COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS - ADMINISTRATIVE NO. 3. JANUARY 26TH. 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150028-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 1999
• Sequence Number: 28
• Publication Date: February 6, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 199/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150028-6
FebruarM 6th, 1959
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
COCOM Document No. 2869.80
ON
REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS - ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLE NOS.
January 26th 1959
Present:
Delgium(Luxembourg), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.
References,
COCOM 2408, 2869.5, 2869.55, 2869.57, 2859.61, 2869.64,
2869.72,
2869.73, 2869.76 and Secretariat Paper No. 102.
1. The CHAIRP;AN recalled that it had boon decided to leave the other
Administrative Principles practically as they were and that a great deal of
time had already been spent in trying to find a revised wording of Administrative
Principle No. 3 which would find unanimous acceptance in the Committee. At the
meeting of December 17th the Italian Delegate had made a compzo miso proposal
on a personal basis (00COM 2869.76 paragraph 6) and the Italian authorities
had endorsed this proposal on January 8th (COCOM 2869.76 paragraph 26). He
invited Delegates to give the views of their authorities on this compromise
proposal.
2. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that his authorities had boon ardent
supporters of the original United Kingdom proposal and wore disappointed that
it had not mot with unanimous approval. They felt that the Italian proposal,
which had boon put forward in a very constructive spirit, was the best which
now remained in active atatus before the Committee and, although they had
previously made reservations when comparing it with the United Kingdom proposal,
they now supported it and urged its adoption by the Committee, without
prejudice to further consideration of the United Kingdom proposal at a later
time.
3. The FRENCH Delegate recalled that he had doubted that his authorities
would be able to accept the Italian proposal and, although he thanked the
Italian Delegation for the spirit in which they had put forward their proposal,
he now had firm instructions that any special list such as the one referred to
in the Italian proposal was quite unacceptable to the French (ovormiont. He
and a number of other Delegates had recently boon informed bilaterally of the
United Kingdom attitude, which he interpreted as no longer insisting on the
inclusion of a special list. In those cirumstancos, ho considered it appropridD
to continue with the present Principle without modification.
4. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate said that when the discussion on
Administrative Principle No. 3 had begun some months ago his authorities
had argued that there was a gap in the present control system and the only
effective method of closing it was with a special list of items. They still
hold the same opinion but since the opposition in the Committee had boon firm
and by no means isolated they thoroforo recognised the fact that the Oommittoo
were not likely to accept their proposal at prosont and they would not insist
upon it for the time being. The Delegate reserved the right to reintroduce
the same or a similar proposal at a later date. Referring then to the Italian
compromise proposal, he said that his auth:,ritios much appreciated the
spirit in which it had boon put forward but they did not fool that it provided
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150028-6
 Release 19W09/16: CIA-R 62-00647A000100 02 -6
ocument No. 2869.80
a satisfactory solution. They did not oppose the Italian text but they
wanted to leave the next stop to the Committee and would not stand in the
way of the proposal if it were found to be unanimously acceptable.
5. The NETHERLANDS Delegate stated that his authorities had considered
the Italian proposal very carefully and appreciated the spirit in which it
had been made. There was, however, no change in their position and they
preferred to leave Administrative Principle No. 3 unchanged.
6. The BELGIAN Delegate said that his authorities wore of the opinion that
if statistical information wore to be given to the Committee after an export
had taken place, as proposed by the Italian Delegation, this would involve
reference to a special list of items. Although appreciating the effort made
by the Italian Government, the Belgian authorities remained opposed to the
principle of a special list and would rather sec Administrative Principle
No. 3 continue unchanged.
7. The GERMAN Delegate confirmed his previous agreement to the Italian
proposal. His authorities still felt that the United Kingdom proposal would
have been more effective since it was linked with prior consultation on
critical items but in their opinion the Italian proposal would still be an
improvement on the present wording of Administrative Principle No. 3.
The Delegate noted that the United Kingdom authorities would not object to
the Italian proposal if it wore unanimously accepted in the Committee. The
German authorities insisted on the importance of uniform treatment. The
United Kingdom proposal and even the compromise suggested by the Italian
Delegation would contribute to assure a uniform application of Administrative
Principle No. 3 as far as the items on the United Kingdom list wore concerned.
