763.72119/10266: Telegram
The Chargé in France (Harrison) to the Secretary of State
Paris, August 5,
1920—7 p.m.
[Received August 6—12:59 p.m.]
[Received August 6—12:59 p.m.]
1507. B–189. For Davis.
- 1st.
- In my no. B–17376 regarding coal protocol, second annex, Germany’s assent, find this is mistake so now necessary for Powers, or Commission acting as agent for Powers, obtain Germany’s assent to second annex, also third annex or memorandum (see paragraph first my B–173), also amendment to Spa protocol, arranged between Lloyd George and Millerand at last conference Boulogne. This last protocol still requires assent of Italy and Belgium but this assent may be assumed.
- [2d.]
- Boulogne protocol requests Reparation Commission to [assure] execution of all details under Spa coal protocol including advances by Powers; provides also for determination by Commission of amount of advances which necessarily depend upon amount of coal delivered and deals with certain practical details in this connection; provides also for issue of bonds by Germany which was not mentioned in Spa protocol. First reading give[s] impression Allies [Page 418] mean to make Germany issue bonds which they will negotiate either with or without their own indorsement in order to raise funds with which to make advances. Such protocol would seem substantial change in Spa protocol to disadvantage Germany but Millerand explains to Dubois Powers intend to make advances exactly on the lines of Spa protocol and merely expect Germany to deliver bonds when and as advances made, also in informal discussion seems expected that Allies will divide bonds in proportion to advances and each Power will be at liberty to negotiate bonds or not at its own pleasure. Apparently England has no present intention negotiate its share of bonds.
- 3d.
- Jurisdiction given to Commission by Boulogne protocol is direct result of French effort bring Reparation Commission close to proceedings and enhance prestige. Bond proposition interpreted on lines above stated although not specifically provided in Spa protocol is natural corollary to advances and ought not to arouse objection on the part of Germany. Provision in second annex for repayment of advances May 1, 1921, with 6 per cent interest also natural corollary of Spa protocol combined with article 235 treaty. Germany[’s] ready acquiescence these details however probably dependent on interpretation of protocol affecting method of repayment of advances. My inclination is to interpret protocol to mean that Germany is free to utilize for payment of advances any assets available including assets remaining to be delivered under annex article 8. Some members of the Commission inclined to believe that coal deliveries even will apply against advances but this seems to be questionable. Either interpretation has substantial effect of paying advances out of assets which Germany necessarily must deliver, only result unfavorable to Germany being that such payments will not be credited on reparations. Assuming any such interpretation no occasion Germany worry about details proposed but such assumption must not be regarded as final because evidently quite doubtful if Powers in signing protocol realized what language meant when applied to treaty.
- 4.
- Never have thought priority provisions of protocol serious from United States point of view. Foregoing possibilities make them seem even less important. Nevertheless in view of fact that discussion of provisions brought up questions relating to priority and to army costs I thought desirable place formal statement on record with commission. I quote this statement in succeeding paragraph.
- 5th.
- “In view of the arrangements between the Powers concerned as to the priority to be afforded their advances under the terms of the Spa protocol, the United States Unofficial Delegate makes no protest or reserve, merely pointing out that the [these] decisions to [Page 419] which the United States is not a party do not [affect] the position of the United States. With respect to the course [costs] of the United States army of occupation he adds that the United States obviously understands and expects that it will be reimbursed in cash for the actual cost and that it will be notified at once if its army is not wanted on these terms. In this connection he refers to the letter from the American Delegation to the O[rganization] C[ommittee,] Reparation] C[ommission], dated November 28, 1919, with its accompanying memorandum.”77
- [6th.]
- Reference in the last sentence foregoing statement to memorandum regarding costs United States army of occupation submitted to Supreme Council by White and placed on record with Reparation Commission by Rathbone as stated on the date mentioned.
- 7th.
- Commission ordered my statement made part of the record leaving to individual delegates question of communicating it to their respective governments. Chairman suggested that doubtless the United States Government would itself bring subject to attention other governments. I added that inter-Allied percentage agreement showed it offered to discuss army costs question with the United States and this would afford opportunity for discussion whole matter. Boyden.
Harrison