ECA Telegram Files, Lot W–130, Paris Repto: Telegram
The Deputy Special Representative in Europe for the Economic Cooperation Administration (Foster) to the Administrator of the Economic Cooperation Administration (Hoffman)
Repto 4140. From Foster for Hoffman. Reference: Torep 5109.1 OSR welcomes suggestion US technical specialists discuss problem with British and other ERP countries. However, further pressure directed primarily at British, who for reasons mutual security have gone far in cooperating, might be misunderstood. Therefore suggest US specialists meet representatives Britain, France, Belgium and Netherlands jointly. Such meeting might also establish method for making future additions and deletions One-A list which for maximum effectiveness must be flexible. (Jurisdictional problem between NME and Commerce should be resolved so two different groups specialists are not sent. Suggest give consideration joint team NME and Commerce specialists.)
In our opinion delay prompt general agreement on basic list has already jeopardized efficacy control by Italy and other countries whose early cooperation has resulted in their being penalized. We again recommend authorization to relieve them from continuance discrimination pending final agreement disputed items. Continuation Italian compliance might otherwise have disturbing repercussions.
If discussions by specialists fail achieve agreement all disputed items, we are convinced full compliance US One-A list cannot be achieved without imposition of sanctions and we strongly oppose any such action. We have over period of one year built up acceptance principle of common security and substantial acceptance our ideas methods of control.
OSR has been operating under initial directive set forth in Torep 816,2 which explicitly stated that our objective was to achieve, through voluntary cooperation, substantial compliance with US One-A list. Presumably this policy was based on conviction that unless cooperation [Page 114] voluntarily extended it would in all probability prove purposeless.3
Recognizing that the political and economic situations within participating countries differed among themselves as well as the US, it has been our purpose to encourage acceptance of a list which would succeed insofar as possible in prohibiting flow eastward of goods of strategic importance and minimizing flow when complete prohibition not practicable. Under initial directive we believe substantial progress in achieving this objective has been made, and have confidence in administration of controls which these countries have voluntarily seen fit to impose.
We have discussed this matter with Harriman prior his departure for Geneva and he is in agreement general principles herein expressed.4
- Not printed; it reported on the NSC meeting of May 5 described in the editorial note on p. 110.↩
- Telegram 3352, August 27, 1948, Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. iv, p. 564.↩
- Telegram Repto 4168, May 13, from Paris, not printed, added that the Office of the Special Representative was currently seeking completion of controls by France, Belgium, and the Netherlands on the basis of the British list. It was OSR’s opinion that further discussions on future additions or deletions was always open, but excessive pressure in the current circumstances for expansion of controls could jeopardize the progress to date (ECA Telegram Files, Lot W–130, Paris Repto).↩
- The Department of State and Economic Cooperation Administration replied to this telegram in telegram 1710, May 20, to Paris, not printed. Concurrence and pleasure were expressed for the comments made here. State and ECA felt, however, that the initiation of technical discussions would be premature if France and the Benelux countries had not yet brought their controls to the British level. State and ECA also stated that they were not in a position to take the initiative in advising Italy to relax controls to the British level (662.003/5–1249).↩