'd have quite ajob to persuade them to put a big factory in America."
A Dutch participant wondered whether a more concrete reason was not an
Arab apprehension that investments abroad, in the US for example, might beblocked in case of disputes about oil dealings. The Arabs were inclined forthat reason to invest rather anonymously on a short-term basis.
A German intervention had in fact contained a suggestion that the Europeans should try to create a network of mutal interests by attracting Arab oilmoney into industrial investment in the Community, so that "we would havesome kind of leverage, something to nationalize" if relations deteriorated.
In the view of an International participant, however, it was important tolimit the unpredictability and the volatility of the flows of OPEC capital
towards the OECD area. We had a common interest in finding ways for the
Arabs to make safe, long-term, high-yield investments which were protectedagainst monetary instability.
A number of interventions dealt with the possibility of the OPEC countries
making "downstream" investments in the petroleum industry. An American
speaker reported that there was little evidence so far that the Arabs had been
moving into major oil company shares, although there was no way to prevent
them from doing so short of government regulation. A Canadian participant,however, thought that most countries already had, or would adopt, mechanisms that could be used to control the takeover of domestic resources.

67Another American questioned the apparent assumption that it would beundesirable for the OPEC countries to acquire downstream investments in the
consuming countries. Letting them have a taste of the profits would make themless anxious to appropriate and to attack the allocation of earnings as between
producing, refining and distributing.
A Norwegian participant challenged the forecast contained in the American
working paper that the Arabs would expand their ownership and control of
oil tankers. Unless they could persuade someone to sell them tankers, theywould have to have them built, which would take four to five years. Then theywould have trouble manning them, as the present sailors in the world did not
like the Arabs and would not sail for them.
Another Norwegian and a British participant argued that the Arabs could
very easily man their ships, and an Italian speaker reported that Colonel
Qadhafi had proposed a Maltese shipyard for the construction of Arab tankers.
The author of the American working paper predicted that Arab-owned
tankers would be "the wave of the future for a substantial part of new exports,"
operated by the same crews who were now manning the fleets sailing underflags of convenience. The Japanese were already trying to obtain special
supply concessions from the Arabs by offering to build them tankers, as well
as refineries and petrochemical facilities.
· A British speaker referred to the dilemma of the oil companies, who werecaught between the producing and consuming countries, each insisting that oil
be carried in their own ships.
The author of the International working paper said that the desire of manyof the oil producing countries to diversify their economies gave an opportunity
to Europe and America to be real economic partners to them - something
more than just buyers of crude oil. One could envisage, for instance, financial
and technical collaboration for the creation of petrochemical industries in the
Middle East. The speaker also called for European Community cooperation
with the producing countries in assisting other countries in the Third World,such as by channelling aid budgets into development loan guarantee funds,
which would provide greater "leverage" than outright grants.
The notion of building up a petrochemical industry on the base of the resources of oil and gas producing countries, including the Soviet Union, also
appealed to an Italian participant, but a British speaker pointed out that there
was already an oversupply of petrochemicals in the consuming countries.
Transfer of part of the oil revenues from the Eurodollar market to thedevelopment of the Arab countries was urged in an Italian intervention.
Egypt, which would soon have 50 million inhabitants, was especially needy.
A Dutch participant - who had advocated involving the OPEC countries

68

in the trade and monetary councils of the world, including GATT - said that it
would be particularly helpful if we could advise them on investment strategies.
"A scheme for us to use their money" was the wrong approach, though. The
better philosophy was simply that they had a lot to do in their own countries
and we could help them.
A French speaker proposed the creation of a sort of international officeor clearing house to channel the unstable so-called "hot money" from oilrevenues into sound long-term investments at high yields. Preference would begiven to reinvestment in the development projects of the producing country
receiving the funds, but a measure of order and control would be achieved
through the clearing house formula. Most countries already had in place theexchange control mechanisms necessary to implement such a plan.
This ingenious suggestion was supported by a Canadian and a British
participant, although the latter thought that it, like other proposals, would
take a very long time to develop.
A Belgian speaker was frankly sceptical about any scheme which involved
putting funds into a complementary capital circuit that might be regarded byinvestors as a sort of "cage" which could be slammed shut in times of crisis.
Moreover, he felt that we already had at our disposal enough institutions andmechanisms, such as the International Finance Corporation, ADELA, andvarious regional development banks. It was more a question of making better,1

I\·l\'l]::11I'1·,l
1

,

:l !
.I·1

'1!

q:

l.\
\ii

'l'

,:11
111!

ii

H

use of them.

li

D. Implications for the economies of the consuming countries

·)1·
:j I

1

' l'

The Belgian speaker went on to observe that the inflationary effect ofincreases in the price of oil and energy was bound to weigh heavily on the
sharing of national income in all the consuming countries. The situation
would be vastly different from that of the low cost energy days of 15 and 20
years ago. We would all be tempted to do what the US had been criticized
for: consuming more than we produced.
That analysis was disputed by a Dutch participant, who pointed out that theenergy content of manufactured goods was still relatively modest, and that the
impact of increased Middle Eastern government takes on the total price ofenergy was marginal, as the major costs, including taxes, were in the consuming
countries. Inflation was concededly a serious problem, but the effect of the oilcrisis on it was not as drastic as might have been expected.
An International speaker called attention to the dynamic relationshipbetween oil price increases and the development of new forms and sources ofenergy, both in the US and the developing countries. How the enormous
costs of that development would fit in with the overall financing needs of the

69

l)ll

'l~: ll

:.,:

i
111

ttll
ti

[,[

hlill

qi

11\

i\1
:i I!!

!
i

~

,•,

---------lll!llllli!l!ll!lml:*'~w0.::i~;,fl'.:;~~

industrial world was an important subject for study, in the view of a Netherlands
participant.

***

The consensus of the discussion could be said to have been summed up by
an American speaker who had concluded that the only solution to the energy
crisis was "a balanced program ... at least a dozen different things put
together." There was no single panacea, no rabbit to be pulled out of amagician's hat, so to speak.
Our problem, he said, was "to find how to get the flexibility of the private
system working within reasonable government frameworks, but not as a public
corporation, to do the jobs that have to be done in the short and intermediate
future."

*
*

70

*

ITEM II

CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS CONCERNINGTHE EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE
Two working papers, summarized below, constituted the groundwork fordiscussion of this agenda item. The first was written by a Norwegian, the secondby an American participant.

..
"

"

THE CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATIONIN EUROPE:CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS

I. The Norwegian author of this working paper said that our expectations
for the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) were
determined by our interpretation of the present situation in internationalsociety, as well as by our definition of the concept of security. He proposed tolist some of the major problems which made up the raw material of our longterm security; and then to point to certain lines of development that might
contribute to their solution. SALT I and II, the agreement between WarsawBonn and between Moscow-Bonn, as well as the Berlin Agreement, CSCE and
Mutual Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR), should all be seen in this light,
as possibly important steps towards the solution of our basic problems, and not
as ends in themselves.
Perhaps they should be seen as part of a mopping-up operation, a squaring
away of the remains of certain European problems that were still with us, inorder to clear the deck for an effort to solve more global and more alarming
problems.
II. Security questions were not isolated aspects of political affairs; they
stemmed from basic problems in national and world affairs, and as suchembraced all foreign policy. Foreign policy in turn was no longer limited toregulating relations between states. It was becoming a tool for the solution of
our most important problems, including many of the internal problems of ourseparate countries. Briefly these problems were:73

- Lack of democratic political control of economic and technological development, onboth the national and international level. Governments were increasingly unable
to fulfill their goals and political programs because of strong forces outside
their control. This was true of all governments, irrespective of politicalcolor; therefore they should all have a common interest in gaining
political control over developments, unless they adhered to a doctrine of"laissez-faire". The difference between rich and poor countries wasincreasing, and even within individual countries we were unable toobliterate poverty, in spite of political declarations of intent to overcome it.
- War and terrorism. Although traditional warfare between states seemedoutmoded, there was no international peace. Other forms of violence hadtaken over: guerilla warfare, highjacking, kidnapping and violent
reprisals. Poverty, injustice, and lack of democratic political control
encouraged millions to resort to terrorism and violence.
- Limited natural resources. The growing competition for natural resources had
shown the need for international planning, cooperation and control toensure reasonable exploitation and more equitable distribution.
- Population. The rampant population increase was closely tied to poverty
and scarcity of resources, in the industrialized as well as the developing
countries.
- Environmental pollution. Industrial development and pollution, combinedwith population increases, had brought to the fore the question of control
and preservation of the environment. The value of economic growth
without political planning, and the relevance of measuring growth intraditional GNP terms were being reassessed. The issue was not growth vs.
no growth, but What sort of growth? This again raised the problem of how
to measure welfare and output in a tertiary economy.
We needed to judge political developments in relation to their contribution
to a solution to such problems as these.
Up until now, the postwar period had been characterized by a preoccupation with other problems, such as imbalance of power and military
insecurity, to which we had addressed ourselves with a martial spirit or an
overzealous sense of mission. These attitudes were no longer appropriate.
Our problems were not limited by geographic, political or national borders.
Their solutions had to be international, arrived at in cooperation between
governments, and between trade unions and consumer and industrial organizations. Individual countries would not be able to resolve these issues alone, as we ,lived in an era of transnational policies.
A characteristic development in Europe and North America, in the late74

