Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, General: Economic and Political Matters, Volume I, Part 2

460.509/7–754: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France¹

secret
priority

Washington, July 7, 1954—7:13 p.m.

Topol 21. Excon. Reference Circular Telegram 6² for information Missions only, following agreed minute generally summarizes results Stassen–Thorneycroft meeting July 3–7.

1. “Peel-off. Determination as to when agreed list reductions (deletions, downgradings, re-definitions) should be implemented has been deferred in view US position (A) on relationship this question to clarification Indo-China situation, and (B) on absence final agreement in COCOM on improved enforcement measures. Immediately before Consultative Group meeting now scheduled for July 19, the two governments will consult on ministerial level concerning this problem in light situation then prevailing with view to fixing definite date for ‘Peel-off’ to be proposed to CG. When list reductions are implemented, procedures will be instituted or retained, as far as practicable, which are designed to minimize transshipments to China.

2. Peel-on. New items agreed for addition to lists should be so added prior to or simultaneously with removal of those items agreed for deletion.

3. Improved Enforcement. Improved enforcement is recognized to be an essential objective of readjustment of control system. UK would establish ‘transaction’ controls for all items retained under embargo (including munitions and atomic energy items) as soon as administratively possible after initial implementation of ‘Peel-off’. Prior to that, both governments would attempt insure that undertakings had by that time been received from other COCOM countries to implement, or assurances that they were prepared to implement, satisfactory transshipment controls. The two governments would jointly discuss with French Government methods to be adopted to introduce satisfactory transshipment procedure. In absence assurance of satisfactory transshipment controls, the two governments would consult further with reference to transaction control question.

4. Disagreed Items (except ships). The two governments agree to seek resolution of items not yet settled in COCOM on basis shown in Annex A hereto, and will jointly support it in negotiations with other member governments.

5. Ships. Both governments will continue actively to seek other member governments’ support of compromise shipping plan which is now before COCOM, including 150,000-ton quota for merchant vessels, 15-knot speed specification, etc. UK Government considers that to reach agreement some compromise may be required. They propose for consideration by US Government raising global quota to 200,000 tons and increase of permitted speed to 16 knots.

6. Quantitative Control and Surveillance Techniques. The question of what kinds of ‘quantitative control’ and ‘surveillance’ techniques should be used hereafter remains to be explores. In general, it is expected that efforts would be made towards simplifications of quantitative control techniques; some items may require be subjected to stricter quantitative control than others because of degree strategic importance as developed in item discussions; and surveillance techniques should be reviewed with object of increasing their effectiveness. Since existing quantitative control arrangements would be applicable to some of items now envisaged for quantitative control, an effort should be made to develop interim arrangements for those items pending development and implementation of any changes in quantitative control techniques.

7. Publicity. The two governments will consider degree of publicity to be given to reductions in controls. Any public announcement or discussion concerning revised control system will stress fact that revisions are intended provide tighter and more enforceable control system responsive to requirements of current world situation, and include not only relaxation of controls over certain commodities but also increase of controls over other commodities and agreement on a more stringent system of enforcement. The two governments should seek general agreement by other member governments along above lines.

With respect to informing other governments of results these talks, following was agreed:

1. France: When final US–UK position established French will be notified of its details through joint approach by US and UK resident delegates in Paris. Before this joint approach, either government may inform French in general terms of progress these talks, stressing however that all results are tentative pending final government approval.

2. Other Member Governments: As soon as joint approach to French has been made, other member governments may be informed in general terms of results these talks. Prior to that time if inquiries are made by other governments, they may be told these talks produced some tentative possible resolutions of outstanding difficulties and those are undergoing governmental review. It is expected this review will be concluded shortly after which suggestions will be laid before other governments for their consideration. Plans for subsequent official presentation in COCOM or CG and for any related approaches through diplomatic channels will be developed later at official level.”

Regarding paragraph 3 foregoing minute UK indicated would institute transaction controls at time short list is implemented if US feels strongly such unilateral action advantageous. Both governments agreed preferable use lack UK transaction controls as lever force other governments institute transit controls and all possible efforts should be made in order obtain complete enforcement package by date deletion implemented. This agreement should, of course, remain secret between US–UK.

Of disagreed items discussed during talks rolling mills only item not agreed for disposition. UK accepted US proposal postpone decision on mills until December. In interim US–UK intelligence and technical review with assistance intelligence services other interested PC’s would explore justification for continuation item under embargo. Of remaining previously disagreed items only 6 deleted, others disposed of on compromise basis as between embargo, QC and watch lists with final count over 40 items going on embargo.

If questioned on meeting by other governments, missions should confine comments to press statement (text transmitted wireless file July 7). Should suggest more detailed comments can be obtained if desired USRO/Paris and Washington.

Dulles

1. Repeated to London, Athens, Ankara, Lisbon, Rome, Oslo, The Hague, Brussels, Copenhagen, Tokyo, Ottawa, and Bonn.
2. Not printed; dated July 2, it authorized the U.S. representatives in the countries to which it was sent (all of the major European countries, Japan, and Canada) to inform the respective governments that Thorneycroft was invited by the President in the hope that the ensuing discussions would facilitate decisions in the forthcoming CG meetings. (460.509/7–254)