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

740.5 MAP/2–750: Telegram

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

secret

Washington, February 7, 1950—7 p. m.

574. Tomap. Deptel 468 Feb 1, Paris 432, Rome 366, Oslo 53, Copen 56, Brus 126, Lux 7, Hague 92, HICOG Frankfurt 672.² Sat³ NY Times contained art by Sidney Gruson datelined Brus Jan 31 advising US withdrew proposed secret annex in connection with regulating export war-potential material as result concerted opposition European recipients. Art states secret annex proposed after Europeans had objected art in original draft bilateral dealing this problem. Art quotes text proposed secret Minute of negots as follows: Cites original Art VII that recipient govts in full accord with terms that provision, reference to discussions held Paris Nov 1949 and progress made therein with respect to establishment and operation of Permanent Consultative Group and assurances of recipient govts to cooperate further in operations of such Group. It ends with suggestion that inclusion of any such provision in bilateral unnecessary.

Art quotes exact text proposed Minute of negots as agreed with UK, which comparable text letters used by other countries (Dutch and Danish letters had somewhat different texts). Art reports US denial of any secret annexes to bilateral agreement and denial US ever proposed any secret agreement. Also states US official advised US did not propose to regulate export to Sov countries in these discussions. Under Lond dateline Feb 3 art advises that FonOff and Defense Ministry spokesman declined to comment but did not deny that any attempt to include such art had been made, and stated that publication might be embarrassing to US in its efforts to achieve multilateral trade. Also US Emb spokesman advised Wash was content with arrangements for control of American mil aid, and suggested that document on which report based might have been preliminary working paper prepared for discussion which led up to drafting of treaty.

It is hoped that no further arts will follow Gruson’s report. In any event you shld advise FonOff country to which you accredited that Dept has denied and will continue to deny categorically any assertion that there are or were proposed at any time by any party secret agreements or annexes to MDAP bilateral. You shld also advise FonOff with respect to any questions as to whether US proposed any such secret agreement as reported by Gruson that line Dept taking is general denial plus statement that talks during negots cannot of course be made public without full agreement of all countries. On basis of interview it appears that Gruson probably obtained his material either in Brus or Hague.

With respect any questions you may receive concerning Consultative Group it is recommended that Emb deny existence of any multilateral organization to deal with this problem.

Acheson

1. This telegram was repeated to Paris, Rome, Oslo, Copenhagen, The Hague, Brussels, Luxembourg, and HICOG/Heidelberg.
2. Not printed. It stated that the New York Times had informed the Department of State that the Times London Bureau had learned that the United States proposed a secret annex to the recently signed bilateral military assistance agreements with European countries dealing with the control of strategic exports to the Soviet Union and its satellites. A Department spokesman advised the Times that there were no secret annexes or agreements and that none had been proposed by the United States or the European negotiators. The Times had not printed the story from London in its February 1 issue (740.5 MAP/2–150). Regarding the undertaking by various European countries to cooperate in intergovernmental strategic export control programs, see the editorial note, p. 72.
3. February 4.