196o's and early 197o's, was the increased understanding of the interrelationship of domestic and foreign policies. Previously, foreign policy had been by
and large the exclusive preserve of a limited group of people - politicians,
experts and journalists - who constituted the opinion-shaping and decisionmaking milieu in a country's foreign policy.
We were now witnessing a much broader participation in this decisionmaking process, as the grass-root level began to stir, either due to frustration,
bewilderment or deep concern. There was a conflict, though, between, on the
one hand, the fact that international affairs called for a kind of experience andexpertise which had rarely been developed at local levels, and, on the other
hand, the growing feeling among the public that they saw the issues andwanted quick solutions. The tension between the need for expertise and theurge on the local level to participate in important decisions would have to beresolved in the years to come, and would no doubt be an important factor ininternational relations, particularly in Western Europe and North America.
The increasing awareness of the influence of international developments on
domestic affairs had led large organizations like trade unions, industry,
shipping, banking and the press to develop their own capability in international
affairs. It had also led non-parliamentary pressure groups to be more active, as
there were no well-organized channels of influence between the individual andforeign policy decisions. Many countries had a network of public influence fordomestic legislation, but this was not true for the shaping of foreign policy.
We were aware of our problems and we had the technical means to solve
them, but we lacked the organization and political will. On questions of international organization we had developed only the most rudimentary traces. In
fact, some recent developments were alarmingly counter-productive: thestress on national sovereignty, and our distaste for long-term cooperation if itmeant giving up short-term national advantages.
It was difficult to say to what extent this interpretation of the internationalsituation was a conscious motive behind the development toward CSCE/
MBFR, but in any case recent historical facts could not be excluded from thisframework of the present situation.
Czechoslovakia in 1968 had marked an important turning point for both theEast and West European countries. To the Soviet Union, it had demonstrated
the need to consolidate an unstable situation. For western countries, it had
shown that European security problems were closely linked to tensions in
Eastern Europe. All Europe thus had become dependent on the shaping of abasis for European relations that would minimize Soviet concern for the security
consequences of developments in Eastern Europe. That fact in itself was reason
enough for a CSCE, and Willy Brandt's foreign policy had opened up new75

possibilities of realistic results of multilateral East-West contacts in Europe.
III. CSCE and MBFR were examples of multinational efforts to deal withbasic problems. The tendency towards regional integration in various parts of
the world ought to be seen in this same context. While industry and capital had
long ago crossed geographic borders, political bodies and large organizations
like trade unions had continued to operate within national borders. This had
increased the gap between economic and technological development andpolitical planning and control.
The emergence of new problems on the horizon had brought about an international change of priorities, in the US, the USSR and in other nations. This
made it possible to handle the preparatory Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the preparation for Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. Security would never be attained if it were limited in concept to a
costly military defense against other nations, to the neglect of other problems.
We needed to go beyond a purely military definition of security, to releaseresources to meet our common problems. This was really the main motivation
for the nations who were meeting in Helsinki and Vienna. It was possible, ofcourse, that the economic and political gains of the two conferences could betransferred to other areas of conflict, such as China-USSR or the Middle East.
The agenda for the CSCE and the MBFR talks reflected the desire to movebeyond the post-war military concerns and ahead to other problems:(a) questions of security, including military measures aimed at increasing
confidence and stability with a view to reducing the dangers of military confrontations.
(b) cooperation in the fields of economics and environment: commercial
exchanges, cooperation in industrial matters and in the development of raw
materials and energy resources.
(c) development of human contacts, broadening of cultural and educational
exchanges and wider flow of information.
This agenda for the CSCE, plus the MBFR talks, would constitute a broad
range of discussions between all European states, the US and Canada. Concrete
results would be of at least psychological importance for the development of
the issues on the agenda.
The only chance of success of the CSCE and the MBFR talks was thatnational, regional and pan-European interests would be found to coincide.
The main short-term justification of these meetings was that they might
reduce tensions and engender more confidence between Eastern and Western
European countries.
One could take one of three possible attitudes towards the conferences: towait phlegmatically for possible results; to view them with a rather fashionable76

pessimistic scepticism; or to look forward to them with a sober optimism.
Attitudes of indifference or pessimism might well amount to self-fulfilling
prophesies. It was therefore politically necessary, as well as reasonably realistic, to be soberly optimistic.
Speculations on the motives behind proposals made by one or the other side
could be frustrating exercises, but they could be constructive if we tried toconnect motives with possible expectations. Long-term hopes had been sketchedabove. Immediate motives probably differed from country to country in the
East as well as in. the West. Broadly speaking, though, the motives of theSoviet Union in suggesting that the CSCE be convened could be summed up
as follows:- consolidation of the status-quo, including the Soviet position in Eastern
Europe;multilateral recognition of the status-quo in Europe, particularly of theGerman situation;
increased importation of Western technology and know-how;- fragmentation of NATO;
more security, less tension in Europe, thereby freeing more resources for
dealing with China;
all-European cooperation as a way of diverting further Western European
integration;
accelaration of US disengagement from Western Europe.
The motives and expectations of the US and of most of the other NATOcountries could probably be summarized as follows:
inadequacy of bilateral contacts in dealing with the overall problem ofEuropean security;
West Germany's interest in shaping a framework that might graduallychange the "German problem";- desire to get balanced and mutual force reductions in view of the inevitable US force reduction;- hope that East European countries would become more independent intheir foreign policies;
wish to see a ceiling on defense budgets;need of the Western countries to appear to retain the initiative, in order
not to be on the political defensive, both internationally and nationally.
An interesting change of attitude on the part of the two sides seemed to haveoccurred over time. The USSR had originally promoted the CSCE while theNATO countries were advocates of the MBFR. The preparatory talks had,
however, taken the CSCE initiative out of the Soviet hands, and played it
increasingly into the hands of the NATO and neutral countries. On the other77

Ihand, the MBFR talks had given room for some initiative on the part of the
USSR, which had proposed that neutral countries be included. The original
attitudes had thus become more balanced, a change which would probably
contribute to the possibilities of success for the talks.
Military technological results of talks like the CSCE, MBFR and SALT did
not by themselves reduce tensions, but could contribute to the growth of confidence and trust. Increased cooperation between Eastern and Western European countries would actually reduce the importance of neutral non-aligned
nations, who had fulfilled a special mission as intermediaries during the cold
war years.
Major decisions for all-European cooperation were in fact already mainly amatter between the two military groupings - the Warsaw Pact and NATO or between Washington and Moscow, and the pattern of direct contacts would
probably become even more pronounced.
Direct contact and cooperation between the EC and COMECON seemed
inevitable and desirable, even if several European countries should be left out
in the first round. Technological and economic developments with· implications
for all of Europe would inevitably be the subject offurther multilateral cooperation in the years to come.
Whether or not these attempts to normalize relations in Europe would be
successful was not yet clear. Many feared that breaking the present deadlock
might only make Europe less secure than it was now. Both blocs were aware ofthis danger, and it was unlikely that either of them would permit the development of a situation in which their security would become less rather than more
fully assured.
The Soviet Union would be watchful as her Eastern European allies attempted to move to a greater degree of independence, and they would have to
be cautious in exploiting the opportunities which the CSCE might give them.
The USSR was also concerned about the tendency towards closer politicalcooperation among the EC countries, although it probably would not oppose
this if it were assured that it was a natural step towards broader all-European
cooperation.
On the other hand, the Western European countries realized that if they
did not develop common policies at the CSCE and MBFR talks, they would be
at a considerable disadvantage compared to the US, the USSR and possibly
even the other Warsaw Pact countries in negotiations concerning the future ofEurope.
Some claimed that the Eastern and Western countries were so far apart intheir definition of "European security", that the conferences might in fact bepointless. However, it was precisely because there were differences of outlook

78

between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries that there was a European
security problem. It was therefore necessary to develop a dialogue between
the two sides, with an infrastructure of permanent institutions in which thesedifferences could be confronted and resolved. The willingness to prepare for
conferences such as the CSCE and MBFR signalled in itself a change ofpriorities. So far, Brandt's foreign policy, SALT I and II, and now the preparations for these conferences, suggested that our differences might not be irreconcilable.
The immediate task, though, was to limit the political consequences of
security imbalance. In this connection, confidence building measures("CBMs") might become concrete results of the CSCE/MBFR. The exchangeof observers during military maneuvers, particularly near national frontiers,
and the advance notification of troop movements, might be the first steppingstones towards more trust and confidence. CBMs could in other words depolitisize military power in Europe. Such measures would be important for countries like Germany, Norway, Rumania and Yugoslavia, which would be thefirst ones to feel the political effect of a military demonstration of power.
More significant in the long run than progress on individual items would be
the pattern of discussion and committee work on a wide range of topics that
could be built up over a period of years in a series of conferences or in standing
institutions. Through such a dialogue it might be possible to establish a bipartisan all-European interest, transcending bloc divisions. It could produce
active East-West cooperation on joint problems, such as a campaign topreserve the human environment throughout Europe. The execution ofagreed joint policies could be entrusted to existing international organizations.
The principal benefit to be expected from the CSCE would thus be thelaunching of a permanent political dialogue on major security, political andother issues between the divided parts of Europe. Such a dialogue did not needto exclude or inhibit bilateral East-West contacts. It would rather fill a gap
at the multilateral level and thus be a supplement to bilateral contacts.
It remained to be seen whether the CSCE and MBFR might lead to a new
institutionalized system of European collective security. It was unlikely thateither of the blocs would consent to the dismantling of its network of military
security. Thus, although the new political dialogue might moderate the fundamental antagonism between the two economic and social systems, it would
not in itself put an end to it. As long as hostility and suspicion remained, themembers of the Atlantic alliance would maintain their integrated defense
capability; and in the East, the defense agreements between the Warsaw Pactcountries were also likely to endure.
Any political dialogue which might emerge from CSCE was therefore likely79to be between countries adhering to the military pacts, which would not be
dissolved in the near future. In the West it was argued that the Soviets hoped,
through CSCE, to see the dissolution of NATO and its replacement by a collective European security system, dominated by the USSR, and excluding the
US. TJ1is outcome would in no case be acceptable to the participating Westerncountries, so it had to be excluded as a practical possibility.
Nonetheless, it was still possible that in the long term the two existing blocs
could be transformed into a new, all-European security system, with thepresence of the USSR balanced by that of the US and Canada. This would
only be possible if the existing East-West mistrust and hostility were to besupplanted by a degree of mutual confidence, allied with a solution of theideological, political and territorial confrontation. Even if this seemed desirablefrom a European point of view, it might not be what the rest of the world waslooking for. An all-European development should thus be linked to theregional integration that was taking place in other parts of the world. Such alink would help to avert a confrontation between a rich, united world on one
side and the rest of the world on the other.
The common cause in trying to solve the common basic problems - theexternal threat - would certainly be an important factor in promoting confident cooperation between all countries in Europe, while at the same timeclearing the way for cooperation with other regions of the world.

