COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON THE REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS ATOMIC ENERGY LIST 19TH JANUARY, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150032-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 1999
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: January 28, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

? Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150032-1
January 28th, 1959.
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
COCO14 Document 2869.78E
ON
THE REVISION OF TPM STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS
ATO1IIC Ei'TERGY LIST
1 th Januar 1~59
6,-e. Q ra-/
Present: Canada, Denmark, ?ranee, Germany, Italy) Japan, Netherlands,
United Kingdom) United States.
References: COCCM Document No. 2869.70 mid 71-
1 . The CHAIR;i.AN rei_linded the Committee that it had been agreed
(COC0M Document No. 2869.71, paragraph 11) to resume discussion as to the
setting of a date for the pos.. ible study of the criteria to be applied during
the second stage of the Atomic Energy List review. He invited delegates to
give the further views of their Governments in this connexion.
2. The UNITED STA`1ES Delegate ata.ted that, given the nature of the
factors concerned in this question, it should not be expected that his
authorities had changed the position taken up during the long discussions
which took place in December last. The United States authorities, neverthe-
loss, had carefully examined the problem further and, although they wore not
opposed to the Committee's studying the possibility of establishing criteria
when it was ready to take up the second phase of the Atomic Energy List
review, they remained unconvinced that such criteria were needed. Criteria
wore more useful for revision of the many items on List I than they would be
for the relatively limited number of Atomic Energy itoms, of which a substan"
tial number should not raise any problems. During the second phase, the
Uommittee would have to decide which items on the Atomic Energy List might
be freely exported to the Sino-Soviet Bloc. It would be extremely difficult
to make this decision before knowing more exactly the use to which these
items would be put by the Bloc. Thus, the question of international guarantees
conic up again, and it could not be expected that this question would be
sottlcd for some time. These were the reasons why, while perfectly under-
standing the poi xt of view of other Member Governments, the United States
authorities were not convinced of the wisdom, at the present time, of esta-
blishing criteria applicable to the Atonic Energy List.
3. The FIENCH Delegate stated that he had hoped that the present
discussion would deal primarily with the question of the date at which
discussion of the criteria would take placo, and not with the advisability of
establishing such criteria. After listening with great interest to the
statement made by his United States colleague, the Delegate pointed out
that his Delegation were unable to concur in the arguments adduced by the
latter. The French Government believed that, irrespective of the number of
items concerned, criteria established beforehand could form the basis and
framework for discussions which might otherwise become involved. The United
States Delegate had himself stated that the review should make it possible
to decide which items could be freed without strategic risk, and criteria
which sot up unanimously-agreed limits would greatly facilitate this task.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150032-1
 Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150032-1
COCOM Document No. 2869.788
4. The GER.-AN Delegate stated that his Government's views had not
changed. He himself believed that this question was not one of prime impor-
tance, and stressed that during the first stage of the Atomic Energy List
review the Committee had, to some extent, boon guided by unwritten criteria
based on the degree to ahich the materials and equipment under consideration
contributed directly to the military applications of nuclear energy. The
Delegate explained that those delegations who advocated a discussion of cri-
teria, were perfectly free: to subiait proposals, and that it would then be
for the Committee to fix a date for study of the texts received.
5. The UNITED KINGDOII Delegate, while understanding that the French
Delegation would have liked the discussion to be more positive, agreed that
the task of the Committee would be not only to determine which items should
be kept under embargo, but also which materials and equipment could~ba re-
moved from embargo to the profit of all concerned. The Delegate stressed
that the Committee had already reached a tacit agreement to maintain under
embargo nuclear weapons, fissile material and material and equipment used in
the production of fissile material. The only sphere on which there was any
dispute was the sLiall group of items which had uses both in the nuclear energy
field and in other sectors of industry. The United Kingdom Delegation for
their part believed it highly preferable to discuss individual cases rather
than general principles. The Delegate stressed again in conclusion that it
;night well prove fruitless to discuss criteria before it was known what
measures had been sot up by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
6. The ITALIAN Delegate first noted that his United Kingdom and
United States colleagues wore not in principle opposed to the setting up of
criteria for the second stage of the Atomic Energy List review. The Dole-
gate endorsed the German Delegate's statement to the effect that certain
general principles had already become apparent during the first stage. He
himself believed, however, that it would be necessary to study the question
more thoroughly. While he had no new instructions, the Delegate recalled
that his Delegation supported the French Govornment's position and pointed
out that, in the view of his authorities, any delegation wishing to do so
was free to submit concrete proposals to the Committee. He suggested that
it might be advisable to hold a rim o ting on this subject during the coming
iaonth of May.
7. The NETT RLANDS Delegate stated that he had no firm instructions
on this question, end explained that his position was very similar to that
of the Italian Delegation.
6. The C.&N,r:,.DI.&N Delegate stated that his Government had taken up
no firm position on this matter and that, while feeling some doubt as to the
utility of criteria in this particular instance, the Canadian Government
would concur in the majority view.
9. The FRENCH Delegate also noted that no delegation had boon
opposed in principle to the submission of proposals on criteria and to a
discussion of those proposals, and suggested that a time-limit might be sot
towards the raidao of 4 y for such papers.
10. The GBYLiIN Delegate stated that the risk that a purely academic
discussion might "'clay unduly the, start of the second stage of the review
should not be overlooked. The Delegate moreover pointed out that during the
second stage of the review, especially if no objective criteria had boon set
up, delegations should be prepared to give adequately detailed arguments to
substantiate their views.
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150032-1
 Approved For Release 19`9/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A00010015000 2-1
e NNW
- 3 -
COCOM Document No. 2869.78B
11. The UNITED STLTES Delegate confirmed that his Government did
not reject the principle of a discussion of criteria; neither did they at
this time accept the need for criteria. If such a discussion should become
necessary at the time of thu second phase of review, the United States
Delegation would be perfectly prepared to take part in those discussions.
The Delegate added that his Government would study any proposals that eight
be submitted in this connexion and, in the light of eny such proposals,
might wish to submit one of their own. He urged, however, that proposals
should not be submitted prematurely.
12. 4f ter a fresh exchcn.ge of views, during which the Committee
undertook to reach a;r;.ement as to a d .te for the submission of proposals,
the CHAI11dAN noted that agreement did not seem l os: ible at the present
stage. He stated in conclusion that delegations were free to submit their
proposals as and when they so desired, and that the Com_.Littee would then sot
a date for discussion of such proposals.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150032-1