891.2546/12–1054
Memorandum by the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State (Bishop) to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (Jernegan)
As of interest to you, there follows an excerpt from my informal notes on the OCB meeting of December 15:
“Beryl Agreement with India—Special Item
“Mr. Waugh laid before the OCB the two alternatives in regard to action to be taken concerning the beryllium purchase agreement with India. He pointed out that the United States could inform the Indian Government that, if they do not accept our proposal for a one-year extension of the present arrangement or some mutually acceptable variation thereof, we will give notice of termination of the present purchase agreement. On the other hand, if the OCB were to decide that there were overriding political considerations and that, in any event, we must be prepared to renew the contract for 5 years, it would be necessary to find the necessary funds. Mr. Waugh went on to say that the Department of State felt that, unless we could remove beryllium from the Embargo Act List, there were serious political repercussions which would make it necessary for us to renew the contract.
“Admiral Foster of the AEC said that, while the AEC did not have any use for this material, because it is on the Embargo Act List with some 15 other nations and because it is used commercially in aircraft [Page 1797] construction and is used experimentally in reactors, the AEC would recommend keeping beryllium on the List.
“Mr. Floyd of ODM indicated that ODM would be willing to purchase beryllium for one year beyond that of the existing arrangements but would not be interested in purchasing any more than 500 long tons.
“After considerable discussion, it was agreed:
- 1)
- that the AEC would officially inform Mr. Stassen, Director of FOA, that the AEC no longer felt it necessary for beryllium to be on the Embargo List;
- 2)
- that FOA would give immediate attention and consideration to the question of removing beryllium from the Embargo List; and,
- 3)
- that the Department of State would prepare a telegram to the Embassy in New Delhi instructing the Embassy to inform the Indian Government that, if they are unable to agree to an extension of the present arrangement for one year, we will be forced to give notice of termination of the purchase arrangement.1
“It was also pointed out at the meeting that, with beryllium being on the 1B list, it is possible to except it from mandatory application of the Battle Act provisions and, in light of the fact that no one seems to want this particular commodity, the President should have no difficulty in so excepting beryllium if we did cancel our purchase arrangement and if India did sell it to the USSR.”
I suggest that, if this arrangement is acceptable to you, you will want to have someone follow through to see that AEC does send the necessary letter to FOA and that FOA does attempt to get beryllium removed from the Battle Act List.2
- The Department sent instructions to the Embassy at New Delhi to this effect on Dec. 21, 1954 in telegram 768 (891.2546/12–2154). The Embassy, in turn, reported on Dec. 27 in telegram 872 that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs on that date informed the Embassy that the Government of India was agreeing to a 1-year extension of the beryl agreement providing for deliveries to extend through Sept. 30, 1956 (891.2546/12–2754). On Dec. 31, the Embassy at New Delhi reported that the formal note from the MEA, dated Dec. 30, had been delivered to the Embassy (891.2546/12–3154).↩
- The following handwritten note appeared in the margin next to this final paragraph: “This should be done through S/AE. J[ohn] D. J[ernegan]”.↩