740.5/6–2051: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State
Depto 1145. Excon.
1. In working group discussion June 18 Fr rep again raised question of associating FedRep with NATO action on embargoing exports of scarce materials to Soviet bloc. US rep said his govt would be glad to join with other occupying powers through HICOM in informing FedRep of NATO decisions and inviting FedRep’s cooperation. He [Page 1120] added that he believed such cooperation wld be readily forthcoming in view of FedRep’s reiterated desire to collaborate in allocation scarce materials and in support NATO defense effort.
2. Fr rep, speaking personally, doubted whether his govt wld be satisfied with this and said that Fr dep wld probably make more specific suggestions at next CD mtg. He indicated that Fr were thinking along lines of (a) imposing NAT decisions in this matter upon FedRep through exercise of powers under occupation statute, and; (b) having reps of three occupying powers in FEB present to that body justification for any departures by FedRep from embargo principle.
3. Particularly unfortunate that Fr raised this issue in NATO body rather than among occupying powers since other countries now given new excuse for delay. Fr rep was supported by Neth and Den reps, although believe latter wld not persist if Fr withdrew.
4. Your guidance on this matter wld be greatly appreciated. Quite aside from relations between occupying powers and FedRep, we believe relations between NATO and FedRep would not be well served by using powers under occupation statute to force FedRep to join in NATO measures. Also representation of FedRep in FEB reps of three occupying powers wld seem to us particularly unfortunate at this time. Furthermore, (a) so far as we are aware FedRep exports to Sov bloc (ignoring illegal trade) are already restricted to those which could be justified in terms of FedRep’s “security interests”; (b) to extent this is not already true, presume it will soon be as result of administration Kem amendment although believe we shld be chary in using this argument in NATO; and (c) in any case, failure of FedRep to follow NAT example shld not be regarded as excuse for inaction by NAT countries, and wld not destroy utility of NAT countries taking their own measures to conserve scarce materials for defense needs by embargoing their export to Sov bloc.
5. For HICOG—pls note foregoing message relates to resolution pending before CD on which hope for final action June 25. US has proposed resolution, adoption of which wld commit NAT countries in principle to deny to Sov bloc supplies of materials declared by DPB to be in critically short supply for NAT def purposes, “except to extent indicated by overriding considerations arising out of security interests of exporting country concerned, term ‘in security interests’ being understood to include necessity to secure imports which must be obtained from Sov bloc to sustain basic econ strength of NAT countries.” Procedure contemplated is that on basis this policy declaration, FEB wld be requested secure prompt agreement among NAT countries as to specific measures to be taken, it being understood each country wld remain final judge of its security interests but bound to [Page 1121] justify in FEB in terms of this criterion any failure on its part to embargo listed materials.
Sent Dept Depto 1145, rptd info Paris 2750 for OSR, Frankfort 1380.