462A.62B/5–2650: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Frankfort1
3757. Dept considers that para 4 of FonMins agrmt on Berlin2 is virtual tripartite acceptance of para 4(c) of NSC 24/3, June 14, 1949, and is indeed a broader formulation of NSC recommendation. It is considered imperative that you approach your Br and Fr colleagues to obtain vigorous and speedy implementation this decision.
As we understand from various HICOG reports, most recent of which was desp 783 May 8,3 Ger Fed Govt has received instructions relating to licensing aspects of interzonal as well as foreign trade but has not received proper instructions on interzonal border controls. Moreover, Allied supervision of interzonal border controls appears to be non-existent. Tight control of the interzonal border is necessary not only to implement East-West security controls and enforce interzonal trade agrmt but also to put us in readiness to take counter measures as reply to Sov restrictions on Berlin transport. Our last progress report (based on Frankfort’s 3390 Apr 214) to NSC on implementation of 24/3 was weak, especially re this point. We do not want our next report to be weak. In this connection you are undoubtedly aware that six Senators have written a sharp criticism of alleged violations of steel embargo and that the weight of evidence indicates this embargo not being enforced. Refer also to Bundestag debate May 12 and Der Spiegel May 11.
Re point (3) urtel 3793 May 3, rptd Bonn 81,5 Dept recognizes that Ger customs officials at border shld have full auth take necessary measures act directly in cases customs violations by non-occupation personnel, incl search, apprehension and detention as appropriate, and [Page 860] wld support assignment such auth to Ger officials to extent not previously done. Advise current status this respect. However, Dept sees no necessity make exceptions in cases such customs violators to existing procedures under HICOM Law No. 13 by transferring them jurisdiction Ger courts. In view strong interest occupation auths in securing adequate customs controls believe HICOM courts can be counted on to deal effectively with such cases.
HICOM agrmt at earliest moment therefore seems essential to issue necessary orders to FedRep, provide for Allied supervision, and determine exact type of retaliation in reply to various degrees of Sov or GDR restrictions on Berlin trade and transport. Dept wishes to be kept fully informed on these steps. Moreover in view of indications that Sovs and East Gers are restricting Berlin transport more thoroughly and more impudently as time passes without effective retaliation from our side your views as to whether overt retaliation shld now be used wld be appreciated. This is all the more a burning question since Frankfurter Allgemeine May 12 alleged that SovZone trade balance with West Ger has turned into a credit. (Deptel 3604 May 226) Dept is inclined to believe that critical Western Ger deliveries to East shld be restricted as direct retaliatory measure, including maintenance and real enforcement of steel embargo until Sov and GDR restrictions are lifted.
- Repeated to Berlin as 210, Paris as 2426, London as 2557, and Moscow as 452.↩
- For text of MIN/TRI/P/14 Final, see vol. iii, p. 1091.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Regarding telegram 3390, see footnote 4, p. 852.↩
- Not printed; it reported a HICOG estimate that 970,000,000 DM had been lost through smuggling in the last twelve months. In point 3 the Federal Government asked for the transfer of authority over persons involved in customs violations from HICOG to the Federal Government. (462A.62B234/5–350)↩
- Not printed; it asked a series of questions regarding interzonal trade and the assumption of Federal responsibility for export control over security items. (462A.62B/5–2250)↩