COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED BELGIAN EXPORT OF CABLES TO THE U.S.S.R. 18TH MARCH, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190032-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 1998
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: March 26, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved Forkelease : CIA-RDP62-00647AOO 100190032-
I Z)
v Lv r
71228
COCOLE Document No 347pB
6th M
h
arc
1 95
COORDINATING COZ,1ITTEE
CORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
PROPOSED BELGIAN EXPORT OF CABLES TO THE U.S.S.R.
18th`YTarchLl.
6 If
Present: Belgium(Lurer,rbourg), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.
References: COMM Documents No. 3430
and Addendum, 3444, 3450, 34519 3452
and 3464-
1. The CI-AIRsiAN recalled that, as stated in paragraph 19 of COCOM
Document No. 3452, it was agreed that in the course of the present meeting
the Committee would hear replies of t'iambor Governments as to the Belgian case
submitted in COCOp1 Document No. 3436. He first asked the Belgian Delegate if
he wished to speak before the other Mombors of the Committee made known their
Governments' views.
2. The BELGIAN Delegate stated that, after hearing e the information
supplied by the French Delegation, his authorities had undertaken a compara-
tive study of the characteristics of the railway signalling cables in use in
Belgium and of those of the cables requested by the U.S.S.R. The findings
might be summed up as follows:
Loaded or unloaded,
low-fre
uenc
i
National Belgian
Cables requested
q
y c
rcuits
railways
by the U.S.S.R.
Number of quads
C
d
16 to 30
8
on
uctor diameter in mm
0
8
Capacitance (nanofarad/krl)
.
1.2
Load (millihenry)
38
26
Spacing (km)
1~
140
Unloaded circuits
1
1.3
1.7
Number of quads
Conductor dic etor in r:~m
3 to 5
1
6
Ca cit
,
Ca
acit
(
.3
6.2
p
e
ance
nc.nofn.a
z c~/km)
Fr
26
26
equency (kilohertz)
120
150
3. The Delegate made the folloj in_g co,T.ments on the above data:
Loaded circuits.
Number of quads. The difference in the number of quads is fully
justified by the density of the traffic and the complexity of the
Belgian railway system, which is probably the densest in the
world, and which has the smallest distances between stations and
railway junctions.
Conductor diar..eter and capacitance. Thu smaller the diameter and
the higher the capacitance, the greater the kilometric loss.
If it is necessary to service long distances, as is the case for the
Russians, the kilometric capacitance is lower (26 instead of 38)
Approved F 0647A000100190032-7
 Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190032-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 2 - COC0M Document No. 3470E
and the diar:etor of the wire higher (1.2 instead of 0.8).
Load and spacing. The Russian load (140 instead of 129) and the
Russian spacing (1.7 instead of 1.3) are very similar from the
loss point of view to the Belgian conditions. The cut-off fre-
quoncy is lower for the Russians than for the Belgians, with a
corresponding reduction in fidelity.
Unloaded circuits.
Number of ciL ds. The number of Russian quads (6 instead of from
3 to 5 for the Bel,i:n system) would. provide the Russians with a
greater number of long-distance co:.s?unications, which seems
reasonable in view of the structure of their railway system.
Capacity and diameter of the conductors. In Belgium, there is a
tendency to standardize the conductor d.ia~aet r at 1.3 rux, this
diameter and the frequency Depending upon the distance between
amplifiers.
Fro. uQnc y. The frequency used in Russia allows of a larger number
of communications (15 instead of 12).
4. In conclusion, the Delegate stated that the characteristics he had
just described clearly showed that the cables wore similar to those used by
the Belgian railways and almost identical with those used by the S.N.C.F.
They could not be confused with communications cable properly so-called,
particularly because of their protective covering against the effects of in-
duction. The Belgian Government would find it inconceivable that objections
should be raised to the export of such cable when the export of their ancil-
lary equipment was authorised.
5. The GLR :AN Delegate stated that, further to his Delegation's
Memorandum (C00011 Docur.:ent No. 3450) he wished to submit the following obser-
vations dealing with the offers i..adO to various participating countries. In
view of the importance attributed by delegations to the communication-
equipr.,ent items on the Internationd.l List, the competent Gorr. an authorities
had given special attention to the study of the U.S.S.R.'s request for 1200 ktl
of multi-purpose railway cable. For that reason, the German application had
not been submitted to the Committee earlier, although the proposed transaction
had already been under consideration for a considerable period of time.
