740.00119 EW/3–2249: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom


987.1 For the Amb.

Duration and review. Understand from ur 1106 Mar 222 that duration point is now key question on which agreement depends. There has been continuing disagreement between us and Brit and Fr on this subject. Brit and Fr have wanted agreement which would last until treaty and would thereafter be agreed position of three Govts in peace treaty discussions. We have been unwilling to commit ourselves re treaty, in connection with which we feel there shld be full review of [Page 584] all related aspects of settlement. We are not clear, ur para 7, whether Brit and Fr understand para 4 Deptel 9443 which leaves situation on individual points open at time of treaty. In this connection, US has agreed to principle of demilitarization, disarmament and control of industry for security purposes in Annex L of London Agreement.4 Our opposition is to committing ourselves indefinitely to individual points of specific implementation. If we were to commit ourselves to all individual prohibitions and limitations under discussion until such time as it might be unanimously agreed by three Powers to modify them, we wld in effect be making part of peace treaty. We have not submitted any of agreements respecting Germany to Senate and have assured Senate leaders that Senate will have opportunity to review settlement when treaty is made. Do not understand Bevin’s question about legality of agreement we propose. Provision for duration of any agreement can be made whatever parties wish.

Re limitations (restrictions) question centers around steel limit, altho other limitations are also important. In case of steel, we have committed ourselves to continuation of 10.7 level until treaty unless treaty unduly delayed. What we are now doing is making more specific provision for eventuality of delay. We can see that, in light of our previous statements that we do not favor continuing steel limit after treaty is concluded, our proposal may be construed by Brit and Fr as foreshadowing our intent not to agree to any steel or other limit after cut-off date. We did not intend this, but merely to leave matter open without implication one way or another.

Suggest as possible solution wording language to cover 4(b) of our 944 as follows: “The restrictions on the steel, etc, industries shall continue until June 30, 1952 and thereafter as agreed.” In addition, we wld be prepared to have agreed statement in minute or some other appropriate form substantially as follows: “The provision fixing the duration of the limitations on the ––––– industries does not imply that these restrictions may not be renewed on June 30, 1952, but that they shall be reviewed in the light of the circumstances then prevailing, including the requirements for security of the Allied Powers, the state and effectiveness of arrangements for preserving security, and the needs of European economy.”

It shld be quite clear among the three Govts that this means that a continuation will be, as we have said before, the result of a new agreement, and we must be free so to inform Congress.

[Page 585]

We wld not object to making review as of June 30, 1952, modifications to be effective December 31, 1952.

Is it your view, if you find it impossible to obtain agreement to suggested language, that it might be possible to do so by providing that determination re continuation with respect to phrase “and thereafter as agreed” be made by majority vote. This idea has not been cleared and shld not be discussed with Brit and Fr.

Re proposal para (c) Deptel 944, we have no particular point in mind in proposing this understanding. We agree that it shld not be made public. Our reason for proposing it is that we feel it shld be open to any of the Govts, if it believes there is warrant in a review of any particular phase of agreement, to approach other Govts with request for such review without being open to charge of bad faith. If other two Govts did not agree that changes were necessary, arrangement wld continue as provided.

Shipping. Dept wld be prepared to support tonnage figure on coastal ships. Our info is that coastal type vessels for that area do not generally run in excess of 4000 tons except ore carriers which run 5000–6000.
In view info in CC 8030 Mar 205 from Wilkinson hope you can persuade Brit to retain styrene capacity. Comment US chemical expert that styrene plastics substitutable for urea and bakelite phenolics seems to us to support Wilkinson argument.
Electronic valves. Suggest our formula Deptel 9’50 Mar 196 modified so that “new types valves” require license.
Machine Tools. Re para 2 ur 1106. Does agreement already reached mean that our position in Deptel 823 Mar 117 is agreed? This is what we want and our difficulty is that felt here language quoted in II (I) of ur 994 is not clear. We wish language so clarified. If this is done, you may disregard Deptel 950 except for making clear that MSB acts under direction of MilGovs.
Humphrey Committee List. Brit proposed in the London discussions with Humphrey Committee plant BS 57 Hattingen be substituted for BS 60 on Wolf’s tentative list, since they had no fundamental objection to retention crude steel and plate capacity represented by BS 57. We agree to nine plants proposed, but request you explore and seek agreement Brit and Fr retain BS 57 in lieu BS 60.
  1. Repeated to Paris as 898 and Berlin as 344.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Ante, p. 573.
  4. For the text of the London Agreement on demilitarization, disarmament, and control of industry (Annex L), see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. ii, p. 291.
  5. Not found in Department of State files.
  6. Not printed; for a summary of this telegram including the United States formula on electronic valves, see footnote 5 to telegram 944, March 18, p. 573.
  7. Ante, p. 560. Regarding the United States position on machine tools, see footnote 3 to telegram 993, March 16, p. 567.