"

"

..

In his prefatory comments, the author referred to two links between thepreceding day's subject and the present one. Speakers in the discussion onenergy had asked:(r) Was a crisis necessary to bring us together to solve the problems facing us at theend of the 20th century? For the author, CSCE would help us to "clear the decks
in order to solve the problems confronting us in the 197o's". And by "us" hemeant the US, Canada and the whole of Europe, not just Western Europe.

(2) Might not certain "radical steps" have to be taken if the policy ef one or more of
the Middle Eastern countries threatened the energy supplies and economic situation ofWestern countries? The security of small countries, such as the speaker's own,
was constantly subject to such pressure to adapt their policies to suit the interests of the big, traditionally important nations in international society:
The question of sovereignty - which was dealt with much more in small counBo

tries that in large ones - was concerned with this problem of how to take propercare of one's national interests. It was most important for small nations to beable to influence developments outside their own boundaries. To do this, ·tliey
had three main roles: working to shape general public opinion; acting as
mediators; and participating in organized international cooperation.
The CSCE offered small nations a chance to take part in the decisionmaking process at this critical juncture, which was why the author tried to besoberly optimistic, placing the conference in the context of a broad development of transnational policies. This was in contrast to the author of the companion paper, who had concentrated on the immediate, current strategic
problems of the conference.

"

"

"

REFLECTIONS ON THE EUROPEAN
SECURITY CONFERENCE
Historically, a conference on European security was a durable Soviet
proposal, dating from the late 195o's and periodically bobbing up in one formor another whenever it suited Moscow's purpose, which was to gain general
acceptance of Europe's division and Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe. With
much of that already achieved by other instruments - notably the West
German treaties with the USSR and Poland, the agreements between the twoGermanies and the irreversible thrust of Bonn's Ost-Politik - the utility of
CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) from Moscow's
point of view was substantially less than before.
For this and other reasons, relatively little of importance was at stake in
CSCE. The Soviet interest now lay in creating the impression of movement,of the absence of tension and of a European political environment emptiedof the threat of intimidation and coercion from the East. Other than urging
expanded economic contacts, tourism and formal cultural exchanges, Moscow
could be relied upon to resist initiatives aimed at actually altering politicallife in Europe by means that might escape official sanction and control.
CSCE's value for the Soviet Union was primarily symbolic. Little more thanfour years after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, all the European states, plus
Canada and the US, were meeting with the Russians and Czechs, not tomention the East Germans. Thus, CSCE's importance lay first in the fact that
it was being held; second, in its potential for contributing to a politicalenvironment that could weaken the Atlantic alliance and the European Com81

munity; third - to the degree that it responded to a mood in Western Europe
favoring reconciliation with the Soviet bloc - CSCE might strengthen the handof some governments. It appealed to many Europeans, who drew from it asense of participation in East-West affairs and hope of a full restoration of
amenities between Western and Eastern countries. Among the later, Rumania
found the conference a useful platform for chivying the Russians and, however
indirectly, for tilting against the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine. Certain neutral
and NATO member states had also pursued this line.
A case could be made for CSCE as an instrument to focus attention on- possibly even weaken - the Brezhnev Doctrine and generally embarrass theSoviet Union. It appeared that the agenda would permit discussion of "theprinciples governing the relationships between states", plus human contacts,
including a freer flow of information and ideas. Agreement on agenda items,
however, was one thing; agreement on concrete steps to liberalize politicallife in Europe quite another. We were unlikely to see in CSCE a vigorous andbroadly backed challenge to Mr. Brezhnev's claim to the right to intervene in
the internal affairs of any lapsed, or lapsing, Soviet client state in Eastern
Europe. Probably the language of any such challenge would be diluted before
proceeding very far; the challenge itself might be sidetracked, or conceivably
the USSR would accept some broad rhetoric acknowledging the rights of allstates to manage their own affairs without fear of external threat or intervention.
Western and neutral governments had low expectations with regard to freer
movement of ideas and information. Such issues would be pressed in order toestablish Soviet resistance to change, but since the West was in no position tooffer the Soviets any incentive to agree to forbear jamming radio broadcasts, for example, little if any real progress in this area was likely to be achieved.
Moscow professed to regard the freer information issue as a Western plot aimed
at subverting the Socialist bloc. Although the Soviet Union and the satellite
states had failed to keep the issue off the agenda, they could almost certainly
be relied upon to block agreement on anything in this area that went beyond
officially-approved cultural exchanges.
The irony of CSCE was that it created the illusion of movement, perhaps
even of novel departures, yet seemed fated chiefly to help formalize the statusquo, or what Moscow sometimes called the "recognition of existing realities".
What became of CSCE after the initial working round in July would dependon how its utility was measured by various governments, expecially the Soviet
Union's. The USSR wanted to use CSCE to blur the absence of fundamental
change and to weaken the rationale for collective political and security institutions in the West.

82

The major NATO governments would doubtless block any effort by theSoviet bloc to create a large, highly visible and permanent CSCE structure, or
to take other moves designed to confuse the image of an enterprise that amounted to less than met the casual eye. Some non-aligned countries, together withmembers of both blocs, would seek to promote the broadened economic contacts and cooperation on environmental matters on which agreement was
likely.
The Soviets might decide that the returns on CSCE were insufficient whenmeasured against the harassment to which the conference exposed some of theirpolicies. Thus, they might elect to let CSCE wind down, a decision that the
US and its major allies would be unlikely to dispute. The Americans, especially,
had little if any interest in keeping CSCE on center stage, or even alive. So far,it had not gone badly from Washington's point of view. By and large, theNATO governments had been able to work out agreement on the broad issuesof CSCE. (The nine European Community members had achieved an evengreater harmony of viewpoint). The signs were that neither bloc would take any
clear profit from the substantive talks at the foreign ministers' level. Thus, fromthe point of view of the great powers, CSCE's initial round was likely to end
inconclusively - in a draw, or some near equivalent.
Yet while the conference seemed to pose no special threat to Western interests
in its current phase, a continuing and institutionalized CSCE might exacerbate
some difficulties, and possibly create others. Washington was worried, forexample, that some West European governments, feeling themselves incapableof influencing more meaningful East-West negotiations such as SALT andpossibly even MBFR, might work all the harder to give CSCE a life of its own
and an importance exceeding its compass. Fears of a de facto US-USSR
condominium, settling issues of European security with minimal reference toEuropeans themselves, could bolster the tendency to fit CSCE more closely to
Soviet purposes.
Equally, the Americans were concerned that CSCE, however deprived ofsubstance, over time might serve the Soviet purpose of persuading many West
Europeans that everyone was so busy waging peace there was no need tospend as much on defense, still less to worry about NATO's future or to set
about molding the Common Market countries into some sort of politicalcommunity with defense attributes.
Because it meant different things to different governments, CSCE was anelusive enterprise. It had seemed like a balloon which, if put in the air, would
be useful to its sponsors only so long as it did not come down. Although speculation on the eve of the working round might be premature, it was still worth
remarking that Moscow and Washington, for the quite different reasons noted,

83

might both be content to let this balloon start its descent.
As good a way as any to gain perspective on CSCE was to relate it to otherprocesses that also bore - in some cases more directly - on European security.
Some of these, like SALT, MBFR and the West German Ost-Politik, also
involved the blocs. Those that did not - organizing the European Community
and the transatlantic talks on trade and money, to cite two examples nonetheless would affect the system which for two decades had anchoredWestern Europe's security and guaranteed its political integrity. Put differently, all of these processes would affect Western European-American
relations, and each would influence the farmer's ability to establish, as well as
improve, modes of internal cooperation.
Briefly, the course of CSCE and that of these other processes were mutually
influencing and, indeed, overlapped. Many governments might find themselves
asking whether the North Atlantic system was still the cornerstone of national
policy or whether it had been overtaken by time and a changing politicalcontext. Nine West European governments might confront the question ofwhether a more closely organized European Community should take a higher
or lower priority than the politically more congenial interest of promoting
detente.
Inevitably, these various processes - both East-West and intra-Western proceeded on separate tracks and at different rhythms. They were, in short,
disjunctive. While the East-West process, in general, had acquired a relatively
steady rhythm, transatlantic talks on trade and money were both fitful andinore urgent, yet lacking visible or immediate gain; indeed, the contrary
appeared to be the case.
Equally, efforts by Western Europeans to move toward economic integration, let alone political union, were bedeviled by differences, no less intractablereally than before, between member governments, especially the key governments - Britain, France and West Germany.
The absence of political cohesion in turn meant that Western Europe's political course was influenced as much or more by what the great powers did
separately and together than by what Britain, France, West Germany andtheir partners were doing independently or within the Community. A part ofWestern Europe's problem flowed from an American dilemma, which all ofthese processes tended to establish more clearly than ever: Could the US deploy
equally effective European and global policies? Could it pursue triangularpolitics while keeping intact the web of special, though fragile, relationships
with Western Europe and Japan? Did Washington have to choose? Many
Europeans believed that the dynamic process of accommodation between the
nuclear super powers was leading America away from Europe.

