Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, National Security Affairs; Foreign Economic Policy, Volume I

740.5/5–851: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford), at London¹

secret

Washington, May 21, 1951—7 p. m.

Todep 443. Ref London’s 5715, May 3,² and Paris tel 6528, April 26 (rptd London 1666)³ and Paris tel 6701 May 4, rptd London as 1730.⁴

1. In Dept’s view probably best way prevent duplication and overlapping of functions between NATO and COCOM wld be to make COCOM a subcommittee of FEB. However, membership problem and strong Brit resistance probably make it impracticable make effort in near future effect trans. Regardless of formal situation unless FEB and COCOM have in practice close working relationships, we feel there will inevitably be conflict of jurisdiction and duplication. However if impossible at this time obtain agreement on any form of direct reference questions from FEB to COCOM, believe you shld agree to res which provides for use of FEB at present time as body which will review need any exceptions on econ necessity grounds from DPB recommendations, and use influence when exceptional cases raised in FEB to insure adequate informal liaison with COCOM.

2. It may facilitate eventual trans if FEB brought into picture immed in connection with implementing DPB recommendations re items in short supply and needed for defense program. Dept will presumably wish raise with UK and other countries problem of COCOM–FEB relationship at some future time and in discussions you shld make it clear to Brit and others we are accepting solution of problem as interim measure only.

3. We are not clear as to meaning of sentence in para 4 London tel 5715 which indicates resolutions shld authorize FEB seek agreement to embargo or otherwise restrict exports to SovBloc of DPB designated goods. This section of para appears inconsistent with first part same para with which we are in agreement. We had envisaged and judged from previous tel indicating agreement with paras 4 (a) and 4 (b) of Paris tel 6528 that we were all agreed that DPB wld make specific embargo recommendations and that function of FEB (with de facto cooperation COCOM) wld be to agree an any exceptions to this gen rule. Please clarify.⁵

4. Dept in complete agreement with Emb London and USDel COCOM comments re avoiding gen econ impact studies in FEB and avoiding confusion between controls directed toward SovBloc and more gen problem of allocation of scarce commodities among non-NATO nations outside SovBloc.

Acheson

1. Drafted by Camp and cleared with Leddy, Arthur N. Cox of ECA, and Col. C. K. Moffatt of the Department of Defense; repeated to Paris for OSR and Excon.
2. Ante, p. 1071.
3. Ante, p. 1070.
4. Not printed, but see footnote 3, p. 1073.
5. In telegram Depto 992, May 25, Spofford informed the Department of State that the source text was fully in line with the views of the Embassy staff except the issue raised in paragraph 3 and that pending further clarification of this issue, Spofford felt inclined to postpone Council Deputy action on the subject. (740.5 MAP/5–2551)