Memorandum to the members of the
Executive Committee

The political situation in Europe, the financial situation of the European group and my nomination as President of the European University Institute in Florence — which will make it impossible for me to continue as president after June of this year — make it indispensable to discuss together where we go from here.

Thus far, the European group has been able to function thanks to generous American help — both financially and intellectually —, financial help from the German and Italian groups and from my Brussels Institute. We owe it to our American and Japanese friends to now let them know clearly to what extent they can count on us during the next few years.

Events since our Tokyo meeting have changed the political situation in Europe drastically and dramatically and it would be unwise on our part not to take account of these changes. I do not consider it my function to judge national attitudes and policies but I feel obliged to point out the facts and to place our options as I see them before you.

The essential facts seem to me to be the following:
when the plans for the Trilateral Commission were made (Summer and Fall 1972) it seemed reasonable to assume that progress in European unification would make possible a real trialogue between the US. — Japan and the European Community, Today, this assumption, at least for the next couple of years, no longer provides a basis for our work.

Contacts between citizens of the US, Japan and our countries remain as necessary as ever. But decisions in Europe will be taken mainly by national governments, not by European institutions. In most problems, we are returning, at least for the time being, to multi-lateralism.

In view of the profound differences of opinion between citizens from different European nations two different courses seem possible: one would be to reconstitute our participation in the Trilateral Commission so that we become an action group fighting for the necessity of a real trialogue, such as we hoped at the outset that would come about. This would mean advocating policies to which the present French and British Governments are opposed on different grounds. It would necessitate a strong, convinced and devoted membership and a fighting president free to devote the better part of his time to the Commission's activities.
The other would be to continue our work but focussing on joint study and discussion, without joint advocacy of policies.

Unless we make it clear to our American and Japanese friends which of these two courses we decide to take the Trilateral Commission, instead of binding our members and nations closer together, could become through misunderstandings a source of friction and irritation.

I prefer not to make suggestions in writing to you concerning my successor because we must, it seems to me, first decide on our future course. Our choice for the first or the second alternative must strongly influence our choice of a president.

If we choose the first course we must:

• find a fighting president with considerable free time;
• provide him with the necessary funds to carry out the job;
• reconstitute our membership.

If we choose the second course we must find an institution that can serve as infrastructure for the European group, and a chairman so placed geographically that he can work easily with this institution. Personally, the best solution in this direction that I can see, would be to ask the Atlantic Institute to serve as the infrastructure. However, the first reaction of our American friends to this solution was not favourable. And, needless to say, any solution that we choose must be acceptable to our American and Japanese colleagues. It seems to me necessary that we arrive at firm conclusions rapidly and in any case in good time before our June meeting. Otherwise, the European Element of the Trilateral Commission will not be able to function at all after that meeting.

We will finally have to consider the financial situation.
As things stand now, we will have to ask the European members of the Executive Committee to meet their own costs for participation in the June meeting.

M. Kohnstamm