460.509/8–251: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Bonsal) to the Secretary of State
priority
735. Excon. From Linder. CG mtg August 1 resulted as fols:
1. Acceptance by all PC’s of 34 out of 53 items proposed by US for List I and decision to refer 19 disagreed items to COCOM for further discussion in Sept. UK objected to embargo 18 items in fields of rail transport, heavy construction, coal mining equip, tin and aluminum, on grounds embargo items in these sectors basic to general industrial economy is not justified under existing List I criteria. UK supported by Fr on 15 items, Belg on 9, Neth on 9, Nor on 1, Itals on 4. Den maintained technical reservation on item 102, on which remains lone objector, but withdrew on 12 electronics items on which previously reserved. At same time Den entered objection on policy grounds to all 18 items opposed by UK. UK and Fr emphasized that time available to PC’s to study items had been insufficient permit full exchange views as to whether disagreed items justified for embargo or other appropriate control. Considerable debate on criteria took place. Den, Neth and Nor strongly supported UK. Den asserted there shld be clear and present security interest before entering basic economy fields. Admitted difficulty drawing line where industrial potential becomes war potential but felt even harder draw line in future if PC’s now enter fields such as transport and construction. Nor and Neth shared “grave concern” re extension lists beyond “proper fields”, although both had limited their objections to items in which concern on policy grounds had coincided with direct econ interest. USDel referred to language of criteria and reiterated belief 53 items meet criteria.
[Page 1165]2. List II proposal was accepted with minor changes, but ad referendum by FedRep. Belg, Nor and Den expressed strong doubts as to practicability of quantity controls. Den concerned that para 3(d) implied virtual embargo list items if agrmt not reached on limits and was willing accept proposal only on understanding that, as working directive to COCOM, text may be modified in COCOM if necessary in light of effort to work out practical control system. Chairman agreed, provided that if changes alter spirit of doc, matter shld be referred back to CG. To meet FedRep objection to postwar base period para 3(a), para amended at UK suggestion (with our concurrence) by adding fol phrase: “except where such a period is agreed to be manifestly inequitable to one or more of the PC’s”. FedRep stated had firm instrs oppose postwar base, and cld accept revision only ad ref. Wld recommend his govt accept. At request Ital and Belg dels, para 3 (c) of proposal had earlier been revised by deleting “no exports will be permitted until a new decision has been made” and substituting “the COCOM shall examine whether as a temporary measure exports shld be more seriously restricted and, if necessary, denied”. Agreed that COCOM examine list II items under new proposal wld begin Sept.
3. Exceptions proposal accepted by all PC’s. Neth del took opportunity to put question openly and direct to USDel as to whether US wld make unilateral representations to individual PC’s on matters decided in COCOM multilaterally. Question was not clearty put, but since directed to one country, chairman ruled it improper. USDel commented that believed question out of order in multilateral forum, but desired clarify that, if question referred to proposal on exceptions (which leaves ultimate decision to individual PC’s), US felt free to make views known either in COCOM or to individual PC. Pointed out to Neth del after mtg that US wld naturally be guided by principles generally agreed in COCOM, but wld not fail to take up with another govt any matters affecting direct relations between US and that govt.
4. When Den raised question re strictness of 3 (d) rule in List II proposal (para 2 above), Berthoud stated that UK also interprets 3(d) as implying very strict control and commented that UK had in mind that some of disagreed items proposed by US for List I might be treated in this manner. (USDel doubts this was calculated statement since some members UK del have criticized 3(d) rule on grounds it opens door too wide.)
5. Ital del noted Ital had just accepted Tri formula for control ball and roller bearings on permanent basis at COCOM. Stated he considered bearings control raises same questions as embargoes in transport and construction fields under agreed criteria, but believed it more important to maintain uniformity of policy and action among PC’s. Urged that other PC’s examine disagreed items in same spirit, modifying definitions of some items if necessary.
[Page 1166]6. Disposition agenda items on shipping and COCOM budget reported separately.
7. Since discussion of disagreed items we proposed for embargo will be resumed early Sept, as well as COCOM review List II items, suggest Dept inform Commerce and Defense Depts importance having necessary experts available to assist USDel COCOM.
Sent Dept 735, rptd info Frankfort 75, London unn, Rome unn, Brussels unn, The Hague unn, Copenhagen unn, Oslo unn, Lisbon unn, Bern unn, Stockholm unn, Vienna unn. [Linder.]