EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ECONOMIC DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 11:00 A.M. MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1957 ROOM 913 DISTRICT NATIONAL BUILDING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP61S00527A000100180063-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 5, 2000
• Sequence Number: 63
• Publication Date: October 23, 1957
• Content Type: MIN

Approved F`oorr Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP61SOO'7A00010018063-r
ED/EC M-277
October 23, 1957
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
ECONOMIC T2E
MINUTES
11,00 a.m. Monday, October 21 1957
Room District Na ona
Attendance:
MAC
-'"Mr. Hale, Chairman
Mr. Kramer, Executive Secretary
Mrs. Huver, Committee Secretary
Commerce
Mr. ockersmith
Mr. George
Defense
6-01.Green
ICA
Hr. Slaght
State
Mr. Wright
Mr. Oliver
Treasury
r. o11ak
Agenda't
Note a. Embargo of Copper Wire
1. Discussion of Criteria Issue Raised in Ad Hoc Subcommittee Report
(Ref. ED/EC D-126/1)
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP61S00527A000100180063-9
 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP61 S007A000100180063-9
SECRET
Note a. Embargo of Copper Wire 25X6
The Chairman reported that finally are expected to respond to
our efforts to place copper wire under embargo. The State member added that it
is anticipated that this matter will be discussed by and the Secretary
of State Tuesday afternoon, October 22nd. 25X6
1. Discussion of Criteria Issue Raised in Ad Hoc Subcommittee Report
s ED/EC -
Decision
The Executive Committee requested the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on List Review
to continue its review of all of the items they feel need consideration on the
basis of the current criteria., designating which criterion applies in each case.
They were also requested separately to designate those items which they would
recommend for addition or deletion on the basis of the proposed revision of
criterion (a).
Discussion
The Chairman stated that a question has arisen in the review being done by
the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on List Review, which was to be conducted on the basis
of tEie U. interpretation of current COCOM criteria. However, as a result of
the review thus far, the Subcommittee recommends a revision in criterion (a).
He stated that he felt this revision needed to be discussed in the Executive
Committee to determine whether the members could agree to its employment. He
added that if a course of action cannot be fully agreed in the Executive Com-
mittee, it would have to be referred to EDAC. He asked Mr. George to explain
the Subcommitteews reasons for recommending this revision.
Mr. George made reference to ED/EC D-126/l which explains the proposed re-
vision. He said the Subcommittee first encountered this problem in its dis-
cussion of the metalworking machinery category and they had even greater dif-
ficulty -~L th the chemicals category when, in certain cases, it was decided that
the strategic significance was no longer as great as it had been originally
thought and they did not feel it should be considered at all.
He called attention to Attachment I to referenced document, stating that the
key words in criterion (a) are "designed specially or are expected to be used by
the Sino-Soviet bloc". There are two thoughts here and they are separate thoughts.
As we have interpreted this in the past, if an item is designed specially for the
development, production or utilization of arms, ammunition, implements of war
(including N and CW) and atomic energy materials, it warranted control. Or, if
it was expected to be used in that connection, it warranted control. He felt,
however, that the probability or improbability of importation by the Bloc should
be taken into consideration.
He explained that, in examining the chemical category particularly, the Sub-
committee was informed by intelligence, and no one was prepared to contradict
that intelligence, that the Soviet bloc had substantial production of a number
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001168/30 CIA-RDP61S00527A000100180063-9
 Approved F, pRelease 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP61S00gi37A000100180063-9
SECRET
of chemicals which they used primarily for explosives, they were in a good
position in terms of shells that would use these explosives, and they had an
amp]e supply. On this basis the Subcommittee expressed concern as to whether
the U.S. should continue to try to control such items on n I, II and III,
leaving aside the Munitions and the Atomic Energy Lists. However, considera.
tion would be given in each case to the fact that even though the Bloc may have
an adequate supply of certain materials, some of our techniques might enable
them to produce the same end product with a better quality, or more cheaply,
or give them ability to decentralize. The feeling was that if it could be
demonstrated that the Bloc would not import a significant quantity because
they have an adequate supply, and none of these contributions would be made by
the import, there was nothing to be served by control.
After studying the criteria, the Subcommittee decided that the four words
"are designed specially or" should be deleted from criterion (a) because it
was felt that they were not very significant if it could be demonstrated that
the situation was such that the Bloc would never import the items.
He stated that in making this proposal the Ad Hoc Subcommittee felt it
would tend to strengthen our total position rather than weaken it. If anyone
had felt it weakened it, the proposal would not have been made. This would put
the U.S. in a more tenable position for certain items listed for control, and
it would provide substantive rationale rather than arbitrary rationale without
real meaning with respect to the Blocu s potential. The Defense member added
that he was in agreement and he could see no difficulty in negotiating this
revision.
Mr. George pointed out that, with respect to a discussion in WG I, he
wanted to make it clear that the Subcommittee visualized this revision as
covering potential for new development as well as improvements in current de-
velopment in terms of impact on the Bloc.
In discussing the report submitted on the chemicals category, it was brought
out that certain of the items which would come off the International Lists
by this revision should be retained for control, but it was felt the control
would be better and more appropriate on the Munitions List. In this respect
the Commerce member inquired whether it was anticipated that all of the items
which would be dropped because of this revision are items which the Department
of Defense will feel should be placed on the Munitions List. The Defense member
said not necessarily. He added that he did not think there would be any trouble
in putting them on the Munitions List if the items qualify, but in the event we
cannot get them on the Munitions List they get dropped. He felt that there is
no need.in keeping items on the International Lists unless they are going to
have an impact,
Mr. George said that the Subcommittee is trying to do as full and as good
a job as possible and one which will not have to be duplicated. This proposed
revision of the criteria does not make the job any easier,, in fact it makes it
more difficult, but the Subcommittee felt that this revision would better the
program. -Therefore, the question before the Executive Committee is whether the
Subcommittee should apply criterion (a) as revised, or whether it should continue
its review on the basis of the current (a).
Approved For Release 2001/0?,IA-RDP61S00527A000100180063-9
 Approved Fo elease 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP61SO052WO0100180063-9
SECRET
-4-
The Commerce member felt that any change in the criteria would have to be
reviewed by EDAC and possibly higher, He also inquired whether the elimination
of the words "are designed specially or" would raise any problem with respect
to the Battle Act, adding that some of these items are designed specially for
arms,, ammunition and implements of war, and he did not think the Battle Act
provided any flexibility in this respect. The Chairman responded that the
explanation given by Mr. George for their elimination might satisfy the re-
quirements of the Battle Act, but it would have to be looked into.
The State member mentioned that the IL III question is still open. In re-
sponse to his query as to what our position would be if the decision is made
not to request pre licensing for IL III or if some other changes are made in
the IL III procedures suggested by Mr. George9 the Defense member said it would
definitely affect Defenses position on some of the items. The Defense member
felt., generally speaking.,. anything downgraded from IL I should be put on IL III
in order to maintain it under surveillance for a period of time.
After further discussion, the Chairman said it seemed to be the consensus
that., since it did not entail too much additional work, the Subcommittee should
be requested to continue its review on the basis of both the present criterion
(a) and the proposed revision of criterion (a). See Decision above.
The Chairman complimented the Subcommittee on the helpful reports they have
submitted to date. He pointed out that the Executive Committee should submit a
report on this review to EDAC early in November. He felt, however, that it would
be better for the Executive Committee to postpone its consideration until, they
have three or four reports to review. That would also allow the Subcommittee
to continue its work with less interference.
Distribution
DList Farts I & II
& WG I (limited)
SECRET
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP61S00527A000100180063-9