COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS - EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES MAY 4TH, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150015-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 1999
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: May 12, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For ReledhA 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-0064800100150015-0
May 12th 19,55
51
COCOM Document No, 2869.93
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS --EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES
May 4th, 1959
Present:
Belgium (Luxembourg)
Denmark
France
German
Ital
J
,
,
,
y,
y,
apan,
Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Reference
CH/1547,
COCOM 471 (Revised), 1347, 1473, 2869.5, 2869.13,
2869.55,
2869.62, 2869.75, 2869.77, 2869.79, 2869.81, 2869.83,
2869.86,
2869.88, 2869.89, 2869.92, 3230, 3330, Secretariat
Paper No.
104.
Procedure for submission of exceptions (Secretariat Paper No. 104, paragraphs 4 10).
1. The CHAIRMAN invited Delegates to give the views of their authoritids on
the United Kingdom proposal concerning a second round of discussion (Annex to
COCOM 2869.62, paragraph 6(b)).
2. The GERMAN Delegate recalled that at the previous meeting (COCOM
2869.92., paragraph 11) he had expressed his authorities' agreement in
principle but had explained that they wore reluctant to make an addition
to the present text as reproduced in paragraph 9 of Secretariat Paper No. 104.
3. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that he shared the opinion expressed
by the Gorman Delegate that there would appear to be no objection in principle
to the United Kingdom proposal but that the proposed adc'.ition of this paragraph
would appear to be unnecessary.
4. The CHAIRMAN then referred to paragraphs 4 and 10 of Secretariat Paper
No. 104, which concerned the Guide for the submission of exceptions requests
(Annex B to COCOM 471 (Revised)). He observed that the Guide, if maintained,
would have to be extensively revised and pointed out that it had not been used
by Member Governments when submitting exceptions requests. He suggested there-
fore that the last lines of paragraph 4 of Secretariat Paper No. 104 should be
amended as follows:
" ... until the Committee had met to consider a full written statement
containing all necessary details meeting the requirements of the
Committee's principles and procedures for exceptions to security controls.
If this were found acceptable paragraph 10 could be deleted.
5. All Delegations agreed to refer the Chairman's suggestion back to their
authorities.
Part B General Principle (Secretariat Paper No. 10 4., paragraph 11).
6. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate proposed that paragraphs 11 and 12 of
Secretariat Paper No. 104 could best be incorporated as an Annex to the
final document, with the following introductory wording:
"The following general principles should apply to the handling
of exceptions under parts B ("de minimis" cases), C (servicing cases)
and D (accident of definition cases)."
Approved For Release 1999/0 0-MDO-2-00647A0001 0015
 Approved For Reid-bob 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-0064ZA000100150015-0
COCOM Document No. 2569.93
He further proposed that the phrase "List I items" in paragraphs 11(c) and (d)
should be changed to "embargoed- items".
7. The GERMAN Delegate proposed that the first sentence in paragraph 11(e)
should be deleted and the second sentence amended as follows:
"Evidence of harmless end-use is one of the factors which should be
taken into account provided no advanced technical know-how in the sense
of criterion (b) is involved."
He stated that when the provisions of COCOM 1473 were drawn up it was more
difficult than today to get proof of the end-use to which the item was to be
put. Now, however, in certain cases reliable information on the end-use could
be obtained, e.g. supplies for Western airlines, installation of equipment by
Western engineers on the spot, and similar cases. The German authorities,
therefore, felt that greater importance than formerly should be attributed
in future to the evidence of harmless end-use when considering an exception
case.
8. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that he was unable to agree to the
deletion of the first sentence of paragraph 11(e). He would, however, report
the German proposal to his Government.
9. The FRENCH Delegate accepted the German proposal.
10. The JAPANESE Delegate suggested that for ease of reference the text of
criterion (b) should be included. This might conveniently be done in a footnote.
11. The CHAIRMAN summed up the discussion by saying that Delegates should
try to obtain the views of their authorities on the following four points:
(a) His own proposal concerning a Guide (see paragraph 4 above);
(b) The United Kingdom proposal concerning the introduction to
paragraph 11 (see paragraph 6 above);
(c) The United Kingdom proposal to substitute the word "embargoed" for
"List I" in sub-paragraphs 11(c) and (d) (see paragraph 6 above);
(d) The German proposal concerning paragraph 11(o), with or without
the first sentence of that paragraph (see paragraph 7 above).
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150015-0