740.5/7–1751: Telegram
The United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford) to the Secretary of State
Depto 58. 1. As previously reported, res re denial scarce supplies to Sov bloc still awaiting action by CD pending clarification Dan position. Had long talk on July 5 with Dan Dep, who stated his govt unwilling [Page 1150] accept res unless perhaps it were extended to deny supplies to all non-NAT countries. At his request, I gave him memo on July 6 (copies air-pouched to Dept for Martin, AmEmb Paris for King and AmEmb Copenhagen)1 explaining in detail why such extension of res neither feasible nor desirable.
2. Dan dep today showed me Dan Govt memo intended for presentation to CD which takes position that res involves such “fundamental question of econ warfare” that it shld be referred to council mtg in Sept. However, when I expressed in strong terms my adverse reaction to this proposal and to the supporting Dan memo, Dan dep suggested he postpone circulating memo in CD until I had obtained your views. Believe Dan dep regrets his govt’s action and still hopes salvage situation here.
3. Summary Dan memo fols: (copies being airpouched)1 Den, which has accepted COCOM principles for embargoing strategic supplies, wld also be prepared subscribe to any appropriate system for mtg priority requirements of NATO def. However, “to introduce embargo vis-à-vis Sov bloc alone on grounds of scarcity is neither logical or advisable.” Other measures may be found for remedying def shortages and embargoing as proposed “wld seem constitute an act not only of discrimination, but of econ warfare.” Policy of econ warfare has not been considered by CD and deserves attention by council itself. Purpose of NATO cooperation is to “strengthen chances of peaceful solution” and “only where there is clear and present security interest shld any step be taken which aggravates existing tension.” “Determination with which US dep maintains his position on para 5” is only one expression of gen US policy reflected in Kem amendment, withdrawal MFN concessions to Sov bloc, and broadening of COCOM restrictions. Quotations are given from Battle Committee report of June 7 to effect that complete embargo on East-West trade cld defeat purpose. My statement in CD on May 2 that over-all embargo wld not be desirable also quoted. Memo concludes that action shld be deferred on plan contained in para 5 “until Cabinet Ministers themselves have had opportunity discuss its implications, notably in polit field, during forthcoming council mtg.” If this accepted, Dan Govt willing, in order not to waste time, to request FEB and DPB to initiate preparatory work assigned to these bodies in rest of res. (I understand this wld include technical study of measures to be taken under para 5, if eventually approved, and discussion of exceptions thereunder.)
4. I expressed to Dan dep my strong conviction that this proposal wld be entirely unacceptable to my govt, and contrasted Dan complaints about unilateral Kem amendment procedure with Dan unwillingness join in reasonable proposal for multilateral action on which 11 [Page 1151] countries already agreed. Wld appreciate your furnishing me with strong statement for transmission Dan dep. Believe subsequent direct approach to Dan Govt probably only hope breaking impasse.
Sent Dept Depto 58, rptd info Paris 114 (for Emb (King and Linder) and OSR), Copenhagen 15.