740.00119 Council/4–2348: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
1720. Delsec 1690. Fourth meeting resumed German talks1 continued discussion Item B. USDel circulated additional proposed amendments as follows:2
“Provisions of sub-paragraph (B) of paragraph 5 still under consideration by USDel and treatment proposed will be submitted later.
“Paragraph 6 (C) add ‘as may be arranged through the allied governing authorities’.
“Paragraph 7 during the period of exercise of military government authority by the Allied Powers the occupying authorities concerned [Page 204] will maintain adequate controls over management of the Ruhr coal and coke industry.
“Consideration is being given to changes in paragraph 8 in connection with treatment which will be proposed regarding paragraph 5 (D).
“It is proposed to add a new paragraph as follows:
‘At such time as the allocating powers of the commission shall become operative, appropriate provision shall be made for appeal from the decisions of the commission’.
“It is proposed that the expression ‘military government authority’ [apparent omission] wherever the latter occurs throughout the paper.”
There was brief discussion of proposed new paragraph on appeal from decisions of commission, Douglas commenting that it was difficult for USDel to be more specific at this time reference manner of handling appeal owing to uncertainty as to most appropriate organization. He made it plain that USDel did not consider any appeal procedure was required during period when US bearing major financial burden but that after that period appeals should be provided for in order to prevent abuse of power.
Strang suggested desirability examining all the amendments to determine which were matters of principle and thus required decision around table prior to reference to working party.
Massigli believed questions of principle were involved in good many proposed changes, even in new US proposed preamble. He warned that US desire to restore [remove] punitive touch, which took form deleting all reference to war of aggression, no doubt would please Germans but might create stronger psychological difficulties on allied side.
Douglas indicated main question of principle was raised in US proposed amendment to paragraph 5 (A).
In private meeting after main session principal representatives agreed accept principle that US responsibility during period its major financial contributions to Germany should be protected. Means achieving this not agreed and will be subject further discussion. Subcommittee appointed to see that progress can be made on other US proposed amendments (Wisner and Riddleberger representing US).
Massigli proposed following as additional sub-paragraph (D) to paragraph 5 of March 5 paper: “to ensure safeguard and protection for enterprises involving Allied interests in the Ruhr, particularly in the light of existing or future agreements between France, and the United States of America, Great Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.”
In discussions on this proposal Douglas indicated USDel had no objection to safeguarding and protecting property of allied nationals in Germany or in Ruhr but, as he had said yesterday, he was not sure it was wise to make provision for properties in Ruhr only.
[Page 205]Strang believed there was general agreement that there should be certain protection for allied interests and that only question was whether this was right way to do it. He mentioned Berlin Working Party paper this subject,3 particularly item 1, and proposed that paper should now be studied in order to determine suitability of French amendment.
Douglas referred to paragraph 6(A), item 1, Berlin Working Party paper, the French and Benelux proposal that Allied property should not be subject to measures affecting ownership rights. He asked whether French and Benelux delegates contemplated extra-territorial rights for Allied nationals. Massigli and Van Verduynen replied in negative, but it became clear under further questioning by Douglas that their proposal clearly contemplated such a privileged position for allied nationals. For example, they intended that foreign firms be exempt from any nationalization measures which German Government might enact.
Strang agreed with Douglas it would be impossible to exempt United Nations properties in Germany from such measures as de-concentration, expropriation, decartelization, nationalization and land reform. He felt real problem was one of providing adequate compensation to allied interests affected.
It was agreed appoint small committee (Oppenheimer and Humphrey for US) to examine general question raised in French proposed amendment and in Berlin Working Party report to advise on best way to handle the various questions, i.e. which ones should be considered further in plenary session and which might be referred to working parties.
Next meeting scheduled for Monday afternoon.
Sent Department 1720, repeated USPolAd Berlin 103, Paris 174, Moscow 67, The Hague 36, Brussels 57, Brussels please keep Luxembourg informed, Oslo 33, Copenhagen 28, Stockholm 45, and Rome 108.