COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON THE REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS: OUTSTANDING MATTERS CONCERING CATEGORY 601-699-METAL, MINERALS AND THEIR MANUFACTURES. ITEMS 1635, 1648 ( AND 1720) , 1661. 29TH AND 30TH J

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120046-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 15
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 2, 1998
• Sequence Number: 46
• Publication Date: February 10, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved Fortelease : CIA-RDP62-00647A00"00120046-9
/7p
53
----- COCOM Document No. 34!6.0012
COORDINATING COIVUIITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
THE REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS:
OUTSTANDING ,,,ATT,,RS CONCERNING
CATEGORY 601-699 - M TALS, :'111LRFiLS AND 'iIIIR i NUF.LCTURES.
ITEM-1635. 164.8 (and 1720). 1661.
29th and 0th January, 19 5 .
Present: Belgium(Lulembourg), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM Documents 3016.00/4, 3016.35/1 and 2, 3016.61/1 and 2;
3416.00/1, 3416.48/1; COCOM Sub-C(58) 6 and 8; Metals and .11loys
Working Paper 29.
1? The CHI-,J:.R:Lc,N appealed to Delegations to explore all possibilities
of reaching speedy agreement on Items 1635 and 1648, since it appeared that,
in the present state of affairs, there was a lack of uniformity in the controls
now being applied by Governments; this meant that one of the basic rules of
the Committee was being broken.
2. The FRENCH Delegate referred to the presence, in both the Belgian
and French Delegations, of technical experte in matters concerning cobalt
compounds. He proposed therefore that Item 1648(d) should be discussed
forthwith, on the basis of the Belgian Memorandum, COCOM Document 3/16.48/1.
This procedure was adopted.
Cobalt and Cobalt Co~)ppunds:
I--toms 16d8 and 17220
3. The BELGIZ Delegate, after having thanked the Committee for
suspending this debate until it was possible for his country to be represented,
explained th4.t, owing to administrative readjustments, some degree of mis-
understanding of the Committee's earlier agreements had arisen in Belgium and
had necessitated lengthy consultations, not only between Government officials,
but also with industrial circles; this was why his authorities had been
obliged to request more time. Now, however, his Government's position could
be stated.
4. When cobalt metal was being discussed, they had been placed in
something of a predicament. ins the Committee were aware:, the Belgian
Congo and Belgian industry had an important share in the Free World's
production of cobalt. In recent. times, however, consumption had
decreased to a marked degree. In consequence, stocks had been accumulating
considerably. There had therefore been two opposing schools of thought as
to the embargo. Eventually; as the Committee knew, the Delegation had received
instructions to advocate the retention of cobalt metal under embargo by virtue
of the applicability of criterion c - the
( ) penury which had previously obtai-
ned in Eastern countries. It was not the Delegation's intention to reopen the
discussion on cobalt metal: all that they wished to do was to
point out the difficulties they had..had.to contend with in
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120046-9
 COCOM Document No. 3416.00/2
reaching a final decision in that connexion. After the Committee's summer
recess, when it had been decided to discuss cobalt alloys and compounds,
similar differences of opinion had manifested themselves once more. The
Belgian point of view was that if, in the present strategic conjuncture,
it was considered necessary to keep all cobalt ores and concentrates under
embargo, then all cobalt scrap should also be maintained under embargo,
as its role was equally important. There seemed to be some lack of logic
in certain of the Committee's decisions. A liberalisation had boon agreed
for non-ferrous metals: nickel could now be exported within certain
quantitative limits. The argument in this case had boon that it was
preferable to supply nickel to the Bloc (if accompanied by certain pre-
cautions, including the setting of a quantitative limit) rather than to
encourage the Bloc to create its own industry. This argument applied
also in the case of cobalt. The Belgian authorities did not fully grasp
the Committee's reasons for opposing the liberalisation of cobalt compounds
if a fairly wide liberalisation were agreed in the case of cobalt alloys.
There was no objection on the part of the Belgian Delegation where alloys
were concerned - but they did feel that, if the strategic position were
examined carefully, it would be soon that a similar liberalisation should
be applied to compounds. This became all the more reasonable if it wore
borne in mind that compounds were used principally, if not wholly, for
civilian purposes. It had boon argued that it was possible, by treating
compounds, to extract cobalt metal, but that was also true for certain
alloys.