6. In the opinion of the competent German authorities, the cables in
question did fall under Item 1526. They contained. 28 pairs of conductors and
their composition did not differ at all from the usual high-frequency cables
in a carrier-frequency communication system. The technical specifications
asked for in the Rusoj n enquiry pointed to the fact that the cable required
was to be installed alone;- an electrical railway track as signal and communi-
cation cable, but those technical specifications permitted, nevertheless, the
use of the Gable as carrier-frequency telecommunication cables. Such a use
was not made impossible by the 16 pairs of cAarged conductors, as the functio-
ning- of the charged coil boxes could be interrupted at any time. It was,
however, admitted that if it had boon ordered as a component together with a
complete railway signalling system as covered by Item 4481, the required cable
could very li kGly have been supplied within the framework of A.D. 3. Al-
though in the opinion of the Gorman experts the cables in question were covered
by Item 1526, there was no doubt that in the present case a "harmless end-use"
of the material had been established. The fact that the enquiries were made
either for a type of cable with 1.05 ram conductor-diameter, when Styroflex
insulated, or with 1.20 rm conductor-diameter, when paper insulated, confirmed
that only an operation at low frequencies was envisaged. A further proof that
the cables were destined for steering and controlling an automatic signalling
system was the low coefficient of reduction required, which could only be rea-
lised by the expensive aluminium cover, as well as the fact that the supply of
charged coils was included in the proposed. order.
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190032-7
C 0 N F I D E N T I A L
 Approvedr Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A6'100190032-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - COCOM Document No. 3470B
7. The aims of the embargo controls on cables being to prevent the
completion of an efficient air com_iand system for offensive and defensive
purposes, and not to prevent the r.:udornisation of railway-lines, it could be
stated that those aims were not pr,.judicod by an: export of the required cable
to the Soviet Bloc4 It must be added that the cables required did not in-
volve any technological know-how so far unknown to the Soviet Bloc. Cables
cf the same kind were manufactured - according to specifications - by the firm
VEB Obersproe, the former cable works Obersproe of the AEG, in the Soviet--
occupied `Lone of Goruany. Furtherr.:ore, factories producing the required
cables were to be found in Soviet Ruosia, Hungary, Folafd, and Czechoslovakia.
To the contrary, the charged coils required were of a type which had been out
of use in Western countries for about 10 years. Furthermorei according to the
specificatioil.s received, only a limited number of communications per circuit
- 12 to 15 for each pair of conductors - was required, while 6 conductor pairs
for carrier-frequency-telephony wore reserved for this purpose. As the German
railways used cables of 66 conductor pairs and a much higher number of com-
municatiuns for long-distance-telephony, the cable in question was in this
respect as well, lagging behind the technical standard of cables used in
Western countries. It appeared that the specifications had been chosen so as
to correspond to the Soviet national production, which would probably supply
the main part of the cables required. Moreover, the cables in question did
not contain any raw materials ~_f which the Soviet Bloc had not a sufficient
supply or which the Bloc could not procure from the Free World without dif-
ficulty.
8. The delivery of the proposed cables was to be made during the
months of Kay to Au,,,u.st, in other w, rds, in the surlnor season. This circura-
sta?nce pointed to the intention to instal the cables at the same time as the
chan._o-over of the railway to electrical operation. The short delivery
period, moreover, confirmed the assumption that the main part of the cables
for the Russian railway system was supplied by their own production within the
Soviet Bloc, the orders placed in Western countries covering only final
quantities which at the moment could not be procured from their own resources,
If the West refused the export of such cables, the result, given the well-
known enemy of the Russians in pursuance of their plans, would very likely
be a further expansion of the Soviet Bloc's cable production capacity. After
satisfaction of the Russian requirements, such an additional production would
be available for export from the Bloc to Free World countries, thus provoking
serious consequences on Western cable narkets, which already suffered from
over-supply. The objection might perhaps be raised against the proposed ex-
port that the supply of the total quantities enquired for at Western countries
would to a considerable extent set the Soviet factories free for the produc-
tion of real communication cables. Although such an argument had never boon
taken into consideration so far when decisions wore reached in the Coorclina-
tin Committee and there was no reason to treat the present case in a diffe-
rent way, it might be said, as to this paint, that it was very doubtful
whether all the onquiries filed with Member Countries would develop into firm
orders, but that the Russian enquiries were motivated by the need to find a
source of supply for some lacking final quantities.
