662A.00/11–351: Telegram
The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Acting Secretary of State 1
310. At yesterday’s mtg of HICOMs and Chancellor working draft of gen agrmnt as revised by rapporteurs was examined article by article. Document showing present state of negots will follow in separate cable today.2 Next mtg scheduled for Tuesday to clarify outstanding issues.
Principle issues discussed yesterday related to (1) perennial subject of Allied rights, (2) competency of arbitral tribunal to review Allied declaration of emergency, and (3) Ger desire to add to formula contained in Bonn’s 3053 Allied undertaking that a united Germany wld be entitled to no fewer benefits than those granted FedRep by present agrmnt. Provisional agrmnt was reached on most other issues, including formula providing that three powers wld act jointly in matters of common concern under agrmnts. Chancellor also suggested that three powers shld undertake, as regards dealings with states of Eastern bloc, to consult FedRep insofar as its interests are directly involved.
I took occasion in connection with provision characterizing future mission of Allied forces as defense forces to point out necessity in including somewhere in agrmnt recognition of right of mil commanders to take necessary measures to prepare such defense.
Chancellor argues with respect to (1) above that mention of right to station troops by virtue of internatl agrmnts fully protected Allied rights vis-à-vis Soviets but indicated belief these rights no longer effective as regards FedRep. He asserted, however, undertaking of [Page 1567] FedRep to facilitate defense mission of troops and to participate in Western def shld give Allies adequate assurances that no future govt wld have right to demand recall of Allied forces. In view of this apparent basic difference as to nature of rights vis-à-vis FedRep we introduced a provision calling for recognition by FedRep of existing Allied rights in the three reserved fields and made it clear that all we were seeking was assurance that these rights wld be respected by any future Ger Govt. Chancellor agreed to reconsider this point and to endeavor to provide acceptable formula for next mtg.
Re emergency powers (2) here we agreed to his proposal to substitute words “liberal-demo basic order” for “constitutional order” as latter phrase might have wider connotation in Ger practice than we intended. On broader question whether three powers shld be able on their own findings to determine necessity for state of emergency and time of its termination, Chancellor argued strongly that no Bundestag wld accept such proposal without safeguard against abuse. He proposed declaration of emergency shld be subj to later review by tribunal to establish whether declaration was justified. Such a proposal was, he considered, in line with constitutional practices and any other solution wld leave way open to arbitrary decisions by three powers. We pointed out difficulty of his proposal and objections of having security of our troops dependent upon judgment of an outside body. After full discussion of this point, which seemed capable of deadlocking discussions, Chancellor agreed to confine his request to designation of some forum to which, while emergency measures were in effect, FedRep cld have recourse to determine whether state of emergency shld properly be continued. Kirkpatrick suggested that such reference might be made to NATO Council of Mins rather than to arbitral tribunal as former wld be competent in defense and security matters. Chancellor seems particularly concerned that western powers not assume arbitrary powers as regards internal disorders and disruption of demo basic order. If it is clear that NATO Council is entitled only after the event to review measures and make recommendations it shld not be too serious from our point of view and some such formula wld probably go a long way toward securing Bundestag acceptance of our rights to protect security of our forces. Unless you have objections we will endeavor to obtain acceptance formula along these lines.
Re third issue Ger formulation was one-sided and implied obligation on part of Allies without corresponding agrmnt on part of Gers to give us guarantee that conditions which induced us to grant the freedoms to FedRep shld be maintained. Chancellor emphasized his desire was to protect Germany against revival of four-power control on Austrian model. He agreed that after unification of Germany latter wld have to take on obligations of the Fed Govt both with respect to [Page 1568] integration and defense. The formulation of these mutual undertakings was left for subsequent consideration.
Chancellor asked for insertion of clause permitting some revision at later date. We explained difficulties of setting any time limit since such wld imply postponing of peace settlement ratification. Chancellor proposed to submit new formula for next mtg.
- Repeated; to Frankfurt and to Paris for Secretary Acheson and Byroade who were attending the sixth regular session of the United Nations General Assembly.↩
- Telegram 316, infra.↩
-
Not printed; the formula under reference here read:
“Three powers and Federal Govt will cooperate to achieve, by peaceful means, their common aim of unified Germany enjoying liberal-democratic constitution, like that of Federal Republic, and integrated with western European community. They recognize new relationship established by these conventions and treaty for European defense community as essential steps to achievement of this aim.
Three powers and Federal Republic are agreed that a peace settlement freely negotiated for whole of Germany between Germany and her former enemies is an essential aim of their common policy.” (662A.00/11–151)
The Department of State commented that it had no substantive objections to the ideas in the draft but thought such language belonged in a declaration or statement rather than in an informal agreement. (Telegram 2767 to Frankfurt, November 1, 662A.00/11–151)
↩