Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, Council of Foreign Ministers; Germany and Austria, Volume III

740.00119 Control (Germany)/2–349: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom

secret

Washington, March 3, 1949—7 p.m.

713.¹ For Holmes. 1. Understand (reurtel 579, Feb. 15²) proposed agreement re basic principles wld be in form of annex to report to govts (urtel 401, Feb. 3³). Believe it will be desirable for three MilGovs soonest to resume discussions re which matters to be handled on tripartite basis and which are unilateral, and re form of tripartite organization, in accordance with principles to be agreed in Lond. Bal. of issues involved in trizonal fusion shld be negotd on governmental level preferably in Wash because:

(1) Trizonal fusion shld continue pattern established by US–UK fusion agreements far as practicable.

(2) Obligations re such matters as contributions, repayment, objections, duration must be assumed by govts.

(3) Terms of fusion agreement must harmonize with objectives ECA.

(4) Financial terms must be in accord overall US policy necessitating coordination with Treas.

2. Fol. comments numbered according para. 4 urtel 579.

(1) Concur.

(2) Concur.

Comment: Our suggestion that occupation costs shld req. unanimous approval designed to enable US to block proposal by other powers to levy excessive costs. Believe US adequately protected by appeal procedure under ur para (4) since occupation costs are reserved by Art. II para 2 Occupation Statute. Army advises however Gen. Clay feels our acceptance of unanimous agreement on Fed. Constitution amendments shld only be made final in return for major concessions to US on other points.

(3) Concur.

(4) Concur provided fol. added interest clarity “and shall not prevent action in case govt agreement is not reached.”

Comment: We note with satisfaction that concept of appeal in matters not in conformity “basic tripartite policy” appears more restrictive than formula in Fr. memo and urtel 522 Feb. 10.⁴

(5) Will instruct soonest.⁵

(6) Suggest fol. wording: “All actions of occupation authorities re Germany shall in principle be considered of tripartite interest, except as otherwise determined by MilGovns.”

Comment: Above reversal order ur clauses seems desirable to state gen. principle first and exception later. Assume any exceptions to gen. principle will req. unanimous agreement among MilGovns.

(7) Suggest fol. wording: “Organization of MilGovt in three zones shall be determined by the three MilGovns and shall be of nature to permit occupation authorities to exercise their common responsibility by means of uniform, tripartite policy and directives.”

Comment: Above change intended make clear that organization details shld be left to MilGovns.

(8) Concur.

3. Cannot approve any form appeal by MilGovns resulting in unlimited suspension action by less than majority. If you cannot sell ur para (3) we cld agree to para along lines ur alternative (para 5 urtel) provided unlimited appeal eliminated by inclusion formula along lines 2nd sentence ur para (3).

4. Army concurs.

Acheson

1. Repeated to Paris as 682 and Berlin as 252.
2. Ante, p. 38.
3. Not printed.
4. Ante, p. 32.
5. In telegram 747, March 6, to London, not printed, Holmes was instructed to proceed with one of the following alternatives with respect to paragraph 5: seek agreement on the formula in telegram 613, February 23, to London (see footnote 3 to telegram 579, February 15, p. 38) or agree to the formula transmitted in telegram 489, February 8, from London (not printed, but summarized in paragraph 1 of telegram 507, February 11, p. 36) provided a statement was recorded in the minutes clearly giving the United States a major voice in those matters which affected foreign trade and exchange. The Department of State with the Army’s concurrence preferred the first alternative, but Holmes could select either alternative depending on which would help obtain final agreement. (740.00119 Control (Germany)/2–1549)