84

Some things were perceived differently by Western European capitals andWashington. Washington might see triangular politics as the agent of stability.
Europeans saw in triangular politics America acquiring a taste for the oldconventions of Realpolitik. Rightly or wrongly, many West Europeans felt that
Washington was telling them, in effect: "We will maintain a high military
posture in Europe and meet our NATO commitments, but in return Europe
must forbear rocking America's boat on commercial and monetary matters."
In short, these Europeans felt that Washington was using the security issue togain an advantage in its dealings with them on pressing problems of trade andmoney. The old American support for the European Community, they
thought, was giving way to a mistrust of Europe that found expression in what
they further regarded as America's nascent economic chauvinism.
Quite possibly, the US would continue to deploy substantial military forcesin Europe, while trimming or diluting its political involvement there. In asense, this was already happening. A break in the continuity of America's
political priorities had probably begun some years ago. Other than rhetorically,
Western Europe no longer had a reliably pre-eminent claim to Washington's
attention. And it had been some years since anyone could spell out in precise
terms America's goals in Europe. Triangular politics and its related goals wereseen by Europeans and Japanese as moving closer to the center of Washington's
thinking.
America wanted, for example, a period of stablility in Southeast Asia, which
would require cooperation from both China and the Soviet Union. Any
settlement in the Middle East would require active Soviet support. America
sought further progress in SALT, another precise goal and one which demanded
hard bargaining with the Soviet Union, which had entered SAL T's second phaseholding the better bargaining cards. Moscow had got from the Phase One
agreements the limit on anti-ballistic missiles that seemed to have relieved its
major strategic anxiety vis-a-vis the US. The Americans had little to bargain
with in the second phase; they could threaten to withdraw from the five-yeal·interim agreement if further progress on limiting offensive missiles were notachieved. And they could probably extract some gains in return for concessions
on issues that for Europeans were closer to home than those covered in Phase
One. These included America's forward-based nuclear-capable aircraft, on
which West Europeans relied to offset Soviet missiles targeted on their cities.
The Soviets might try io link Phase-Two progress with concessions from theAmericans on the forward-based systems issue, plus agreement by the US todeny to any of its allies assistance in the area of nuclear weapons.
Within NATO, these were sensitive issues, which could easily becomecontentious, a prospect to which Moscow had to be alert. The Phase-One SALT

85

agreements formalized a three-to-two Soviet advantage in numbers of landbased ICBM's and a Soviet right to nearly half again as many strategic nuclear
submarines as the US. The American administration which had negotiated theagreement felt itself under pressure to narrow these disparities, especially inland-based missiles.
In agreeing to CSCE, the NATO governments had exacted a price which theSoviets had paid in full. The larger part of the price was MBFR, a proceedingwith a far richer and gaudier potential than CSCE and possibly a longer life
expectancy. MBFR, although unlikely to move quickly, could bear moreheavily on European security than any of the other processes. MBFR could
become a rival even to SALT as a process capable of affecting the East-West
military balance and perhaps bloc-to-bloc relationships as well. Or, like CSCE,
it could become an arena for fencing with the present security system without
altering it. It was still too early to say which of these alternatives would prove
most tempting to the parties most concerned - the US, the Soviet Union and the
major capitals of Europe.
The idea, as conceived by NATO, would be to arrange balanced reductionsof the forces deployed along the heavily guarded frontier in central Europe.
This contact line, stretching 800 miles from the Baltic Sea to Czechoslovakia
and festooned with minefields and automatic firing devices, separated West
Germany from the Eastern bloc. The forces confronting one another on eitherside of the line totalled about 1 .5 million men, 20,000 tanks, more than 5,000
aircraft and 10,000 so-called tactical nuclear warheads.
The irony of MBFR was that the initiative was NATO's, yet the Soviet
Union was entering this negotiation, too, holding higher cards. It had, after
all, considerably more troops in central Europe than the US and the further
advantage of proximity. Departing Soviet units, unless dispatched to theEastern frontier, could be swiftly returned to East Germany, Poland or
Czechoslovakia. The political advantage also lay with Moscow, which wasunder no internal pressure to thin out its European deployments. NATOgovernments, on the other hand, had first conceived of MBFR as a means ofneutralizing presure from Senator Mansfield and his Congressional allies toreduce America's European commitments, or at least to buy time. Probably
few people in Washington or Western Europe had believed that Moscow
would ever permit its European forces, which after all had the crucial role ofguaranteeing bloc security, to become the subject of a negotiation with NATOgovernments.
Quite possibly, MBFR would buy time. The negotiations, if they went
forward into a working round, would probably be more protracted and arduous·than SALT. The issues were even more complex. How to assess the different

86capabilities of American and Soviet forces, as well as others, in terms ofnumbers, equipment, readiness, logistical support, etc.?
As an operational matter, MBFR was full of traps. The process did not needto go very far before NATO's war-fighting capability would be degraded. Thisin turn might reduce the so-called non-nuclear pause to an unacceptable level.
Washington would again be asking itself why nuclear arms should be treated as
the weapon of last resort in all parts of the world except central Europe. Or
European governments might come to regard MBFR as the Americans'chosen instrument for their military withdrawal. Britain and France were both
hostile to MBFR; for the moment, France was boycotting MBFR, while
Britain was playing an active role, mainly in order to try to head off or minimize
any possibly damaging consequences. West Germany's attitude was still
evolving and rather more complicated. As long as MBFR had remained in theconversational and model-building stage, West Germans, like the Americans,
had looked upon it as a useful hedge against the Mansfield sentiment inWashington; they had also tended - and in some measure perhaps still did- to
see it as another instrument for reinforcing their Ost-Politik. But as MBFR had
moved toward the negotiating table, the German attitude had shifted toward
the Anglo-French positon. Much the same could be said of the attitude of the
Benelux countries.
These Europeans were worried that Washington, whatever its own doubts
and anxieties about MBFR, might at some point give the affair a push thatwould be self-sustaining. West European governments would then be swept up
in the momentum of what they might well regard as a first long step toward
American disengagement, a process in which they and the East Europeans,
although present, would really be following in the wake of the super powers.
In this dark view, the issue of the size and character of American forces in
Europe would be no longer primarily the business of the Atlantic alliance, but
the business of America and the Soviet Union.
Much depended on how MBFR was handled within NATO. If MBFR was
to remain a gimmick - a device for buying time from restive American congressmen - then European governments ought to understand that. If, on theother hand, MBFR was to become serious business, they ought to know that.
Or if MBFR was to be handled like the prime interest rate - its urgency risingand falling according to congressional pressure - then Europeans ought toknow that, too. Transatlantic signals on MBFR were ranging from unclear tofaint, depending on the moment.
If l'vIBFR were to be treated seriously, it would mean the US and its allies
establishing in concert what they wanted from the conference, what they wereprepared to do and what they would insist upon from the other side. More87

I

specifically, this would mean getting away from the ambiguities of the present;
it would also mean moving on from NATO's past absorption with dynamic
analysis and model-building.
Treating MBFR as serious business of the alliance would mean working out
an initial proposal, the means of verifying any agreement arising out of the
proposal, and the political conditions attaching to an agreement on force
reductions. It would also mean working out a kind of critical minimum, a levelof forces deemed essential to stability and the European balance of power, alevel essential to a non-nuclear option in Europe. If and as MBFR went
forward, there would be a number of critical decision points. European governments involved in the talks worried, whether justifiably or not, that theywould have little to say about these decisions. Thus, what they required above
all was not a welter of computer print-outs but solid assurances that thealliance remained a supreme American interest.
The assumption that the security of the North Atlantic countries continued
to rest on the system they had created was still held to be valid by their governments. Nonetheless, these same governments were watching Western Europe
and the US drift apart. The sense of community, or identity of interest, between the two was yielding to a sense of fatigue, a weariness with the oldorthodoxy. Yet no satisfactory alternative to the present system had emerged.
The absence of policy was a policy of sorts, but one that could produce
undesirable - certainly unpredictable - consequences. None of the Westerngovernments was thinking in terms of a broad policy linking the various elements of European security, whether military forces, trade or money. On every
side, we found instead attitudes, and these were probably not well understood
if only because even they were not fully formed. America tended to regard
Western Europe as an assortment of states which, lacking unity, could not pulltheir weight politically, but which had combined to harass American commerceand complicate everyone's monetary difficulties. Western Europe saw America
losing sight of primary interests while exaggerating the gains to be made intriangular politics. In a way, each side - America and Western Europe - felt
taken for granted by the other.
Perhaps the immediate importance of CSCE was that it had obliged Americans and West Europeans to work together on an operational political matter
involving the Soviet bloc. An optimist might conclude that this experience ofNATO governments in coordinating positions in CSCE could be usefully
applied to their dealings with the Soviet Union in other forums and in theirdealings with each other on more immediate and contentious problems oftrade and money. On present form, though, any such optimism seemed
unlikely to be borne out.

88

•

•

..

In introducing his paper to the meeting, the American author confessed to a"certain confusion of spirit" about the European Security Conference. He
found it an elusive enterprise which meant many different. things to different
people. It would perhaps be advisable in the discussion to treat CSCE as partof a process and to relate it to other negotiations such as SALT and MBFR.
The implications of these developments for relations among the Westerngovernments were most significant. MBFR had been the larger part of theprice paid by the Russians for the West's willingness to attend a CSCE.
Ironically, the Soviets stood to gain potentially more from MBFR, which wasNATO's initiative, than from CSCE, which was theirs.
MBFR could become the more consequential negotiation, affecting security
in a variety of ways, or it could remain a foil for fencing with the status quo.
It was in any case a double-edged proposition: while it might silence the"Mansfield bloc", it could also arouse fears that might simply contractualize the
US military withdrawal from Europe. In the words of a senior French civil
servant, it could "lead to the demobilization of all the defenses of Western
Europe."In any case, MBFR was with us, and it was interesting because more thananything else "it forces up all the hard questions about the continuation of theWestern alliance, and about relations generally between the US and theEuropean NATO governments. In its crudest form, the question may bewhether the process of detente will create enough momentum to dilute Western
defense arrangements, and possibly lead America, consciously or not, toemphasize great power politics at the expense of alliance considerations."

.

..

..

