460.509/10–1250: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom 1

secret
priority
no distribution outside of department

1962. Excon. For Bohlen. Urtel 1941 from Paris, Oct 12.2 Dept desires clarify its position re current export policy. Fol is chronological development since NSC Action 347:3

1.
NSC Action 347 was considered ambiguous in its wording and also appeared inconsistent within itself. Items (a) and (c) appear to be contradictory.
2.
Secy Sawyer issued P.D. 3814 in order implement paragraph (c) which was assigned him for action. This action was taken on unilateral basis without consultation Dept.
3.
Dept and ECA took exception this procedure due its strong unilateral approach by US to problem export controls and due far reaching implication re general US policy. Position paper was prepared for ActSecy State outlining objections to P.D. 381, principal [Page 209] objection being that P.D. 381 was absolutely contrary to policy voluntary multilateral negotiation and would prove detrimental contemplated tripartite discussions London.5
4.
R Proc Sub Comite proceeded process all pending 1A applications for WE under criteria P.D. 381. All cases within terms P.D. were referred OIC for action. OIC has not taken finalized action any these cases.
5.
ActSecy discussed P.D. with Sawyer before latter left Wash and succeeded postponing date under which Dept Commerce wld take initial action under new policy.6 Date was changed from Oct 9 to Oct 25. In meantime several more discussions have taken place, latest of which involved Secy Acheson, Foster (ECA), and ActSecy of Commerce Blaisdell. Since ECA cases were being delayed under criteria P.D. 381, suggestion was made that matter immediately be referred White House for clarification. Blaisdell said no necessity such action since if any pending cases considered urgent need for recovery WE by Dept or ECA, he wld immediately consider such cases for approval. Furthermore, Blaisdell said that the Dept Commerce wld issue licenses that Secy State said shld be issued to prevent embarrassment at the forthcoming negots.7 As a result, all ECA cases which were pending under P.D. 381 were sent Blaisdell by ECA for his immediate consideration for approval. Furthermore, it is expected that the Secy will present this entire problem re P.D. 381 NSC mtg Oct 20.8

Dept feels there has been gradual weakening in policy advocated in P.D. 381 and that tripartite discussions should be conducted on basis status quo prior P.D. 381. Dept feels unfortunate that Deptel 1860 Oct 11, 19509 gave impression that P.D. 381 in full and effective operation. It wld probably be more correct to assume such policy is in suspension until resolution present dilemma. However, Dept representatives [Page 210] tripartite discussions shld continue bear in mind possibility future adoption criteria P.D. 381 or modified version same,10

Dept representatives shld note that Commerce and Defense delegates do not agree with our position re P.D. 381 and may imply that from their point of view such policy is already in effect.

Will keep you advised re further developments.

Acheson
  1. This telegram, which was not cleared outside the Department of State, was repeated to Paris as 1964.
  2. Not printed, but see footnote 3, supra.
  3. Regarding NSC Action 347, see the Record of Actions of the National Security Council Meeting of August 24, p. 179.
  4. Regarding the Advisory Committee on Requirements Program Determination No. 381, see telegram 1498, September 23, to Paris, p. 194.
  5. The five-page position paper from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State O’Gara to Acting Secretary of State Webb, September 27, under reference here, is not printed (S/S–NSC Files, Lot 63 D 351, NSC 69 Series).
  6. No record has been found of the discussion between Acting Secretary of State Webb and Secretary of Commerce Sawyer which appears to have taken place about October 6 just prior to Sawyer’s departure for the Caribbean area.
  7. Regarding the discussions between Secretary of State Acheson, Foster, and Blaisdell under reference here, see the memorandum of conversation by Martin, October 11, p. 201.
  8. Telegram 2258, October 28, to Paris, for Bohlen, not printed, informed that export policy was not discussed by the National Security Council on October 20, but that the Department of State was making every effort to secure a resolution of the problem during the coming week (460.509/10–2850).
  9. Not printed. It informed that ACR Program Determination 381 had been placed in effect by the unilateral action of the Secretary of Commerce, with the result that export licenses had been held up, but not denied, in cases covered by the order and pending the receipt of assurances from the governments affected. No such assurances had yet been requested, the Department of State had obtained the suspension of any action to deny licenses until at least October 25, and the Department of State was seeking to settle the whole question of the new Commerce program (460.509/10–1050).
  10. Telegram 2007, October 18, to London, not printed, informed Bohlen that he was entirely correct in not referring to ACR Program Determination 381 during the London Tripartite Discussions on Security Export Control. The telegram stated that Program Determination 381 did not represent agreed United States Government policy. United States policy was represented by National Security Council Action 347(c) (see p. 179) which remained to be interpreted more precisely but left no doubt that the United States would deny certain strategic exports to friendly countries if they shipped identical items to the Soviet bloc (460.119/10–1750).