740.00119 Control (Germany)/4–1449: Telegram
The Acting United States Political Adviser for Germany (Riddleberger) to the Secretary of State
no distribution niact
539. Following is my report on military governors meeting in Frankfurt today which has been approved by General Clay.1
Military governors met this afternoon with eleven representatives of Parliamentary Council including two from Berlin to hear their observations on occupation statute.2 Military governors had previously agreed in regular morning meeting upon general tenor of replies to question on statute that had been submitted in writing. General Clay presided and gave replies in name of three military governors.
General Clay opened with general statement that occupation statute must be viewed in light of foreign ministers declaration to give maximum freedom of action to German Government and that the expressed intent of the foreign ministers was as important as the text of the statute. Obviously the questions put by the German representatives [Page 238] could only be answered finally by the high commission, but the military governors would attempt to give certain opinions responsive to German questions.
Adenauer made opening statement welcoming statute and particularly the transmission of powers to German government and the revision article. He referred to German gratification at the opportunity of integrating Germany into the economy of Europe and the possibility of progress toward the rehabilitation of a democratic Germany. Schmidt (SPD) welcomed extension of uniform law to all three zones, was gratified that statute contained general rather than detailed clauses which led him to assume that limitations on rights of occupation powers created presumption that others powers lie within competence of German Government. He realized that many questions cannot now be answered or all powers defined, and therefore welcomed the military governors’ statement of the intent of the statute. Pfeiffer (CDU) put several questions on German economic and foreign relations.
Clay stated intention to permit German authorities to have commercial representatives abroad, and indicated possibility of conferring certain consular functions eventually. German representative at international conference also permissible where attended by one or more of occupation powers provided German delegation is approved. On foreign trade, Clay recalled that German Government will negotiate its own agreement with ECA and obtain membership in OEEC. Certain restrictions on foreign trade common to other ECA agreements will be imposed. Otherwise, foreign trade controls will be policy controls only which are required as result of economic assistance given to Germany. German Government must rapidly plan necessary agencies and will have much to do to get them into operation, particularly as statute can be reviewed after one year.
On occupation costs, Germans were informed of allied intention to establish estimates for fiscal year (including this fiscal year) which will not be exceeded without supplementary estimates similarly established for good cause. Certain explanations re mandatory costs were also given which met German desires.
In reply to questions whether statute would permit annulment of German court decisions, answer was given that there was no intention to make detailed scrutiny of such judicial judgements.
With respect to the resumption of full authority by occupation powers, Clay stated that we should only do so in emergency conditions and on specific instruction from governments, and after advising appropriate German authorities.
Re threat to security of occupation authorities, Clay stated that basic civil rights of citizens could only in such instance be abrogated [Page 239] by high commissioners themselves, unless certain delegated authority was given to meet local emergencies, and that subject to review by high commissioner.
Germans indicated desire to know why court of arbitration had been dropped and Clay explained that insertion of court was leading to highly legalistic and detailed statute which was defeating the purpose of the foreign ministers in giving broad powers to the German government, which explanation was well received.
Germans asked if they could have copy of trizonal fusion agreement3 and Clay explained this could not be done as only broad principles are established with details yet to be worked out. He did, however, state there would be a representative of occupation authorities in each Land capital who would report to high commissioner. There might be liaison officers at local levels but no government functions below Land level.
PC representatives inquired whether there would be a de facto lifting of the state of war. Clay replied there is nothing in statute that changes technical state of war, but that military governors would be glad to transmit to governments any suggestions which the PC may care to make in this regard.
Military governors letter on electoral laws and letter defining federal powers in police field was given to PC representatives (reported separately).4
At regular meeting of military governors this morning discussion took place respecting utilization of foreign ministers message of guidance to military governors on basic law.5 Robertson proposed that military governors should give message to PC representatives today. Koenig at once expressed opposition to this proposal on ground it would diminish importance of other foreign ministers message to PC.6 Clay was likewise opposed to utilizing the message of guidance in this matter and thought that the question of timing was most important. He proposed that after discussion of the occupation statute with PC representatives this afternoon, that they be asked what progress had been made on the basic law and that the discussion be allowed to develop from that point. Clay thought it would be unwise to communicate this foreign ministers’ message until it had been made clear to PC representatives that further proposals on basic law should be submitted by Germans. Recalling the military governors’ invitation, to [Page 240] meet with main committee, Clay thought that to communicate the message would put the military governors in an impossible position.
Robertson reluctantly agreed and the discussion described below was held in the light of this decision which we are more than ever convinced was sound.
