740.00119 Council/5–1048: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom ( Douglas ) to the Secretary of State
2019. Delsec 1726. At informal meeting between heads of delegations question was raised as to propriety and advisability of Benelux nations becoming actual parties to any general agreements which may be reached here and particularly the agreements regarding international control of Ruhr and future political organization for Germany. It is view of US/UK delegates that Benelux nations should not be parties to such agreements for reasons that their inclusion as parties would partake too much of nature of a peace treaty.1 If agreements were concluded as between three occupying powers this would preserve their nature as executive agreements, render them less vulnerable Soviet attack as violation of existing quadripartite agreements on Germany and avoid complaints of other countries that agreement with some characteristics of peace treaty had been authenticated by a few non-occupying powers to exclusion of other non-occupying powers.[Page 232]
Final views of Benelux not yet ascertained but some indication received that this would be acceptable to them. It is understood that their rights tinder agreements and in case of Ruhr agreement, nature and extent of role which they will play would not be affected.
- In telegram 1708, May 11, to London, not printed, the Department agreed with Ambassador Douglas’ position that the Benelux countries should, not become formal parties to agreements (740.00119 Council/5–1148).↩