COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON THE REVISION OF THE STRATIC EXPORT CONTROLS - EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES JANUARY 12TH, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100150033-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 15, 1999
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: January 20, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release 999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647AQQA10015 B
January 20th, 1959
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
COCOM Document No. 2869r77
4259501
THE REVISION OF THE STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS- EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES
January 12th, 1959
Present: Donnark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Not-was,
United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM 471(Rev:), j99,1473, 2869.5, 2869.13, 2869.55, 2869.62
and 2869.75.
1. The CHAIRMAN reminded the Committee of the three proposals which had boon
submitted by the Belgian, United Kingdom and United States Delegations concerning
the General Principles underlying the exceptions procedure contained in COCOM
Document 471(Rovisod). He invited delegates to resume discussion on this point.
2. The UNITED STATES Delegate stated that he and his Belgian and United
Kingdom colleagues had drafted a joint text incorporating elements of all three
proposals, He noted that one of the main problems had been to reconcile the
terms of the United Kingdom proposal, to the effect that exports should be
authorisod upon the judgement of the exporting country, taking full accouit
of the Committee's views, with those of the United States proposal which
required unanimous agreement in the Committee. Since, however, this problem
was not raised in the text of the present 471 procedure, and since thoir
task was merely to revise that procedure, they had agreed to make no mention
of it and had just referred to "full consideration in the Committee". The
Delegate stated that the United States Governr_iont were prepared to accept
this joint text. He was further instructed to state that his authorities
accepted, in a spirit of compromise, the insertion of the word "social"
after #economic and political" as suggested by the Italian Delegation,
although believing that "social" was encompassed in "economic and political",
and interpreting "social" to mean labour unrest so serious as to threaten
the political or economic stability of the country or area concerned. The
Delegate then submitted the joint Belgian, United Kingdom, United States
text reading as follows:
"Subject to the special considoratior ;laid down in the
Committee's Principles and Procedures, exceptions to the general
rule of embargo in respect of List I items will be made, after
full consideration by the Committee, only when rofusal to
permit the export is doomed to involve a risk of damage to
the economic, political or social well-being of the exporting
country, of a nature so serious as to override the security
considerations involved."
3. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate thanked his United States colleague for
his help in producing the above text, to which ha was able to agree. Referring
to the problem mentioned by the United States Delegate, he wished, however,
to 1 vo it placed on record that, in the view of the United Kingdom Delegation,
the decision as to whether or not an export was to be made rested, as in the
past, exclusively with the exporting country. As to the question of adding
the word "social", his authorities could agree, although they bad no strong
desire to have it included in the text.
Approved For Release 1999/09/ 2-00647A000100150033-0
 Approved For Release 99/09/16: CIA-RDP62-00647AOZ100150033-0
OONFIDENTIAL - 2 COCA! Document No. 269.77
4. The,CEAMAAN stated that the Belgian Delegate had requested him
to inform the Committee that his authorities wore able
to accept the text
recorded in paragraph 2 above.
5. The.ITALIAN Delegate expressed his appreciation to the United States
Delegate and undertook to transmit the proposed text to his authorities. He
found the wording "only when refusal to permit the export is doomed to
involve a risk of damage to the economic, political or social well-being of
the exporting country ..." to be far-reaching and somewhat vague. In this
connexion, he referred to the problem of purely local, limited difficulties
which were liable to arise from a refusal to grant a requested licence;
this case could hardly be regarded as constituting a risk of damage to the
well being of the whole country. Speaking personally the Delegate preferred
the wording proposed by the United Kingdom Delegatiod, but was unable to give
final views there and then. He associated himself with the statement made
by the United Kingdom Delegate as to the responsibility of the exporting
country in the final issue.
6. The DANISH Delegate stated that he had been instructed to support the
United Kingdom proposal. He could, however, agree ad referendum to the joint
text before the Committee. Ho noted that the main difference between the
text now proposed and that contained in the present COCOM Document 471 (Revised)
resided in the fact that the latter referred sololy to factors which could be
judged by the individual Government concerned, whereas the former in specifying
It ... of a nature so serious as to override the security considerations
involved" introduced factors of which the Committee was the competent judge.
