COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON ITEM 1648 - COBALT AND ITEM 1720 - COBALT COMPOUNDS 12TH FEBRUARY, 1959.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120011-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 1998
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: February 20, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved Felease : CIA-RDP62-00647A0d00120011-7
February = th, 19 59 .
COCOM Document No. 3416.48
COORDINATING COI+lITTEE
DISCUSSION
ON
ITEM 1.48 - COBALT
AND ITEM 1720 - COBALT CO1OUNDS
12th February, .19
Present: Belgium(Luxembourg)i Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM Documents 3016.00/4, 3416.00/1 and 2, 3416-48/1; C000M
Sub-C (58) 6 and 8.
GENERAL
1. The UNITED STATES Delegate informed the Committee, with regard to
the cobalt supply position of the Soviet Bloc, that he had just received in-
formation which explained the United States belief that cobalt met the require-
ments of both criterion (a) and criterion (c). He then made the following
statement:
"The best information available to the United States indicates
that total Sino-Soviet Bloc production of cobalt in 1957 was
approximately 1,600 short tons, substantially all of which was
produced in USSR. In the same year, United States direct
military consumption of cobalt was approximately 1,600 short
tons. Thus the total availability of cobalt to the entire
Sino-Soviet Bloc, for all purposes, was only approximately
equal to direct military consumption by United States. Even
taking account of known efforts in the USSR to economize on the
use of cobalt, because of its extremely limited availability to
the bloc, a certain amount of usage of cobalt for essential
civilian
industrial
use
cannot be avoided, thereby reducing the
quantity
available
for
direct military use. United States
analysis
indicates
that
the military program of the USSR alone
requires
about the
same
amount of military hardware as does the
United States military program. Taking into account, therefore,
essential civilian requirements not only of the USSR, but of
the remainder of the Sine-Soviet Bloc, and military requirements
not only of the USSR but of the remainder of the Sino-Soviet
Bloc, it is apparent that the bloc has a deficiency of cobalt
which, oven in terms of the USSR alone, is critical in relation
to the production in peace of modern arms, ammunition, and
implements of wax. Further, the Sino-Soviet Bloc as a whole
cannot overcome its critical deficiency in cobalt within a
reasonable period. This view is supported by the high prices
offered to free world cobalt suppliers by Bloc importers during
1956-57, and by the elaborate diversion techniques used by the
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120011-7
 Approved Fo?ICelease : CIA-RDP62-00647AOOW0120011-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 2 .. COCOM Document No. 3416 2
Bloc to obtain cobalt, involving large numbers of transactions and
traders. That there have been fewer reports of such activities
during 1955 is traceable, in the United States view, to exposures
of such illicit activity in 1956 and 1957 and action taken against
offenders.
?OThe.foregoing demonstrates why the United States considers cobalt
to meet, clearly, not only criterion (a) but also criterion (c).".
2. The Belgian Delegate stated that, according to the ".Metals Bulletin"
of the 30th January 1959, the U.S,S.R. had exported 139 tons of cobalt metal
in 1956 and 147 tons in 1957. This appeared to demonstrate that there had
boon no shortage.
3. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate pointed out that the figures quoted
confirmed what his Delegation had always said: that criterion (c) did not
apply in the case of cobalt.
4. The FRENCH Delegate reminded the Committee that cobalt was obtainable
from pyrites as he had already pointed out (Soo COCOM Document No. 3416.00/2,
paragraph 18 . Indeed, the figure of 100 tons annually then mentioned should
be corrected to 1,000 tons annually.
ALLOYS. Item 1648. See also COMPOUNDS, page 4.)
5. The CHAIRMAN reminded the Committee that these discussions had boon
in progress for some time. A number of Delegations had asked him to endeavour
to bring them to a speedy conclusion in view of present differences in national
controls. Where cobalt alloys were concerned, he felt that the German proposal
set out at the and of paragraph 20 of COCOM Document No. 3416.00/2, embodying
as it did a compromise between the United Kingdom and United States texts,
brought the Committee within sight of agreement. This definition road:
(b) Cobalt-bearing alloys, containing:
(1) 50% or more cobalt; ci
(ii) 19% or more cobalt and 14% or more chromium and less
than 1% carbon or 3% or more molybdenum.
