460.509/5–3151: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Bruce) to the Secretary of State
7386. Excon. At May 29 COCOM most dels made informai personal observations on probable effect Kem amendment on proceedings in COCOM and suggested USDel transmit them to Dept. Summary of various views follows:
- a.
- Anticipate Kem amendment will go into effect and will result in expanded US proposals for embargo.
- b.
- Individual govts will have to decide whether to qualify or to suspend receipt US aid for duration Korean hostilities.
- c.
- Expect proposals as to items will be based on US terminology and descriptions. Past experience has shown US definitions not always understood in Europe and even when understood are not feasible here because of licensing and customs problems. Irrespective Kem amendment many definitions shld be reviewed for clarification. For any new definitions this problem shld be taken care of in beginning.
- d.
- Believe exceptions will be necessary. Feel they shld be developed and coordinated through central body rather than handled bilaterally. This wld enable presentation rounded picture to US. Wld also follow OEEC pattern.
- e.
- Feel multilateral action on transit trade controls will continue necessary. Anticipate necessity expanding such controls to ensure that shipments from qualifying countries to nonqualifying countries (outside Sov bloc) do not compromise position of former.
- f.
- Feel future COCOM work will be considerably expanded, and shld include matters in paras (c) and (e) above and perhaps para (d). Also feel official recognition CG/COCOM will become necessary, and that previous disclosure objections not necessarily applicable. PC’s cld not claim COCOM activity not a matter of discrimination against Sov bloc but pursuit own interests in order qualify US aid.
- g.
- Noted 15-day Kem amendment provision leaves very little time for govts to make necessary studies and decisions. This might result in preventing multilateral proceeding in the initial stages. In any event felt US shld supply PC’s soonest with listing items for embargo and explanation of administrative application and procedures (e.g., will 1 B items be considered embargo items; will exceptions be on basis individual items, individual TA’s or over-all trade).
- h.
- Scheduling QC discussions shld be deferred for time being but filing statistics shld be completed soonest (June 4 set as new deadline).
- i.
- Suggested further exchange views at June 5 COCOM, by which time status Kem amendment presumably established.
- j.
- Suggested any detailed discussion on Kem amendment function in COCOM be in CG rather than COCOM.
2. On being asked for comment, USDel stated comment from it entirely premature since Kem amendment not yet law and since supplied with no instructions. Also felt COCOM discussion likewise premature since dels apparently not informed on govt views. Suggested any further additional discussion shld be only on basis instructions. Some dels agreed. Others felt further informal discussion useful. Matter left without scheduling.
3. Above being supplied for Dept’s info but wld appreciate any comment Dept may care make.
4. Above represents composite of individual observations and not a consensus. Some dels made no comments. On some points not all dels in agreement.
Sent Dept 7386, rptd info Brussels unn, Bern unn, Copenhagen unn, Frankfort unn, The Hague unn, Helsinki unn, London unn, Oslo unn, Rome unn, Stockholm unn, Vienna unn, Trieste unn.