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

740.00119 Control (Germany)/3–2549: Telegram

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

[Extracts]¹

secret

London, March 25, 1949—9 a.m.

1208. Following aide-mémoire re certain outstanding German questions was transmitted to me yesterday just prior to Bevin’s departure. Our comments thereon follow text.

A. Foreign Office aide-mémoire:²

“Political program in Germany: Following is present position in regard to various items of program:

1. Occupation statute. French have agreed to German judge on court (thus completing agreement on occupation statute proper), provided that satisfactory agreement is reached over Kehl and tripartite control.

As regards Kehl, British and French have reached provisional compromise agreement but US delegates have instructions which do not permit them to go whole way towards meeting French requirements.

Question of this little port is relatively unimportant, and what is required is a solution which will give French essentially what they want, in a form which recognizes German rights.

2. Tripartite control. US delegation produced on their own responsibility draft which French Government reluctantly accepted after personal intervention of M. Schuman. Unfortunately, however, this draft was not endorsed by State Department, and after considerable delay a new American redraft has been tabled. But the [French] do not like the redraft and are annoyed at having the question reopened. They have accordingly declined to resume negotiations, and hope reach a settlement in Washington.

French Ambassador has been strongly urged to resume negotiations London on understanding that if agreement is not reached within week, points of difference may be referred to three Foreign Ministers in Washington.

In order to reach quick agreement on tripartite control, what is required is broad-minded and elastic approach to problems of:—

(a) Suspensory period of [in?] event of disagreement between Military Governors;

(b) American weighted voting rights in JEIA matters and matters inherited from JEIA.”

. . . . . . .

B. Embassy’s comments:

1. Occupation statute: Statement that French agreement to inclusion German judge would complete draft occupation statutes substantially correct. There are, however, two minor points still to be settled with French: Note re paragraph 11 and language Paragraph 12 and accompanying note (see Embtel 984 March 16 repeated Berlin 153³). US views on Kehl as contained Deptels 875, March 15, repeated Berlin 313⁴ and 881, March 16, repeated Berlin 314⁵ will be made known to French at plenary scheduled for March 28. Substance of them has already been conveyed to British. We are inclined to agree with Foreign Office that question port of Kehl is relatively unimportant compared to major issues on which we have been negotiating. Provided reasonable solution can be found between Anglo-French formula and US position which would ensure protection German interests, recommend that we accept it without delay if by doing so we would secure agreement to occupation Statute and trizonal principles on lines we desire.

2. Tripartite control: British statement present situation incorrect. “Draft” to which Foreign Office refers was working paper prepared by US Delegation for use as suitable frame for further discussion at drafting committee: It was made abundantly clear to British and French that document had not been approved by US Govt and in no way implied acceptance by US Delegation of any of proposals put forward by French. We do not feel that it was “reluctantly accepted” by French Government since except for minor objections French Representative on drafting committee indicated that it would be satisfactory to them. It is undoubtedly true that French do not like US redraft since it not only removes possibility veto of action by one government but also drastically reduces period of suspension for appeals. Do not believe that French are “annoyed” at having question re-opened but rather by three-week delay in submission US redraft. Furthermore, their unwillingness to resume negotiations is believed to reflect feeling that they might obtain more satisfactory settlement at Washington than at meeting here.

On basis informal discussions we have had with British during past 10 days, differences over weighted voting do not appear to be limited to “US rights in JEIA matters and matters inherited from JEIA” but relate to US right to have predominant voice in legislative and administrative actions directly affecting German foreign trade and foreign exchange. British are willing agree that US shall have weighted vote re approval or disapproval German legislative and administrative actions in these fields and that US Military Governor can prevent enactment Military Government legislation proposed by his two colleagues. However, they will not admit that US Military Governor shall have right to use weighted vote to require passage Military Government legislation or taking of administrative action by Military Governors despite objections his two colleagues. British feel they cannot put their Military Governor in position where he would be obliged to subscribe to any legislation which US Military Governor might propose on grounds of which he alone would be judge that might affect US contribution. Kirkpatrick says no British Government could present such agreement to Parliament.

. . . . . . .

Douglas

1. For the remaining portions of this telegram, see p. 229.
2. The original aide mémoire, handed to Ambassador Douglas on March 23, is in London Post Files: Lot 58F47: Box 1394: 350 Germany.
3. Not printed; it summarized the outstanding questions on the occupation statute and the principles of trizonal fusion. (740.00119 Control (Germany)/3–1649)
4. Ante, p. 51.
5. Not printed, but see footnote 5 to telegram 875, p. 51.