COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON THE EXORT OF CABLES TO THE U.S.S.R. 22ND JUNE, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100180019-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 10, 1998
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: June 30, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

tal K
Approved For Rel a 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-0064 000100180019-3
53
30th June, 1958.
COCOM Document No 3
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
THE EXPORT OF CABLES TO THE U.S.S.R.
,22nd June, l959
Present: Belgium(Luxembourg), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM Documents 3436 and Addendum, 3444, 3450, 3451, 3452,x3464493470
3472, 3473, 3474, 3475, 3483, 3487, 3415.26/1$
3500, 3517-
1. The BELGIAN Delegate, referring to the French Delegate's statements
concerning the export of 450 kms of cable to the Soviet Union (COCOM Doc. 3517)
said he wished to inform the Committee without delay that his authorities re-
served the right of decision in the event of a now export request being submit-
ted to them. Furthermore, it would be difficult for the Belgian authorities to
accept that, arguing from a Belgian action intended to re-establish the princi-
ple of equality of treatment between participating countries, the French autho-
rities should authorise exports exceeding the 450 kms of cable which they
intended to deliver to the U.S.S.R.
2. The FRENCH Delegate stated that although he had no desire to enter
into controversy, he wished to point out that the Belgian authorities had
informed the Committee in the course of the meeting held on the 16th April
(COCOM 3492) that they would join in the view expressed by the majority
these cables were covered by Item 1526. If the Belgian authorities now autho-
rised an export of those cables, their position would thus be essentially diffe-
rent from that of the French authorities who had granted a licence in the
conviction that this material was covered by List IV; it was as a compromise
that, while still believing that these cables were covered by Item 4481, the
French authorities had undertaken not to authorise a fresh export as long as
ro new definition had been agreed unanimously in the Committee and if all Member
Governments observed the same attitude.
3. The BELGIAN Delegate stated that, from the technical point of view,
Belgian Government departments still considered that these cables were covered
~y Item 4481; the position his Delegation had taken at the previous meeting had
been inspired by a concern for conciliation in order to induce the French
authorities to renounce the proposed export.
4. The ITALIAN Delegate stated that this reappearance of the cable pro-
blem would certainly receive his authorities' attention. The Delegate had one
question to put to his Belgian colleague at this point: were the Committee to
understand that in the event of an export being carried out, the Belgian G overn--
ment would inform the Committee by moans of the monthly statistical returns,
immediately after issuance of the licence ? Furthermore, could it be assumed
that, in any event, the Belgian authorities would not authorise the export of a
nigher quantity than that for which the French authorities had granted a licence,
namely 4 50 kns. ?
5. The BELGIAN Delegate stated his personal belief that in such an event
his Government would inform the Committee after issuing the licence; he undertook
nevertheless to ask his authorities for confirmation on this point. In reply to
Approved For Release 1999/0 62-00647A000100180019-3
 Approved For Relea41999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647400100180019-3
EGRET = 2 -- C0C0M Document No. 3582 B
his Italian colleague's second question, the Delegate stated that his Government
did not propose to export ,lore than 450 kris of cable, as the object of the
Belgian Governmentis decision was to re-establish the principle of equality of
treatment which had been threatened by the French decision.
6. The FRENCH Delegate stated that his authorities considered that they
had ,Made an adequate contribution towards restoring the principle of equality
of treatment through the undertaking they had given as to the future] as the
Delegate had just recalled (paragraph 2. above).
S E C R E T
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100180019-3