Upon conclusion of discussion on occupation statute Clay inquired whether PC representatives had any observations to make on the progress of the basic law. Menzel (SPD) then read a short prepared statement expressing desire of all to conclude constitution as soon as possible, but relating failure of compromise proposals to find acceptance by military governors. Even the message from the foreign minister[s] had not been sufficient to overcome the political crisis and consequently progress was at a standstill.
Clay recalled the military governors had recently expressed their willingness to meet with main committee at early date and to discuss any proposals it might have before being submitted to plenary session. Since that time, the three foreign ministers have presented a most generous occupation statute. By not coming forward with proposals, the PC has placed the military governors in a difficult position, and Clay would appreciate being informed when the main committee could present some proposals. Adenauer replied that if the present crisis cannot be overcome, it will be most difficult to fix a date. Clay reiterated the willingness of the military governors to meet with main committee at any time and proceeded to state in confidence that it should be recognized that the international situation was such as to make possible long delays and frustrations for Germany with no assurance of an ultimate solution. Furthermore, ERP enters second phase on 1 July, and the longer the delay in establishing the West German Government, the less part it would play in this development.
At this point PC representatives asked for a brief recess to confer. Upon reconvening, Adenauer announced that they accepted with gratitude the invitation to meet with the military governors and suggested that it not be the entire main committee but those present at today’s meeting plus certain other members of the main committee (probably so recommended to avoid Communist participation). In agreeing to this suggestion Clay expressed hope that delegation so composed could commit the main committee, to which Adenauer replied in the affirmative. Adenauer then suggested meeting on 22 April, but SPD representatives stated 25 April is earliest possible date if united German opinion is desired. Clay strongly urged that if earlier date is possible a meeting should be held and military governors were prepared to do so. He hoped for a united opinion from German side and would wait for it, but if this were not forthcoming, an earlier [Page 241] meeting should be arranged. Clay then emphasized that if German representatives come forward with proposals which represent the views of main committee, the military governors are in a position to negotiate, but until that is done they are in an impossible position. At this point Schmidt recalled that proposals on 17 March are only ones outstanding by the PC. Clay stated he was compelled to reply that this proposal was not acceptable to military governors, although some might and some might not be prepared to accept it. But he wished to emphasize that the military governors were not being unduly rigid. They had received clear instructions from their governments on the basis of which they would like to try and negotiate an agreement. He-did not think, however, that the proposals of 17 March are a promising basis for agreement. In indicating this desire on part of military governors to be reasonable, he must request the PC to be conciliatory in the same manner. Neither side should assume a “take it or leave it” attitude. Therefore it was not unreasonable to expect another proposal from the German side. To the foregoing, he would add one more suggestion. If there are points of difference in a German proposal that cannot be resolved by the Germans, they should be presented at the meeting where the military governors will endeavor to give answers then and there so that such differences can be resolved. This would, however, require that the German representatives come prepared to state at that time whether suggestions by military governors can be accepted. In brief, Clay was asking for proposals other than those of 17 March on which agreement might possibly be reached.
Adenauer requested the military governors to convey to foreign ministers the gratitude of the PC for the attention they gave to German problems in the midst of other important matters. It was also agreed that the press would be told merely that the meeting had discussed the occupation statute in a spirit of mutual cooperation and that another meeting would be held on 25 April.
Because of delicate nature of negotiations I am not repeating this message to London and Paris.
Following paragraph personal for Murphy from Clay: “Bob, this was a tough one and required pulling out all the old familiar plugs. However, we are again on the record with a united front and I really believe today may have done the trick. Too early to tell but I am hopeful. We did our best. Please advise Tracy I am too tired to send separate report and ask you to send Jimmy’s over to him.”7
Following paragraph personal for Murphy from Riddleberger: “Clay did masterly job of negotiating in today’s meetings and handled most difficult situation with British for reasons you understand with [Page 242] great skill. Although I almost sent you a pessimistic message this morning, I now begin to see the way out of the woods. I hope foregoing report is sufficiently clear. It was composed on plane after day of continuous sessions. It is now after 11 p. m. and I am dead tired. Best regards.”
Via pouch to Frankfurt. Please pass urgently to Army Department for Voorhees.
- A summary account of this meeting, prepared by the Military Governors’ Secretariat, not printed, was transmitted as enclosure 1 to despatch 540, April 30, from Berlin. (740.00119 Control (Germany)/4–3049) For another brief account see Clay, Decision in Germany, pp. 430–431.↩
- For the text of the occupation statute, see p. 179.↩
- Ante, p. 181.↩
- For the text of the Military Governors’ letter on the electoral law, see Germany 1947–1949, p. 306; the letter defining federal powers in the police field was transmitted in telegram 541, infra. ↩
- Ante, p. 185.↩
- Ante, p. 186.↩
- The references are to Tracy Voorhees and James Riddleberger.↩