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

450.6031/5–1750: Telegram

The Ambassador in Frame (Bruce) to the Acting Secretary of State ¹

secret

Paris, May 17, 1950—7 p. m.

2367. Excon. CoCom meetings US 1B proposals.

1. May 15 spent in procedural wrangling with all PC’s except Luxembourg represented, viz:

(a) UK requested discussion 1B list by major categories, e.g., metal working machinery, rather than by items. US proposed immediate seriatim consideration each item US 1B list for inclusion international list II and, subject concurrence other PC’s, agreed include category A and B items in international list I. Items not accepted either list I or II to be included list III. Present concept international list to be used without regard US proposals preconsultation and limitative controls. French proposed immediate discussion methods implementation list II. US proposal prevailed, with UK, Belgium, Denmark for French proposal.

(b) All delegates expressed their views on US 1B list item 1, but British refused express opinion with prior discussion strategic aspects of whole category. After extensive discussion chairman submitted British approach. Result was tie with France, Denmark, Norway and Netherlands for UK proposal.

(c) French proposed immediate discussion first 79 US 1B items (metal working machinery) by technical working party. US proposed immediate poll of delegates as to whether they could agree place any US 1B items on international lists I or II as presently constituted. French proposal adopted, Italy and Canada favoring US proposal.

(d) Netherlands proposal for simultaneous CoCom discussion methods implementation list II carried.

2. At May 16 meeting CoCom:

(a) Considered US proposal limitative control (Embassy despatch 991, May 4, 1950²) and UK proposal (London 2328, April 28, repeated Paris 679³). On instructions from their respective governments France, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark supported UK position. Belgium expressed general agreement UK position. Germany, Canada, Italy supported US proposal in principle and reiterated views expressed at CoCom meetings March 30, 31 (Embdesp 991, May 4, 1950). Report of meeting will be submitted consultative group as extension March 30, 31 CoCom discussions.

(b) Agreed consider metal working machinery reported by technical working committee for inclusion international lists as presently defined.

(c) Discussion continuing for schedule future technical meetings other categories.

3. Technical working party discussions proceeding tediously with probability meaning of most items metal working machinery will have been gone over this week. Discussion technical aspects each item to follow. Report will then be made CoCom for strategic discussion each item there. Smaller countries may be expected want refer results technical talks to their governments as they have no technicians at present meetings. On this basis we cannot realistically expect complete even technical discussion US 1B list before September at earliest. Embassy greatly handicapped in technical discussions by lack experts and documentation (see Embtel 2043, May 3⁴).

4. US effort has been directed to obtain immediate reading 1B list with each country stating whether it agreed inclusion specific items on list I or II, and failing that place on list III for further CoCom discussion. This prevented by British intransigence, but in any event meeting as whole indicates no PC except Germany, France and Canada willing accept even one 1B item for inclusion list II as presently agreed (much less as it would be constituted by US proposals of prior consultation and quota controls) without full technical discussion.

5. Meeting resulted in clear division PC’s between US 1B position (3 countries) and British limitation control proposals (7 countries). Embassy feels stronger than ever that absent high level agreement between UK, France and US (Embtel 1838, April 20, repeated London 517⁴) further CoCom debates to establish US 1B position as presently constituted useless and prejudicial (Embtel 1862, April 24, repeated London 523⁴). British indicated informally their quantitative control position will probably remain unchanged in consultative group.

6. Net result is that for first time in some year and half since PC’s have had 1B list we have come to discussion specific items, but only on basis international list II as presently agreed (unilateral limitation and exchange information) and with prospect of months of technical and multilateral discussions ahead of us. On basis past experience and obvious apathy PC’s toward all US 1B proposals and unless policies majority PC’s changed, we are not sanguine that these discussions when completed will result in appreciable additions international list I or II. As Embassy has reported before and as indicated by present meetings, there seems no possibility acceptance US proposal for preconsultation and quantitative controls absent reversal UK position on high level and similar reversal by countries that now side with UK proposal.

Repeated information London 668.

Bruce

1. Following the Ministerial Meetings with the French and British in Paris and London, May 8–13, Secretary of State Acheson attended the Fourth Session of the North Atlantic Treaty Council in London, May 15–18. He returned to the United States by boat, arriving there on May 27.
2. Not printed. It transmitted copies of a Coordinating Committee report on the Committee’s meetings in March concerning the addition of items to International List II. Annexes to the report included major United States statements and proposals to the Committee for the application of limitative controls upon export items included in List II. In general the American proposals called for the inclusion of nearly 200 items from the U.S. 1–B export security list on International List II. Control of these items would be affected through prior consultation among the various participating countries on some items and the quantitative control of other items on quota bases (450.6031/5–450).
3. Not printed. It transmitted the text of a paper by the United Kingdom Delegation to the Coordinating Committee commenting on the American proposals for limitative controls for List II items. The British found a number of weighty objections to and many practical difficulties in the arrangements foreseen in the American proposals. The British felt that the only practical methods for the international security control of exports were those already agreed upon: the complete embargo of important items under International List I and the post facto exchange of information among participating countries regarding the export of items of less importance with a view to embargo or other restriction where necessary (450.6031/4–2850). The British paper was formally submitted to the Coordinating Committee on May 10.
4. Not printed.
4. Not printed.
4. Not printed.