662A.00/10–2451: Telegram
The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State 1
269. 1. At mtg of allied-Ger Steering Comite on 24 Oct,2 Hallstein laid great emphasis on importance of Berlin questions in framework of contractual agrmts, which he said had recently been discussed by fon affairs comite of Bundestag with Berlin officials. In further development of proposal made at last mtg (see ourtel sent Dept 249, rptd info London 91, Paris 99, pouched Frankfort, Berlin unn 19 Oct3) Hallstein proposed establishment of special working group on Berlin, and suggested art in agrmt on gen relations which (a) affirmed that agrmt did not affect allied rights with respect to Berlin held by virtue of internatl agrmts, (b) stated that three powers wld do all possible to assimilate status of Berlin to that enjoyed by FedRep, wld lift or restrict existing controls, and wld consult Fed Govt in exercise of allied rights, and (c) stated that details wld be set forth in a joint protocol attached to the agrmt. This protocol wld be a declaration of policy regarding Berlin and wld specify the allied controls to be relinquished or reduced together with gen provisions for future conduct of Berlin’s affairs.
2. Hallstein argued that basic fact of inclusion of provision on Berlin in agrmt with FedRep, plus Berlin’s evinced desire to be represented by FedRep, and community of interest evidenced by such matters as adoption of fed legislation by Berlin made it indispensable for FedRep to negotiate for Berlin along lines of his proposed article. He developed thesis in this connection, which he subsequently also applied to clause relative to stationing of troops (see para five below), that while allied rights, and original basis therefor, were to be maintained, the manner in which those rights were to be exercised shld be [Page 1562] specified in the agrmts and the allies wld then be bound only to exercise them in the manner so specified. This he considered was the very essence of the contractual concept.
3. Allied delegation stated only matters proper for negotiation with FedRep were provisions relating to reservation of allied rights in respect of Berlin article VI of gen agrmt, and detailed provisions regarding continuance of FedRep material and financial support for Berlin to be included in programs convention. Rapporteur group for gen agrmt cld consider these aspects. Allies were actively considering liberalization of controls over Berlin which wld become effective simultaneously with contractual agrmts, and wld counter any political reaction resulting from disparity between autonomy granted to FedRep and continued allied control over Berlin indicated by terms of gen agrmt.
4. Hallstein welcomed statement regarding liberalization of controls but insisted further discussion still necessary. In conclusion he asked whether all ref to Berlin cld be omitted from the gen agrmt, to which allied delegation replied in negative.
5. Hallstein proposed revised article on stationing of troops which provided that allied rights to station troops in Germany as set forth in internatl agrmts were not affected, that FedRep wld be consulted in exercise of these rights and that maintenance and protection of troops wld be subject of a special agrmt. He asserted Art VII in allied draft of gen agrmt provided for consultation of FedRep on exercise of rights to protect security of troops, and he merely proposed to remove this from gen agrmt and include in convention on status and protection of forces. As in discussion on Berlin (see para two above), while accepting existence of allied right to station troops he maintained necessity for specifying in contract manner in which rights wld be exercised and asserted that manner of exercise so specified wld subsequently be irrevocable by allies.
6. Allied delegation pointed out new proposal differed from that made at last mtg (see para two ourtel sent Dept 249 rptd info London 91, Paris 99 dated 19 Oct) in omitting ref to allied rights to protect security of troops and in providing for consultation with FedRep.
7. Hallstein stated that, on conclusion of EDF agrmt, Fr troops in Ger wld have different status to that of Brit and US, and wld be governed by appropriate EDF provisions regarding protection of security rather than those in HICOM agrmts. For this reason, plus necessity of ensuring that provisions governing exercise of right to station troops wld not be in contradiction with any corresponding NATO or EDF agrmts, he had proposed separate agrmt.
8. Allied delegation emphasized rights to station troops and protect their security cld not be derived from contract nor cld they be restricted by it. However, they were prepared to describe as clearly as [Page 1563] possible the manner in which they wld exercise those rights. On status of Fr troops after conclusion of EDF agrmt, Fr rep stated that original right of Fr to station troops in Germany remained unchanged altho in practice right wld not be exercised, except possibly in Berlin, since under EDF convention Fr troops in Germany wld be assimilated with other EDF forces and their status regulated by EDF authority.
9. Allied-Ger rapporteur group beginning discussions of gen agrmt later today, including problems raised above.