5. The Belgian technical export pointed out that, since there appeared
to be a trend towards freeing certain alloys, it seemed illogical to main-
tain the embargo on cobalt oxides and salts. The salts principally con-
cerned wore sulphates (21%), acetates (24%), hydrates (27%), carbonates
(49%), nitrates (20%) and chlorides (24%). As to oxides, these were sub-
divided into black oxides and grey oxides, with a cobalt content of between 70%
and 76%. The freeing of certain alloys (to which the Belgian authorities
did not object in principle) would, then, inevitably raise the parallel
problem of freeing oxides and salts, which could not be said to be more
strategic. Moreover, a strict and protracted embargo on finished products
would entail the risk of the development by the Sino-Soviot Bloc of
replacement industries of their own, and even of refineries. This would
involve a greater danger for the West than the export of finished
products, because, once such industries wore in existence,. they would
be kept in operation at any cost - whereas, if the participating countries
exported finished products only, they could cut off supplies at once in
the event of a throat of hostilities. Furthermore, it would be in the
economic interests of the West to supply finished products rather than
raw materials, as this would relieve labour problems. The expert pointed
out that a misunderstanding had arisen because of the definitions proposed
in order to distinguish between the sits that would be covered and those
which would be freed: one Delegation had proposed a reference to compounds
"in their hydrated form" and another had suggested "in their anhydrous
form". The export suggested that there should be a clear and simple
definition naming individually all the salts which would be freed for
export. He thought that it would not be difficult for Delegations
wishing to have certain s?-Its freed to refer to them by name, so as to
avoid ambiguity. Exportable cobalt salts should be defined according.
to current commercial practice, e.g.: "cobalt sulphate 21% co". Customs
authorities would thus be able to carry out a check by moans of a simple
analysis; they could not work on the basis of a qualification such as
'knhydrous" because they were not equipped to carry out complicated
calculations.
6. The Belgian Delegate, in response to a query from the Chair, said
that his Delegation could accept the proposed cut-off for compounds pro-
vided that it wore expressed in a manner which would enable customs
officers to exert a simple control.
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A00'a00120046-9
Approved For Relea 1=F P62-00647A000100120046-9
 Approved For elease : CIA-RDP62-00647A00)1`00120046-9
CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - COCOM Document No. 416.00
7. The UNITED ST,uTES Delegate stated that he had already informed the
Belgian Delegation informally of United States views on their Memorandum (COCQT!
Document 3416.481). The four types of compounds which the Belgian. Delegate ha
earlier said would not be embargoed according to their understanding of the
agreement reached (sulphates, acetates, nitrates and chlorides) had boon con-
sidered by the United States Delegation to have boon embargoed when the
Committee had adopted the French formula, as amended by the United Kingdom
(COCOM Document No, 3016.004, page 5 of .appendix). In addition, it was the
United States Delegation's view that what was really important in this matter
was the type of compound that was controlled; in their opinion, the French
Delegation's text as modified at the suggestion of the United Kingdom Delega-
tion covered the principal cobalt compounds whose cobalt content was substan-4
tial, therefore warranting embargo, and free those with a lesser cobalt content
He had handed to the Belgian Delegation and to some others a list from Washing-
ton of the principal compounds which would be covered and which would be
freed. (See plragraph 12 below.) Unfortunately from the BelgiaJn point of view
it was the United States understanding that this formula, which had met with
the favour of most Delegations, would embargo the compounds which the Belgian
Delegation wished to have freed.
8. as to the Belgian proposal for liberalising compounds to the same
extent as alloys, the United States bad sover beef lnvrnurof the liberation of an.y
cobalt alloys. Because some Delegations did not regard 1635(b) as covering
cobalt alloys, but only alloy steels with a certain cobalt content, the United
States Delegation had proposed, as a compromise between their -own desires and
those of some other delegations, the following definition for cobalt alloys:
"50fm or more cobalt, or 19 or more cobalt and 14 a or more chromium in com-
bination", This should not be overlooked in the interpretation of the Belgian
reference to "the freeing of alloys containing up to 504/0 cobalt": the United
States proposal would also embargo alloys containing 19 or more cobalt and
14a or more chromium in combination. This was also true of the United Kingdoz
proposal, except that the United Kingdom also proposed certain limitations (les
than 1% carbon, or 3% or more molybdenum) which made the United Kingdom pro-
posal unacceptable to the United States Delegation.
9. The FRENCH expert stated that the difficulties about which the
Committee had just heard undoubtoaly arose from the lack of homogeneity between
the position of ores on the one hand, which wore embargoed even if the cobalt
content was small, and alloys on the other hand, which might be exported up to
a 40 cool con rnt. Bettye t o wo co" ounds occupied an intermediary
position?'~ard~ ?? h
ain
Oe ion. Referring to the United
States Delegation's point that compounds should be listed, the expert expressed
the opinion that this would complicate a situation which was already somewhat
confused. Even in the excellent list which had boon submitted by the United
States Delegation, there were certain omissions - for exam
hydrides, fluorides (which were nevertheless quite common). Miatevertc4re
were taken, any list would probably be incomplete. The export reminded the
Committee that a similar problem had arisen in the case of molybdenum. This
had finally been solved to the general satisfaction by the setting of a
percentage for the rrolybdenurl elements, whether hydrated or not, which would
be embargoed. The solution of the present problem might lie along similar
lines.
10. On January 30th the Cliff IR: N asked the Belgian Delegation (who
were the only Delegation objecting to the definition for Item 1720 (1646(d))
upon which the Committee had agreed previously) if they wore now in a
position to formulate a definition meeting the points they had raised on
the previous day.
