740.5/1–3051: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom ( Gifford ) to the Secretary of State 1
4181. Allen informs us that Foreign Office has studied views set forth Deptel 3378, January 12, repeated Paris 3687 Frankfort 4857,2 and finds itself “in pretty close agreement” with them. (Embtel 3969 January 173) following summary his oral comments on specific paragraphs Department reftel.
Paragraph 2: Foreign Office fully agree that decision to retain supreme authority must depend on legal considerations and political necessities and like Department is uncertain whether or not Germans will press for its surrender. In latter connection British had considered desirability of requesting HICOM to discuss supreme authority question with Adenauer on informal basis with view to dissuading him from raising it at this time, but in light attitude displayed by Chancellor in his recent conversation with Kirkpatrick mentioned Bonn’s 481 January 254 they now believe there is no need to pursue matter further for time being.
Paragraphs 3 and 4: Foreign Office consider that supreme authority should be retained “in some form.” While British do not believe that its relinquishment would affect west powers right to be in Berlin, they do feel that such step would undoubtedly raise further difficulties re access to city. Soviet might well seek to make point that right of access directly related to supreme authority and hence surrender latter would invalidate right. Even if Soviet should not make this charge, British believe Soviet would endeavor counter effect relinquishment supreme authority by west powers by giving more power to GDR and that latter in turn would probably attempt to interfere with access. In such case, Soviets would be in position to “brush off” protests by west on grounds that these should be properly directed to GDR.
Paragraph 5: “Broadly speaking” Foreign Office thinking corresponds to that of Department. British however, consider that relinquishment supreme authority before unification would make it far more difficult to obtain eventual peace treaty.
Paragraph 7: Foreign Office’s views same as those of Department.
Paragraph 8: British agree that most immediate task should be formulation contractual arrangements. They believe that retention supreme authority which as indicated above they favor, would be inconsistent [Page 1461] replacement HICOM by Ambassadors since latter are traditionally representatives to fully sovereign state. In circumstances, British suggest that formula corresponding to that in Austria might be adopted under which chief west power representatives in Federal Republic would wear two hats.
Paragraphs 9 and 10: British fully concur with Department’s thinking UK HICOM being instructed to discuss Foreign Office views summarized above with HICOG.