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

462A.0031/3–3150: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Frankfort ¹

secret

Washington , March 31, 1950—8 p. m.

2214. Re Ger 1–B problem. It has been long-term objective of US to raise members of Paris Consultative Group to Ger level re 1–B controls, rather than reduce all to lowest common denominator as suggested OSR’s 1030, Feb 21, rptd Frankfort Repto 128, London, Repto 164.² US believes Ger problem must be resolved through positive approach, i.e., expediting formation 1–B mechanism within Paris Group. While this entails temporary discrimination vs Ger, period this discrmination shld be short. Discussion formulation procedures for implementing Internatl List II (limitative control) began in CoCom Paris Mar 30. US will propose specific mechanisms for control List II items and will also propose addition to List II of maximum possible number items on US 1–B list. Proposal developed by CoCom will be presented next plenary mtg Consultative Group on May 10, and acceptance, modification or rejection PCG’s shld be known sometime thereafter. If PCG’s shld reject comprehensive limitative controls, Ger situation wld be re-examined immediately with view to reducing discrimination vs Ger. Meanwhile Ger cooperation in applying 1–B controls shld be used to advantage in Paris Group and Ger representatives shld be urged to press for uniformity of action, at Ger level, by all participants.

It shld be noted application 1–B controls in Ger has been very lax compared to US standards, e.g., in 1949, out of $22,000,000 worth of export licenses applied for in US for 1–B goods to Soviet bloc, only $771,000 were approved; Frankfort despatch # 284, Feb 24, indicates that out of $14,000,000 worth of export applications applied for in Jan. 1950, for goods to same countries, only $2,000,000 worth was denied. Presumably the denials were 1–B goods also, but it is even possible that 1–A denials were included. This is not the degree of control the US expected in Ger and may obtain eventually from Paris Group participants.

Dept realizes political situation in Ger needs be considered in specific cases. In order expedite procedure, a general instruction is being drafted within which HICOG cld operate without referring each case to Wash. Detailed monthly reports on approvals and denials wld serve purpose of informing Wash actions taken and serve as basis advise HICOG if overall direction of controls seems wrong. This instruction will not be for purpose lessening stringency Ger controls, but only permit authorities on spot approve special cases while denying others within the limitative concept. This instruction, plus detailed info re US experience in handling 1–B items, will be sent HICOG soonest.³

Acheson

1. This telegram, which had the concurrence of the Economic Cooperation Administration and the Department of Commerce, was repeated to Paris as 1420 and to London as 1457.
2. Not printed.
3. The instruction under reference here was subsequently sent as instruction 241, May 15, to Frankfort, not printed (462A.0031/5–1550).