396.1–ISG/2–351
The United States Alternate Representative at the Intergovernmental, Study Group on Germany ( Reinstein ) to the Deputy Director of the Bureau of German Affairs ( Lewis )
Dear Geoff : I thought that I would not send a round-up telegram this weekend, in view of the limited number of meetings which we have had. However, you may want to have some indication of the general outlook as it appears after our first contacts.
My impression is that the amount of work done by the other Delegations during the recess has been somewhat spotty. The French have been working on the PLI to some extent, but I have no evidence that the British have studied the subject further at all. I had a conversation with Roger Stevens on February 1, a copy is being sent to Jacobs, which will be of interest in this connection.1
Both the British and French seem to have been working on foreign interest and restitution, which bodes well for the speedy completion of our discussions of these subjects. I doubt whether a great deal was done on the subject of claims, but it is probably too early to tell. The British have been going into the question of the waiver and will, I believe, have some specific proposal to make. The French seem to be exactly where they were last Summer. No one, including the American Delegation, is ready to discuss reparation. No one had much in the way of ideas about the last paragraph of the Brussels directive either.
In the light of the foregoing and of the prospects with regard to the questions we will get under the Brussels directive, I think it is entirely possible that we might be able to wind up ISG by Easter or relatively soon thereafter. It should be possible to complete foreign interests and restitution within two or three weeks. The PLI agreement can and should be finished by the end of February. If we get our backs into it, I see no reason why stage 1 of the debt procedure cannot be completed by the end of March or early April. By the same time, it should be possible to complete any additional work which we get under the Brussels directive, providing that the U.S. Delegation is in a position to take the initiative and make proposals. The only thing left would then be debts, which would go over to a new tripartite body constituted to deal with that problem. Perhaps this is too optimistic, but I think we should adopt it as our objective.
The foregoing analysis elides over the question of what happens if there is a disagreement on these subjects which cannot be resolved. This is probably most likely in the case of the PLI agreement. My own reaction would be to push the issues up to Governments and if necessary [Page 1350] reconvene again at some later date, in preference to sitting around Here week after week as we did on the PLI last Pall. The only other alternative may be to throw the question of timing to the High Commission, as the French propose. This is a matter which it would be well to turn over in our minds from time to time as the session proceeds.
If things work out anything like the way I have suggested above, we may want to consider whether ISG should be formally dissolved, or whether there may be some value in adjourning with the implication that other problems may be referred to it in the future.
I think we have pretty well settled down, which has been facilitated by the excellent work done by members of the Delegation in the past. We lost a couple of rooms while we were away and are rather cramped for space. We hope to get a little more space within the next week. I think we have an excellent group of people. They have been working very hard and show every sign of functioning as a first rate team.
With best regards to all in Ger,
Sincerely yours,
P.S. The French member of the Foreign interests and Restitution Committees has come down with the flu. He will be in bed a week and cannot be replaced. All estimates set forth above are subject to change without notice.
- Regarding this conversation, see footnote 2, supra.↩