Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Central and Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union, Volume IV

450.609/2–1550: Circular telegram

The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic Offices ¹

secret

Washington , February 15, 1950—3 a. m.

Eyes only for Chiefs of Missions. Brussels telegram 209, February 9, repeated Paris 60, London 43, Rome 8, Oslo 2, Copenhagen 3, The Hague 19, Luxembourg 2, Heidelberg 5.² For political and economic reasons nearly all European countries have taken strong position that secrecy be maintained over multilateral aspects export controls arrangements. Thus during course negotiations bilaterals agreed on behalf all countries including U.S. that secret minutes of negotiations covering east-west trade controls (and which refer to Paris consultative meetings)³ could not be made public or made available to Parliaments and Congress except with consent of all. If these countries forced publicly to admit existence of multilateral arrangements to coordinate export control program, strong likelihood exists that they would withdraw from discussion and program. Therefore U.S. and all other governments have agreed on method informal consultation and there is no formal arrangement or agreement. Consultative group meetings are for exchange of information and views with respect to common objectives export control matters. Never related in any way to OEEC or NAT and U.S. has made special effort to keep this clear.

For this reason Gruson Report quite disturbing and Department believes necessary to proceed accordance with Deptel 574, February 8 [7] to London (512 Paris, 443 Rome, 72 Oslo, 72 Copenhagen, 110 The Hague, 156 Brussels, 11 Luxembourg, and 34 Heidelberg).⁴

FYI full information on Paris meetings sent by OSR to ECA Mission London, Oslo, Copenhagen, Brussels, The Hague and Rome.

U.S. would be prepared admit it consults other like-minded countries and that they consult U.S. concerning security problem of mutual interest in export control field. We think PC’s will go this far if necessary and if matter dissociated from OEEC and NAT and MDAP.

Department will cable further re content any such proposed statement.⁵

Acheson

1. This circular telegram was sent to Paris, London, Rome, Oslo, Copenhagen, The Hague, Luxembourg, and Frankfort.
2. In the telegram under reference, not printed, Ambassador Robert D. Murphy observed that it was already generally known that an informal multilateral organization met at Paris from January 9 to 20 to deal with the broad question of East-West trade controls. Murphy suggested that the United States “put a bold front on matter” and publicly acknowledge that it was taking steps with like-minded European countries to stop the flow of strategic goods to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (740.5 MAP/2–950).
3. Regarding the negotiations under reference, see the editorial note, p. 72. Regarding the Paris consultative meetings, see footnote 2, p. 67.
4. Supra.
5. The text of a Department of State briefing paper on the subject of East-West trade, prepared for possible use in Congressional hearings on the European Recovery Program, was transmitted in a circular airgram of March 10, not printed (450.6031/3–1050). The briefing paper appears not to have been used. A memorandum of March 8 by Willis C. Armstrong of the Economic Resources and Security Staff of the Department of State, not printed, indicates that William C. Foster, Deputy Administrator of the Economic Cooperation Administration, discussed East-West trade during an executive session of the House Appropriations Committee on March 7. Foster explained that an intergovernmental organization had been established in Paris and that if information concerning it were to be made public it would probably break up. The Committee appeared to be completely satisfied and understood the need for secrecy (440.6031/3–850).