Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Germany and Austria, Volume II

740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–1748: Telegram

The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State

secret
us urgent
niact

London, December 17, 1948—midnight.

5277. Ruhrto 50. 1. Following is status of progress on French proposals (see Ruhrto 42¹). Draft now being discussed on first proposal reads as follows:²

[“] (A) At end of control period, or at such earlier time as agreed by occupying powers, such of powers at present vested in occupation authorities as are necessary to ensure

(I) That subsequent modifications in structure of Ruhr coal, coke and steel industries and trade and marketing organizations of such industries do not establish excessive concentration economic power,

(II) That persons who are found to have furthered aggressive designs National Socialist Party do not hold important positions in direction or management, or substantial interests in ownership, Ruhr coal, coke or steel industries or trade and marketing organizations of such industries and

(III) That adequate information such subjects is made available, will be transferred to authority unless MSB, its successor or some other body created by international agreement is charged with ensuring achievement these objectives with respect these and other industries in Germany. If other body so charged, authority shall cooperate with that body.

(B) (As soon as practicable) (not later than twelve months after the coming into force of the present agreement) and in any event before end control period, signatory governments will consult and determine, in light experience of occupation authorities

(I) Which of powers at present vested in the occupation authorities should be continued as provided Paragraph (A),

(II) Whether such powers will be transferred to authority, MSB, its successor or some other body created by international agreement,

(III) Manner in which such powers will be exercised, and,

(IV) In event powers being so transferred to another body, manner in which authority will cooperate with such other body.”

2. (A) Reference Paragraph (A) (I) in above draft, British having difficulties due to extraordinary Cabinet sensitiveness to any language which might concede concentration. Principal British discussion is with French who fear nationalization by Germans would constitute a security threat. We believe that any compromise which British and French reach on this matter will probably be satisfactory to US.

(B) Reference Paragraph (A) (II), USDel will attempt to change language as instructed first sentence ToRuhr 33.³

(C) Parenthesis at beginning of Paragraph (B) quoted above are British and French alternatives respectively, French desiring that decisions regarding transfer of powers should be made within 12 months. British wish to avoid definite commitment, with which we agree since we believe that decision should not be made until shortly before end control period and during next 12 months little practical experience will have been gained.

(D) In general USDel believes principles in article quoted above are substantially same as those in US draft quoted Ruhrto 41 and commented on ToRuhr 33.

3. Present draft of second French proposal (revision of Paragraph 4 Ruhrto 42) reads as follows:

“(A) At end of control period, or at such earlier time as agreed by occupying powers, such of powers over direction and management of Ruhr coal, coke and steel industries at present vested in occupation authorities as are necessary to ensure

(I) That general policies followed (in production, development and investment) in those industries are in conformity with purposes stated in preamble present agreement,

(II) That programs for such production, development, and investment may be disapproved to extent they would not, if carried out, be in conformity with purposes stated in preamble present agreement, and

(III) That adequate information concerning such policies and programs be made available, will be transferred to authority, unless transferred to MSB, its successor, or some other body created by international agreement.

(B) (As soon as practicable) (not later than 12 months after coming into force present agreement) and in any event before end control period, signatory governments will consult and determine, in light of experience of occupation authorities,

(I) Which of powers at present vested in occupation authorities should be continued as provided Paragraph (A),

(II) Whether such powers will be exercised by authority, by MSB, its successor or some other body created by international agreement,

(III) Manner in which such powers will be exercised if transferred to authority, and

(IV) The relationship between authority and MSB or its successor, or with any other body to which powers mentioned in Paragraph (A) may be transferred.”

4. (A) Parenthesis in first sentence Paragraph (B) quoted above, same as in Paragraph (B) quoted in Paragraph 1 of this message.

(B) While USDel recognizes that relating powers to preamble presents vaguer criteria than proposed Section E Ruhrto 34,⁴ it is assumed that after control period some powers to prevent use of Ruhr industries for purposes of aggression will be vested in some body, that since principal purpose of IAR is to ensure access to Ruhr resources, we would not oppose the maintenance of such powers as are necessary to ensure that policies followed in these industries do not deny access. Other two purposes stated in preamble have positive advantages and would permit discussions which will be held later pursuant to article quoted above, to consider positive developments of IAR rather than merely concentrate restrictive and security aspects. It is for this reason that we see some advantage in using preamble as terms of reference of future meaning under article quoted above. If, however, Department believes we should restrict powers to security field alone, as suggested in Wilds-Jackson phone call,⁵ please instruct most urgently.⁶

5. All discussions of USDel have been on basis of acquiring confirmation from government. Furthermore, we have made point, as have French, that governments may not wish to approve IAR agreement until it can be studied together with arrangements for MSB, occupation statute, German constitution, et cetera. Incidentally, British have advised they can not approve prior to middle February due to long Parliamentary recess. Although Parliamentary ratification not required, practice requires holding agreement before Parliament for three weeks before formal execution.

6. At plenary 16 December⁷ other delegates agreed in principle to US proposal on review and appeal as contained in Douglas telegram to Reber 15 December,⁸ subject to some drafting changes and substantive change to provide that Germany would have to have at least two supporters in appealing action regarding security functions of IAR.

Repeated Paris 1046, Berlin 671.

Douglas

1. Telegram 5245, Ruhrto 42, December 15, from London, not printed, transmitted the texts of two proposed articles to the draft Ruhr agreement submitted by Alphand at the 17th Meeting of the London Conference On the Ruhr, December 14 (740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–4548).
2. The French proposals reported upon in this telegram were considered at the 18th Meeting of the London Conference on the Ruhr, on the morning of December 15. A copy of the U.S. Delegation Minutes of the 18th Meeting was transmitted to the Department of State as an enclosure to despatch 6, January 3, 1949, from London, neither printed. (740.00119 Control (Germany)/1–349)
3. Regarding the message under reference here, see footnote 3 to telegram 5209, Ruhrto 37, December 11, from London, p. 559.
4. London telegram 5170, December 9, p. 553.
5. A record of tine trans-Atlantic telephone conversation Tinder reference, held at 6 p. m. on December 15, is included in the CFM Files, Lot M–88, Box 126, File—Six Power Conference to Establish Ruhr Authority, Misc. Materials.
6. Comments and instructions on the French proposals discussed in this telegram were forthcoming in telegrams 4694, ToRuhr 35, and 4698, ToRuhr 39, both sent to London on December 17, neither printed (740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–1748). Telegram 5292. Ruhrto 52, December 17, from London, not printed, reported that after long discussions at the 22nd Meeting of the London Conference on the Ruhr on December 17, revised versions of the French proposals were agreed upon. These revised versions were substantially the same as those subsequently included as articles 18 and section (a) of article 19 of the Draft Agreement Establishing an International Authority for the Ruhr, December 28, 1948; see the editorial note, p. 576.
7. The reference here is to the 20th Meeting of the London Conference on the Ruhr, held on the morning of December 16. A copy of the U.S. Delegation Minutes of the 20th Meeting was transmitted to the Department of State as an enclosure to despatch 13, January 4, 1949, from London, neither printed. (740.00119 Control (Germany)/1–449)
8. Not printed.