840.70/12–1244: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
10400. For EITO Delegation, reEmbs 11003, December 12. Final decision has not been reached on question of authority in occupied areas. At present it is contemplated that unanimous agreement of the Control Commission would be required for matters affecting the whole German economy. However, the individual Commanders-in-Chief would presumably retain supreme authority within their respective zones of occupation and if unanimity is lacking, they would not be estopped from exercising full authority in their respective zones. Delegation should contact Philip Mosely with respect to interpretation in Embassy’s 11003 of powers of occupying authorities.
Accordingly, while Soviets could veto proposals, it would not prevent the U.S. and U.K. military authorities from proceeding within their zones with proposals acceptable to their Governments. Conversely, Soviets as members of the Control Commission might be prepared to agree to EITO recommendations even though not members of EITO. Even with Soviet adherence to EITO agreement, military considerations might prevent Commanders-in-Chief from implementing certain features of the agreement within their respective zones of occupation.
It is not clear why adherence to EITO agreement by protocol would render it more acceptable to the Soviets than adherence by signature. In either case, agreement would be subject to amendment either under Article XIII or by a protocol of accession by unanimous agreement. Department considers that protocol procedure suggested would delay effective conclusion of agreement and its early and full implementation while it appears to create a precedent placing Soviets in a position to prevent in future any proposed economic mechanisms from functioning effectively until they were ready to come in on their own terms.
[Page 919]If revised agreement incorporates major technical changes proposed by Soviets, Department believes that further “gestures” would not influence their political decision as to participation. Therefore on basis of present information Department would not wish to alter instructions contained in Department’s 10349, December 11.29
- Not printed.↩