Thus it was oven less clear whore the final responsibility rested, and the
Danish Government would, if the now wording wore adopted, wish to associate
themselves with the statement of understanding made by the United Kingdom
Delegation in paragraph 3 above.
7. The JAPANESE Delegate stated that, in supporting the United Kingdom
proposal, his Delegation had also hoped that it would prove possible to
reconcile the positions hold by the United Kingdom and United States
Delegations. They were therefore glad to. see the compromise text, to
which they could agree ad referendum. Turning to the remarks made by the
United Kingdom Delegate as to his Delegation's interpretation of the
proposed text, the Delegate noted that, as this had always been the
Japanese Delegation's understanding in the past, he merely wished to
confirm it at the present time.
g. The FRENCH Delegate thanked his United States, Belgian and. United
Kingdom colleagues for the text just submitted to the Committee. He was unable
to giro views at the present meeting and undertook to submit the proposal to
his authorities. In the meantime, he found the words "... of a nature so
serious as to override the security considerations involved" to be very
severe. As to the interpretation given by the United Kingdom Delegate, he
wished to transmit the comments made in this connexion to his authorities.
9. The UNITE STATES Delegate, in commenting on the United Kingdom
Delegate's statement of understanding, said that h; would not try to deny
the sovereign right of any country to make its own final decision. It
had become clear that all that could be done in drawing up the exceptions
procedure was to state the factors upon which the Committee should base
its study of individual cases submitted by the sovereign Memb?r Countries.
He noted, however, that unanimity had been fundamental to the Committee,,$
operations. He warned that breaches of unanimity could seriously endanger
the proper functioning of the Committee's controls, and would expect any
breaches of unanimity to be exceptional indeed. Turning to the Italian
Delegl,te's remark concerning the problem of damage to the well-being of an
individual area rather than of a whole country, he stated that much would
depend upon the gravity of the damage and believed that the Committee
would be ready to consider such cases in terms of the tests of the proposed
procedure. Finally, the Delegate replied to his French colleague's comment
Approved For Release 1999/0PAYID sl DP62-00647A000100150033-0
 Approved For Releas999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647App0100150033-0
CONFIDENTIAL - 3'- COCOM Document No. 2569.77
by explaining that the text before the Committee took account of the fact
that there were very important security considerations involved in the
export to the Sino-Soviet Bloc of any of the goods appearing in the short
list of embargoed items. The factors invoked to allow for such exports
must be of a very serious nature indeed.
10. The GEBMAN Delegate thanked the Belgian, United Kingdom and United
States Delegations for their compromise proposal, upon which he was still
awaiting final instructions. He noted that if this text were adopted, it
would make the granting of exceptions extremely difficult. While he agreed
that this should be so, he novortholoss felt that, if the 471 procedure
were to become more rigid, the Committee should envisage a moro-floxible
interpretation of the do minimis procedure contained in COCOM Document No.
1473.. The German Delegation had already stressed the need to allow the
application of the minimum shipments procedure to borderline cases
having slight strategic importance and a value in the *egion of $25,000
to $30,000. The Delegate was not suggesting an upper limit for the
Minimurl Shipments Procedure, but was merely asking that every case be
considered on its merits and not dismissed because of its value or
quantity only. Furthermore, he would make it quite clear that prior
consultation would apply to such cases. Turning to the statement of
understanding made by the United Kingdom Delegate, he agreed that the
final decision would lie, as in the past, with the okporting Government.
He felt sure, however, that the views and, in particular, the objections
expressed in the Committee would be taken into full consideration. He
referred to paragraphs 97 and 98 of COCOM Document No. 2869.62 and felt
confident that, as in the past, there would be practically no departure
from the unwritten rule of unanimity.
11, The NETHERLANDS Delegate stated that he had no instructions on
the proposal just submitted. His authorities were not strongly in favour
of the addition of the word "social", but would agree to it if such was
the unanimous wish of the Committee.
~2. The FRENCH Delegate agreed with his Gormancolloagao as to the
need for greater flexibility in considering dodo minimis cases, especially
in view of the fact that the text before the Committee would make the
471 procedure extremely difficult. He felt that, in order not to limit
the Minimum Shipments Procedure solely to cases of minimal monetary value,
a term such as "medium" might be added to "minimum".