5. The Delegate stated that the German authorities had ondeavourod
to submit to the Committee the objective facts as they were faced with thoi:m,
in order to enable the Member Governments to reach a decision in full knowledge
of the circumstances attached to this case. A careful consideration of all
the factors involved had convinced the German authorities that there were more
and better arguments in favour of the case than against it and that the making
of an exception for the export of the required cables was justified. The
German authorities hoped that the rathor .ioubor Governments would come to the
smao conclusion. They attributed very goat importance, hovrever, to a similar
treatment of the case by all the Member Governments involved. Any difference
in the application of the embargo rules by individual Member countries would
lead to a do facto discrimination against the manufacturers of those countries
which interpreted the omabargo controls more restrictively than others and. t1lus
result in bringing intoriiational cooperation in the field of strategic controls
into serious disrepute. The Gorman Delegation would follow the discussion on
cables with groat interest and reserved the right to make further comments in
the course of the debate.
Approved For Rel 09e ~IDA- t[ P~2100~47A000100190032-7
 Approved Fo Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A0`100190032-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 4 - COCOI Document No. 3470B
10. The ITALIAN Delegate stated that his Government had made a very
careful study of the Belgium request. From the technical information con-
tained in the initial memorandum, it would appear that some of the characte-
ristics of the cables involved, particularly the quads intended for telephone
communications, were similar to those of normal communication cables. On
the other hand, it was obvious that other characteristics, such as for in-
stance the l,rosonce of signalling conductors and the very low coefficient
of reduction, were specifically required for railway sign.ailine purposes
and would be quite superfluous in the case of or` inary communications cable.
The existence of the latter might show that the cables were indeed intended
for in.;tallation along an electrified railway line for the working require-
ments of that line. The unusual coexistence of these factors explained the
different interpretation given by several eleg~ations to the scope of Items
1526 and 4481.
11. The Italian Government, who had received a similar request invol-
ving, according to the latest information, a quantity considerably higher
than that indicated in 0000 +i Document No. 3451, believed that before the
expression of a final opinion on the Belgian exception request a very thorough
study of the question should be made in order to prevent any breaking of the
principle of uniformity in the application of the controls through differing
interpretations, which in the _;ractical sphere would load to a totally unac-
ceptable discrimination against certain Member Countries. The Delegate fully
endorsed the technical and economic co-~arients r.-ado by the German Delegation
and reserved the right to revert to these points at a later stake.
12. The UNITED STATES Delegate road his Delegation's memorandum
(COCOk Document No. 3464) worded as follows:
"The United States Delegation believes that the communications
cables as defined in the Belgian memorandum is embargoed by Item 1526.
"The definition of that item calls for the embargo of "communi-
cations cable of any typo ..., containing mere than one pair of conductors
and containing any conductor .... exceeding 0.9 mm in diameter." The Belgian
cable meets the requirement for number of pairs and conductor diameter. The
question remains as to whether it is communications cable. By definition
communications refers to all types of transmittal of sounds, si-,;nals, iri ages,
writing, etc. The Belgian cable is evidently intended for such purposes.
"This cable is long distance cable which can be used for railroad
communications andlor for any conventional communications purposes. The cable
has substantially greater capacity than normal or necessary for the stated
end-use. If this cable wore to be used for railroad communications part of
its capacity could and probably would be available for other uses. It is
suitable for carrying telephone, teletype, facsimile, digital and possibly
slowed clown video signals. With these capabilities the cable could be used
for air defense and other military purposes, for normal civil corrmiunications,
or for a number of specialized communications purposes.
"If all the quads are unloaded it is possible t.; derive 168 2--way
telephone channels or about 2,000 2-w=,ray 60 words per minute teletype channels
or any combination of those at a ratio of about 12 teletype channels to 1
telephone channel. In addition 7 2-way phantom circuits could be derived for
tclcccntrol purposes. This analysis assumes an ideal repeater spacing of
about 35 miles is used and direct current is not used on teletypo channels.
This estimated maximum capacity would be reduced if repeaters are more than
35 miles apart, if quads are loaded, or if direct current were used for tele-
type channels."
