The Secretary of State to the United States Delegation at the Intergovernmental Study Group on Germany, at London1
Tosig 72. The Dept has considered, in the light of your reports, the question of position to be taken by the US Delegation during subsequent [Page 761] phases of the work of ISG. It continues to believe that the negot shld aim at producing agreement on a program involving all aspects of the ISG agenda, of the character specified in paras 2 and 3 of Tosig 49 of July 24,2 which will constitute a distinct advance by the FedRep toward independent status and will permit settlement of as many as possible of the major outstanding issues affecting Ger.
The Dept agrees with proposals contained in Sigto 62 of July 253 as to matters on which ISG shld report to the Ministers; it agrees that you seek to reach maximum possible agreement on the questions of principle detailed in that telegram. In addition to the reports which you have suggested, the Dept believes that it wld be useful to have an overall statement of principles covering the various detailed papers and a draft of a statement which wld be suitable for inclusion in the communiqué on the Ministers Meeting. It is noted that a list of subjs contained in Sigto 62 does not include mention of articles 18 and 19 of the Ruhr agreement. The Dept believes, that in view of the relationship of this subj to the meetings on the Schuman plan, no report on this matter need be submitted to the Foreign Ministers.
The Dept has considered whether recent changes in the international situation call for any changes in the manner in which you shld conduct our negotiations in London. It is not believed that changes are required by any policy decisions thus far adopted by the US Govt. You will receive separately, instructions in regard to the PLI agreement which will reflect recent policy decisions by this Govt.4 It is believed that this is the only major particular in which the work in which you are engaged in ISG will, in the coming phase of the discussions, be affected. The effect of other events on decisions reached by ISG will, of course, have to be considered by the Ministers at their NY meeting.
The Dept has given particular attention to the question raised in Sigto 62, as to the desirability of defining the international status of [Page 762] the FedRep. It believes that it is essential to progress in permitting Ger adherence to international organizations, the establishment of the rights and obligations of the FedRep and the re-establishment of normal relations with the Western World that the international status of the FedRep be authoritatively defined by the occupying powers. The terms on which the US proposes to define this status does not seem to warrant concern regarding their impact on the international situation. In fact, they are little different from the position which the USSR already has taken respecting the Eastern regime. The Dept believes that it is essential for political reasons, that such a statement be made public in the near future, preferably prior to the Soviet Zone elections in October. It is for this reason that the Dept considers the Ministers Meeting might constitute a suitable occasion for such an announcement.
The Dept has prepared for your guidance, papers on various phases of the occupation statute and other matters involved in the ISG agenda, which are being transmitted to you. These papers set forth the position which the US Govt desires to be adopted by ISG. Shld you consider it necessary or desirable to diverge from the basic principles involved in them, you shld seek instructions from the Dept. Copies of these papers are being transmitted to Mr. McCloy for his comment. Shld his comments raise or involve the need for substantial change in your instructions, you will be so informed.
- Repeated to Frankfort as 1252 and to Paris as 802.↩
- Not printed, but see footnote 3, p. 757.↩
- Not printed; in it Douglas expressed his view that the Foreign Ministers should take decisions in September that “would constitute a definition of the general lines of our policy toward the Federal Republic during the next phase of our relations with that Government,” and suggested that reports on the following would be necessary: a directive on changes in occupation controls; a statement on the status of the Federal Republic, a formula for dealing with German prewar treaties and agreements on German debts and claims, the termination of the state of war, revision of the PLI, cooperation from the Germans on other matters, and the future work of the ISG. (396.1–ISG/7–2550)↩
- In Tosig 70, August 15, to London, not printed, Douglas was advised that the United States wanted agreement on two types of changes in the PLI Agreement: changes in provisions that were unduly restrictive or required “unduly heavy administrative control and interference with industrial operations,” and the introduction of greater flexibility in existing limitations because of the need for maximum production to support economic recovery and defense efforts in Western Europe. The U.S. delegation should take full advantage of the intention of the British and French to achieve closer association of Germany in the defense efforts of Europe, and the Department of State believed the most promising course was to “seek agreement at present session ISG on draft directive on PLI from Fon Mins to next session ISG, to be presented to Fon Mins for their approval in NY in Sept.” (396.1–ISG/8–1550)↩