Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 1
  4. Document 397

Conference files, lot 60 D 627, CF 192

No. 397
Memorandum of a Meeting of the Tripartite Working Group, Berlin, February 1, 1954, 10:30 a.m.

secret
BER MIN–8
Berlin, February 1, 1954, 10:30 a.m.
  • Present
    • United States
      • Mr. MacArthur
    • France
      • M. Seydoux
    • United Kingdom
      • Sir Frank Roberts

1. Tactics for Today

Mr. Molotov may:

(a)
Turn to Mr. Dulles for opening remarks;
(b)
Make a long speech regarding the Soviet proposal (perhaps on point of order to place GDR letter released Sunday in the press before the conference (Annex 1—BER D–4/11).

If (a) above is followed Mr. Dulles will make a prepared speech. M. Bidault will wish to re-enforce comments on the UK proposal2 so that the emphasis of today’s session will not be placed on any new Soviet proposal. He will stress the complete freedom of Germany under the UK plan to form alliances with the East or the West. Mr. Eden will note that item 2 is a dual item; that it was quite right German unity should come first; but it was also agreed discussion of security should be closely connected with the discussion [Page 909] on Germany. Under the UK proposal Germany gets freedom but only in a form which makes it safe for all. The Soviet position on Germany does not provide for European security.

If Mr. Molotov raises the GDR letter the tripartite position will be that we will examine the proposal on the basis that Mr. Molotov has asked us to do so. At first glance there seems to be nothing new in the proposal and the ministers have already enough matters before them that must receive attention.

Only in the event that Mr. Molotov raises the timing of the proposed restricted session the three western ministers should indicate their preference for Thursday. (The U.S. and the U.K. provisionally stated that there should be approximately five on the side for these meetings. The French indicated their desire for a fewer number and possibly only their Minister with one person accompanying him. Sir Frank noted that in addition to an interpreter, an adviser, and the Ambassador to Moscow, it was very advantageous to have an officer present who would have time available for preparing the record of the meeting. It was agreed that there should be no stenotypists present since this would inhibit the informality of discussion.)

It was agreed that there would be no 2:30 tripartite ministerial meeting at the ACA building today unless the French Delegation phoned to the contrary by 2:00. If a 2:30 meeting is held it will be in Mr. Eden’s office at the ACA building.3

2. Austria

It was agreed that the Austrian Experts (Freund, Warner and Sauvagnargues) would again consider the position with regard to the withdrawal of troops so that the Ministers’ attention could be brought to this unagreed point in the position on Austria as soon as possible.4 This matter will be discussed again in the Working Group on Wednesday, February 3. The Austrian Experts will also consider the procedure to be taken with regard to the invitation to the Austrian Federal Government.

3. Declaration of Intent (BER D–4/4b)

There was tripartite agreement on this document subject to changes made at the meeting (see BER D–4/4c) and further work to be done on the preamble at the time of issuance.5

[Page 910]

4. Procedural Points

1.
Regarding press arrangements for the restricted session, it was assumed that nothing but the facts of the time and place of the meeting would be issued to the press. Delegation press officers were to be notified so that they should meet to make final arrangements for press handling on the day the restricted session will occur.
2.
Sir Frank requested that consideration be given tomorrow to the question of trade offers Mr. Molotov had made in the quadripartite sessions.
  1. Regarding the GDR letter, see footnote 2, supra.↩
  2. FPM(54)17, Document 510.↩
  3. No record of this meeting has been found in Department of State files, but see footnote 4, supra.↩
  4. For a further discussion by the Austrian Experts, see Secto 62, Document 401.↩
  5. For text of the draft Declaration of Intent, BER D–4/4c, see Document 511. No copy of BER D–4/4b has been found in Department of State files.↩