13. Referring to the Belgian Delegate's statement recorded in paxa-
graphs 2 to 4 above, the Delegate noted that there appeared to be some confu-
sion between two distinct factors: the characteristics of the cables requoctod
on the one hand and, on the other, the use that would be made thereof. What
mattered were the characteristics of the cables, and there was no doubt that
they met both the spirit and the letter of Item 1526 and. were absolutely foreign
Approved For FFeLqsq :IC F Pq- (O647A000100190032-7
ly 'El
 Approved Fe'r Release : CIA-RDP62-00647AG60100190032-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 5 - COCOIdi Document No. 70B
to Ito', 4481. Some Delegations, in referring to the possible end-use of the
cables in question, had endcavourod to prove that they were not covered by
Item 1526 and had sought to interpret the scope of that item in a certain
manner. The United States Government, for their part, believed that the
cables were without any shadow of doubt covered by Item 1526, and therefore
raised objection to the Belgian request.
14. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that, in the view of his
authorities, railway cable should be regarded as communications cable and
consequently fell under Item 1526. The Delegate pointed out that several
British firms had, since December last, received orders for this equipment
and had boon refused the necessary export licences since the United Kingdom
authorities believed the cables to be embargoed under Item 1526.
15? ' The NETHERLMS Delegate stated that, although the Netherlands
industry had not applied for export licences, the Netherlands authorities had
doomed it wise to consult various competent experts. These exerts had been
unanimous in stating that in their view, the cables ordered from Belgium were
covered by Item 1526? Since they believed it essential to maintain uniformity
in applying the controls so as to avoid any discrimination between Member
Governments, the Netherlands Government felt that, if the Committee wished to
authoriso the export of these cables, it would be necessary to amen' the
definition of Item 1526 rather than to authorise, a series of exceptions. In
conclusion the Delegate stated that his Government were not greatly in favour
of the Belgian request as at present submitted and would prefer to see the
definition of the item in question amended.
16. The CANADIAN Delegate stated that, in view of the short time
available to them, his Government were only able to give preliminary views on
the Belgian case. Stressing that the Committee had but recently agreed that
this type of equipment merited embargo, the Delegate stated that his Government
regretted that such a large export of an embargoed item had already been con
templated. The Belgian Delegation justified their export proposal oh, the
grounds that this type of cable presented none of the characteristics of
communications cable in the normal sense, but should be regarded as an element
of a railway system. Consequently the Canadian Delegation suggested that the
exceptions request should be submitted under the terms of the "Accident of
Definition" procedure, and that, should agreement be reached in the Committee
on this case, the definition of Item 1526 should be amended or accompanied by
an Interpretative Note authorising the export of cable of this type when it
was to be used to equip railway lines. If the Committee did not agree to
the use of the "Accident of Definition" procedure, the Belgian Government
should submit their request under the terms of the 471 procedure as amended
rather than on an ad hoc basis, and they should supply all the information
required by this procedure in support of their case.
17. The DANISH Delegate stated that his Government's experts had made
a careful study of this case and had concluded that the cables involved were
in fact covered by Item 1526. Like his Netherlands and Canadian colleagues,
he suggested that, if this export had to be authorised, the Committee should
amend Item 1526 in order to safeguard uniformity in applying the control
system.
18. The JAPANESE Delegate stated that his Government had mado a
benevolent study of the Belgian request and a careful review of the statement
made during the previous meeting by the French Delegation (paragraphs 7 and
8 of COCO,! Document No. 3452). The Japanese authorities were not, however,
able to concur in the arguments adduced by the French Delegation, to the effect
that the cable involved would fall under Item 4481 and not Item '526. The
Committee had just heard a statement by the German Delegate explaining that
certain technical specifications of the order and the circumstances of the
case did not correspond to the spirit of Item 1526. The Japanese Government
nevertheless attached the greatest importance to the uniform application of
the Embargo list, and whatever the technical or procedural arguments invoked,
the essential thing was that Member Governments should act in accordance with
the Coordinating Committee's unanimous decisions. Since the problem which
Approved For ge?ei_F d'-' ~' . %F'l'"47A000100190032-7
 Approved for Release : CIA-RDP62-00647AW0100190032-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 6 - COCOM Document No. 34708
arose was to know whether the cables were covered by List I or List IV, there
was a possibility that certain countries, believing them to be covered by
Item 4481, might supply the equipment requested and notify this fact only
later in their statistical returns. In these circumstances, the Japanese
Government would raise no objection to the Belgian request, but reserved the
right to interpret this item in the same way.
