398.00–MO/11–651: Telegram
The Chargé in the Soviet Union (Cumming) to the Acting Secretary of State 1
784. Emb believes Moscow international econ conf recently rescheduled for April 1952 is more than “purely propaganda move” (Depintel Oct 31, 1951, 3 a.m.2). Sponsors of course have propaganda [Page 1305] aims high in mind but hope for definite results in drive to relax trade restrictions on Sov orbit. Recurring postponements of meeting probably reflect Sov appreciation that conf would likely fail in objective unless roster includes more representative elements than so far recruited. Evidently still hope find more businessmen personally anxious restore Sov orbit ties, as well as economists, labor leaders and neutralists spokesmen who for ideological, moral or sentimental reasons support East–West trade proposals. Participation such elements from West Eur countries causing some govts concern precisely because net result would be augment public pressures at home ship critical items (Embtel 105 [705?], Oct 24, rptd London 193 [103?], Paris 204, Rome 30, cited Brit Emb views in this connection3). If Sovs fail use existing international orgs it is because Sovs recognize them as insufficiently susceptible to pressure and feel past efforts manipulate them have been barren. Thus Moscow international conf would strive build up public pressures particularly within WE countries, as long as international orgs dominated by WE govts judged unfriendly to Sov trade proposals.
Emb agrees with conclusion NATO Deputies that best policy now is unified campaign discourage attendance and expose nature of conf to minimize reaction useful to Sov interests outside Commie and peace partisan groups. Obviously West approach should not be merely negative. Without ref to Moscow conf we should at UN, ECE, OEEC and elsewhere repeatedly set forth positive record of our own long-range world-wide trade liberalization aims, application of which impossible as long as Sov orbit strives for econ autarchy and promotes international tension.