Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 2

396.1/3–2151: Telegram

The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State ¹

secret

Bonn, March 21, 1951—5 p. m.

653. AGSec from Slater. Following is brief summary report of mtg between HICOM special comite and ISG alternates (Reinstein, Stevens chairman, and Sauvagnargues) held Bonn–Petersberg 20 Mar 1951:

(1) Contractual arrangements and principle of sovereignty. Sauvagnargues repeatedly attempted to involve mtg in discussion of principle of sovereignty and definition of term “contractual agreement”. He stated Allies must agree on “definition and status” of contractual agreements as Gers wld surely continue to press HICOM for such definition. He questioned whether contractual agreements shld be considered as “treaties or contracts” in normal sense or rather merely as agrmts between Allied and Ger authorities within Germany and not as treaties or contracts between High Comms as reps of their govts and Fed Govt, i.e. HICOM wld continue to represent ultimate authority and sovereignty in Germany but it cld, without prejudice to its ultimate position, delegate certain of its sovereignty and authority to FedRep. O’Neill replied that contracts wld represent intergovernmental agrmts which, after being ratified by Bundestag, wld become article of Ger law. Reber argued that no useful purpose wld be served by discussion of principles at this time. Rather, it was necessary to examine practical aspects of problem before reaching final conclusion on question of principles. He stressed that in accordance with Brussels decisions, HICOM has informed FedRep that it is prepared to place its contractual arrangements with FedRep on broad basis as possible. Contractual arrangements will progressively cover all aspects of HICOM relations with FedRep except on those matters which must be reserved for final peace settlement. HICOM has not yet reached stage where it is possible to identify problems to be reserved for peace settlement. Finally, Reber urged that HICOM proceed quickly to draw up for consideration of govts, after discussion with FedRep, recommendations as to future HICOM–FedRep relationship.

(2) Problem of dealing with interests of non-occupying powers in contractual arrangements. Mtg briefly discussed problem of associating interested non-occupying powers with studies arising out of implementation Brussels decisions. It was generally agreed that no program for such consultation cld be established now but rather time, manner and form of such consultations cld only be agreed on a “study-by-study basis.”

[Here follows the text of parts 3–5 of this telegram, in which the work of the Intergovernmental Study Group on Germany was discussed; see page 1390.]

[ Slater ]
McCloy

1. Repeated to London, Paris, and Frankfurt.