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

CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 116

United States Delegation Minutes of an Informal Meeting of the United States, United Kingdom, and French Delegations for Austria at the Council of Foreign Ministers¹

secret

London, February 8, 1949—11 a.m.

United Kingdom	France	United States
Mr. Marjoribanks	M. Berthelot	Mr. Reber
Mr. Cullis	M. Luc	Mr. Williamson
Mr. Leitch	M. Gary	Col. Hixon
Mr. Lorie		Mr. Keith
Mr. Giles		Lt. Col. Thielen
		Mr. Moline
		Mr. Smith
		Mr. Gannett

I. Marjoribanks stated that the UK Delegation would prefer not to open the four-power discussions on the Yugoslav territorial and reparation claims, but to commence with a survey of the unagreed articles, with which Reber agreed. Reber noted, however, with regard to the unagreed articles that on only 2, 5, 16, 26, 27, 34, 36 and 51 were the delegations’ positions not dependent on the ultimate solution of Article 35. Berthelot agreed also to this approach.

Agreed to start with such a survey at the 111th meeting.

II. Agreed that the French experts should participate in the discussions of the US and UK experts, and also whenever [possible?] the Austrian experts might participate.²

III. Marjoribanks proceeded to sound out the present French position on various articles on which they were last recorded as differing irom the US–UK positions.

Article 35—French maintain all previous positions.³ Cullis recalled the UK paper on German Assets in Western Austria⁴ and stated that Lavergne had participated in the discussions that had led up to the writing of the paper. Luc acknowledged the French had a copy of the paper. Berthelot stated that the question of renunciation is a matter of timing. Cullis noted that the mechanics of renunciation must be arranged to fit in with the IAEA problem.

Article 2—Marjoribanks stated UK readiness to drop paragraph 2. Berthelot stated the French would stick on retention of paragraph 2, at least for the present.

Article 16—Marjoribanks and Reber stated their readiness to drop this article, in view of the Soviet position and also in view of the Austrian undertaking contained in Chancellor Figl’s letter to General Wood (CFM/D/L/48/A/17, May 10, 1948⁵). Reber added that he did not wish to take the initiative in the four-power discussions, and Marjoribanks stated that he would seek instructions to do so at the first meeting at which the article arises. Berthelot stated that he would at first maintain the present position but would indicate that he would take under advisement whether or not the article could be deleted.

Military clauses—Marjoribanks asked what was the present French position on these clauses. Berthelot replied that this problem involves Austrian internal security and the security of the Occupation forces, the Occupation statute for Western Germany, etc., and hence for the time being the French maintain their former positions. Marjoribanks stressed the importance of maintaining a united front by the Western Powers hence and of removing our differences on these clauses, reaching agreement with the Soviets on these clauses, and paving the way for the Austrians to make effective plans for their security forces. Reber agreed with Marjoribanks and noted that advances by the Western Powers might make easier a Soviet change on other issues such as Article 5. Berthelot replied that the question of timing is important and that he wished initially to avoid anything spectacular such as a change in the French position would be.

Article 42, paragraph 4—Berthelot stated the French maintain their position.

Article 45—Marjoribanks suggested that paragraph 2 might be amended so as to exempt Austrian diplomatic and consular property, and that the UK was preparing a draft. Berthelot said he had no objection to Article 45 being re-opened on this point; Reber indicated he would prefer to see the draft before indicating his position on reopening the article.

Article 48—Berthelot said the French maintain their position on paragraph 2.

Article 51—Berthelot said the French are still interested in a provision on patents, and referred to a Hague convention on the matter.

1. The meeting took place at the India Office.
2. On February 7 the United States and United Kingdom delegations had met at the India Office and set up a technical committee of economic experts to consult with Austrian economic experts.
3. For the French position on this and the other unagreed articles, see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. ii, pp. 1514 ff.
4. The reference here is to a three-page British paper, “German Assets in Western Austria”, prepared in December 1947.
5. Not printed.