COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM 1526 - COMMUNICATIONS CABLE 25TH JANUARY, 1960

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100060050-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 1998
• Sequence Number: 50
• Publication Date: February 4, 1960
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Relea 62-00647A000100060050-1 Vi$
4th February, 1960. COCOM Document 3715.26 B
COORDINATING COMW TTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION:.
ON
ITE'UI 1 26 - COMMUNICATIONS CABLE
`filth January, 1960
Iresent: Belgium(Luxembour g), Canada, France, Gerraany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM Docs. Nos. 3700.3, 6 and 9, 3715.00/1, 3715.26/1 - 4 and
W.P. 1526/1 - 5-
i. Tie CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to resume study of Item 1526.
2. The UNITED STa?T.E3 Delegate recalled that, at the close of the la-
test discussions on this item, he had made it quite clear that in view of the
strength of his instructions he could not forsee any change in his Government's
position. Since that tire, the United States Government had undertaken a
thorough further evaluation of the strategic importance of Item 1526. This
evaluation, far from leading them to change their opinion, had on the contrary
confirmed them in their belief. The United States authorities had then entered
into contact with the other Member Governments in order to convey to them the
full scope of their strategic evaluation and to explain why they wore unable to
modify their position. The Committee would not therefore be surprised to hear
that the United States Delegation maintained the proposals they had made in
December (COC0k Doc. No. 3715.26/3). The other delegations had obviously beery
unable to study these proposals thoroughly at that time, and the Delegate now
hoped to hear the views of the various Member Governments in the light of their
further analysis.
3. The CANADIAN Delegate supported the United States proposals invol-
ving prior notification procedure for Item 1526. The Canadian Government's
agreement in this instance did not, however, mean that they were in favour of
the principle of prior notification or consultation as a general rule.
4. The NETHERLANDS Delegate recalled that his Government's views were
recorded in paragraph 13 of COCOM Doc. No. 3715.20/4. Nevertheless, after
further study of the matter, the Netherlands authorities, while preferring
prior consultation for the three items involved, had decided to accept the
United States proposals.
5. The GERMAN Delegate stated that ho found the United States Delega-
tion's position disappointing. Lice certain other delegations, the German
Delegation believed that some of the equipment covered by Item 1526 was stra-
tegic and should be kept under total embargo. It should once again be made
clear, however, that there was no question of deleting Item 1526, but only of
instituting an administrative exceptions procedure for a small part of its
coverage, whose lesser strategic importance was unanimously accepted. Stressing
that the Franco-German proposal (COCOM Doc. No. 3715.26/l, paragraph 12 and
3715.26/2, paragraph 5) was already a compromise, the Delegate pointed out that
the prior notification proposed by the United States Delegation amounted in
actual fact to prior consultation which was always possible without a special
Note being required to that effect. Finally the Delegate added that, as a
further concession towards the reaching of agreement, his Delegation would also
be ready to agree to add to the administrative exceptions Note a clause similar
Approved For Release t ?1'E62-00647A0001 00060050-1
 Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100060050-1
SECR T - 2 - C0C0M Document
3715.26/5B
to that proposed by the United States Delegation for certain parts of Item 1501,
which set up a trial period of one year for the application of this procedure.
In conclusion the Delegate stated that, if agreement were not possible on this
basis, the German Delegation saw no point in adopting the amendment suggested
by the United States Delegation in C0C0: Doc. No. 3715.26/3-
6. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that the German proposal for a one-
year trial period was new only as a formal matter, i.e. only in the sense that
it had not previously been officially advanced. But in fact it had already
been informally discussed among delegates, and considered by the United States
authorities, who were unable to agree to it. Adoption of such a procedure
might only defer Committee difficulties, rather than eliminate them. During
the "trial period", exports might take place that would involve serious securi-
ty risks, to be judged both in aggrega,tive terms as well as in terms of indi-
vidual exports taken in themselves or in combination with one another. While
the technical characteristics end conditions proposed in tae procedure the
United States Delegation had advanced were `cod ones, they had to be applied on
a case-by-case basis in light of all available knowledge at any given time.
Therefore, the United States Delegate held out no hope that his Government
could accept any procedure requiring only ex past facto notification.
79 The NETHERLANDS Delegate was in favour of the principle of a trial
period for the prior notification procedure. With such a system the Committee
should be able, at the end of one year, to judge whether or not this procedure
was necessary.
8, The BELGIAN Delegate stated that after thorough rds of past discussions ~;study of the re-
cords on this item, the Belgic-al Government noted that agree-
ment did not seem possible on the technical plane and felt that the matter
should be handled cautiously. Consequently, although any supplies obtained by
the Bloc would very probably be put of civilian purposes, as long as there was
any risk of their military application the Belgian Delegation were ready to
agree to the prior notification procedure suggested by the United States Dele-
gation. This did not mean that the Belgian authorities were in favour of the
principle of prier notification as a general rule.
9s The 'TURKISH Delegate stated that his authorities attached
pax
lar importance to the discussions on Items 1520, 1523 and 1526. Because oficu-
their common frontier with the Soviet Union, Turkey had no desire to run the
risk of exporting any equipment to the Bloc which might affect its security. In
the light of past discussions, the Turkish authorities were convinced that these
three items covered equipment th