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

450.603/5–950: Telegram

The Ambassador in the Netherlands ( Chapin ) to the Secretary of State

secret

The Hague , May 9, 1950—3 p. m.

555. Paris telegram 58 May 5 sent Department 2114.¹

1. Re paragraph 2 reftel clarification Dutch status follows. Netherlands Government participates fully in working groups of CoCom but does not attend executive CoCom meetings. This position taken by Cabinet as being all that is needed to provide cooperation necessary for program.

2. Netherlands retention non-membership status CoCom has made it politically possible Netherlands to participate fully in CoCom activities and take action parallel with CoCom nations despite Netherlands November Cabinet decision not to join CoCom. For example Hague bilateral negotiations with US on tankers, oil drill rigs, and transit have been satisfactorily concluded and executed within this framework. Therefore, Embassy questions making this status an issue.

3. Hague telegram to Department 514 repeated Paris 124² represents typical use non-membership status whereby Netherlands Government gives its views to US on bilateral basis for US to act on if it desires. Netherlands Government has always questioned possibility of true multilateral action in CoCom as long as group has no formal pedigree and has no authority to make decisions. Security reasons also a factor.

4. If full membership in CoCom for Netherlands desired Netherlands Government must be shown where present performance falls short and how full membership would improve it. Furthermore, decision to take full membership would have to be made in Cabinet. We see no benefit covering all this ground again after repeated travels over it.³

Please see OSR and ECA/W files.

Sent Paris 136, repeated Department 555.

Chapin

1. Not printed. It commented that the Netherlands continued insistence on “nonmembership” status in the Coordinating Committee presented a difficult problem in American efforts to secure true multilateral action through the Paris group. The Department of State was asked whether it was worthwhile to attempt to clarify the status of the Netherlands (450.603/5–550).
2. Not printed. It reported on the Netherlands agreement to include tankers on International List I (450.603/4–2850). Regarding this matter, see footnote 3, p. 137.

3. Telegram 2210, May 15, to Paris, not printed, stated that the Department of State did not feel it worthwhile to attempt to clarify the Netherlands status currently. Netherlands cooperation on specific cases was excellent, and it appeared that greater progress would be made if the current relationship continued until general agreement had been obtained on matters of principle and procedure by the Consultative Group (450.603/5–950).

   Telegram 1797, October 6, from Paris, not printed, observed that continued Netherlands assertion of formal nonmembership in the Coordinating Committee was anomalous in view of the Netherlands full participation at the executive and working group levels of the Committee and the constant reference in Committee documents to the Netherlands Delegation. The telegram also observed that the Netherlands insistence on nonmembership weakened the multilateral character of the Coordinating Committee (460.509/10–650).