COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON A BELGIAN PROPOSAL TO EXPORT ELECTRODES TO ROUMANIA NOVEMBER 17TH AND 23RD, 1959

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000200040019-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 20, 1998
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: November 25, 1959
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 1999/09/16 :- CIA-RDP6 0647A000200040' -7
CONFIDENTIAL
November 2 5th, 1959 COCOM Document No. 3781E
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
A BFIAN PROPOSAL TO EXPORT ELECTRODES TO ROUMANIA
November 17th and 23rd, 1959
Present: Belgium (Luxembourg), Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.
References: COCOM Documents Nos. 3735, 3757, 3770, 3771.
1. The CHAIRMAN drew the attention of the Committee to the Belgian proposal
to export 15,000 kilos of electrodes to Roumania. He recalled that the Belgian
authorities had originally invited Member Countries to give their opinion as to
whether or not these electrodes were covered by the definition of Item 1661
(COCOA! 3735) and that the Belgian Delegate had subsequently asked for this case
to be considered as an exceptions request if it were the Committee's opinion'
that the electrodes were under embargo (COCOM 3757). The Belgian Delegate
had given further details of the end-use to which the electrodes would be put
(0000M 3770) and the United States Delegation had given their opinion that
the electrodes were covered by the definition of Item 1661 in COCOM 3771. He
invited Delegates to give the views of their Governments, first as to whether
or not the electrodes in question were caught by embargo and secondly, if so,
their views on the exception request.
2. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that the views of his authorities on
the interpretation question were set out in COCOM 3771. He had not yet
recieved instructions on the exception request and in this connection he
recalled that he had already pointed out to the Committee that there might
be some delay before he could state, his authorities' final position.
3. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate stated that he had put two questions to
the Belgian Delegation concerning this matter. The first question concerned
the composition of the electrodes. In the Belgian memorandum (COCOM 3735)
a list of alloys was given, but this list totalled only 91,2%. His authorities
had asked what other materials were involved and the Belgian Delegation had
replied that the remaining 8.8% consisted of the external coating of the
electrodes, which was of potassium silicate. The second question concerned
the specification of each alloy as a percentage of the materials excluding
the coating. The Belgian Delegate had replied that this per 88tage could
be obtained by multiplying each cf16$e percentages listed by 72. Thus
in the case of ferrosilicon 1.4 X 91.2 equaled 1.536.
4. The NETHERLANDS Delegate said that his authorities were of the opinion
that according to the composition and resistance of these electrodes their
export to the Sino-Soviet Bloc would not defeat the embargo of nickel-based
alloys. For this reason the Netherlands, pending a possible redefinition
of Item 1661 during the List Review, did not raise an objection to the export
to Roumania according to the "accident of definition" proneduro.
5. The FRENCH, GERMAN, ITALIAN and JAPANESE Delegates stated that their
authorities did not consider that the electrodes were covered by item 1661.
Since the electrodes were coated they were therefore regarded as finished
products and not as semi-finished goods in terms of Interpretative Note No. 6.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200040019-7
 Approved FoMelease 1999/09/16 CIA-RDP6 00647A000200040019-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 2 -
COCOM Document No. 3781 B
6. The BELGIAN Delegate drew the attention of the Committee to the final
sub-paragraph of Interpretative Note No. 6;
"The special attention of Governments is drawn to the risk that the
embargo might be deafeated by the export of non-listed forms alleged
to be finished products but representing in reality crude forms
or semi-finished forms,"
His authorities felt that it was beyond question that these electrodes were
finished products and therefore not covered by the embargo. Moreover they
were to be used for soldering cast iron, a material which itself was not a
strategic product.
7. The UNITED STATES Delegate commented, with reference to the last point
made by his Belgian colleague, that the question of end-use related to the
exceptions request which was obM under consideration by his authorities.
With regard to other comments which had been made, the Delegate pointed to
that part of the Note which referred to "semi-fabricated forms (whether or
not coated ...)". Moreover, he contended that the inclusion of "bare welding
rods" did not in itself exclude coated welding rods or electrodes. Finally,
when Interpretative Note No. 6 was drafted, his authorities had made it
clear that they did not regard! it as an exhaustive list.
8. The GERMAN Delegate said that the crucial question was whether
sheathed electrodes were regarded as finished or semi-finished products.
If they were semi-finished products they were caught by the embargo. He
did not consider that Interpretative Note No. 6 was particularly relevant
in this case. His authorities considered that these electrodes were not
covered by the provisions of Item 1661 itself. In conclusion the Delegate
observed that the Member Countries who did not consider these electrodes
to be caught by the embargo might already have permitted them to be
exported. If the final opinion of the United States authorities were not
the same as the majority of the Committee,*it night be useful to study
this question afresh in order to achieve a uniform application of Item 1661.
9. The BELGIAN Delegate pointed out that electrodes were specifically
mentioned in the Embargo List prior to the 1958, List Review. The fact
that mention of them had been deleted would seem to indicated a desire
to free them from embargo.
10. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that it was clear that some of the
views that had been expressed seemed to be based on a more literal reading
of Interpretative Note No. 6 that the Uhited States authorities had adopted.
The United States might wish to propose the specific addition of coated or
sheathed welding rods or electrodes to the embargo list.
11. It was agreed to hear further views on November 23rd.
12. On November 23rd the UNITED KINGDOM Delegate informed the Committee
that, in vied of the additional information supplied by the Belgian
Delegation, his authorities did not consider the electrodes in question to
be caught by the definition of Item 1661 and the question of the exceptions
case did not therefore arise.
13. The CANADIAN Delegate stated that electrodes would appear to be
more properly classified as a finished product rather than a crude or
semi-fabricated form of nickel based alloy. In the absence of specific
mention of sheathed electrodes in Item 1661(b) and in Interpretative Note
No. 6 his authorities believed there was reasonable doubt that there was
intent to continue to retain this material under embargo. The purpose
of the embargo of nickel based alloys was to prevent the supply of alloys
which would be used for strategic purposes. Unless it could be shown that
the sheathed electrodes had strategic implications, it was the Canadian
view that this material should not be subject to embargo.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 1999/09/1,6 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200040019-7
 Approved Fo(elease 1999/09/16 CIA-RDP62'=U0647A000200040019-7
CONFIDENTIAL - 3
COCOM Document No. 3781 B3
14. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that his authorities, having taken
account of the interpretations described by some Delegations at the last
meeting and the information provided by the Belgian Delegation as to the
end-use to which the electrodes would be put, raised no objection to this
particular shipment. This was without prejudice to their position with
respect to the embargo coverage.
15. The BELGIAN Delegate expressed his thanks for the favourable
views that had been given. In the future the Belgian authorities would,
for similar cases, reserve the right to act according to the conclusions
resulting from the positions adopted by the various Delegations during the
present debate so that no discrimination against their own m entry would
result.
CONFIDENTIAL
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200040019-7