320.2–AC/5–551: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Mission at the United Nations
903. Urtel 1487, May 3.1 While we admit there may be some advantage to specificity, we believe great difficulties of both substance and procedure wld be created if UK proposal for specific list of items to be embargoed were pursued in AMC at this stage as substitute for present US formula. We wld, as Jebb indicated, have to press for inclusion of rubber as well as other items useful in production of munitions and for defining or broadening scope of other terms such as “military vehicles”. You might point out to Jebb that, apart from merits desirability controlling rubber, in view recent publicity UK shipments, any specific list on which it was not included would be subjected to great public criticism. We note Jebb feels that if US insists on inclusion such items, UK wld probably prefer existing US formula and therefore hope they can be persuaded do so.
Moreover, if any suggestion for specific list were pursued in AMC at this stage we fear debate on these substantive points might effectively delay for weeks UN action on which agreement in principle wld exist, solely because of disagreement of detail. US proposal is designed to work out detailed matters of substance through review machinery provided in draft res, after basic action has been taken. However, as possible compromise, we wld not object to adding all items mentioned by UK as illustrative of our gen category “items useful in the production of arms, ammunition and implements of war,” so long as it can be made clear that the list is not exhaustive. We doubt, however, that this wld prove more satisfactory to UK than our general formula alone.
Dept wld oppose sug for circularization of members prior to UN action, made by Holmes (Canada). We fear it wld entail long delay and are by no means certain COCOM countries wld wish to communicate to other UN Members precise nature of their existing controls over trade with Chi Commies.
- Telegram 1487 from New York, May 3 (not printed) reported on the Additional Measures Committee meeting of May 3 in which Mr. Jebb submitted a specific list of items which the British Government recommended for embargo. The list did not, Mr. Jebb pointed out, contain the item “rubber.” (320.2–AC/5–551).↩