DISCUSSION

I. What was at stake in the Conference from the point of view of the major participants
and factions?
The discussion was opened by a French participant, who reviewed theRussian objectives that had led them originally to promote the Conference:
to consolidate the status quo in Europe; to gain a freer hand for dealing with
China; to acquire Western technology and know-how; to raise their domestic
standard of living; to slow Western European integration; to weaken NATO;and to accelerate American disengagement from Europe. The Russians had

89since moved closer to most of these objectives by various avenues, but theConference still held an important symbolic value for them in promisingmultilateral recognition of the European status quo.
While the expectations of the West should not be too high, the mere fact that
the Conference was taking place was significant. It was a positive element in
the framework of detente, which was vastly preferable to the cold war. Detente
was not yet readily available for consumption in the Soviet Union, as wasevident from the constraints on artists, writers and other intellectuals with
unorthodox opinions. But progress could be hoped for gradually as humanexchanges increased.
Although the Conference would probably give certain military advantages
to the Soviets and their allies, concrete decisions enabling economic and cultural exchanges would await slow Moscow deliberations on questions ofsovereignty and internal rights and customs. Western negotiators would thus
need to be patient and tenacious to obtain even modest results. We could not
be assured of real detente until the Russians showed a willingness to reduce
their military concentrations outside their borders. That could involve a
lengthy process, of which we were only at the first stage.
In the eyes of a Swedish participant, the Soviet interest in detente wasserious. They had come a long way from their intransigent attitude concerning
Berlin in the sixties, for example. This change had been motivated partly by
the Chinese problem, but largely by their need to satisfy the hunger for higher
private consumption among their citizens. The Soviet Union was still, as
Bergson had described it, a superpower based on a second rate economy.
Inflated expenditures for armaments and space ventures, aggravated bychronically bad climatic conditions, had resulted in poor economic performance and overall inefficiency.
All this lay in the background of the Helsinki conference, which presented
opportunities the West should use. The Conference should not be approachedwith euphoria, or regarded as an instrument for dramatically changing thepolitical structure of either side. Although progress would be limited, becauseof the basic differences between the two systems, the Conference might leadto a broader context of East-West cooperation, which was bound to have astabilizing effect.
The European Security Conference was neither a conference nor was it about
security, in the judgment of an American speaker. It was rather a process,designed to make change in the political nature of the East-West relationshipgradually more acceptable, and less threatening to the parties concerned. This
would take a long time, and we should not think of it as a negotiation, withtangible evidence of progress.
go

Still, there was no point adopting a negative attitude toward the Conference,by articulating all its dangers; that would just give the Soviets a political issue
to exploit. At the same time, we should not overlook the points of Soviet
weakness: their complex and costly military position, including the long
Chinese border; their domestic economic problems; and the instability inEast Europe. Detente remained reversible, and we had to monitor closely
Soviet internal developments for further signs of repressive measures which
could hold retrogressive implications for their external relations.
A British participant doubted that Russia's support for the CSCE showeda genuine desire for peace, in view of its "unabated support of continuing
strife in the Middle East and Southeast Asia." It was more likely just a wish
for a tactical detente. The speaker had yet to hear a good reason why Western
Europe and America should support the Conference, except that it was a wayof diverting attention from difficulties at home.
According to an Italian participant, the Soviets were trying at Helsinki tocreate a special juridical system for Europe to be superimposed on the politicalsystem and consecrated by the Conference. On the principle of the immutability of frontiers, they would seek permanent recognition of the frontier
which cut Europe - and Germany - in two. They also wanted a droit de regard
over any European territorial change, even in the West and even resulting
from agreement, self-determination or a union of states. Finally, the Soviets
wanted to stabilize the existing political regimes throughout Europe, thus
intensifying the validity of the Brezhnev Doctrine.
As a counter to the Russians' insistence on these aims, the West had beenpressing the issue of the "third basket", or the freer movement of people andinformation. Unfortunately, however, the Westerners themselves had listened
to timid counsel in drafting the proposed agenda ("the word 'idea' was not
mentioned, so as not to shock anybody"), so that the bargaining position had
been weak at the outset. An American speaker agreed that this point 3 was animportant objective, especially to the intellectuals and the younger generation.
A British speaker said that the basic role of the Conference would be toconsecrate a change which was already recognized by both sides to have takenplace. Although there were dangers in it, there were also opportunities, andit was "really absurd for us to be so nervous all the time about meeting theRussians in a multilateral gathering." Just as the Russians had agreed to
MBFR in order to get the Security Conference, so had the West agreed to theConference to obtain the negotiations on MBFR. Although the Russians
sought the reduction of American troops in Europe, they were not anxious for
the US military influence to disappear.
A multilateral negotiation between the Western allies and the Communistgrallies in Europe was far preferable for all European countries than a continuation of bilateral talks between the US and the USSR, particularly with respect
to MBFR, as any discussion of mutual force reductions should necessarily
involve the European countries.
A German speaker concurred in the conclusion that both the Conference
and MBFR provided an opportunity "to counterbalance any temptatim1
towards superpower bilateralism that either the Americans or the Russians, orthe two of them together, might succumb to." They also offered a crystallization point for European solidarity, and "a sounding board, where we can say
openly and loudly what we are really after." At the same time, the vVest should
be wary of the whole exercise, and heed the scepticists' words of warning,although public opinion would not allow us now simply to "get off the bus".
An International participant feared that public opinion had made it nearly
impossible for the West to stay away from Helsinki after all the preparatory
work. Had they done so, they would have been subjected to a barrage of Soviet
propaganda about what could have been accomplished. And yet the speaker
was not without his misgivings. While the Russians now attached largely asymbolic importance to the Conference, they hoped to gain from it in various
ways. Moreover, it was clear from the annual resolutions of the party congressthat the long-term aims of the Soviet Union had not changed.
A Norwegian speaker stated candidly that he feared the outcome of theConference. Realistically, it had to be said that SALT had been at best a draw
and that MBFR was "stacked with Soviet cards." The CSCE just stood to
confuse things. The Russians would get trade and technological benefits andwould go on enhancing their military position in the Far East and in Europe,
while the defenses of the West would be weakened.
To keep from being thrown off balance and exploited by the other side, we
had to approach the Conference carefully and soberly. But there were elements
now in public opinion which could not be overlooked so we had to try to makeour best efforts in the general approach to the East.
A Danish participant spoke of the danger, expecially in some smaller
European countries, of becoming isolated from the trend of public opinion.
It was unfortunately a fact of life that the sort of reservations and warnings
about the Conference which were being expressed at this meeting probably
carried less and less weight with a large part of the public in a number of Western
European contries. Public opinion, "inspired by wistful and woolly thinking
and swayed by the attractive sight of detente," was way ahead of our realistic
analysis and perceptions. This did not exempt our leaders and journalists fromtheir obligation to go on telling the public what they thought was right, but

92they had to be careful not to become increasingly isolated in their own politicalenvironment.
Personally, the speaker questioned the Soviet attachement to detente, andwas accordingly sceptical about the prospects for a freer flow of information andpeople. We had seen Moscow clamp down on its satellites and on intellectual
dissidents at home.
A British speaker intervened to question the validity of the public opinion
argument. In his own experience, politicans who acted reluctantly, with afeeling that they were engaged in a futile exercise, often tried to cover themselves with the excuse that they were simply being forced to respond to public
opinion.
To dismiss the Conference as merely a symbol or "charade'', though, was tounderrate its potential, in the judgment of a Canadian commentator. Whileits main value might lie in its moderating influence among the Eastern countries, it should also benefit relations among our own countries. Most of us had
active bilateral relations with the Soviets, and it was healthy for us to get someexperience of conference diplomacy with them. We had reason to be confident
about the ingenuity of our negotiating techniques and our ability to influence
the direction of the Conference. It did not need to be "the greatest event since
the Creation" to be worthwhile. It had merely to produce some positive results,
and on balance not have negative effects.
A German intervention also called for a positive approach to the Conference,as nothing was so important in political as well as military strategy as putting
yourself in the other fellow's shoes. "This mutual understanding of interests andgoals, of prejudices and inhibitions, of insights and misinterpretations - thisopportunity should not benefit only the two SALT partners, but ought to be
multilateralized, which is being done in Helsinki."
An American participant said that, while the CSCE had received secondary
attention from the US administration, it could serve his country as a useful
symbol of the ratification of the status quo that had come to be accepted
through the whole series of agreements of the last three years. It could also
provide a codification - if perhaps not a forward movement - of steps to betaken in such areas as economic/social exchange and confidence-building
measures (warnings of military movements, etc.) One thing that seemed not
to be at stake in the Conference was any real hope that it would be an active
ingredient in producing greater independence for the nations of Eastern
Europe. The USSR would not let it serve that purpose.
The MBFR was a much more important negotiation for America as it bore
directly on the question of whether there would be a unilateral US force
reduction in Europe. If MBFR became a reality, a serious issue would be93whether it could be sustained before Congress as a reason for not making
substantial unilateral cuts.
Another American speaker expressed the hope that the Conference would
reveal a new Western unity to counterbalance an unhealthy American complaisance toward the Russians, which the Nixon administration might adopt
in an effort to register a spectacular political success over the next eight ornine months.
In the view of a British participant, European security was important, but
the European Security Conference was not. It was premature and could withadvantage have been postponed. The alternative was not a resumption of thecold war. Relations between East and West were making slow but steadyprogress, and did not need an elaborate conference to carry them forward.
There were more important tasks for our foreign ministers, including development of the EC, repair and maintenance of the Atlantic relationship, theproper organization of European defense, and the resolution of the Middle
East crisis.
However, as much as one would wish that the Conference were not taking
place, we had to see what we could make of it - to take our text from the Bibleand attempt to overcome evil with good.
That view was endorsed by a Turkish speaker, who agreed that the building
up of peace and security in Europe did not require such a conference. As it
was already scheduled, though, the West could only make the best of it, butthey should not hesitate to break off discussions if they were not proceedingsatisfactorily. We should not forget that Russia's unwavering aim was to dismantle NATO and separate the US from Europe, so as to be assured of a surer
grip on its empire. The Soviets' recent more lenient attitude did not mean thatthey were prepared to abandon the Brezhnev Doctrine or to accept real communication between East and West.
Unlike our own approach to other fields - such as energy, for example where we made long-range projections, we were inclined as a general rule tohandle political negotiations with the USSR on a day-to-day basis. This was
dangerous, in that it led us to put undue emphasis on transitory details.
A Swiss participant conjured up an image of the Helsinki Conference inwhich the skilled and united Soviet diplomats and their satellites moved step bystep to get what they wanted. It was not clear what the Western powers or eventhe neutrals would get out of the Conference, however. Based on past form, it
was likely to be all "give" on one side and all "take" on the other. Could not
the Western negotiators be more patient, less hasty, "more oriental in theirtechnique"?
A British speaker thought it was surprising to hear such a "Manichaean

