740.5/7–1751: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Spofford), at London1

secret

Todep 46. Ref Depto 58 rptd Copenhagen 15.2 Dept strongly concurs desirable avoid having Dan memo on export controls submitted to Council and auth you inform Dan Dep that we hope further discussions between two Govts will clarify apparent misunderstanding and enable Dan Govt withdraw reservation in CD.

[Page 1159]

Dan Amb saw Thorp July 173 and left memo on gen subj Dan trade with Bloc and reviewed points which concern Danes. Thorp reviewed legis develops with Amb, explained in gen terms our objectives in recent negots in Paris and reiterated our desire preserve multilateral approach this problem.

We believe fundamental reason for Dan action in CD is not objection to CD Res in its present form but deep seated uneasiness that US objective is in fact econ warfare against Bloc as distinct from econ def measures. We believe they have also magnified scope NATO action. As you know we do not envisage NATO action will be taken on many items. Proposal was first made by Brit to deal with specific machine tool problem and we feel NATO action shld be kept to limited field key items urgently required def needs. We do not believe NATO action shld be a device bring pressure on NATO countries take action in which we have been unsuccessful in COCOM.

We believe that as result Thorp-Kaufman conversation and recent CG Mtg in Paris when new US and Tri proposals were fully explained by Linder and our desire continue with multilateral approach to this problem reaffirmed, Dan worries may have been partially overcome.

Dept also believes advisable for Harold Linder Dep Asst Secy of State for Econ Aff who is thoroughly familiar with legis situation here and who has headed USDel to Tri and CG discussion visit Copenhagen and review situation with Danes. Linder will visit Copenhagen week of July 23.

Acheson
  1. Drafted by Camp; repeated to Copenhagen and Bern for Linder.
  2. Dated July 17, p. 1149.
  3. No memorandum of this conversation has been found in Department of State files.