COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS - EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES MAY 14TH AND 25TH, 1959.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150014-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 1999
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: May 26, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

'Approved For Release 99/09/16: CIA-RDP62-00647A000100WO14-1 ,r?
May 26th, 1959
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
COCOM Document No. 2869.9/
REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS - EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES
" ML.y ...J th and 25th, 1959.
Present: Belgium (Luxembourg), Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.
References: CH/1547, COCOM 471 (Revised), 1347, 1473, 2869.5, 2869.13,
2869.55, 28693623 2869.75, 2869,77, 2869.79, 2860.81, 2869.83,
2869.86, 2869.88, 2869.89, 2869.92, 2869.93, 3230, 3338,
Secretariat Paper No. 104.
Procedure for submission of exceptions~Secretariat Paper lo. 10
paragraphs 4 - 101.
1. The CHAIRMAN invited Delegates to give the views of their authorities
on his proposal concerning the Guide for the submission of exceptions requests
(COCOM 2869.93, paragraph 4).
2, The UNITED.KINGDOM Delegate said that his authorities agreed in
principle that there was no further need for a Guide and proposed that
the text suggested by the Chairman for the last lines of paragraph 4 of
Secretariat Paper No. 104 should be amended as follows:
11 ... until the Committee had met to consider a written statement
containing the information necessary for the Committee to reach
a decision in accordance with the principles and procedures on
exceptions to the security controls."
3. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that his authorities could agree
in principle that there need be no Guide and commented that the United
Kingdom proposal for the revision of paragraph 4 to Secretariat Paper
No. 104 seemed to be a satisfactory basis for the solution of the problem.
Part B General Principles_ Secretariat Paper No. 104, paragraph 11).
4. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate commented on the German proposal
concerning paragraph 11(e) of Secretariat Paper No. 104 (COCOM 2869.93,
paragraph 7) and said that his authorities proposed the following
modification to the German text:
"Provided that no advanced teehnoligieal know-how in the
sense of criterion (b) is involved, evidence of harmless end-
use is one of the factors which may be taken into account.".
5. The BELGIAN and UNITED STATES Delegates said that their authorities
could accept the German proposal concerning the second sentence in para-
graph 11(o).
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : 7A000100150014-1
 ,, 'Approved For Release 169e/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A00010015 14-1
- 2 - COLON Document No. 2869 %
6. The COMMITTEE agreed, after further discussion, that the first
sentence of paragraph 11(e) should be retained although some Delegations
expressed the opinion that it was superfluous.
Notes to Part B (Secretariat Paper No_lO graph 16).
7. The CHAIRMAN referred to sub-paragraphs 16(b) and (c) of Secretariat
Paper No. 104. There was already agreement to extend the accident of
definition procedure to Munitions List items (COCOM 2869.62, paragraph 89)
and the Committee had in the past dealt with exceptions requests concerning
minimal shipments of both Munitions and Atomic Energy List items. In order
to codify this procedure, he suggested that the present sub-paragraphs 16(b)
and (c) should be deleted and the following text should form a new sub=
paragraph 16(b)s
"The exceptions contemplated in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 above do
not apply to the Munitions List or the Atomic Energy List. The
Committee may, however, concur in minimal exceptions for items on
these lists after prior consultation."
8. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that his authorities considered that
all three typos of minimum shipments exceptions should apply, with prior con-
sulatation, to items on the Munitions and Atomic Energy Lists. He felt that
the bast way of writing this into the procedures was to amend sub-paragraph
13(b) to read:
"Exports of List I items exceeding $150 in value and of any Munitions
Liwt or Atomic Energy List item should be subject to the Committees
prior consultation procedure."
to amend sub-paragraph 14(b) to read:
"Export of embargoed items ... "
and to amend sub-paragraph 15(b) to road:
"Export of embargoed items other than these in.sub-paragraph,
(a) above ... It.
There would then be no need to retain the present sub-paragraphs 16(b) and (c).
9. The UNITED STATES Delegate commented that there was a different
philosoph;' underlying the Munitions and Atomic Energy Lists and that was
why they had not been, and should not be, treated in the same way as List
I as far as exceptions procedures were concerned. To illustrate his
point, he did not think that there had over boon a Munitions List servicing
case, while Atomic Energy List cases that might be encompassed by the de
minimis procedure had boon very rare and had concerned Poland almost
exclusively.
10. The GERMAN Delegate asked whether cases submitted under the Chairman's
proposed wording would be considered as ad hoc requests? His authorities
suggested that under sub-paragraph 16(c) the minimum shipments procedures
should be extended, with prior consultation in all cases, to certain Atomic
Energy List chemicals which they had proposed for deletion during the 1958
review. These chemicals wore as follows: Atomic Energy Lfisw Item 6 -
tetrafluoroethylene, 7 - trifluoroethylene, 14 - fluorine, 15 - chlorine
trifluioride, 17 - fluorinated hydrocarbons.
11. The BELGIAN, FRENCH and GERMAN Delegates accepted the United Kingdom
proposal ad referendum.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150014-1
 ,Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150014-1
COCOM Document No. 2869.94
12. The CHAIIMAN, after farther discussion, summed up the discussion by
saying that Delegates, recognising that a different philosophy lay hehind
the concept of the Munitions and Atomic Energy List, should seek the views
of their authorities on how exceptions for items on these two Lists could
best be codified in the Committee's procedures. They should also consider
the German proposal concerning certain Atomic Eze.rgy List chemicals
(paragraph 10 above).
13. The COMMITTEE agreed to continue the discussion on May 28th.
14. On May 25th the FRENCH Delegate confirmed his ad referendum
acceptance of the United Kingdom proposal (paragraph 11 above).
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150014-1