Telegram from American Embassy, Paris to Secretary of State Dean Acheson

INCOMING TELEGRAM Department of State 6 SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION Action Control: 5485 EUR Rec'd: November 14, 1952 FROM: Paris 10:05 p.m. Info GER TO: Secretary of State DMS SMSA NO: POLTO 662, November 14, 8 p.m. E DCL OLI SENT DEPT POLTO 662; RPTD INFO LONDON POLTO 300, BONN POLTO 153. CIA ARMY EXCON. 1. On Nov 12, COCOM discussed UK ball-bearings cases (EMBTEL 2625 rptd London 603). US del expressed "no change" in former position (as instructed TOPOL 355 rptd London 3261) and suggested comments on cases be postponed until Doc 1002 (DEPTEL 2519 Oct 30) was before comite for consideration since rationale explaining position on specific cases was significant part US gen doc (US del comments on Wash position fol in separate cable). 2. UK agreed, stating not (rpt not) yet ready discuss US gen proposal, but hoped that clarification promised by US in future cut-off proposals, parts listings, etc., wld cover such problems as ball bearings and prior consultation. Felt ball bearings probably biggest single problem confronting comite along line of "minimum shipments" and since US has not (rpt not) yet suggested a cut-off for it, useless to discuss other proposed cut-offs. 3. Ger del then commented at considerable length, although not (rpt not) "formally", on philosophical differences between US and UK proposals. Stated obvious one was drafted by realists who had to trade with bloc; other by theorists who ignored practi- cal problems. One trusted judgment other PCs as to when strategic interests were involved; other left PCs hardly any leeway. Ger felt it was in best position judge comparative value docs since: (A) Geographical position made her most vulnerable of all PCs to Sov attack and thus most personally interested in security problem; (B) Ger most dependent on trade with bloc of all PCs, hence most interested in reducing to minimum nuisance cases which hampered commerce without helping security. Added it was Ger belief most, and probably all other, PCs also supported UK proposal. 4. Ger continued what COCOM needed was policy guidance, not from individual govts. In addition, US not (rpt not) consistent, (rpt not) firm figures which removed possibility discretion since such examples of cut-offs as it had proposed were often lower REPRODUCTION FROM THIS SECRET SECURITY INFORMATION COPY, IF CLASSIFIED, IS -241 PROHIBITED 16-67338-1 GPO