94

view" from a citizen of a neutral country which had never been involved insecurity bargaining and had little experience of direct confrontation with theenemy. Members of the Western alliance - aware of strains within it andconscious through long contact with the Russians of changes taking place
within the USSR - were better able to see opportunities of making progress,"even though it may be inconvenient to some of the neutral countries who
would prefer to see Europe remain forever as it was in 1955."
Strong objection to the foregoing speaker's way of putting the matter was
taken by a Norwegian participant, who said that the Swiss intervention had
expressed the feeling of many who had had long experience of dealing with theSoviets.
An Italian speaker was sceptical about chances for the political liberalizationof the Eastern bloc, but foresaw a useful role for the CSCE in the economic
sphere. It might accelarate the evolution of COMECON toward greater specialization of production in the various Eastern countries, and broader technical and economic cooperation aided by the convertibility of the rouble. The
result of the Conference might be to persuade the USSR to give greater freedom
to the Eastern countries to shape their own economic relations with the West,so long as the political unity ofCOMECON was notjeopardized. For the West,top priority should be given to the unification of the EC.
The economic implications of the Conference were also the subject of a
German intervention. The speaker pointed out that the Poles had been thepioneers in the concept of technical cooperation between countries with different political and economic systems. Their example had been quickly
followed by other East European countries, all of them relatively dependent on
foreign trade. The USSR had been the last to show an interest in the concept,
because of the self-sufficiency of its big domestic market.
Three or four years ago, the Russians had begun to change their attitude,
because of pressure from the satellite countries, their own need to respond to
the internal demand for consumer goods, and their desire to increase the scaleof their export production through new techniques. Another important factor
in this shift was Brezhnev's dream of transforming the Soviet Union into a
truly modern industrial society.
The speaker did not foresee a greater centralization in COMECON, to thedetriment of the sovereignty of the smaller countries. Their differentiation ofneeds called for greater flexibility in East bloc industry in general, including
the USSR. We would see more direct links between Eastern and Westernindustry, and a growing technological interdependence. This did not meanthat we would change their system, but we could establish new forms of
relationships on a long-term basis.
95]

A Belgian participant alluded to Russia's need for equipment and technology to further the well-being of its people. These could only be obtained in apeaceful atmosphere, which was a positive element for us. Although the US
had been the preferred partner of the USSR in its campaign for economic
development, Western Europe should aim at playing a bigger role. To do this,
it would have to achieve greater diplomatic unity, but not at the expense ofEuropean-American links, which indeed ought to be strengthened as a resultof Helsinki. In the long run, neither party could act entirely on its own.
We should not expect too much from this first meeting at Helsinki, but there
was - in addition to the question of peaceful coexistence - a series of concrete
technical and economic projects on which East and West could help each other.
As a parallel to initiatives at the diplomatic level, the speaker wondered
whether private groups could not form a sort of committee in Western Europe
to encourage the flow of contacts with the East.
The Chairman endorsed this concept, and suggested that perhaps tradeunion groups were well placed to lead such initiatives, which might be lesswell received if organized in "establishment" quarters.
In response to a question from a German speaker, the Belgian participant
denied that American and Western European trade unions were experiencing
a rift because of the latter's bilateral contacts with Eastern unions. For theWestern Europeans, Americans were more "natural allies", but one could not
overlook the value of contacts with Eastern labor leaders, who were at thesame time influential party and governmental spokesmen. Up to now, though,the Western Europeans had refused multilateral contacts, because they did notwant to get mixed up in new structures which had nothing to do with the freeand democratic trade union movement.
An International intervention dealt with the role of Western European tradeunions in East-West relations, and in particular in laying the groundwork for
the Security Conference. During the past decade, some 95 per cent of therecognized free and democratic unions in Western Europe had had bilateralcontacts with Eastern European workers' organizations, with the aim ofhelping to convert the existing military frontiers into normal political borders.
As early as 1965, the Western unions had considered organizing a security
conference, but they had finally had to tell the Eastern political leaders that it
was impractical to hold such meetings on a private, non-governmental basis,
as responsibility had to be borne by parliaments.
Henceforth the, Western European unions would channel all their multilateralcontacts through existing, well-reputed international organizations, and following that policy they planned to participate in the European economic and social
conference to be sponsored by the International Labor Organization in 1974.
96

II. Should CSCE become a continuing process, bearing in mind that protracted MBFR
negotiations might lie ahead? Could CSCE become part of a larger transnational process?
The Belgian speaker mentioned above thought that the Helsinki conference
should not evolve into a sort of permanent organization, and this opinion wasshared by others at the meeting.
An American participant, who sympathized with the aspirations expressedby the author of the Norwegian working paper, was sceptical of a continuing
structure, at this stage at least, as it might appear to promise more than it
could realize. This particular vehicle could probably do little more thanreflect a state of affairs leading to a greater flow of human beings, ideas andtrade. Hopefully, this process would advance over the years, but actions thatwere effective under it would be taken mostly by individual nations, underbilateral agreements, for a long time to come.
A French speaker was not opposed to discussing the idea of a permanentorganization, but he thought that we could not tell if it would be necessary
until after "the various commissions had completed their work. With reference to
MBFR- about which certain countries had had basic reservations - the speakerwondered whether it would not be dangerous to set up, in the central part of
the territories covered by the alliance, a zone which would have a legal andpolitical status quo different from the rest of Europe. As we did not know what
the future held, was it not preferable to remain flexible so as to be able torespond to any situation?
In the estimation of a British participant, the fundamental Russian aim oftilting the balance of power decisively against the West had not been dissipated.
We should therefore be on our guard against any steps at the Conference which
would weaken Western cohesion. In particular, we should avoid signing a
document of ambiguous principles, which would be misleading in the democracies and of no influence whatever in Communist societies. If the Soviets got
such a document, they would doubtless try to infuse it with the force of international law and to establish a continuing organization to referee our obedienceto the principles which they laid down and which they alone interpreted. There
was no need for the sake of appearances to become party to a document which
would haunt us in coming years, and we should not hesitate to break off theConference if such a commitment became an issue.
The speaker had never liked the possibilities of what might flow from the
MBFR discussions, but it was an area that had to be examined hard within thealliance and then with the Soviet Union.
An International participant, while recognizing the dangers in MBFR, saw
also useful side, in that it could allow a certain disengagement in the numbera97

of troops on the American side with a counterpart on the Soviet side. In the
preparatory talks, however, the Russians had been reluctant to do anyting
concrete, focussing their attack on having Hungary excluded from the Central
Sector. The NATO countries had been willing to admit that, so long as it wasagreed that troops withdrawn from other countries of the Central Sector could
not be reassigned to Hungary.
The US concern had been that the Soviets could in any case bring troops
back from Russia to the Central Sector at any moment. The answer to thatwas that the NATO countries would know as soon as that happened, and that
it would be a clear violation of the agreement, thus provoking countermeasures.
The speaker was nonetheless sympathetic to the view of the French, who
foresaw a dangerously euphoric reaction to MBFR, and to that of the "fringe
countries" (Norway, Denmark, Turkey and Greece), who feared that their
participation would further weaken their military position. There was a limit to
how far one could withdraw without destroying the credibility of one's defense.
If one accepted the legitimacy of troop withdrawals, should they take placein MBFR, or within the context of an agreement between the allies? That was
the question put by a British participant. He was all in favor ofa genuine troop
reduction as part of a genuine MBFR, but he was opposed to a "cosmetic"
unilateral reduction under the guise of MBFR. To avoid the latter option, hewould prefer to see the European allies make up the gap of the 50-60,000
troops which America might have to withdraw, and then to negotiate multilateral troop reductions within MBFR.
The author of the American working paper suggested that the interestingquestion posed by the preceding speaker had been overtaken by time. MBFR
was admittedly imperfect, but it had become, willy-nilly, the chosen instrument
for sorting out the question of US forces in Europe, and possibly the entire
military balance there.
Unless the NATO governments found some way of approaching MBFR asthey might once have approached the question of a unilateral reduction worked
out carefully within NATO, MBFR could well end up giving the Soviet Uniona droit de regard over Western defense. This problem was much greater withregard to MBFR than CSCE.
The seriousness of this MBFR issue was confirmed by a German intervention.
The speaker's argument was as follows: Moscow would always swallow what
it could reach without taking too great a risk. The greatest risk would be anarmed conflict with the US. The extension of Soviet influence over Europe
was constrained above all by a distaste for conflict with the US. Therefore
American troops should be maintained in Europe "as long as there are Russian·troops in Europe in places where they do not belong."

98

Under this reasoning, MBFR had two aims: (1) to maintain a balance ofmilitary power in Europe - a psycho-political balance as much as a numericalbalance; and (2) to tell "the Mansfields" - not only in the US, but in Canada
and Europe as well - not to rock the boat while we were negotiating a newbalance on a lower level. This was the great tactical merit in MBFR. And it did
not mean that Western European forces did not matter - because numbers oftroops, tanks and aircraft did matter.
An Italian participant asked whether MBFR should involve only stationed
troops, or whether it should eventually also involve so-called national troops.
The preceding German speaker was of the impression that it should include
both categories. Another German participant thought an agreement touching
only the stationed forces would be a dangerous precedent, tending to strengthena US-USSR bilateralism which the Europeans were not interested in. "Youcannot claim the fruits of detente for America only," he argued.
An International speaker explained that the emphasis had shifted last year
to the stationed forces, but that it should be remembered that these were notsolely Americans and Russians, but also British, Canadian, Belgian and Dutch
troops stationed in West Germany. A small part of them would go home, butwould remain fully operational without being disbanded.
A British participant strongly favored an agreement affecting only US and
Soviet forces, for three reasons: (1) the only practical way Europe could carrya larger share of the defense burden was by allowing America to reduce its
forces, as the Europeans could not actually increase their numbers; (2) it would
be impossible to contain domestic pressures in the US without some move like
this; and (3) there was a real military advantage to NATO in getting Soviet
forces out; we were not terribly concerned about Polish or Czech troops in the
Warsaw Pact.
The author of the American working paper could think of nothing better
calculated to drive the US and Western Europe apart at this point than an
inclusion of indigenous forces in any kind ofMBFR arrangement.
As for CSCE eventually becoming part of a larger transnational process, anInternational speaker was apprehensive that this might disintegrate into a sortof "sloganism" which would cause populations to "mistake the fac;ade for thereality." Fnrthermore, we already had enough transnational processes functioning in such organizations as NATO, OECD and the EC.
A Norwegian participant thought that the preceding speaker had not understood the much wider definition of "transnational processes" as used by theauthor of the Norwegian working paper, who had taken a longer perspective
than that of the author of the American working paper. What was intended
was an attempt to remove the basic elements of conflict that could lead to war.

