840.70/12–2244: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 22—7:45 p.m.]
11397. From EITO Delegation. ReDepts 10610, December 20. British have specifically stated that HMG would subscribe to the Dutch annex on inland waterways.
As stated in the Embassy’s 11337 of December 21, Secretary of French Embassy has indicated that they will have substantial modifications to suggest.
There is no indication of Soviet attitude.
We agree that it should be specifically stated in the annex, in the same terms as in the agreement itself, that it is subject to the same overriding military authority, and will see to it that such a provision is inserted in the annex.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article VI of November 11 draft (in subsequent draft, referred to as EIT/26,37 transmitted to [in] despatch [Page 926] No. 19765 of December 8 [9], paragraph 3 has become paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article XIV, and paragraph 4 is now paragraph 3 of Article VI) were drafted to cover the zones of occupation in Germany allocated to the occupying powers. Our concern, as explained in Embassy’s 11296 of December 13 [20] is with the degree of control of transport which the zonal commander would be able to exercise independently of the Control Council. This would apply to paragraph 2 of Article XI in so far as that section is applicable to occupied territory.
While we agree that Article VIII, section 10 of the November 11 draft (paragraph 11 of Article VIII in EIT/26) is applicable to the Control Council, we also believe that the paragraphs of Article VI referred to above are applicable to the occupied zones and possible conflict may arise between the commitments in the EITO agreement and the commitments in the agreement setting up the control commission for Germany. The Foreign Office is of the same opinion and has stated that their legal advisers have informed them that the EITO agreement could not be signed by HMG without appropriate reservations.
It would seem to us, however, that our reservation could be limited to an indication that our commitments under the EITO agreement, in so far as occupied territory was concerned, would be subject to our commitments in the agreement setting up the German control commission. It would seem that the provisions of Article VIII, section 10 of the November 11 draft (Article VIII, paragraph 11 of EIT/26) would bind us to use our best efforts to secure the implementations by the control commission of the policies and recommendations of the organization. While we fully agree with the Department that reservations are undesirable, we feel that they are unavoidable. This dilemma is one of the reasons for the Foreign Office advocacy of the procedure described in the Embassy’s 11309, December 20, whereby the agreement would not be open for signature until a time when, it is hoped, the considerations preventing Soviet adherence have been removed. If the Soviets should still be unwilling to adhere at that time, the dilemma, of course, would still be with us.
As stated in Embassy’s 11296 of December 20, we agree that if the control commission is prevented from functioning by lack of unanimity with respect to any particular issue, each member government having responsibility for a zone of occupation would be the authority in that zone with respect to that issue to the extent that it was not covered by the general pronouncements and policies of the commission. However, as indicated in Embassy’s 11296 of December 20, it seems clear that inland transport cannot be satisfactorily administered without unified control and that, therefore, the necessities of the situation [Page 927] are likely to force the Control Council into some sort of agreement.
We will secure the information requested in the last paragraph of the Department’s 10610 as promptly as possible. [EITO Delegation.]