F _ID EN T I 4 L
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120046-9
 Approved FF Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A0d100120046-9
CONFIDENTIL.L - 4 - COCOK Document No. 3416.00/2
11. The UNITED KINGDO1 Delegate stated that the United States Dole-
gation had given him a list of various cobalt compounds which indicated their
cobalt content and whether they would or would not be caught by the defini-
tion contemplated for the new Item 1720. On the previous day he had under-
stood the Belgian and French experts to say that it would be inadvisable to
draw up lists, either of what would be excluded from the definition or of
what it would cover. He shared the Chairman's view that it would be most
helpful to the Committee and to all its members if the Belgian Delegation
could produce a simple definition of cobalt and cobalt compounds which would
be defensible from their point of view - that is to soy, one which would
cover those cobalt compounds having strategic significance and would exclude
those with a predominantly civilian use.
12. The UNITED ST. RTES Delegate confirmed that he had received from
Washington the list to which the United Kingdom Delegate had referred. He
had already handed copies to cort:.in interested Delegations, and would be
glad to place the information at the disposal of all. He would therefore
hand a copy of the list to the Secretariat to be issued as an annex to the
record of the current discussions.
(b) Alloys
13. The BELGI,4N Delegate stated that the point at issue was the link
which they wished to establish between alloys and compounds. On alloys,
there were two proposals: one from tie United Kingdom and one from the United
States. If the United. Kingdom proposal were accepted, it would be very
difficult for the Belgian Delegation to formulate a proposal, as under that
proposal certain compounds containing as much as 80 or Q% of cobalt would be
free if they contained 2a of carbon. Under the United States proposal, the
maximum cobalt content permissible would be 49%. The Delegate said he would
be glad to hear the viuws cif other Delegations on these alloys proposals.
14. The GER LN Delegate said that he had listened with great interest
to the explanations given by the Belgian Delegation on the previous day. In
his view, that Delegation were right: the question was one of applying the
agreed criteria. As the proposals on alloys did not cover all cobalt-based
alloys but only some of therm it as manifest that the Committee had not
agreed to apply criterion (c) to cobalt, but only criterion (a). In other
words, only alloys which had strategic importance in themselves were covered
the question of shortage was not taken into consideration. If this yardstick
was the one applied in the case of cobalt alloys, then it should be applied
equally where cobalt compounds were concerned. When the United Kingdom Dele-
gate had referred to strategic compounds, the German Delegate had understood
him to mean any compounds which in themselves had strategic implications. The
German Delegate, however, was not aware of the existence of any such compounds.
In his understanding, where compounds were covered, this was simply and
solely because there night be a possibility of extracting cobalt from them.
This was equivalent to covering them under criterion (c). Therefore, as
criterion (c) had not been adopted with respect to cobalt, it would be
only logical to delete all cobalt compounds from eribargo. If any Delegation
proposed this, the German Delegation would accept it. The Delegate reminded
the Committee that at the outset of the List review, certain Delegations had
proposed that the whole of the cobalt item should be deleted.
15. The United States Delegate said that ho, for one, was not going
to suggest the deletion of cobalt compounds. He realised that the Committee
had now reverted to a fundamental donceptional difference, which.had existed fo:
C 0 N F I D E N T I# L
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100120046-9
 Approved Forrelease : CIA-RDP62-00647AOOM0120046-9
CONFIDENTI.a_ - 5 - COCOM Document No. 3416.00/2
long time and unfortunately was not likely to be solved at the present meeting.
The Delegate felt sure that other Delegations realised that, in the United
States view, cobalt mot both criterion (a) and criterion (c). He had been
instructed to make a statement in this connection which dealt with the
question of alloys particularly. The United States authorities believed, on
the basis of extremely re;cont intelligence information, that the Sino-Soviot
Bloc had a cobalt deficiency which was critical in relation to the production
in peace time of modern arms, ammunition and implements of war. Because cobalt
was essential to the production of high-temperature stool and other alloys
primarily used for military purposes, it was the view of the United States
authorities that cobalt met criterion (a) and criterion (c). They agreed with
the contention expressed earlier by the United Kingdom Delegation that the
United Kingdom proposed definition of cobalt alloys satisfactorily covered
alloys having primarily military applications. This did not, however, lead
the United States authorities to accept the United Kingdom proposal, because
the latter would not prevent the export of alloys with a cobalt content
sufficiently high to raa,ke there e source of cobalt. It was true, as the United
Kingdom Delegation had stated at one point, that the logic of the United
States position might require the embargo of all cobalt alloys: it was equally
true that this would be the United States preference. In a spirit of
compromise, however, the United States Delegation had boon willing to limit
the definition to alloys with primarily Military application and those which
were feasible sources of cobalt.
16. The BELGI.LN expert stated that his Delegation were not in principle
opposed either to the United Kingdom or to the United States proposal on alloys
What they did wish to ensure was that, when one or the other had boon accepted,
a parallel cut-off should be applied in the case of compounds; and, more
specifically, that the salts and oxides referred to in the Belgian proposal
should receive equitable treatment. If it were considered that all alloys
containing less than 50jc of cobalt should be freed, then so should compounds
with a similar percent