COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON UNITED STATES PROPOSAL TO ADD ITEM 1510 TO THE ITEMS LISTED IN ITEM 1416(E) MARCH 5TH, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190058-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 9, 1998
• Sequence Number: 58
• Publication Date: March 19, 1959
• Content Type: MIN

Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190058-9
'"W AMW
March 10th, 1959 COCOM Document No. 3445
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
#J
UNITD,STATES PROPOSAL TO ADD ITEM 1510 TO THE ITEMS LISTED IN ITEM 11+16(c).
March 5th, 199
Present: Bolgium(Luxembourg), Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.
Rofeences: COCOM 1104, 3376, 3379, 3397, 3422, Sub-C (58) 3.
1. The CHA~IRMI,N opened the hooting with a brief recapitulation of the
position reached at the previous meeting (COCOM 3422). He recalled that there
had been general approval of the United States proposal to add Item 1510 to the
items listed in Item 1416(e) only on condition that all types of fish finding
and whale finding equipment were excluded. He suggested that Delegations
should ro-exam_ine the possibility of reaching agreement on the embargo of Item
1510 as at present defined in the context of ship repairs alone and leaving the
question of its inclusion in Item 1416(c) to a later date.
2, The GERMAN Delegate pointed out that during discussions on this subject
two years ago his Delegation had made it clear that they had never considered
fish finding equipment covored by Item 1510. In the 1958 List Review, in an
effort to reach agreement, they had accepted the embargo of certain fish
finding equipment on the express understanding that such an embargo referred
only to normal export orders and not in the context of ship repairs or ships
sold to the Soviet Bloc. The German authorities understood that there might
well be a case for not shipping a large number of sets of fish finding equip-
ment as an ordinary export order but they did not understand why such equipment
should not be installed in a ship which was sold to or built for the Bloc, in
which case it would be known exactly what sort of ship was concerned.
3. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate said that he agreed with the remarks made
by his German colleague. He reiterated that all really strategic detection
equipment was caught by Munitions List Item 9. None of the equipment
falling under Item 1510 contained vital technological know-how. The number
of sets of equipment which might be exported to the Soviet Bloc as:.a result
of repair work or the sale of a ship would be small. The installation of
this equipment would be a difficult task when a ship was in for repair and
in any case it would be installed for peaceful purposes. The United Kingdom
authorities did not think it likely that the Bloc would go to the length of
buying vessels or having thorn repaired in order to obtain a number of sots of
fish finding equipment. They therefore continued to think that Item 1510
should not be added in its entirety to Item 1416(e) although they could agree
to its inclusion with the modification rocordod at paragraph 2 of COCOM 3397.
4. The UNITED STi,TES Delegate said that his authorities had difficulty
in understanding the Committee's reluctance to agree to the addition of Item
1510 as currently defined, since this definition was very narrow. In July
1958 the Sub-Committoo of exports had reached agreement on the kinds of fish
finding equipment which could be excluded from Item 1510 (COCOM Sub-C (58)
Approved For Releas 2-00647A000100190058-9
 Approved Fpr Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190058-9
CONFIDENTIAL - 2 -
C.0C0M Document A. 3445
and also on record was the experts' agreement on the types of fish-f0ding
equipment which involved essential characteristics equalling the performance
of Asdics and which should therefore remain under embargo. Unfortunately this
equipment was not included in the list contained in Item ]416(o). The Delegate
pointed out that in February 1953 the Committee had agreed to add Item 1510 to
paragraph 2 of Annex C to COdOM 549 (COCOM 1104, paragraph 15) which related
to vessels being constructed or fitted out for sale to the Soviet Bloc. The
United States authorities felt that the position had not substantially changed
since. The Delegate felt that some confusiori: may have arisen because of
previous reference to the Kelvin-Hughes whale finding set (C0COM 3422, paragraph
2(a)) because in Note 2 to Item 1510 the Kelvin-Hughes fisherman's Asdic was
specifically excluded from this item. These were in fact two different pieces
of equipment. The whale finding set was a replica of equipment used in the
Royal Navy for purposes which want beyond whale finding. In conclusion the
legate stated that he felt that Member Countries had not yet had sufficient
time to take a thorough study of this question and he suggested that the
discussion might usefully be postponed until March 9th.