99

A German speaker attributed to Europe a wish "to start a process which
will provide us with a framework for controlled change, and which will open
the Russians and the whole Eastern bloc to the kind of transnational processes
toward which they still close themselves now."

European Security Conference", as suggested by the Russians - reflected thereality that European security was still assured by non-Europeans: the US in
confrontation or negotiation with the USSR.
The MBFR, which really should have remained a question for Senator
Mansfield and the American administration, had been permitted to transform
itself into negotiations between the US and the Soviet Union, before having
been discussed between the US and Europe.
These developments had been mostly the fault of the Europeans themselves,
who had done "very little to achieve a unity of purpose ... practically nil toeducate ourselves for the need of a European participation on a basis ofequality in the defense of Europe." They had thought little about a defense
community, and less still about a European or Anglo-French nuclear deterrent.
It was no wonder then that European security continued to be the responsibilityof America and Russia, albeit in different forms than before.
A Belgian intervention dealt with the "invertebrate character of European
unity." Even if Europe could be said to be united, it either did not act, or acted
without coordination. This was the major risk at Helsinki: that no-one could
take responsibility on behalf of Europe.
Europe would be in a much stronger position going into CSCE if the European Defense Community had become a reality, and the speaker suggested
that reopening that dossier would be in accordance with the Ig72 EC summit
decision. In reply to a Turkish question, he said that a new European army
would need to include countries which had not been involved in the plan in thefifties.
Two British participants registered their opposition to converting the Europeof the Nine into a defense community at this stage. They were supported by an
International speaker, who said that, while as a convinced European hefavored foreign policy consultations among the Nine, he was rather nervous
lest they take decisions which should be taken in NATO. The members ofNATO who did not belong to the EC might feel that the others were "moreequal'', which would be detrimental to NATO cohesion. NATO was the onlyinternational body with military and political objectives which combined thepresence of the US, Canada and the European countries. It had developed auseful system of consensus-reaching, in which every country was prepared tochange its point of view in the face of convincing arguments from the others.
This would be jeopardized ifthe Nine went off to themselves and agreed always
to take the same stand.
An Italian speaker said that Europeans should think more about their own
defense, but that their cooperation should be limited to conventional defense
systems. Changes were starting to shift the strategic position of Europe from

III. Did detente militate against Western European political cooperation and the Westernalliance? Would an all-European securiry system, including both superpowers, be feasible
or desirable?
An American participant thought that the process of detente, of which
CSCE was a particular symbol, did not need to militate against Western
European political cooperation and the alliance. If we kept our wits about us,
we could maintain an adequate security and defense posture.
On the other hand, he did not foresee for many years - nor would he advocate - an all-European security system. The Soviet Union still retained certain
objectives which were not consistent with detente, and the fear which many hadof a "Finlandization" of Europe was not an idle one.
A British speaker noted that the preparations for CSCE had had the positiveeffect of intensifying consultation within NATO and the EC and with theneutrals. Our main aim now should be to get the Conference out of the way
without serious harm being done, and to continue to work on the advancementof practical measures between East and West. The idea of an all-European
security system, though, would not have any meaning within the next decade.
The strong Soviet interest in detente had made the widening of the Common
Market much easier than it would otherwise have been, according to a Swedish
participant, as Moscow had not dared to oppose the enlargement of the EC.
A British speaker argued, on the other hand, that postwar history suggested
that the process of detente would indeed inhibit future European politicalcooperation. As for the creation of an all-European security system, it would
not only be meaningless - "none of us would sleep any easier" - but it would
also be immoral. Such an acceptance of the status quo would "kill the last sparkof hope in the satellites'', with no positive gain to ourselves.
A German participant said that the notion of all-European collective
security "doesn't stand a chance, not in this decade." Without waiting for the
East, Western Europe should work on its own priorities of political integrationand keeping up its defenses, as there were still risks in the whole detente process.
Above all, we should not subscribe to anything which gave the Russians adroit de regard over Western ambitions.
An Italian speaker reminded the meeting that the final choice of the name
"Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe" - instead of "Pan100

IOI

l

~

that of a region of global conflict, with implied American intervent10n, to aregion oflocal conflicts, in which the US would be hesitant to take part.
Unlike the previous speaker, this participant thought that the Nine shouldtake a leading role as a unit in furthering Europe's defense. Defense was not
simply military, but had political, economic and technological aspects. No
community which tried to develop in those fields could stay out of defense.
Furthermore, France would remain less than a complete partner in European
defense if she did not resume full participation in NATO. In the end, how
could Europeans seriously tackle the problem of defense except through theCommunity?
In the judgment of a German speaker, "a common Western European
defense outfit would do much better that the multinational conglomerate that
NATO really is and always has been", but there were roadblocks to be overcome in every capital in V\Testern Europe. Nevertheless, the Paris summit
agreement of October 1972 represented the best starting place for harmonizing
and integrating the interests of the core of Western Europe, and the participantsin that summit meeting "should not be permitted to get away from theircommitment."
The greatest danger to the fabric of Western interdependence at present lay
not in CSCE or MBFR, but in our inability to deal with the pressures generated
by our trade and monetary problems. The speaker was particularly concerned
about the helplessness of the Western Community before the social and politicalresults of world-wide inflation.
A British speaker agreed that the main threat to NATO solidarity was notin the military or political field, but in the field of trade and currency. On bothsides of the Atlantic, "bread and butter" issues were going to be taking priority
in the next year or two over questions of military strategy and foreign policy as
conventionally defined.
It was a hopeful sign, however, that the preparations for the East-West
multilateral discussions had produced the most effective consultation yet inside
NATO and within the EC. The forthcoming discussions with the East presented
little danger, as both sides were aware that they had a much greater interest inpreserving their internal cohesion than in moving toward a new system inwhich existing alliances were fused into some new sort of European security
organization.
Adjustment to the new world situation would impose great strains on NATO,and people would continue to claim that it was in disarray. But that had been
going on for years, and NATO had still managed to maintain our security fora quarter ofa century.
A French participant discussed the difficulty of convincing Western public102

opinion in an era of detente that a certain level of military expenditure wasstill necessary. In order not to weaken our hand in negotiations, we had to givethe impression that Europe was united in its determination to maintain its
defenses. This meant convincing the public that political detente - which was
not yet a real fact - had to precede any military relaxation.
These thoughts were echoed by a compatriot, who described how this issue
had been put into relief by the debate on military conscription in France. A
defense system had to be postulated on a certain threat, and the threat could
be perceived only in relation to the nation's own set of values and policies.
Defense therefore had to be based essentially on forecasting the nature of thethreat and what was required to meet it.
The safety of Europe depended on the presence of American military forces,
whose withdrawal was now a possibility. The speaker called for a thoroughexamination of Europe's defense needs and an evaluation of how national
resources could be better pooled to enable Europe to insure its own security.
This should not exclude a continuation of the alliance with America, however.
A Netherlands participant agreed with the importance of a clear definitionof the way oflife the West wanted to lead. But did not the concept of detente
presuppose a common vocabulary of cultural and spiritual values? A previous
intervention had cautioned against the West's subscribing to any ambiguous
principles, but the speaker was under the impression that this had unfortunately
already been done at a meeting of European ministers of culture in Helsinki inthe summer of 1972, where resolutions had been adopted, for example, condemning "retrograde ideas" and "provocative exchanges" and endorsing"pacific coexistence". If the CSCE really aimed at contributing to detente,should it not begin by sweeping away such ambiguities?

IV. Could the US pursue, with equal seriousness, triangular politics and a coherent
European policy?
An American participant said that the evidence of the past two years
suggested that the US was finding it difficult to keep in equal focus its European
politics and its triangular relations with the Soviet Union and China. At thesame time, it seemed that classic balance-of-power analysis, based on theconcept of five central powers, had been largely discredited, or at least muted.
Dr. Kissinger's recent speech had indicated a greater emphasis on a coherent
European policy, as the US continued to pursue the possibilites of expanded
relationships with the Soviet Union and China.
In the same way that preparations for the Security Conference had accomplished a useful pulling together of views within the EC, so the consultations
103.