19. The BELGIAN Delegate stated that, after a survey undertaken both
by experts of the Belgian Railways and by military exports, his Government
had reached the conclusion that the cables involved were unquestionably
covered by Item 4481-
20. The FRENCH Delegate wished, without repeating all the arguments
already put forward, to state the reasons which had led his Delegation to
believe and to continue to believe that the cables ordered were covered by
Item 4481. He first pointed out that the French Delegation were unable to
agree to the definition of the word "communications" as it appeared in the
United States Memorandum, where it was explained that this term referred to
all types of transmittal of sounds, signals, images, writing etc. If this
was so, should telome,tering and telecontrol systerzsbe understood to fall with-
in the communications sphere ? The Delegate pointed out in this connection
that Item 1518 on the International Lists, which covered "Telemetering and
Tejecontrol equipment" ;:lade no mention of communications. He noted moreover
that, according to the United States Delegation, the cables involved had a
much higher capacity than was normal or necessary for the use contemplated.
This was not the opinion of the French authorities, who judged on Western
practice. Cables having 15 quads and 5 conductors were regarded as low-
capacity cables. The S.N.C.F., for their part, used double-capacity cable
on certain lines, and solely for the operation of the railway. The United
States Delegation moreover believed that those cables were suitable for
carrying telephone, teletype and facsimile, etc. signals. This was true, but
would be equally true of a simple two-wire overhead line, provided that it
were accompanied by the special transmission equipment necessary, which was
covered by Item 1523 and which was not mentioned in the order. As to the
possibility of unloading the quads, the Delegate explained that such attempts
had been made in France some 15 years ago and had resulted in total failure.
Turning finally to the 56 km spacing between the repeaters mentioned by the
United States Delegation, he explained that, from experience obtained in
France, a 15 km spacing was a maximum for carrier-frequency systems. In
conclusion the Delegate stated that the diverging opinions to which this
question had given rise mig.at be due to the fact that the United States
Government had consulted only communications experts, whor-as railway signal-
ling exports would certainly, like the Belgian and French exports, be led to
conclude that the cables in question presented the normal characteristics
required for a railway.
21. The -BELGIAN Delegate began by stating that if the Committee were
thinking of amending Item 1526, their study should be effected not only from
the communications point of view but also from the point of view of railway
signalling. Moreover, with respect to the cables involved in the present
instance, the Delegate confirmed the various remarks made by his French
colleague (paragraph 20 above) and stressed once again that the coefficient of
reduction of those cables, which necessitated a much more costly construction
than that of communications cables, proved beyond doubt that the Russians
intended to use the equipment ordered for an electrified railway line. The
Delegate furthermore pointed out that the number of circuits for those cables
was certainly not higher than the number of circuits for Belgian or French
railway cables, which easily contained more than double the quantity. Finally,
in view of the fact that it was impossible to instal overhead lines along a
railway, he stated once again in conclusion that the cables ordered by Russia
wore an integral part of a railway signalling system, and wore consequently
covered by Item. 4481.
22. The UNITED STATES Delegate, in reply to the French Delegate's
comment that the term "telecommunications" did not comprehend telometering and
Approved For RAbRaNdE ClAAMM17A000100190032-7
 Approv For Release : CIA-RDP62-0064YA0001001 0032-7 oB
CONFIDENTIAL - 7 - COC01.1 Document No. 34~7 J__Q
telecontrol f cited the definition of the French . b'cadeuy for this terms
"Coru:-iunication telegraphiguc an telephonique do touto nature (sons, signaux,
images, 4crits, etc.) offoctu6o par un procede do transmission electrique"?
Ise welcomed the fact that the French Delegation agreed with the view of the
United States exports that the cables involved were suitable for carrying
telephone, tcletypo, facsi..ile, etc. signals; the only condition for such
use being, in the view of the French Delegation, the pr4sonce of oquiprient
not mentioned in the Russian order. The United States Delegation felt that
this was a different question end that the important fact was that the cables
involved were covered by Item 1526.
23. The GEBPAN Delegate stressed that his Delegation believed that
the railway cables involved fell under the torus of the item covering cori-
iaunications cables. There was on the othc:^ hand no doubt that they could
foam part of railway signalling., apparatus, but did not alone constitute such
apparatus under the torus of Item. 4481. In this connection, nevertheless,
there wore two basically different opinions in the Cora.-,.ittoe and, since
serious confusion might arise fror-: such a situation, the German Delegation
felt that an attempt should rapidly be .-]-ado, in order to restore the unifcr.-
mity that was vital.
