14. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Administration (Brady) to Richard Pipes of the National Security Council Staff1


  • NSDD Differentiation paper

The concern Commerce has on the NSDD differentiation for Eastern Europe is not of a philosophical nature but rather practical concerns relating to the effect of the NSDD language on existing projects and how it may undermine the President’s directive to strengthen high technology controls in nine defense priority industries.

To take the latter point first:

If there is total prohibition on COCOM controlled technology being exported to Eastern Europe, it is our view that the internal U.S. government deliberations to arrive at a negotiating position on what technology should be put under control will have an additional factor dividing the agencies—namely that if it is put under control it will not be allowed to go to Eastern Europe, etc. etc. We can foresee interagency disagreement multiplying as a result of the total prohibition, with State balking at putting new technologies under COCOM control, not because these shouldn’t be there from the standpoint of the Soviet Union but rather because of the prohibition on Eastern Europe.
I am attaching a list of projects which would have to be terminated if the draft NSDD language stands because the technology is already under COCOM control or will be as a result of proposals now pending in COCOM.2
The real differentiation for Eastern Europe that the Eastern Europeans are truly concerned about, and which in fact gives us leverage [Page 41] and may fulfill the aims of differentiating, is in the technology, and not the equipment area. Eastern Europe wants to industrialize. They want the turnkey plants, the know-how and not only end use equipment.
Although the NSDD mentioned Romania apparently as an exception to the prohibition I can assure you that it will not be so interpreted by agencies of this government who will insist that the wording of the NSDD was simply using Romania as an example of a place where we are less concerned about diversion and not that Romania was to be excluded from the prohibition.

For all of these reasons, we feel that Commerce language is far superior to what was in the draft NSDD.

  1. Source: National Security Council, NSC Institutional Files, NSDD 0054. Secret.
  2. Not found attached.