740.5/7–3151: Telegram
The Acting United States Deputy Representative on the North Atlantic Council (Achilles) to the Secretary of State
Depto 141. Re Copenhagen to Dept 84, rptd London 10, para 3.1
1. Dan dep called morning July 30 to present his govt’s proposal re amending para 5, D–D (51) 158. Proposed insertion which wld substitute for “their supply to Sov Union or areas under its domination or control shld be denied” fols:
- “NAT countries shall in their export policy with regard to such items give an absolute priority to the requirements of other NAT countries and to those of countries which are associated with NAT countries or in whose economic strength and development they take a specific positive interest.”
2. In discussing his govt’s purposes in stating matter “negatively” as he put it, he was certain about its desire not to name Sov Union. He was less certain as to whether or not it was prepared to subscribe [Page 1163] to embargo principle however worded. This led me to suggest on personal basis that he consult his govt as to whether it wld agree add fol words to its proposed insertion “and will not permit their supply to other countries.” It was understood we wld have to consult on Dan proposal and he agreed consult his govt ref my suggestion.
3. We expressed appreciation for his withholding his earlier memo (see Todep 58)2 and we agreed it better in this case to resolve the difference between the two govts concerned without raising the matter in the CD. Also expressed the hope that further discussions between the two govts wld soon clarify the misunderstanding.
He indicated that he had not been informed of the Thorp–Kaufman conversation this matter. He then made the points included in para 3 Todep 46.3
4. Were Dan Govt to agree inclusion embargo principle, however worded, difference remaining between us wld appear consist of (a) matter naming Sov Union, and (b) question of inclusion priority principle. Matter of not naming Sov Union might involve cumbersome wording or tacit understanding and shld not constitute insurmountable problem. Dan dep indicated his belief that Dan Govt felt that inclusion priority principle resulted in resolution whose content was that of a conservation measure, rather than an economic warfare measure. How strongly they desire its inclusion is question. Dept’s view (para 3, Todep 46) that Denmark does not object to CD res in its present form wld seem be verified if Danes agree inclusion embargo principle. Problem might then consist of completely dispelling uneasiness that US objective is economic warfare. On other hand, Linder states (see Copenhagen to Dept 84, rptd London 10) Danes feel strongly re priority principle. Some accommodation may, therefore, be necessary secure their agreement.
5. Shld appreciate Dept’s and Emb’s reaction to above. Will cable Dan reaction my query when reed.
Sent Dept Depto 141, reptd info Paris for King and Linder and OSR 225, Copenhagen 24.