320/12–851: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly, at Paris1
Gadel 414. Re Delga 475, Dec. 8, rptd info Bonn 130, Berlin 33; London, Moscow unnum.2 Dept considers it reasonably unlikely Sovs will offer to proceed with UN investigation in return for suspension West Ger contractual and EDF negots in view their continued insistence that investigation not within competence of UN. However, shld such offer be made, most effective and desirable counter-argument might be simply to label it as irrelevant in connection with consideration of specific resolution in question. Issue at hand is whether agreement can be reached on acceptance and implementation of resolution as a necessary first step towards achievement of German unity, a goal which the Soviet Union also professes to seek. If Sovs are really sincere in this profession they can prove it by agreeing to resolution without reservations and permitting its execution in good faith. Acts not words are called for.
Such an argument is simple and direct and avoids prolonged discussion of why we cannot barter our present policy for a paper promise by Sovs to admit Commission which may or may not be implemented and which, even if honestly kept, is necessarily only the first step in a long process. Depending on the context and form in which Sovs raise question, this argument may not be sufficient, however, to meet our tactical needs in UN debate. In such an event it may be desirable to argue that we obviously cannot suspend efforts to achieve our broad policy objective of strengthening defense of West simply on strength of first of series of essential steps to achieve Ger unity.
If Sovs raise faits accomplis issue you shld insist present tripartite policies in no sense prevent or prejudice ultimate unification. You may also counter by citing fact that since beginning of occupation [Page 1817] Sovs have gone right ahead in their Zone with creation of faits accomplis, frequently in violation of previous agreements. You may point out, for example, that they have scarcely been hesitant about creating faits accomplis in their remilitarization program for East Ger including organization of a para-military police force or in their treatment of Oder-Neisse territories (Polish-GDR agmt3). These and other policies have prejudiced freedom of action of a future unified Ger, but this is double-edged argument which shld only be used for rebuttal.
Dept wld be extremely reluctant to see us become involved in discussion of substance of our Ger policy or having to justify it in this context, but recognizes that Sov tactics might lead to situation where further argumentation required to avoid unfavorable repercussions in UN and elsewhere. In this case believe our best line wld consist of pointing out clearly that current negots with FedRep, in particular those looking toward Ger participation in Eur defense, are a direct result of Sov policy and action. We can cite in this connection rptd failure Western Allies secure Sov agreement for settlement of Ger problem, integration of Sov Zone into Sov orbit, menacing increase in Sov satellite armed forces, including remilitarization of Sov Zone of Ger, all of which have forced Western Allies to take necessary measures to strengthen their defenses against possible Sov aggression. Thus, if UN investigation contemplated is carried out, it wld be no more than a first indication of possible Sov intent to make basic reversal its aggressive policy. It is only when confidence has been established in possibility of long-term friendly relations between Sovs and free world that any reconsideration of latter’s defense arrangements cld be contemplated.
With respect to possible Israeli amendment calling for investigation Nazi revival, believe you shld take position that an investigation under terms of resolution as now phrased wld bring to light any possible neo-Nazi threat to free elections, which, in any case, wld be one of many pertinent factors to be considered by the Commission. However, shld it appear tactically necessary to accept some language to meet point, you shld insist that phrasing of amendment clearly limit it to its direct bearing on conditions prerequisite to free elections. Any such amendment shld not be permitted to broaden scope of the Commission’s inquiries.
- This telegram, drafted by Hillenbrand and Cox and cleared with GAI, UNP, and EUR, was repeated to Berlin, Bonn, London, and Moscow.↩
- Not printed; it reported on the discussion of the German question before the Ad Hog Political Committee on December 8 and asked for the Department of State’s position if the Soviet Union offered to proceed with the commission providing the negotiations at Bonn were suspended. (320/12–851)↩
- For information on the Polish-GDR frontier agreement of July 6, 1950, see the editorial note in Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. iv, p. 958.↩