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

740.00119 Control (Germany)/12–1848: Telegram

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

secret
us urgent

London, December 18, 1948—9 p. m.

5298. Ruhrto 54. At plenary morning¹ December 18 following action:

1. OEEC relationship: Long discussion clarified following points:

(a) US draft² on relationship of IAR allocations and OEEC programs is wholly separate conference paper which will be described as US paper to which other delegations agreed.

(b) Arrangements between occupation authorities concerned and IAR re procedures need not be written, but worked out as practical matter, including any changes from US paper referred to in (a) above.

(c) In view of above clarifications and after considerable discussion, USDel agreed to language quoted paragraph 3, Ruhrto 49, as authorized ToRuhr 40.³

2. Re pig iron as authorized ToRuhr 36,⁴ USDel agreed exceptional inclusion pig iron for allocation only when authorized by twelve affirmative votes. France and Netherlands said they would have to obtain instructions to approve. USDel believes they probably will.

3. During long discussion, French and Benelux delegates expressed extreme reluctance to provide that representative of German Government should have right to attend all meetings of Council and right to speak. Principal argument was that if Germans had such right, there would be no incentive for them to accede. Finally, USDel obtained reluctant acceptance of following language for Article IV (seven draft):

• “(a) When German Government is established, it may appoint a delegate to authority with right to attend meetings of Council. At such time as German Government becomes entitled to cast votes allocated to Germany, as provided Article IX (C), it may appoint representative on Council and alternate.
• “(b) The occupation authorities concerned shall be represented at Council by one of their nationals jointly designated by them, until such time as votes allocated to Germany are cast by German representative.”

And following language for Article IX(C): “The votes allocated to Germany shall be cast as unit by representative of occupation authorities concerned is appointed as provided in Article IV, until occupying powers concerned determine that German Government, by accession or by other means, has assumed the responsibilities placed upon Germany by present agreement. Thereafter such votes shall be cast by German representative.”

4. French and British raised questions as to how joint representative of Military Governors would be chosen and how decision would be made on casting German vote. Re first, it was left that designation of representative would have to be agreed between occupation authorities concerned. Re second, USDel stated US position that instructions to representative of occupation authorities concerned would be determined by established procedures relating subject matter of those instructions. When instructions involved a subject as to which it had been established that occupation authorities concerned should act by unanimous or majority agreement, that procedure would apply to issuing instructions. Where subject matter was within the scope of a special procedure, instructions would be determined in accordance with that special procedure. It was clearly understood by all delegates that US position was that fusion agreement would apply to giving of instructions on matter falling within scope of fusion agreement. This was made doubly clear by USDel statement that there should be a minute applicable to this Article similar to minute in Annex D⁵ applicable to Article IV Annex C. British made statement that in their view instructions should be given to representative of occupation authorities concerned by Bipartite Board and, after trizonal fusion, by Tripartite Board and further that present proceedings did not prevent British from discussing this matter on intergovernmental basis. USDel took note of British statement. There was some discussion of whether reference to trizonal fusion agreement should be made in note reserving rights under fusion agreement. French stated they believed anomalous to reserve rights under agreement not in existence and said this matter should come up in connection with trizonal fusion agreement. (French tentatively asked whether their participation JEIA and control groups made them an occupying power concerned. British and USDels indicated that would happen only when trizonal fusion agreement was in force.) In view of understanding of Ambassador Douglas as to position General Clay took last spring of preferring to handle in Germany and in absence of instructions in answer Ruhrto 20⁶ USDel did not press this matter further.

5. Further effort was made to obtain agreement other delegates to required yearly review by governments of work of authority. Alphand consulting Paris.

Sent Department; repeated Paris 1056, Berlin 681.

Douglas

1. No U.S. Delegation record of this Conference meeting has been found; it appears to be an unnumbered meeting.
2. The reference here is to document RC/18, infra.
3. Neither of the telegrams under reference here is printed. Under reference here is the language that ultimately appeared in Article 14, paragraph (a), subparagraph (iii) in the Draft Agreement on the Ruhr of December 28, 1948.
4. Not printed.
5. Document TRI/23 (Final), May 26, p. 290, an agreed minute of the London Conference on Germany, was included as Annex D of the Report of the Conference, June 1, p. 309.
6. Dated November 30, not printed.