24. The BELGIAN Delegate stated that, in the belief that the cables
ordered by the Russians fell under Item 4481, his Delegation were withdrawing
the exception request submitted in COCO Document Igo. 3436. The Belgian
authorities would in due course decide whether or not they wished to autho-
rise this export.
25. The UNITED STATES Delegate stated that the comments he had been
instructed to make obviously took no account of the Belgian Delegate's latest
statement. The United States Delegation noted that only two delegations
opposed the view that the cables were covered by Item 1526. Since their
particular concern was to maintain in the Committee that uniformity and
equality which had so often been stressed, the United States Government felt
that it was absolutely imlperative that no participating country authorise the
export of such cables until the Committee had reached agreement on the scope
of the List I item concerned, or on exception requests justified by special
circumstances or under the terms of the exceptions procedures in force. It
was also imperative that any Government having already given such authori-
sation should do their utmost to prevent shipment. The United States Dele-
gation were aware of the difficulty of cancelling a licence once it had
been issued, but having themselves already had to take such action the
United States Governrent hoped that, in view of the very serious situation
obtaining, the interested Government would take the necessary steps, and thus
contribute to the reaching of a unifcrn solution of the problem facing the
Committee. Turning then to the Belgian Delegate's statement, the Delegate
pointed out that, since the majority of Delegations recognised the applica-
bility of Items 1526, any decision based on a bilateral interpretation of an
International List item would face the Committee with a very serious
situation in:_eed.
26. The FRENCH Dole ate, in reply to his United States colleague,
stated that in authorising the manufacture of cables, his Governr..ent had been
guided by the unanimous opinion cxprosaed by the most highly qualified ox-
perts in communications and railway spheres. The Delegate undertook to
transmit to his authorities the remarks made by the United States Delegate.
Ho nevertheless wished to point out that, under French law, it did not
appear to be possible to withdraw a licence once it had boon ;;ranted, and
added that the firm concerned had already not only bought the necessary
stocks but had also begun to produce the equipment ordered. Such an action
might put the State in the position of having to pay a, large indemnity to
this firm.
27. As to the question of the uniform application of the control
system, the Delegate recalled that his Bologation had frequently advocated
this basic principle and stressed that the present case emphasized the ne-
cessity of c~relting more specific definitions for Item 1526 and 4481?
Approved For Rel 0 N F - r1 -T I Ub47A000100190032-7
 Approved Fee Release : CIA-RDP62-00647AOQ 100190032-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 8 - COCOM Document No. 3470E
If it were true that only two Delegations believed the cables concerned to
be covered by Item 4481, it should also be recognised that all or Govern-
ments except two considered that the export might be authorised on an
exceptional basis or under the terms of the "Accident of Definition" L
It was therefore highly desirable that the Committee reach unanimous
agreement in this connection in order to restore the uniformity desired by
all.
28. The CEAIRI AN noted that, before the withdrawal of the Belgian
case, a clear indication had been given by the various delegations of the
necessity to undertake a review, or at least a study, of Items 1526 and 4481.
It would therefore be nocessary between now and the 6th April for the inte-
rested Delegations to submit redefinition proposals for study during the
discussions scheduled to start at that time. As to the question of the
uniform application of the control system, moreover, the Chairman suggested
that a distinction should be made between past and future practice. He
rccorimended that the interested delegations invite their Governments not
to authorise exports of such cables before the discussions of the 6th Aril
should have taken place. He further asked the French Delegate if he would
be Gale, during the next day's ._oeting, to say whether or not his Government
would be in a position to reconsider the decision already taken.
29. The FRENCH Delegate statad that, in the view of the unexpectedly
divergent views to which this question had given rise, his Delegation
undertook not to issue any new licence in the future for the equipment con-
cerned until the Committee had reached a decision. As to the past, the
Delegate undertook to transmit the views expressed to his authorities, with-
out in any way lrejudicin.; his Government's decision, which at the present
time was a final one.
30. An exchange of views then took place during which the German
and Italian Delegates emphasized the extreme urgency of reaching a uniform
decision on the problem and the CO-L ITTEE agreed to resume discussion on the
19th March.
Approved For Rel ': t 194 tr P 2-G47A000100190032-7