13. The CHAIRMAN noted that the joint text submitted by the Belgian,
United Kingdom and United States Delegations for the General Principles
underlying the COCOM 471 procedure had boon accepted ad referendum by
the Danish and Japanese Delegations, and that all other delegations had
undertaken to submit it to their Governments. Ho further noted that
the replies of some delegations were linked up with the question of the
Minimum Shipments Procedure. He then invited the Committee to take
up this latter point, and recalled that in addition to the Gorman and
French suggestions (paragraphs 10 and 12 above), there was also a
proposal from the United States Delegation which appeared in Annex D
to C000M 2869.5, Section III 2.
14. The UNITED STATES Dole-ato explained that his Delegation's proposal
mentioned "quantity" rather than "value" and stressed the fact that exceptions
should be "of no consequence from the security point of view." He felt that
this proposal might well meet the main objections raised by the Gorman Delegate,
and asked delegates to study it and suggest any drafting changes they doomed
necessary.
l5. The JAPANESE Delegate stated that in the past his Delegation had
always understood the do minimis procedure to refer to both small monetary
value and minor strategic importance. This had boon the original idea of
the United Kingdom Delegation in proposing stjch a procedure (COCOM 799).
Approved For Release I 999/Q ,%FDP62-00647A000100150033-0
 Approved For Release-4999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647AQ1100150033-0
CONF]DE NTIAL - 4 - COCOM Document No. 2569.77
It was true that, in the days of the special China controls, this procedure
as well as many other procedures had boon interpreted more loosely in the
case of items on the so-called "China Differential". The Delegate believed,
hovrover, that in normal past p*actico both the monetary and strategic factors
had boon taken into consideration, and thoroforo considered the German
suggestion to constitute an entirely now proposal.
16. The ITALIAN Delegate stated that, in his view, the German suggestion
interpreted a feeling already often expressed by a number of Delegations in
the Committee. He himself could agree with this interpretation and believed
that no exception request should be rejected solely on account of its
monetary v .uo,.
17. The UNITED STATES Delegate, referring to the French Delegate's
suggestion to include the concept of "medium-value" shipments, stated that
his authorities would probably view such an idea with scepticism. He was
unable to-give any precise indication of the value envisaged by his
Government in their proposal, but felt sure that they would be ready to
consider any case that Member Governments believed to fall under its
terms. In reply to a question from the Japanese Delegate, the Delegate
stated that subjoct to confirmation by his authorities, he understood the
united States propomal to moan that no case would be rejected offhand on
the basis of monetary viluo alone. He pointed out, however, that the
Minimum Shipmonts Procedure had always boon regarded as an escape valve to
avoid criticism of the control system, by providing for` the approval of
negligible shipments, and noted that the United Kingdom papar had considered
it satisfactory enough so that it need not be basically changed. It had
always boon considered necessary that bigger shipments be justified by
important considerations, in the past quid pro quo, which the Committee
was now considering replacing by broader factors. If exceptional extenuating
circumstances justified shipments for which the exceptions procedures wore
not suitable, delegations were free to submit ad hoc cases.
15. The DANISH Delegate stated that he was unable to understand the
philosopkry behind the German suggestion, especially in consideration of
the very radical revision of the lists which had just taken place. To
his mind, once provision had boon made for important exception cases on
the one hand, and minor ones on the other, there was no possible justification
for intermediate cases. He had already submitted the German proposal to his
authorities, who wore not in favour of changing the procedure as proposed
by the GormaiDelegation as they foarod it would create administrative
difficulties and weaken the whole control s,-,stem.
19. The FRENCH Delegate stated that he, like his German colleague, was
socking to work out a procedure that would allow "medium" shipments -which
could not be regarded as endangering the security of the Free World. He
felt sure that such cases did exist, and merely wanted to be able to present
then on their individual merits, without any risk of rejection for purely
procedural reasons.
20. Aftor some discussion, during which the GERIAN Delegate referred
his colloaLmos to his statement in paragraph #3(a) (ii) of COCOM Document
No. 2569.629 the CHAIWAN recommended further study on the basis of the
United States proposal which, since it made no mention of monetary value,
might well moot the objections raised by the French, German and certain
other delegations in this respect, and thus be instrumental in reaching
a satisfactory solution..
21. It was agrood to resumo discussion on Monday, the 19th January.
Approved For Release 1999/09RzaWz''P62-00647A000100150033-0