Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Foreign Aid and Economic Defense Policy, Volume X

101. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, March 7, 1956¹

Washington, March 7, 1956.

SUBJECT

• China Trade Controls

PARTICIPANTS

• Sir Hubert Graves, Minister, British Embassy
• Mr. J. A. McCall-Judson, First Secretary, British Embassy
• Outerbridge Horsey, Director, BNA

Sir Hubert called at his request and said that his Embassy was under persistent instructions from London to seek information from the Department as to when we would be able to move forward on the commitment which the President had made during Prime Minister Eden’s visit, to review the controls “now and periodically”, to use the words of the communiqué.²

Sir Hubert said that it was six weeks since the word “now” had been used. Ministers were being pressed in the House, where a number of questions on this subject would have to be answered during the next week. Illustrating this pressure, Sir Hubert said that the President of the Board of Trade had been obliged to say the other day in the House that he was giving consideration to publishing the China differential list. (He did not raise the point which Sir Roger raised with the Secretary on February 28, as to our opinion on their desire to give the French Government a copy of the list which they had given us before the Eden talks.) Sir Hubert said that the British Government was also under a great deal of pressure at all the capitals of the CG countries. There was particular pressure from the French, Japanese and Danes. He asked me if I could tell him how the review of the Dodge Council was progressing and when we thought we would be ready to raise the subject in the CG.

I reviewed with Sir Hubert various offices in the Department concerned with this subject and said that, while EUR had a natural interest in it because of its effect on our relations with the U.K., I understood that the Secretary had assigned responsibility for handling it to Mr. Prochnow, both as regards action within the United States Government and action with other governments. I said that, although I knew of certain steps being taken in consideration of this very complex matter, I was not sufficiently familiar with them to give him authoritative information. I said that I was afraid that, under these circumstances, anything which I said would confuse rather than clarify the issue.

Sir Hubert said he understood this but said the Ambassador had suggested he come to see me since I had been present when his Ambassador saw the Secretary on February 28 and had been assured by the Secretary that he would see that word would be got to the British Embassy.

I said that I would be glad to make arrangements for him to see Mr. Prochnow or Mr. Kalijarvi. He appreciated this and asked that such an appointment be made as soon as possible.³

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 493.009/3–756. Confidential. Drafted by Horsey.
2. Reference is to the joint statement of President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Eden, issued on February 1; for text, see Department of State Bulletin, February 13, 1956, pp. 232–234.
3. On March 9, Graves met with Kalijarvi and again raised this matter. During the conversation, Kalijarvi remarked: “The prospects now are that within the reasonably near future the United States should be able to reach an agreement on its position and that a CG meeting might possibly be held in the middle of April.” (Memorandum of conversation by Kalijarvi; Department of State, Central Files, 493.009/3–756)