396.1–ISG/3–451: Telegram
The United States Delegation at the Intergovernmental Study Group on Germany to the Secretary of State 1
Sigto 495. As suggested Sigto 489, March 3 (repeated Frankfort 909, Paris 16452) believe there will be some kind of paper, in connection with revision PLI agreement, in which positions of governments re further relaxations PLI will be stated. We believe such paper extremely desirable. First, it will enable us get explicit statement from French of their position on steel. Second, it will provide means of expressing positions of US and Britain on further relaxations PLI in stage 2, i.e. when German participation in defense agreed.
We believe this second point is important. We have regarded an agreement on stage 2 as being significant not only in terms of clarifying the agreement reached at Brussels, but even more significantly enabling the occupying powers to give assurance to Germans in negotiations on contractual arrangements as to what position will be when agreement on defense has been reached. Discussions to date have resulted in bringing British, subject to final clearance within British government to agreement with US position. Even though no agreement [Page 1374] is now reached, formalizing US and UK positions in document will, we believe, be a valuable step toward dealing with issue again when it arises in discussions with Germans.
It is not clear at this time what sort of document may emerge. However, we think it very likely that, in connection with seeking most precise possible statements of positions other powers re steel and re relaxations stage 2, we will be pressed for statement US position re steel. This, of course, would involve taking position, explicitly or tacitly, on relationship Schuman Plan and coke supply and allocation problem to removal steel capacity and production limits.
Re capacity US position (Tosig 411, February 93) is that limitations should be removed not later than time of German ratification Schuman Plan. French position not entirely clear. Ort basis Paris 1198, February 27 (repeated Department 5011, Frankfort 590)4 we assume it will be that capacity limit should be abolished on effective date Schuman Plan treaty, which may differ somewhat from date of German ratification.
Re production, US position is same, that limitations should be removed not later than German ratification. French position re production somewhat imprecise but apparently is that limit may be removed when single market established or may be effectively removed (though not necessarily formally removed) when some sort of satisfactory agreement reached on coal allocations, if, as French seem to expect, this is in advance of ratification Schuman Plan treaty.
British have indicated willingness to accept French position that relaxation of steel production limit should be linked to satisfactory solution of coke problem. Restatement in paper referred to of US position in terms stated Tosig 411 would constitute implicit rejection of French position. This could give rise to misunderstanding re US support for equal access to Ruhr coal resources and might prejudice Schuman Plan negotiations. Up to now we have avoided stating a position on relation of steel production limit to coke problem, but doubt that we can avoid saying something about steel production limit in document referred to. As stated above failure to mention coke in US statement involves at least an implied position in view of French and British positions. Would appreciate guidance soonest on position we should take re statement of US position on steel production limit, which we anticipate may be required within next two days.
When French speak of ratification of Schuman Plan, they apparently have in mind formal ratification bringing it into force. US position [Page 1375] relates, as we understand it, to German parliamentary action. Is there any objection to our using effective date of treaty in the statement of US position?
- Repeated to Frankfurt and Paris.↩
- Supra.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed; it reported that the French position was “that each type of control over German coal and steel industry should be abolished coincidentally with effective assumption by high authority of similar or competing control applicable to entire community.” (862A.33/2–2651)↩