The German authorities had always insisted on the importance of such a
uniformity. The Delegate asked the Committee to consider the Italian proposal
in this spirit.
8. The JAPANESE Delegate said that his position was the same as that of
the United Kingdom Delegation. The Japanese authorities appreciated the
Italian proposal but they felt that it omitted the most important part of
the United Kingdom proposal. In their opinion it would be better to leave
Administrative Principle No. 3 unchanged.
9. The DANISH Delegate said that his position was.the same as that of his
German colleague. He had supported the United Kingdom proposal but he could
accept the compromise put forward by the Italian Delegation as a better
solution than no provision at all in this field.
10. The FRENCH Delegate thanked the German Delegate for having expounded
the problem facing the Committee. The French authorities certainly agreed
that the principle of uniformity in the application of the control system was
indispensable to its efficient working. The French Delegation had already
pointed out (COCOM 2869.72 paragraph..12) that Administrative Principle No.
3 had worked satisfactorily for a number of years and the Delegate wished
to stress this point again. No difficult cases had arisen over the
application of this Principle. The French authorities and other Members
of the Committee thought that each Member Country should exercise its
own judgement in authorising exports within the framework of Administrative
Principle No. 3. The discretion of the national control authorities was a
part of each 1.4embor Country's sovereignty which the French Government did
not wish to relinquish, although there was always the possibility of
referring applications to the Committee in case of doubt. The Delegate
emphasised junco more that an intor-ministorial committee, on which there
wore highly qualified experts from the Ministry of National Defence,
considered carefully each export licence application to see whether
Administrative Principle No. 3 applied to the envisaged export. This
committee had refused many more licences than it had granted within the
framework of Administrative Principle Np. 3 and this was a guarantee of
the sound application of the Principle. The French authorities wore
satisfied with the present text, which they saw no reason to amend.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16: C - 7A000100150028-6
 Approved For Release 19909/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A0001001500028-6
Nalf
3
COCOM Document No. 2561.80
11. The CANADIAN Delegate said that he had no instructions to accept the
Italian proposal or to modify his original position, which had been one of
support for the United Kingdom proposal. His authorities were oponmindod
until the United Kingdom raised the question again.
12. The ITALIAN Delegate thanked the Danish, Gorman and United States
Delegates for the support they had given his compromise proposal. Since
the proposal was based on the principle of a special list, however, which
had proved unacceptable to the Committeo and in vie, of the statement made
by the United Kingdom on their original proposal, his authorities would
not insist upon their attempt at dompromise. Referring to the comment
made by the Japanese Delegate, he emphasised that the Italian proposal
would have permitted comments to have boon made on exports which had taken
place and would have stressed the uniformity of treatment.
13, The CHAIRMAN said that since there was no proposal for the revision
of Administrative Principle No. 3 which was likely to be unanimously accepted
in the Committee he therefore proposed to proceed with a limited review of
the present text of Administrative Principle No.3. He recalled that there
*as already general agreement on some points and he would take as a basis
the text recorded in paragraph 10 of COCOM 2869.73. There was the German
reservation on the inclusion of the phrase "in particular' and a United
States reservation on the use of "a principal element" as opposed to "the
principal element".
14. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate said that he was prepared to drop his
proposal to insert the phrase "in particular" since some Members of the
Committee thought that this would give undue stress to the second part of
the Principle. He still wanted the word "a" to be changed to "the't before
the phrase "principal element" because the use of the definite articldi
concentrated attention on the United Kingdom understanding that the component
in question was the determining element, that which gave the item its
particular character. There oould hardly be more than one principal element.
15. The ITALIAN Delegate said that he could agree to the phrase
"the principal element", but he did not yet have definite instructions
on the substance of the problem.
16. The GERMAN Delegate said that he was grateful to the United Kingdom
authorities for not insisting on the insertion of the phrase "in particular"
because in his interpretation that could have boon interpreted in the sense
that the export of all non-embargoed items containing embargoed components
should be prohibited. He thought that the word "the" narrowed the wording
of the Principle but would raise no objection if it were unanimously
accepted.
17. The CHAIRMAN summed up the discussion by urging all Delegations to try
to obtain their authorities' agreement to the text of Administrative Principle
No. 3 as recorded in paragraph 10 of COCOM 2869,73.
18. The COMMITTEE agreed to continue the discussion on February 5th.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150028-6