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

460.509/9–2350: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in France

secret

Washington, September 23, 1950—3 p. m.

1493. Excon. Embtel 1478, Sept 20.¹ Emb will understand that Wherry amendment² in original form merited utmost efforts of admin to obtain its defeat. Communications to Congressional leaders from the President,³ Mr. Hoffman,⁴ General Bradley⁵ and from Dept⁶ laid greatest emphasis on (a) fact that policy of coercion toward our allies is wrong way to achieve our security objectives and (b) that rigid unworkable measure such as this might lead to stoppage all East-West trade (or cessation US aid to Eur and also non-Eur countries) and defeat our objective of maintaining econ strength of free nations to whom trade with EE is important. Radio Bulletin gave main emphasis to (b) because refs to (a) wld be harmful if Wherry amendment later approved.

Some ECA statistics on E–W trade include Fin and Yugo in EE and this may account for refs to Western imports from EE of strategic non-ferrous metals. Detailed statistics shld be available in OSR. Quick check shows most statements attributed Hoffman and cited in reftel were misquoted, some accurate in proper context.

Some apparent contradictory reports in press and elsewhere, stating one time that WE controls over strategic items are effective and another time that banning strategic shipments wld wreck foreign aid programs, can be explained by replacing statements in proper context to clarify whether items referred to are of higher or lower strategic rating. Widespread sentiment in favor of embargo of everything “strategic” has led Dept to make direct effort clarify that there are degrees of strategic importance, sometimes related to quantities shipped, and that what we want from E–W trade is not blockade but net advantage in our favor.

Foregoing does not attempt to reconcile all inconsistencies cited in reftel but may be useful to Emb in correcting any false impressions among other PCs. Dept does not share Emb opinion that officials fongovts may misconstrue recent statements here as indicating changes in US position or US satisfaction with existing Excon policies in WE. On contrary, seems probable that they recognize what Wherry amendment wld have meant and may well be impressed with strong Congressional support (and official opposition) it recd here.

Dept wld welcome info on reaction other delegs in CoCom to Wherry amendment controversy and to substantially modified Cannon amendment finally approved.

Fol is text of amendment finally approved by Senate Sept 22:

“During any period in which the Armed Forces of the United States are actively engaged in hostilities while carrying out any decision of the Security Council of the UN, no econ or financial assistance shall be provided, out of any funds appropriated to carry out the purposes of the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, or any other act to provide econ or financial assistance (other than mili assistance) to foreign countries, to any country whose trade with the USSR or any of its satellites countries (including Commie China and Commie North Korea) is found by the National Security Council to be contrary to the security interests of the United States.”⁷

Webb

1. Ante, p. 189.
2. Regarding the Wherry amendment under reference here and the Cannon amendment which the Senate and the House of Representatives adopted in its stead, see footnotes 1 and 2, ibid .
3. For the text of President Truman’s letter of September 20 to Congressman Cannon and to Senator Kenneth McKellar of Tennessee, see Department of State Bulletin, October 5, 1950, p. 599, or Congressional Record, vol. 96, pt 2, pp. 15425 and 15491.
4. Regarding Hoffman’s statement under reference here, see footnote 1, p. 189.
5. For the text of the letter of September 19 from Gen. Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Congressman Cannon, see the Congressional Record, vol. 96, pt. 2, pp. 15417, 15419, or 15500.
6. Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations Jack K. McFall informed the Under Secretary’s Meeting, September 20, that he was working closely with the White House and Congressional leaders regarding the proposed Wherry amendment (Document UM M–245, Under Secretary’s Meetings, Lot 53 D 250, Minutes). No formal Department of State communication to Congress on the subject has been found.
7. The text printed here, which is slightly contracted to permit telegraphic transmission, was included as section 1304 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, Public Law 843, September 27, 1950, 64 Stat. 1044.