COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON FRENCH PROPOSAL CONCERNING EXPORT TO THE U.S.S.R. OF A PROCESS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ISOPRENE 27TH JULY 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170069-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 18, 1998
• Sequence Number: 69
• Publication Date: July 30, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170069-9
10th July. 1959.
COORDINATING COiviITTEE
1ZCORD OF DISCUSSION
COCOM Document No. 3635B.
ON
FRENCH i:ih.OPOS1iL CGNCEINING EXPORT TO THE U.S.S.R. OF A
PROCESS FOit THE PRODUCTION OF ISOPRENE
J th July 1959
Present: Belgium(Luxembourg), Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, United Kin,,_,dom, United States.
Reference: COCQiui 3611.
1. The CHAMUO drew the Committee's attention to the French Delega-
tion's Memorandum (COCOiK 3611) concerning a proposal to release to the U.S.S.R.
a process for the production of isoprene. As the French Delegation had expres-
sed the wish to hear the opinion of the Co mittee, the Chairman invited Delega-
tes to make known their Governments) views on this matter.
2. The NETHEPJAANDS Delegate stated that from a general
his authorities would not encourage the export to the Sino-Soviet Bloc toff theew
manufacturing process in question; the Netherlands Government, however, had not
the possibility available to most other 14ember States of using legal means to
prevent such an export. The Delegate pointed out that in accordance with the
terms of Administrative Principle No. 5, participating countries are invited to
prevent the supply of technical data etc. "so far as practicable" - for example
by means of a gentleman's agreement with the industry concerned. This would be
the only basis on which the Netherlands Government could associate themselves
with the attitude of other uember Governments if the majority of the Committee
considered that the process for the production of isoprene ought not to be com
bunicated to the Sino-Soviet Bloc.
3. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that his authorities welcomed the
siirit of cooperation which had led the French authorities to consult the
Committee on this matter of mutual security concern. The United States Govern-
ment considered that the Free world had a significant superiority over the So-
viet Bloc in most areas of Petro-chemical technology, including the production
of synthetic rubbers. Soviet synthetic rubber production suffered from a defi-
ciency in quality and from a limitation on the number of specific types avail-,
able. Although the Soviet Bloc was now able to purchase abroad almost all the
natural rubber it needed, it wished to reduce or even eliminate its dependence
on outside sources of supply. Consequently, it was obliged either to buy syn-
thetic rubber processes or plants from the Free World or to re-direct and to re-
allocate its technical and industrial resources, human and mater;-al, to design
and build its own synthetic rubber plants. Isoprene was used to manufacture
butyl rubber and the newer "synthetic natural" polyisoprenel rubber. These
were high quality synthetics eminently useful for heavy duty purposes, e.g.
Military type tires. Release of the technology required for the production of
isoprene rubbers would, without doubt, give significant assistance to the deve-
lopment of the Soviet synthetic rubber industry. It would reduce Soviet depen-
dence on Free World sources of natural rubber and provide a direct contribution
to Soviet Bloc military potential. The Delegate added that United States export
Approved For Release: - 647A000100170069-9
 Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170069-9
CONFIDENTIAL - 2 - CCCGIM Document No. 3635
licensing policies required that licences be obtained for the export or re-ex-
port of certain US-controlled technology to the Soviet Bloc. In deciding the
issuance of these licenses a "presumption of denial" had been established for
technology relevant to synthetic rubber production. The United States had re-
fused licences for petro-chemical technology, synthetic rubber technology, and
technology of the type described in the French Memorandum of July 16th. The
Delegate stated finally that while recognising that the French authorities need
not have brought this case before the Coordinating Committee and that respon-
sibility for deciding the release of the technology in question rested with the
French authorities, the United States considered that it would be undesirable
for the Free World to provide the Bloc with technological know-how of such
significant military importance.
4' The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that his authorities also had
welcomed the French Government's action in putting this question to the Coor-
dinating Committee cd though in their opinion it did not lie within the Commit-
tee's established rules or criteria. It followed that the final decision on
the matter would rest with the French authorities and be taken on their sole
responsibility. The Delegate concluded by saying that so far as his Government
were aware, no United Kingdom firms possessed the technique referred to in the
French Memorandum.
50 The BELGIAN Delegate stated that his Government appreciated the
spirit of cooperation shown by the French authorities in bringing this case
before the Committee. Although Belgian industry was not interested in this
question, the Belgian Government considered that it would not be very desirable
to communicate the process in question to the Soviet Bloc; he considered never-
theless that it was for the French Government to take whatever decision they
chose.
6. The GERMAN Delegate stated that his authorities greatly apprecia-
ted the spirit of cooperation shown by the French Delegation in submitting this
question for study by the Committee. As far as the German authorities were
aware, no process similar to that referred to in the French Memorandum was in
existence in Germany. In any event no negotiations had taken place with Soviet
Bloc countries for the release of such a process. The Delegate stated that if
a similar case were to arise in Germany it would be difficult for the Federal
authorities to prohibit the sale of these techniques owing to the fact that
neither natural rubber nor synthetic rubber was under embargo: the only part
the Gerxaan authorities could flay, if approached, would be that of a counsellor,
in advising against the export. German legislation did not permit prohibition
of the sale of techniques for the production of non-embargoed products. Ob-
viously the situation would be different if the Committee decided to place
isoprene under embargo, because then Administrative Principle No. 5 would aptly.
The Delegate stated finally that it was for the French Government to decide
whether or not they wished to advise their industrials agaih.s,t the sale of the
recess in question.
7. The FRENCH Delegate expressed his thanks to the members of the
Committee for the very clear opinions they had expressed, which left the French
Government full responsibility to take whatever decision they chose in this
matter. Taking note of the position of the various Delegations, the Delegate
stated that in bringing this case to the Committee's notice his authorities had
wished to avoid taking a unilateral decision. Since it now appeared that the
majority of Member States would have serious difficulties of a legal nature in
following the example of the French Government should the latter prohibit the
sale of the process concerned, the French Delegation reserved their Governments
right to take whatever decision they thought fit.
8. The CH.IRMAN summed up the discussion by stating that from the
procedural point of view the French Government were completely free to take
C C. N F I Approved ForR
MUIedbe - 647A000100170069-9
 Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170069-9
CONFIDENTIAL - 3
COCOM Document No. 36353
what decision they chose in the matter without any obligation to notify it to
the Committee. He added nevertheless that the Committee would certainly be
interested to learn of this decision and would be grateful should the French
1%elegation be kind enough to inform -them of it at a later date.
9. The FRENCH Delegate undertook to transmit this request to his
authorities. He expressed his personal view that, in the same spirit of coope-
ration as had already inspired them when submitting this case to the Committee,
his Government would, if they concluded the transaction in question, inform
the Committee a ,osteriori.
C 0 N F I D EN T I A L
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100170069-9