The CHAIRMAN pointed out that the United States Delegation had accepted
this text on condition that the Committee would accept the definition for
the Watch List proposed by the United States Delegation (See paragr ah 38 of
COCOM Document No. 3416.00/2), which read:
Cobalt alloys, n.o.s., containing 19% or more cobalt and
14% or more chromium in combination, and scrap thereof.
The CHAIRMAN urged the Committee to make every effort to accept this
arrangement.
6. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate suggested the addition to the German
compromise text of the words "other than alloys covered by items 1631 and
1635".
On the 19th February the UNITED STATES Delegate suggested that
the text at (ii) should become (ii) and (iii), defined as follows:
(ii) 19% or more cobalt and 14% or more chromium and less
than 1% carbon; or
(iii) 19% or more cobalt and 14% or more chromium or 3% or
more molybdenum.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120011-7
 Approved Fotelease : CIA-RDP62-00647A001W00120011-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - , COCOM Document No.3416.48Z2
7. Prom the ensuing discussion it became clear that, as thus amended, this
arrangement was acceptable to all Delegations, with the following stipulations
or exceptions: the BELGIAN Delegation made their agreement conditional upon
agreement being reached to embargo compounds only when they contained. 50261
or more cobalt; the CANADIAN Delegation accepted the German text for part (b)
of the definition ad referendum, and reserved their position as to the United
States proposal for the Watch List (reminding the Committee of the point
explained in paragraph 48 of Document 3416.00/2); the ITALIAN Delegation
would accept the Watch List proposal if a majority were in favour; and the
JAPANESE Delegation were unable to accept the Watch List proposal as at
present dofinod, because it would create administrativo difficulties. The
UNITED KINGDOM Delegate said he would have to revert to the whole question
of cobalt at a later date,
CONTROL OF ALLOYS
S, The CHAIRMAN then asked Delegations to declare officially their
authorities' interpretation at the present time of the coverage of cobalt
alloys and of Item 1635, so as to obtain a dlear pioture of the situation if
no agreement could be reached.
9. The GERMAN Delegate stated that his authorities considered Item
1635 to embargo only alloy steels. Up to the present, on logical grounds,
they had considered Item 1648(c) - metal - to cover "metal and alloys
(cobalt-based)". They were nevertheless of opinion that "metal" in point
of fact meant metal only, and that if alloys were to be covered the
definition should make this plain. Failing agreement on such an adjustment
of the definition, therefore, they would in the future cease to embargo
cobalt alloys. This would be unavoidable since, if German exporters
realised that the international List merely embargoed metal, they would
take the. authorities to Court should licences be refused for alloys. Unless
the Committee reached agreement, therefore, the German authorities would be
obliged to maim the relevant changes in the regulations which had boon
issued on the 7th February.
10. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that his as from the -.
16th February, in anticipation of the Committee's reaching
agreement, cobalt alloys would be included in the United Kingdom Export
Control Order. Should such agreement not be reached, there was no
guarantee that they would stay there.
11. The FRENCH Delegate confirmedtthat as Item 1635 was interpreted
as covering only ferrous alloys, Item 1635(b) was taken to cover only
ferrous alloys containing 6% or more cobalt, and that, as Item 1648(c)
roferrud to cobalt metal alone, the French authorities did not consider
that the embargo covered cobalt based alloys. However, exports of these
had boon and still were watched vary closely.
12. The _CANADIAN Delegate stat~d that his authorities considered the
heading of Itom 1635 to refer to alloy stools: thus under 1635(b) they
embargoed only alloy stools with a 6% cobalt content. They considered this
to be the only place in the Lists where cobalt alloys were covered.
13. The ITALIAN Delegate stated that the position of his authorities
wase0dwenibed by his Canadian and French colleagues.