between Europe and America for CSCE, MBFR and SALT II should provethat our viewpoints were not so far apart.
In the opinion of an Italian speaker, the notion of a "pentapolar" world had
been shown to be invalid because it was based on the mistaken premise that US
foreign policy with all the major power centers had to be conducted with thesame set of principles. It was wrong to try to apply to Europe the concepts ofRealpolitik which were appropriate for China and the Soviet Union. This was
so, not for reasons of sentiment or friendship, but because the main theme of theEuropean-American dialogue was economic.
The Nixon administration had tried the Realpolitik technique of politicalnegotiation with Europe. The strong approach of Secretary Connally may havebeen a necessary shock at the beginning, but it was not a method that could be
pursued for long without causing "the collapse of the whole building of common
economic structure."
Without diminishing the importance of the security aspects of the generalsituation, the speaker thought that the seventies would not after all be "an ageof Metternich." The central problem was going to be the search for a stableeconomic equilibrium within the Western world, which would require much
more complex equipment than a Metternichian balance of power. Equilibrium
would not simply result from a series of negotiations on trade and monetary
matters between America and Europe. We had to attack root causes of ourtroubles, such as the US balance of payments deficit and structural changes in
the American economy, which had become oriented towards service and hightechnology. Would it not be useful to establish an institutional framework in theeconomic field, within which countries of the alliance could study basic problems and coordinate their economic policies?
Another Italian intervention stressed the importance of economic factors. If
the Tokyo trade conference should lead to greater protectionism, Europe
would need to accelerate its economic integration and to revise its agricultural
policy with the aim of liberalizing its trade with the US. Otherwise, America
would be tempted to expand its bilateral commercial relations with Japanand the Soviet Union.
An American participant described the people working on the developmentof the US side of the trade and monetary negotiations as "largely techniciansand economists, with very little political background, who tend to look at theseprobiems purely in terms of the effect on the American balance of trade and of
payments." They were under very heavy pressure from various special interest
groups, and they were inclined in a rather captious way to challenge a lot ofassumptions which people with some political experience would not challenge.
There was moreover a feeling among some people involved in Americancommercial and economic policy that the US had been wrong to support
European unity, as it was now being turned against America. This was aninfectious and dangerous spirit, and it was essential to construct an adequate
political framework for the US-European negotiations, to keep them frombecoming abrasive and divisive. The purpose of Dr. Kissinger's recent speech
had been to try to set some ground rules and to place our problems in theirlarger dimensions.
This speaker also warned of the fundamental changes in the substance andstyle of US foreign policy that might flow from "the recent unhappy andsensational events in Washington." The extraordinary initiatives and achievements of the past two or three years had nevertheless suggested a kind of
unilateralism in American policy which many had found disturbing. Butbalance of power politics could only be played by a government which acted
fairly independently of the legislature and public opinion. These techniques,
including that of theatrical surprise to bring the public along after the fact,
would no longer be feasible.
The prospect that the formulation of America's foreign policy would bebased less on secrecy and more on consultation with its allies was an encouraging one. At the same time, though, the President's diminished authority
with Congress increased the likelihood of US troop withdrawals abroad, andWestern Europeans who were concerned about that ought to redouble theirefforts to assuage American worries about the balance of payments aspects ofthis matter.
Another American participant warned of two other dangers which he saw
emanating from the present domestic situation in the US. One was that the
President's prominent stake in promoting what he had called "a generation ofpeace" would put him in a disadvantageous position in his negotiating relationship with Brezhnev. The other was that the need to reunite the conservative
wing of his own party would lead him to create "some situation of stress", suchas a resumption of hostilities in Vietnam.
An International speaker expressed sympathy with the plight of the US.
Some years ago, Europeans had reproached America for being too rigid, too
steeped in the cold war mentality, to make any concessions to the Soviet Union.
Now they were complaining that America's bilateral contacts with the Russians
infringed on the rights of her allies.
The speaker thought, on the contrary, that President Nixon's foreign policy
had been far-sighted and marked by commendable initiatives. The tendency
towards secrecy had perhaps been explainable by the special nature of thedevelopments with China and Russia, but as this was no longer necessary the
US would hopefully consult more with its allies. Its failure to do so in the
105

ro4

I

preparation of MBFR had been frustrating for the Europeans, but the Americans had finally produced an excellent paper which proved they had given
deep thought to the problems of all members of the alliance.
A German speaker remarked that, while it was difficult for the US andEurope to understand each other's decison-making processes, they shouldmake an effort to do so. In recent years, the "normal" process had been for
Washington to keep its foreign friends completely confused with bits of paper,
speeches, and leaks here and there. "Then all of a sudden they will take adecision, trumpet it all over the world very loudly, and expect everybody to
buy it within 48 hours." The speaker said that if the "Connally-type policy"
had been pursued in other fields, just a bit longer, it would inevitably havedestroyed the Western community. But the blame for faulty communications
lay on both sides of the Atlantic.
For several years now, many European leaders had tried to impress upon theAmericans the importance of their getting rid of their chronic balance of
payments deficits. The Europeans of course would help them to do so, as it wasa matter of mutual interest. Burden sharing was also essential. Year after year,
Germany had been offsetting some 88 per cent of the American foreign
currency outlay for the maintenance of their troops in Germany, and had been
spending as much as it could in the US for arms.
An International speaker added that defense was not a question of philanthropy. If the Americans did not believe it was in their interest as well to keep
their troops in Europe, then they should take them home.
In the opinion of an American participant, the foregoing German descriptionof US policy-making was not a fair generalization. During the SALT negotiations, the US had had some 20 consultations in the North Atlantic Council.
American performance had perhaps been irregular, but it did not merit anacross-the-board condemnation. The German speaker then cited Dr. Kissinger's "Atlantic Charter" speech as another example of the "surprise technique" that he deplored. The American reply was that that speech had constituted an invitation to a consultative process, not the submission of a blueprint. Various other interventions confirmed that the timing of the speech had
not been prompted by US domestic developments, and it was reported that
Washington journalists had in fact received two weeks' advance notice that
Dr. Kissinger was going to make an important foreign policy speech.
An American speaker drew a rough parallel between the recent Kissinger
speech and General Marshall's speech of June 1947, announcing the MarshallPlan, about which there had been no advance notice. "It perhaps depends on
one's sense of credibility at the moment as to whether a speech is liked if you are
not warned beforehand."ro6

Pursuing this parallel, a British participant commented that Marshall's
speech had elicited an immediate response from Europe, whereas there had
still been no response to the Kissinger speech. This speech was the latest in along series of speeches, statements and hints, coming from all levels of US
government, to the effect that we had somehow to surmount the growing rift
between the US and Europe over trade and currency questions, which the US
felt could not be isolated from the political and military problems. The
Americans were justifiably impatient with the lack of European response,
which the speaker attributed to the fact that foreign policy in Europe wasorganized in a way that gave far too little importance to trade and currency
problems.
An Italian participant had found Dr. Kissinger's message refreshingly
devoid of "ideological fervor and incantation ... Eine echte Realpolitik." The
Europeans should be inspired to respond to the double challenge which camefrom their American friends, in the form of Dr. Kissinger's outline for a new
Atlantic world, and from the Soviets in their proposal for the Security Conference.
A British participant regretted that there had· been no interventions fromany Americans who seemed to believe both in the concept of the alliance andalso in the legitimacy of some measure of US troop withdrawal from Europe.
In the speaker's view, a limited withdrawal would be legitimate not only interms of US domestic political pressures but also in terms of maintaining themilitary balance. Before assuming that a withdrawal would be adverse, we
ought to be certain that those American troop reductions would be matched byincreasing either European forces or spending.
Europeans wanted long-term planning consistency and a solid assurance thatthe alliance remained a supreme American interest, and they wanted this freeof Congressional pressures and arguments about the validity of the nuclear
guarantee. To obtain such assurances, they would have to accept the inevitability of some form of troop reduction, as well as more open discussion with theirown public about those withdrawals.
A US participant replied to the previous speaker that there were many
Americans who believed as he did, but that they had grown weary of warningthat one day the troops would be abruptly withdrawn. With the new mood ofdetente, that day was now much nearer. "Suddenly there will be a supremeorgy of rationality and the troops will be gone."
A Canadian speaker observed that Americans now seemed to be experiencing
some of the same sentiments that had been felt in his country just a few years
ago. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the war, it was hard to
persuade the average American that his country should still have an active
107

I'

~
l
I
I

l

military involvement in Europe. It was essential for those involved in CSCE
and MBFR to recognize that North Americans wanted to leave behind themood of the late forties and early fifties, and to give their politicians some
opportunities towards progress in their relationships abroad. There were indeed
hazards in dealing with the Soviet Union, but there were also great capabilities
on the Western side.
A Norwegian participant observed that the widening gulf between America
and Europe, with the sense of community yielding to a sense of fatigue andweariness, presented a special challenge to Bilderberg, which existed topromote transatlantic unity.

***

In summing up his impressions of the discussion, the author of the American
working paper said that he agreed with most of what he had heard. He hopedthat the CSCE would go forward to create a sort of baseline whereby we could
begin to move on a transnational basis. He suspected, though, that a numberof the major participants, not least the US and even possibly the USSR, were
not prepared to see things that way.
Washington had probably concluded that the real issues it wanted to confront the Soviet Union about were to be found in other forums: SALT and
MBFR. The US also had a lot of other business it wanted to do with theRussians, and saw little to be gained by pursuing much in Helsinki.
The author of the Norwegian working paper had been surprised to hear somany participants express a lack of confidence in the ability of the Westerncountries to work effectively on a multilateral level. He felt that recent history
had proved that multilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe served to strengten relations and communications among the Westerncountries.
Many interventions had emphasized the importance of a variety of contacts
between East and West: technological, commercial, cultural, trade union, andso on. With this expanding interest in cooperation, the speaker thought that
it was impossible to tell our citizens that we were still living in the fifties, froma military point of view. That was simply not Realpolitik, and it would become
increasingly outdated with the maturing of a new generation of well-educatedyoung people who had not experienced the postwar decade as adults. He wastherefore convinced that we had to concentrate more and more on initiatives
at the multilateral level between East and West.

108

'\

*

*

*

During the course of the conference, an American participant offered some
general observations about the state of Atlantic Community relations and therole of the Bilderberg Meetings.
European-US relations were in a fragile condition, he said. There was a typeof Schadenfreude about each other's problems. On the eve of important economic,
security and political negotiations, there was sometimes an almost childlike
tendency to scratch away at each other, to take advantage of each other'sdifficulties. Statements were made, actions were taken which exacerbated thesituation to the point where we appeared to be the main adversaries of eachother, rather than partners or units which had to continue to work closely
together if we were to preserve what was most precious for both of us. We had
recent examples when proposals made on one side of the ocean were immediately
attacked on the other side from a negative point of view, rather than analyzed
critically but constructively.
What was required in our coming negotiations and relations was that(1) the US should approach Europe as ifthe European Community were aunit more united than in fact it was at present, and(2) Europeans should assume, notwithstanding Watergate and other internal American problems, that the United States would remain one of the mostpowerful countries in the world.
This strained situation was a challenge to Bilderberg, which had beenfounded to anticipate and try to modify European-American problems. Ourtask was to try to find ways to fortify and not antagonize each other.

*

*

*

Before closing the meeting, His Royal Highness expressed his appreciation
to all those whose collaboration had assured the success of the conference: thehost, Mr. Marcus Wallenberg, and the other Swedish people who had assisted
in organizing the meeting; the authors of the working papers, the interpreters,
the members of the secretariat, and all those who had contributed to thediscussions.
On behalf of the participants, a Dutch speaker thanked the Prince for his
sponsorship and skilful chairmanship of this very interesting meeting.

109