462A. 62B31/7–1151: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Frankfurt 1
314. 1. Re (1) Berlin’s 27, Jul 9 sent Bonn 11, Paris 14, London 6, Moscow 7, Frankfort 38,2 (2) Frankfort’s 258, Jul 11, rptd Berlin 18, Moscow 3, Paris 25, London 23,3 and (3) Berlin’s Jul 11 sent Frankfort 49, rptd Dept 36, Paris 16, Moscow 9, Bonn 15, London 7.4
2. If satisfaction re Warenbegleitscheine not forthcoming prior Jul 16, we agree with Bln Cmdts we shld not participate further discussions with Sovs and suggest our position this point shld be made to Sovs orally or in unpublished ltr, preferably latter.
3. Dept believes if conditions mentioned para 1c, reftel 3, are met and talks contd, it wld be preferable for Western Allied experts not to introduce conditions for signing or contd operation IZT agmt as suggested para 1d, reftel 3, or raise any other aspect agmt as this cld have effect transferring negots from Grers to quadripartite level. Dept of opinion it wld be best avoid this as wld provide opportunity for Sovs claim Western violation 1949 New York agmt which can lead only to useless and prolonged recriminations. We believe discussion shld be limited to control of illegal trade with contd insistence by West [Page 1851] reps that each Cmdt is final auth on trade movements his Sector and no intervention by other power acceptable.
4. We suggest admonitions contained para 1d, reftel 3, be communicated by FedRep trade negotiators to East Grer reps with added warning that total embargo, including soft goods, will be imposed while agmt signature still pending unless all certificate of origin requirements fully rescinded, and signing out of question until this done. We should not permit extension Vorgriff, or implementation or other steps toward finalization of IZT agmt in interim.
5. If HICOM agreement already reached on Berlin’s recommendations discussed under 3 above, Dept sees no major objections to carrying out action substantially as recommended including countermeasures discussed in para 1(e) reftel 3. Dept believes course of action shld be no less firm than those outlined above.
6. Western public statement shld not unnecessarily play up our determination to obtain satisfaction from Soviets on Warenhegleitscheine point, but shld emphasize in gen terms our determination maintain free West Berlin. If by Jul 17, satisfaction on certificates of origin not forthcoming, we believe public relations aspect our position requires full explanation our decision not to continue discussions fruitlessly.
7. We are still awaiting reply para 3, Deptel 62, Jul 4.5
- This telegram, drafted by Rogers and Montenegro, and cleared by Laukhuff, was repeated to Berlin, Bonn, London, Paris, and Moscow.↩
- Supra.↩
-
Not printed: it reported that Kaumann had sent Orlopp the following letter on July 6:
“With ref to declaration made by me on July 3 this year, I herewith inform you agreement initialed today re trade between currency area of DM (West) and currency area of DM (East) will become inoperative in event of interference in traffic to and from Berlin.”
Orlopp handed Kaumann a reply on July 7 which reads:
“I cannot take note of your letter of July 6, in as much as contents this letter has nothing to do with exchange of commodities under new agreement. At the same time, however, I refer once more to my previous oral declaration, most recently made on July 6, that if authorities of your currency area again interfere with deliveries of iron, steel, machines, and equipment envisaged within framework of agreement, agreement which was initialed yesterday will become inoperative and all related agreements concerning power, coal, services etc., will cease to be in effect.” (462A.62B31/7–1151)
↩ - Not printed; it transmitted the text of BK/AHC(51)54, dated July 11, which (a) noted the continued backlog of unstamped Warenbegleitscheine, (b) noted that Soviet authorities were apparently not prepared to lift their restrictions, (c) recorded the Commandants’ agreement not to attend the July 17 meeting with Soviet officials unless a substantial part of the backlogged Warenbegleitscheine were returned by July 16, (d) requested permission to inform the Soviet officials, if the July 17 meeting took place, that the IZT agreement would not be signed pending resolution of the Warenbegleitscheine backlog and its implementation would proceed only so long as access to Berlin were assured, and (e) recommended that countermeasures be instituted effective July 18 if these conditions were not met. (460.509/7–1151)↩
- Not printed; it asked whether there was any substance to the contention that certificates of origin had been required since 1948, whether this had been known to the Commandants at the time, and how this affected the Western stand on the question. (462A.62B31/7–351)↩