Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 2

396.1–ISG/2–151: Telegram

The United States Delegation at the Intergovernmental Study Group on Germany to the Secretary of State ¹

secret

London, February 1, 1951—4 p. m.

Sigto 424. First plenary fourth phase ISG held January 31 with Gainer, Holmes and Massigli, devoted primarily to PLI.

Massigli said we must consider over-all problem our relations with Germans; French Government thinks agreement re relaxation industrial restrictions should be given HICOM for use as bargaining counter in negotiations with Germans. French ready to proceed with discussion PLI soon as possible except re steel, where problem of coke availabilities is obstacle. Coke problem under discussion OEEC, ECE, IAR, et cetera. If new ceiling on steel production fixed before coke problem settled, Germans would use new ceiling as justification for increase in use coke at expense French and Benelux. Therefore, French do not wish discuss steel in ISG until agreement reached on coke. French desired defer PLI talks to February 7 since Gillet to attend two meetings on subject in Paris in order complete French preparations for discussions. Massigli indicated this date firm and not effort to stall. In reply Holmes’ questions, Massigli said question whether HICOM should make revision PLI as whole or might withhold some relaxations should be left to HICOM though he agreed all concessions would be made eventually. He anticipated arrangements re coke would be made in two weeks.

Holmes said US prepared remove all industrial limitations including steel, excepting only military items, atomic energy and aircraft, soon as possible, citing need for Western defense, developing shortages, and US view that rapid action will do more for success our negotiations with Germans than bargaining under French concept. US realizes special problem of French re steel, i.e., coke and Schuman Plan, could postpone this subject to end of discussions when US hopes remove limitations.

Massigli asked whether Holmes meant discussions would not proceed on basis of positions in previous discussions. If so, problem of completing French Government preparations would be considerably more difficult. Holmes said this understanding of US position correct. We have lost great deal of time in revising PLI, situation has changed, US wishes to sweep away all industrial restrictions now. He wished make US position clear before discussions begin.

Gainer said UK delegate lacked authority go far as US position, would have to reconsider position.

Question of procedure when agreement reached on ISG recommendations PLI discussed. Consensus ISG could recommend to Foreign Ministers how report should be used.

Agreed alternates would resume PLI discussion not later than February 7. After meeting, Gainer expressed personal agreement with US approach, indicating he was glad to have opportunity to take up problem with other departments and believes Bevin would agree.² French, as might be expected, showed no enthusiasm for US proposal, Massigli saying at one point in meeting that his government feels no obligation make any concession PLI to Germans without corresponding concessions by Germans.

Plenary fixed February 28 as date for completion all work resulting from New York agreement except claims. Approved arrangements made by steering committee reported in paragraphs 3, 4, first sentence of 8 and 9 Sigto 421.³ Also agreed to inform Benelux formally of resumption of session.

1. Repeated to Frankfurt and Paris.
2. In another meeting following the first plenary, Stevens had indicated “… that he was somewhat doubtful of the U.S. tactics, as to their effect on the French, of indicating at the outset of the discussions that the U.S. wanted to make a clean sweep of all restrictions other than those relating to armaments.” (Memorandum of conversation, February 1, London Embassy files, lot 59 F 59, 350 Germany)
3. Not printed; it reported that the claims and foreign interests committees would resume work immediately, that the steering committee should meet with the Benelux representatives, and that no communiqué should be issued concerning the resumption of the ISG meetings. (396.1–ISG/1–3051)