14. The JAPANESE Delegate stated that at the outset the Japanese
licensing authorities had interpreted Item 1635 as covering all alloys, but
that since the 1955 review of metals definitions - when most of the exports
had stated that Item 1635 only embargoed alloy steels - the Japanese inter-
pretation had been altered to this effect. The present position was that from
the juridical point of view Item 1648(c) was token to refer to metal only,
but that exporters had boon asked to consult the licensing officers before
exporting cobalt-based alloys.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120011-7
 Approved Fo elease : CIA-RDP62-00647AOOW012001"1=7
COPIF2EN^1_TAL - 4 - COCOM Document No. ,/16,h8/2
SCRAP -item 164(c)
15. The CHAIRMAN asked what was the position of Delegations. as between
the two alternative definitions set out in paragraph 40.3 of COCOM Document
No. 3416.00/2.
16. The GERMAN Delegate expl fined that his Delegation''s proposal:
"Cobalt metal scra and cobalt-based alloy scrap" would cover more than
the United States/United Kingdom wording:'scrap forms of the metal and
alloys listed above". It in uld not merely embargo scrap of alloys containing
501 of cobalt, but also all scrap in which cobalt was the major constituent,
that is, all scrap falling under the "Cobalt" heading in the Customs Tariff.
It would not, on the other hand, cover scrap of some of the 191 cobalt/14%
chromium alloys; these, however, would probably be caught under other List I
headings, ani certainly under the definition proposed for the Watch List.
From the administrative point of view, the German text would simplify control.
17. The FRENCH Delegate supported the German proposal.
18. The BELGIAN Delegate supported the United States text.
19. The ITALIAN and UNITED KINGDOM Delegates reserved their positions.
20. The CHAIRMAN asked Delegations to be prepared on the 26th February
to choose finally between the two proposals.
COMPOUNDS Item 1720
21. The UNITED STATES Delegate wished to make clear his Delegation's
position on compounds in relation to their position on alloys. The Committee
wore aware that the United States authorities had had no desire to free any
alloys from embargo but had tried to meet the views of other Delegations.
The point had been made that, as the German proposal represented a compromise
solution and would free a certain number of alloys, then a comparable treatment
should be extended to compounds. The United States experts had found, however,
that the German proposal on alloys would in point of fact decontrol only four
standard alloys, throe of them stellis and one a spring alloy. Although
these wore quite rich in cobalt, their cost was high (four dollars per pound)
and thus their use as sources of cobalt would be impracticable on economic
grounds. As far as compounds wore concerned, however, the United States
experts had found that it was technically feasible and economically cheaper
to reclaim cobalt metal from these than from alloys. The United States
Delegation still supported the definition for compounds set out on page 5
of COCOM Document No. 3016.00/4;
"Compounds which ccntain 301 or more cobalt in their anhydrous forms"
This would mean a relaxation from the total embargo in existence at present,
it. had virtually been agreed by all, and it was in the United States view the
one which the Committee should adopt formally and without delay.
22. The CHAIRMAN asked for views as between the text just referred to
by the United States Delegate and the Belgian Delegation's proposal to
embargo compounds containing 501 or more cobalt (COCOM Documents 3416.4/1
and 3416.00/2, para. 40.2).
23. From the ensuing discussion it became clear that the Committee was
oponminded as between 30% and 50`1, with the exception of the BELGIAN
Delegation, who could not accept 30%, and the UNITED STATES Delegation,
who could not accept 501.
24. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate aitkod that, whatever cut-off wore
chosen, there should be an agreed standard for identification cif the
compounds,
CONrFID A
Approved For Rele set DP62-00647A000100120011-7
 Approved F elease : CIA-RDP62-00647AOW00120011?-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 5
COCOM Document No. 2416.48/2
25, The BELGIAN export said that the practice in his country was to
use the phrase ""toll quels", which might be translated as moaning "as normally
sold': Usually the compounds wore sold in hydrated form.
26. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stipulated that an understanding to
treat compounds in the samw way as alloys should not affect chemical
compounds other than Item 1720. The FRENCH Delegate supported this.
27. The GERMAN Delegate, with a view to helping the United States
Delegate to accept the 50% cut-off which would simplify the task of licensing
officers, put forward a proposal to place on the Watch List all the cobalt
compounds which would not be caught thereby, He felt sure that experience
would short that all exports of cobalt compounds wore for civilian purposes.
28. The BELGIAN Delegate said that he could accept such an arrangement.
29. It was AGREED that discussion on Item 1648 would be resumed on the
26th Febxuary"
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120011-7