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

450.6031/3–950: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France

secret

Washington, April 13, 1950—7 p. m.

1627. Dept and ECA concur in your recommendation Para 1 urtel 1631, Apr 7 that emphasis in approaches Fr Govt shld be on I–A Internatl List III items.¹

Dept and ECA do not agree that problems raised urtel also involve question whether ECA financing wld generally be denied where adequate safeguards against exports strategic items not established by PC’s concerned. This Govt’s policy on question recovery western Eur and control strategic exports Soviet Union and satellites was set forth in Torep 816, Aug 27, 1948.² These principles remain basis US policy. Deptels 1329 and 1477³ consistent these principles and point out that security considerations and economic hardship are factors in determining US position on particular items in negots other govts. There is no intention to use threat withholding ECA aid to force acquiescence Eur Govts in US policies on export controls or particular strategic items, for US policy in long run will be infinitely more effective if based on spirit and principle cooperation and common recognition of dangers in development military potential Soviet Union and satellites.

It is our understanding that this has consistently been position of OSR since initiation of program. State and ECA do not understand change in position reflected in urtel.

Acheson

1. Paragraph 1 of the telegram under reference here, not printed, proposed that seamless pipe and tubing, included in American 1–A List (embargo) and on International List III, be included in further approaches to the French Government regarding the export to Eastern Europe of ECA-financed strategic items. The telegram went on to suggest that the time had come for a careful reexamination of the relationship between the control of the export of strategic items and ECA financing. It suggested that all ECA programming and procurement be screened for possible East-West trade implications. ECA financing could generally be denied in those cases where adequate safeguards against the export of strategic items had not been established by the participating country concerned (450.6031/4–750).
2. Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. iv, p. 564.
3. Dated March 27 and April 4, respectively, neither printed; they were concerned with negotiations in the Coordinating Committee for addition of specific items to International List I (840.00R/3–2550 and 450.6031/3–2950).