DRAFT SUMMARY REPORT ON SENIOR ECONOMIC OFFICERS CONFERENCE (SANITIZED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP64-00014A000100260016-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 25, 2000
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: September 29, 1955
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Conference of Senior Economic, Officers
trade had None `dour on the.agenda, Wednesday, 21 September:'`,
'. I,presented the attached paper, followed by Walstrom&apresentation,
attachedy Mr. Waugh, in''the chair, Iksked for comment or any statement the
country representations present desired to make on Walstrom's appraisal of
national attitudes as reflected in COCOM. There were no comments. Brown
(U.K.) questioned the cost ratio staff paper (SS-1) as relates to the
strategic evaluation of items. I invited his attention to the fact that
the concept was based on the effect of the over-all economy of the Bloc
and on his further questioning, I stated I did. not accept the cost ratio
concept as an added criterion because in my opinion it smacked of economic
warfare, and was not negotiable.
Regarding the bilaterals with the U.K., which took place in London on
September 26, Moline, Barnett and. myself met with feeler and Oresswell of,
Defense and- Edden of'the Foreign ,Office. . The discussion opened by. my stating'
that we would appreciate ;the 'present thinking of the U.R. representatives
towards trade controls, especially China. Wheeler began his presentation
by stating that U.K present thinksOg jK4LV. ,g q. o2~I .i t of items
pointed towards security requirements of the ,Kest ,ki: lgba,Wax?faith
nuclear weapons. When questioned if limited wars with conventional weapons
neednot_be equally considered, U.R. voiced the opinion that the bloc was
practically self-sufficient in that respect. U.R. stated they were working
State Dept. declassification & release instructions on file
Approved For Release 2000/08/23 : CIA-RDP64-00014AO00100260016-7
 ~ele 200/08/2 ~01vi 1`0060016y'f
~
h k5 111 3 N #? ~s 1 1 f P Y}ii
SECRET
ft., 04
Mz!
2P~ },. 'b`FMR ^b 'ire q., . w+ .~
in .Defense; tot s the, formulatio#.of such a list, .and anticipated readiness
ith
n about o
e month. U.K. gave no ind t on of list control except to say,
they wou]d ateitem justification.`
Regarctin', the timing of ,,the forthcomin~+CG - U.K. agreed to a meeting
not, earlier than first week in December ,or at'1eaat`.y eII da a after the end
of the Foreign Ministers Meeting, whichever wasiater
Regarding China controls .Bar_aett pr aen y U.S' !atof view on
the necessity for holding to the present level. (Note?attaohed were prepared
by tar. Walstrom immediately following meeting.) we Barnett'emphasized the
U.S. responsibility in the China area and the necessity for the retention of
a unified effort in the support of that position and stated that the U.S. at
this time had no room for manuevering on China controls and that the possi-
bility of flexibility is related to a change in circumstances which might result
if a firm line, could. be held during the Geneva talks between the U.S. and Chinese
Ambassadors.
U.K. had previous to this indicated little interest in the CHINCOM list.
They,'however, did appear to react to the U.S. presentation and expressed an
appreciation of the U.S. position. The Foreign Office-representative stated
that they.didnot agree with the U.S. position of force or threat towards China
as a means of winning any change in Chinese attitude. Nevertheless, they
supported the U.S. Position in the U.N. this year on the recognition issue.
They were not clear as to what this might mean for their. attitude towards the
U.S. position as relates to trade controls.
U.K. expressed the desire to come to a single list of controls contending
that China and USSR are one group and should have the same treatment on trade.
Approved For Release 2000/08/23 : CIA-R?P64-00014A0'00100260016-7
 Approved For Release 2000/08/23F: C:IA-RDP64-00014A000100260016-Tt'
They did not agree that there could be a d.fterential as relates to the
potential of each in limited wars with conventional weapons.
It was evident to me that,as. a result,,. pZ.,.thew?,WtjjiB-,,14,raris, and
fss tbee,.. !r x; ~ =:as, relates
t.4tt
the U.K. bilaterals, that unle
to china controls on the, part _ef. m st s i - . x :- Sep` ,the
retention of the present level of controls tq and find itYdifficult
NIVMRY,IA/...,~..
COM controls.
to get an agreement for any dif$erentiaa.ba#0em,. MO- -w
So far as the COCOM~i controls themselves, I would evaluate the U.H. intent
to be the proposal of a common list applicable to the Bloc as a whole, and
controlling only such items as would contribute to the Bloc's ability to
wage a global war with nuclear weapons.
-Approved For Release 2000/08/23 : CIA-RDP