CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 140: Tripartite Meeting of the Ministers
Record of a Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France1
This meeting2 was devoted to an examination of Vishinsky’s counter-proposal on a Modus Vivendi for Germany which had just been submitted to the CFM.3
The Ministers agreed that the changes proposed by Vishinsky in the preamble and in paragraphs 2 and 3 (a) of the tripartite proposal4 were acceptable.
It was agreed that the proposed revision of paragraph 3 (a) (ii), which cut out reference to Eastern and Western sectors of Berlin and lumped the whole of Berlin together with the Eastern Zone, could not be accepted. It was thought that Vishinsky might be intending either to include exports of all Berlin in the total balance accruing to the Eastern Zone or to obtain some sort of recognition that Berlin formed a part of the Eastern Zone, or, possibly, to provide the basis for a claim that we could not ship goods into Berlin except in proportion as the Eastern Zone shipped to the Western Zones. It was agreed that we should stick to the language of our proposal.
In regard to Vishinsky’s revision of paragraph 5 on access, Mr. Acheson pointed out that striking out the paragraph on the Autobahn removes the effective guarantee of free access, whereas striking the [Page 1000] provision for the negotiation of an agreement on this subject means merely that the Commanders shall maintain normal communications and transport in their own zones but does not obligate the Soviet Commander to permit us to use the communications and transport facilities in his zone. Mr. Bevin expressed the view that if the second part of the Soviet paragraph was read in the light of the first part that the latter had some substance. Mr. Schuman pointed out there was no reference to the movement of goods or persons but merely to the maintenance of communications. Mr. Bevin felt that the movement of goods and persons might be covered in paragraphs 3 (a) and (b). Mr. Acheson replied that if we were dealing with people of good will the Soviet draft might be satisfactory but that we have had equally good statements from them in the past which have proved to be worthless.
This paragraph merely states that the Soviets would keep communications functioning but does not say that they will not reimpose the blockade as they would be saying if they had accepted our paragraph. He suggested that the Western Ministers not take a final position today on the Soviet draft of this paragraph but inquire of Vishinsky whether in fact he does not intend to reimpose the blockade. If so, could he not find clearer words to express this thought.
As to Vishinsky’s paragraph 6 in regard to German economic bodies, it was agreed that we should stand on the text of our paragraph 4. It was pointed out that Vishinsky’s proposal would establish a German Economic Council which would in fact probably have much wider functions than those relating to trade.
Mr. Bevin inquired whether we are in fact going to agree at this CFM on a Modus Vivendi for Germany. Mr. Acheson replied that we are if we can get it. Mr. Bevin expressed the view that we would not get the Autobahn. Mr. Acheson declared that it would be a mistake to agree to something which might give the appearance of being a substantial agreement but which in fact would amount to nothing at all. He pointed out that there was a danger that if we did so the result might be to defeat the Military Assistance Bill in the US Congress without in fact obtaining our objectives.
As to a communiqué to the press after the meeting, it was agreed that if there should be agreement on Austria this could be announced. If not, the communiqué would have to be purely non-committal.
Mr. Acheson raised the question as to whether the memorandum of understanding drawn up by the representatives of the three powers in Berlin5 should be published today or alternatively whether Vishinsky should be asked if he had any objection to publication tomorrow. Mr. Bevin expressed the view that it would be a mistake to issue this memorandum [Page 1001] officially while the discussions were still continuing here in Paris. He was in favor of it being published at the proper time but he preferred not to complicate today’s discussion by raising the question with Vishinsky. He felt that the Ministers might say they had received the report; that they regretted it was not a Four Power report; that it will have to be published at some time; and then ask Vishinsky whether he has any comment to make upon it.
It was also agreed that no final positions on the Soviet paper as a whole would be taken at this afternoon’s meeting but Vishinsky would be drawn out by a series of questions which would make his intentions clear.
- This record was prepared by Charles W. Yost of the United States delegation.↩
- The meeting took place during the intermission of the 20th meeting of the Council.↩
- Not printed; the text of this counter-proposal is indicated in the footnotes to USDel Working Paper/32 Rev. 5, p. 1051.↩
- USDel Working Paper/32 Rev. 5.↩
- Ante, p. 815.↩