5. The GERMAN Delegate stated that there would be serious administrative
difficulties iii his country to differentiate between the controls applied to
ship repairs on the one hand and sales of new or seaond1 1 vessels on the other.
If Item 1510 were to be embargoed as far as repairs were concerned it would also
have to be embargoed in the fitting out of now vessels and the sale of second-
hand ones.
6. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that in 1958.'the Sub-Committee
referred to by the United States Delegate was considering Item 1510 in the
context of its revision for inclusion in List I. Its embargo status was
not challenged by the United Kingdom Government. They accepted the position
that the export to the Bloc of the equipment caught by Item 1510 on its own,
and not in ships, would still bo,embargoed.
7. The DANISH Delegate said that in his opinion the United States insistence
on adding Item 1510 in its entirety to Item 1416(e) was unreasonable. As he had
pointed out at the previous meeting (C0C0M 3422, paragraph 5), from the procedural..
point of view the United States wore in a strong position as far as the repairs
acro concerned while the rest of the Committee were In a strong position on the
sale of vessels. He had hoped that there would be a compromise with the majority
of the Committee yielding somewhat on sale .and the Uhitod States giving a little
on repairs. Now, however, the United States were still asking the whole Committee
to leave the present position on repairs unchanged and to accept the whole of the
United States proposal on sales.
8. The UNITED STATES Delegate observed that it was a fine juridical point
as to whether the present Item 1416(o) superseded the provisions of COCOM 1104.
Although he was not prepared to adopt a firm position on this point at the
moment, COCOM 1104 was nevertheless a reflexion of the importance the Committee
dad always attached to Item 1510.
9. The FRENCH Delegate pointed out that the position in 1952 and 1953 was
very different from what it was now. There had boon important revisions of
the International Lists in 1954 and 1958 which had affected the substance of
Item 1510.
10. After further discussion the CHAIRMAN stated that in COC0M 549 there
was an essential difference between the use of embargoed items as far as
repairs wore concerned and their installation in a vessel to be sold to the
Bloc. Annex B of COCOM 549 stated that the installation of all List I items
should be prohibited during repairs while, with regard to sales, Member
Countries were to avoid the installation of certain specific List I items
to the maximum extent possible." (Annex Q.
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190058-9
 Approved Forlcelease : CIA-RDP62-00647A000i.00190058-9
C%?F IDENTIAL
-3 - COGOM Document No. 3.445
11. The DANISH Delegate said that in his opinion the substance of the
matter was that the majority of the Committee had accepted the embargo of Item
1510, albeit reluctantly, because some typos of fish finding equipment could
be considered strategic, The shipbuilding nations did not consider that there
was any groat danger if a sot of this equipment was exported with a now ship
because such cases would be few in number, whereas ordinary sales might well
be more numerous. He felt that the fundamental question to be considered was
whether or not it was dangerous from the strategic point of view to export a
few sets of fish finding equipment with vessels which were sold to the Bloc.
The Committee had accepted the prohibition of the installation of certain
more dangerous items when vessels were sold to the Bloc but the Danish
Government did not consider that Item 1510 came within this category. It
was important for the shipbuilding nations to have the maximum possible
.froodorn in conducting trade negotiations with the Bloc.
12. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that if the whole of Item 1510 were
added to Item 1416(e), it would still be possible to use the Committee's
exceptions procedure to obtain agreement for the export of equipment in a
vessel. As had boon pointed out in a previous statement (COCOM 3422,
paragraph 2(b)), the United States authorities considered that this was the
proper course. As an alternative Member Countries could make proposals for
adding to the equipment specifically excluded from coverage of Item 1510.
Llmi'tod as it stood now Item 1510 did not cover inocuous equipment.
13. The ITALIAN Delegate suggested that a possible solution to the present
deadlock might be the addition of a note, as the Committee had done in the past
for a few other items, saying that exceptions requests concerning Item 1510
would be favourably considered by the Committee.
14.
The COMMITTEE agreed to continuo the dieeussion on March 9th.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release : CIA-RDP62-00647A000100190058-9