740.5/11–2951: Telegram
The Director of the Bureau of German Affairs (Byroade) to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Bonn1
18. For McCloy from Byroade.
[Here follows the first part of this telegram which reported the substance of the Foreign Ministers discussion on November 28 (see PAR M–4, supra) of German security controls.]
You may be interested in foil which I had drafted to take place of last two sentences of first para of US proposal as referred to above.2 It was not introduced or cleared within our del as it was obvious Fr cld not accept such an arrangement at this time. “If in negots with Gers on this subj Chancellor can produce an alternative and concrete plan which wld insure against Ger production in fields named below except as authorized by EDC, the three govts wld be willing to consider his proposal based upon consideration of developments in actual formulation of EDC treaty which are uncertain at this stage. If subj is dealt with in Eur def community treaty they will be prepared review their position and if provisions of EDC treaty are satisfactory, to accept them in place of the contractual safeguards. In this connection three Fon Mins request EDC conference to attempt to work out, as promptly as possible, agreed provisions for control of armament production, incl export and import, by EDC for inclusion in EDC treaty. If EDC treaty does not in first instance contain provisions which are satisfactory substitute for contractual safeguards, three powers wld hope that subsequent EDC arrangements cld be worked out which cld replace such tripartite arrangements, in latter event provision for review shld be made when Eur def community has assumed character which cld be considered by three powers as acceptable substitute in being for continuation of tripartite contracts. Such provision for review cld be made in protocol separate from contractual conventions. It is understood that this convention cld be made public”.
Above suggested addition is somewhat inconsistent within itself as it wld request HICOM to negot present list, less heavy equipment, with Gers and at same time put everyone on notice that we were hoping better solution cld be found. It reflects situation in fact, however, in which we find ourselves as we do not know at this stage what final EDF treaty will contain that affects this problem. This is particularly true as Benelux position here has as you know thrown some doubts as to final nature of EDC.
[Page 1730]Regret that this matter left open but see no other alternative. We all agree that if at all possible solution must be found before next mtg with Chancellor. Consider as well that tripartite governmental group no longer desirable as this leads us into wrong element Fr Govt this problem. We are asking Bruce do what he can to solidify Fr Govt position which is now drastically split between FonOff and those who work on EDC matters. In meantime we and Brit can further clarify our sit at home. Hope as well that McCloy in liaison with US observers at Paris conf can propose something more definitive than Chancellor’s plan which seemed somewhat sketchy and unworkable in part. In view of Fr position did not attempt to get decision HICOM as body shld work out solution for recommendation to govts. You may wish consider whether you shld attempt this locally.