740.5/6–1951: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State
Depto 1142. Excon. Re: Depto 1128, June 15, rptd Paris 2729;1 and Todep 526, rptd Paris 6888.2
1. Greatly appreciated receipt Todep 526. Working group mtg June 18 produced agreement on all points except on question of whether CD agrees forthwith to principle of embargo (see para 2 below). Norwegian, Danish, and Netherlands reps have now withdrawn insistence upon referring lists back to DPB in view fact resolution now contemplates possibility DPB deleting items from list as well as adding them (see para 4, Depto 1128). Agreement also reached on retention “security interest” language in exception clause but with addition in resolution itself of language of British interpretation (see para 5 reftel).
[Page 1119]2. Although we have now agreed to place more emphasis in resolution on FEB consideration other conservation measures, issue still remains of whether FEB should proceed immediately to implementation of embargo principle or whether it should consider necessity embargo measures simultaneously with alternative measures with view to working out general program for remedying defense shortages. Key paragraph in resolution on this subject reads as follows (parenthetic language is alternative supported by Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, and possibly Belgium):
- “Conclude: that, so long as items continue to be listed by DPB as being in short supply for NAT defense purposes, their supply to Soviet Union or areas under its domination or control should be denied (it may be necessary to deny their supply to the Soviet Union or areas under its domination or control) except to extent indicated by overriding considerations arising out of security interests or exporting country concerned, term ‘security interest’ being understood to include necessity to secure imports which must be obtained from Soviet bloc to sustain basic economic strength of NAT countries”.
3. Alternatives will be presented in this form to CD meeting on June 25. Meanwhile hope convince dissenting delegations with arguments along lines para 7, Depto 1128. Incidentally, some wind taken out of Norway’s sails by announcement blanket exception under Kem amendment for Norway. Further background on this decision would be very helpful.
4. French again raised in working group meeting June 18 two questions reported in para 9 Depto 1128. They seemed satisfied with our suggestion let FEB handle problem of commitments under existing commercial agreements, but German issue proved more difficult. Separate message on this subject, rptd to Frankfort, follows.3
Sent Department Depto 1142 repeated info Paris 2744 for Embassy (King) and OSR.