398.10–GDC/7–2651: Telegram

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

secret

72. Prior to ninth mtg of special comite with Ger del on July 25, latter were given Allied papers (being airpouched) on subjects mentioned para 7, Bonn tel 64 July 26, and para 9 Bonn tel 71, July 26, pouched Frankfort.2

1. Non-discrimination against persons cooperating with Allies.

Gers expressed gratification at degree of agrmt and stated no difficulties anticipated, but reserved final views.

2. Enforcement of contractual arrangements.

In paper stating general Allied views re org and functioning of an arbitral tribunal, we made statement “that some parts of contractual arrangements may require setting up of different arbitral machinery to deal with questions arising from them Gers asked what this meant, and O’Neill (chairman) replied we were thinking of special cases of local scope and minor importance of a practical nature not requiring full arbitral machinery, and cited as examples extradition and minor disputes arising from troop agrmt. Gers expressed some doubts on power of tribunal to order remedial action but reserved final views. In general, Gers appeared satisfied with Allied proposals this subject.

3. Allied responsibilities with regard to establishment of a Ger peace settlement.

This paper attempted to answer questions raised by Gers at last mtg (see para one re Bonn tel 52 to Dept July 193). Gers stated paper [Page 1496] answered their principal questions but reserved position. In amplification and clarification of statement in paper, “in their efforts to lay groundwork for such a (peace) settlement, Allies will fully consult Fed Govt,” O’Neill stated we had in mind type of procedure mentioned in my letter to Adenauer of Feb 22 (AGSec (51)356)4 re then forthcoming four power conference. Purpose of this statement was to make clear that consultation did not necessarily involved getting Ger agrmt.

4. Scientific research.

Gers asked numerous questions which indicated their basic desire to have spelled out in detail precise extent of prohibitions and limitations which allies would wish to retain. In general, O’Neill’s explanations appeared to satisfy them. They asked specifically whether defense research wld be permitted and cited as example air raid shelters. O’Neill answered he thought air defense measures were currently under discussion between AHC and Fed Govt experts.

5. Safeguards for prestige and security of Allied Forces.

As to emergency provisions, Gers stated main difference was on question of whether Allies wld act with consent of or only after consultation with Fed govt. Allied paper stated Allied rights wld include right of mil auths to arrest persons for offenses “within or in immediate vicinity of mil installations.” Gers asked whether this wld refer to criminal leases having no bearing on Allied security and were told it wld, but that in principle after arresting persons, Allies wld turn them over to Ger auths.

6. Foreign relations and internatl agrmts (special position of three powers in Ger).

Foll are among oral comments Gers gave on allied paper submitted at last mtg (see appendix A to SPCOM/FED/M (51)8).4 As to ii, 2, Gers stated they were being asked to respect agrmts about which they had not been consulted and, as this was a “particularly serious and grave restriction of political freedom” it wld be hard to obtain legis consent unless all treaties and agrmts covered therein were precisely enumerated. O’Neill stated para referred only to internatl agrmts not covered by contractual arrangements, and he hoped most internatl agrmts wld be so covered. He said we were currently preparing a list of some 700 technical agrmts, the validity of which we wld ask Fed Govt to acknowledge. Majority of these agrmts had spent their force, but we did not wish positions created by them to be disturbed. There were also other categories of treaties we hoped contractual arrangements wld cover. Actually, para ii, 2, refers to agrmts which are at basis for special position of Allies. Gers asked whether by “respect” we meant “will not disturb.” O’Neill replied affirmatively as far as those [Page 1497] in ref para were concerned. Gers expressed hope no general clause wld cover treaties with which they were unfamiliar, and O’Neill replied we did not expect that, and that Gers wld be specifically advised what agmnts they were to respect, not to disturb, to be bound by or to recognize as valid. As to ii, 4b, Gers thought we shld clearly define specific reserved powers and spell out manner in which they wld be exercised. O’Neill called attention to word “any” and stated we did not yet know whether there wld be any. As to ii, 4c, Gers stated they still felt power to legislate was incompatible with status of ambassadors and there shld be another method of depriving legis of effect, although they presently had no proposals. O’Neill stated we would discuss in connection with para seven below.

7. Preservation of occ legis for which no Ger substitute exists.

Gers submitted paper (being airpouched)5 referring to Ger statement in para six above re ambassadors. O’Neill stated allies recognize apparent inconsistency of council of ambassadors having legis functions and wld like to reduce such functions to zero. At present, however, we cannot see way to total renunciation of this power. Previously we gave example of power to deprive legis of effect. Another possibility is legis under emergency powers. A third category concerns legis in field of reserved powers not covered by contracts if any shld remain. He stated one way to diminish legislative power is to reduce as far as possible fields not covered by contracts. If, however, Gers found it impossible to obtain Ger legis approval of certain contracts, then Allies must maintain power to legislate. Gers asked whether maintenance of restrictions, such as in field of scientific research, necessitated legis. They asked whether necessary legis cld not be enacted before contracts are concluded and subsequently lifted by Gers on authority of Allies. O’Neill promised to study proposal.

It was agreed to meet Aug 1 with possibility of a further mtg during same week.

McCloy
  1. Repeated to Frankfurt.
  2. Neither printed; the papers that were given to the German representatives are attached as appendixes to the minutes of the ninth meeting SPCOM/FED/M(51)9, not printed. (CFM files, lot M–88, box 186, record of mtgs with Federal Delegation)
  3. Ante, p. 1492.
  4. Not printed.
  5. Not printed.
  6. SPCOM/FED/Memo(51)22, not printed.