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

740.5/6–451: Telegram

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

secret   priority

London, June 4, 1951—5 p. m.

Depto 1057. Excon.

1. In view delicate situation arising out of Kem amendment, desire your further comment on wording CD resolution on export controls to Sov bloc. US proposal this subj circulated May 30 but CD discussion postponed to June 6.

2. Key language in our proposal is fol declaration of principle, with implementation referred to FEB: “that export of such items (found by DPB to be urgently required for NAT def purposes) to Sov Union or areas under its domination or control shld be embargoed, except to extent indicated by overriding considerations arising out of security interests of exporting country concerned”.

3. Informal discussion with Brit, plus suggestion made by Danish deputy, have suggested fol alternatives:

(a) Changing “exports shld be embargoed” to “supply shld be denied”. This has tactical advantage of avoiding word “embargoed” and seems to us to lose nothing of sense and perhaps even to carry broader implications (e.g. forbidding NAT country shipping from carrying supplies to Sov bloc from third countries).

(b) Changing “arising out of security interests of exporting country concerned” to “of mil-econ advantages of NAT countries as against Sov bloc”.

4. Latter suggestion arose incidentally during CD discussion May 31 of relations with Poland and Czecho, when Danish deputy commented that second phrase quoted above was contained ih para 9 of US policy statement toward Poland and Czecho (see annex A to D–D (51) 133 of May 19¹), and that it might be adapted to purposes export control resolution.

We wld prefer language re “security interests”, which was drafted with text Kem amendment in mind, but proposed alternative seems express our intention reasonably well if emphasis is placed on words “mil-econ advantage”, which we wld interpret more rigidly than “mil or econ advantage”. We plan defend our present version, but desire your reaction to alternatives.²

Sent Dept Depto 1057, rptd info Paris 2581 for Embassy and OSR.

Spofford

1. NATO document D–D (51) 133 of June 8, 1951, “Revised Draft Summary Report on Exchange of Views on Military, Political, and Economic Conditions in Poland and Czechoslovakia,” is not printed. (NATO Sub-Registry)
2. In telegram Todep 483, June 5, the Department of State reported its concurrence with the language changes outlined in the source text but added that regardless of the wording selected it wanted Spofford to state the U.S. view that the primary reason for making exemptions should be to obtain from Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union materials urgently needed for Western defense economies and that exploitation of a competitive position in Soviet bloc export markets should not be considered in judging whether security advantages would accrue from making exemptions to the embargo. (740.5/6–551)