Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

840.00R/1–1850: Telegram

The Special Representative in Europe for the Economic Cooperation Administration (Harriman) to the Economic Cooperation Administrator (Hoffman)¹

secret

Paris, January 18, 1950—9 p. m.

Repto 325. For State, Commerce, NME. Reference Repto 212² and 224.³

A. Plenary meeting 18 began with statement by Netherlands delegate to effect Netherlands fully prepared cooperate in program, retained objections to formal organization and to multilateral commitments, satisfied no international secretariat was contemplated, glad to cooperate in consultative work on informal basis, willing to attend any meeting at any level when necessary. Stated informally Netherlands not worried by developments to date, but feared large secretariat which would look for work to do, disliked possibility of stretching concept of “strategic” to cover items such as food, and sought avoid publicity. Said wanted be free to deny membership in any organization set up for purpose preventing shipments to Eastern Europe. Other delegates said they thought Netherlands statement made it possible for work to proceed without difficulty, as all countries shared Dutch worries and all assumed confidential and informal character this group. French chairman stated he assumed Dutch statement indicated acceptance coordinating committee, and Netherlands did not object this inference. French and US stated they accepted formally, and other delegates said they had no confirmation from their governments, but expected it momentarily.⁴

B. As working group chairman, d’Orlandi reported results of work on lists which occupied all of fourteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth. Copy report being airpouched. Summary as follows:⁵

(1) Of 13 items in list III, 6 are moved to I, 2 to II, and 5 reserved for future work.

(2) Consideration of US list of additional 36 items resulted in inclusion 12 in list I, 1 in II with balance left for further work in III. Expert examination chemical equipment agree necessary for about ten items.

(3) Inclusion of an item in II implies it has strategic significance, that countries agree to restrict exports to Eastern Europe to quantities considered reasonable, and will in future pool necessary statistical and other information for joint consideration as safeguard against excessive exports in aggregate. UK delegate to submit further analysis of list II treatment on ships, and note taken of US proposal on quantitative controls with agreement that it should be considered jointly at early date.

(4) Minor reservations include fact Norwegian delegate had no instructions on the 36 items but expects them shortly and fact Netherlands delegate attended only one session working group and hence could not pass on all items added to lists I or II. Danish delegate stated his government reluctant undertake formal export controls but would do best through administrative means. (This was discussed in plenary and British delegate said he was not satisfied with Danish formal statement in report; Danish reply was more satisfactory, and all agreed to see how administrative controls worked out.)

(5) Report leaves for settlement by heads of delegations problems of diamonds and diamond tools, tankers, oil well drilling and exploration equipment and casing and oil pipe.

C. Consideration list report by plenary resulted in conclusions (1) that areas of agreement are to be considered as recommended to governments for action, (2) that items subject to further technical analysis and discussion are sent to coordinating committee as soon as it comes into existence, and (3) items on which heads of delegations were asked to agree are resubmitted to governments for re-examinations, inasmuch as no agreement seemed possible this session.

D. German question quickly resolved by decision authorize French chairman transmit invitation to HICOM, with form of representation to be determined by occupying powers and with German membership to begin with coordinating committee as soon as established, and to extend to plenary the next time it meets. Agreed letter to German Government (reported earlier by HICOG) was read by French and British. No discussion.

E. Yugoslav question aroused considerable interest. US and UK explained policies of licensing class I items when justified in terms western interests. It then appeared a number of countries maintained list I embargo on Yugoslavia, and US found it advisable minimize actual 1A shipments. There was general feeling no munitions should be shipped without prior consultation. US said would consider and report and would also furnish statement licensing criteria for list I and II items, together with facts on actual licenses issued. Coordinating committee to examine, also to determine whether it will be useful for it to develop internationally agreed munitions list for use in Yugoslavia and other cases. Other members to furnish statements similar to US.⁶

F. Discussion of Finland followed same lines and it appeared some countries embargo list I, other license as US does; Norway said could not consider applying restrictions Finland. US agreed here to supply statement licensing criteria and data on actual licensing for study by coordinating committee. Other members will also submit statements.⁷

G. Switzerland, Sweden, and Turkey were mentioned but discussion postponed until plenary on January 20 when transit report will be presented.⁸ At that time, enough governments should have position on coordinating committee for it to be established and first meeting date set. Plenary agreed it should meet soon and plan work. Selection of chairman not mentioned but we have private French commitment designate d’Orlandi.

H. At last moment Danish delegate⁹ stated he had to explain tanker situation because he understood it was expected all PC’s would fulfill trade agreement and there are three tankers included in Danish agreement, one 12,000 ton already contracted and two 5,000 ton vessels not yet under contract. He said Russians had just requested dropping commitment for smaller two and ordering another 12,000 ton ship instead. Danish Government is inclined to think it must do this and accept order for larger ship because it needs proceeds from sale of ships to pay for oilcake and wheat it imports from USSR. Dane said he was presenting this situation because his government wanted all others be informed. US said this raised question of trade agreements in general, which had not been treated this session, and French chairman said he thought everyone had agreed that old trade agreement commitments are to be kept, but new ones not be made for list I. He asked if all understood problem this way and there was full assent. He then said that it was “legal” to include in new trade agreements items which were being considered for list I but that it would be bad ethics to do so. All agreed.

I. When China was mentioned, US stated not prepared discuss and it was not mentioned again.

J. Question of Austria discussed in terms of end-use checks and screening to prevent list I items falling into Soviet hands. US described own procedure, British and Italians said theirs similar. Group agreed it would be impolitic invite Austrian Government participate.¹⁰

Harriman

1. Sent to Washington; repeated by pouch to Oslo, Copenhagen, Brussels, The Hague, London, Rome, and Frankfort.
2. Supra.
3. Not printed, but see footnote 6, supra.
4. Subsequently unqualified approval was received also from the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Belgium, and Norway. The Danish Government while not opposing participation in the Consultative Group was reluctant to recommend such participation if the reestablishment of formal export controls in Denmark was necessary. The Danish Delegate stated his belief that the control objectives could be met by administrative action which he felt might be entirely satisfactory.
5. Regarding the text of the report on lists summarized here, not printed, see footnote 2, supra.
6. Telegram 1258, March 17, from Paris, not printed, reported that the Coordinating Committee on March 11 approved a statement on policy toward Yugoslavia (CoCom Document 16, not printed) essentially in accord with American policy and providing for an interchange of information on denials and approvals of exports to Yugoslavia (450.6031/3–1750).
7. In CoCom Document 50, May 12, 1950, not printed, the Coordinating Committee recognized that Finland was a democratic country which should be given such facilities as were consistent with her geographical position. Current American export policy toward Finland was noted, and the Committee agreed that participating countries should exchange the same information about the export of security items to Finland as already had been agreed for Yugoslavia (Despatch 1190, May 26, from Paris: 450.6031/5–2650).
8. A draft report by the Working Committee on Transit Trade was presented to the Consultative Group on January 20, but there was apparently too little time to permit an informed debate. Regarding the text of the report on transit trade, not printed, see footnote 2, supra.
9. E. Sveinbjørnsson, of the Danish Foreign Ministry.
10. Telegram 2300, May 15, from Paris, not printed, reported that at recent meetings of the Coordinating Committee, it was agreed that Austria should be treated as a Western country and a single unit, with the caution reflecting its strategic location. It was agreed that all license applications for exports to Austria would be carefully scrutinized for consignee reliability, security importance of the commodity, and Austrian needs (463.509/5–1550).