840.50 Recovery/4–648: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
1792. Rece 52. Alphand opened meeting last night called to discuss certain questions concerning Germany’s relationship to continuing organization, etc., (see paragraph 8, Rece 50)1 saying he had four points to bring up:
- 1.
- Method by which zones would adhere to final document.
- 2.
- Conditions concerning zonal adherence to be recorded at time of signing.
- 3.
- Presence of Germans at plenary session.
- 4.
- Proposed MFN provision.
Regarding point 1, Alphand said possibilities were either (a) for military governors to sign principal document along with other signatories or (b) for sixteen nations to sign principal document and to invite zones to adhere by signing separate protocol. For technical and French psychological reasons, French favored (b). US and British bizone representatives argued for (a), advancing psychological reasons from standpoint Germany. Alphand eventually agreed that technical argument unimportant and only real factor was psychological. Alphand suggested reserving decision this point pending discussion second point.
Regarding point 2, Alphand stated that French considered it desirable to include some statement in document indicating that adherence by zonal authorities was subject to certain limitations. He mentioned fact that adherence must be subject to provisions eventual peace treaty, to necessary security measures and to level of industry limitations. After considerable argument, British suggested possibility [Page 410] military governors making some statement for record at time of signing to meet French qualms. This seemed possible acceptable compromise to all present, but Alphand said he must consult Bidault and the bizone representatives also reserved right to consult military governors. Actual language of proposed statement would presumably be worked out in next day or two if this procedure acceptable to US, UK and French authorities. In such event, presumably military governors would sign principal document at same level with representatives of other participating countries. (Wilkinson talked to General Clay by telephone today and he reports Clay does not feel any statement either written or verbal regarding limitations on German adherence are justified and is not willing accept such compromise on grounds it would unnecessarily hamper evolution of Germany as full and responsible members of CEEC as agreed at London. This may raise serious problem with French and, in absence our ability bring them around, question must be resolved between Washington and General Clay. Please telegraph your views urgently.)
Regarding point 3, Alphand reiterated French position against having any Germans present at signing (see Embtel 1770, April 5). Bizone representatives presented their case and British Foreign Office representative stated that he had just received word that British Government would approve having one German attend with Robertson. It was agreed that resolution of this matter could not be accomplished at meeting, but must await results French high level approach to Washington and London.
Regarding point 4, both British and French representatives expressed opposition to inclusion of MFN provision in multilateral agreement. US representative suggested matter could be more appropriately discussed at smaller meeting of experts. This agreed and meeting will be held today.
Sent Department as 1792, repeated London as 243 and to Berlin for Murphy as 141.
- Telegram 1765 to Paris, April 5, 1948, not printed.↩