The Secretary of
State to the Office of the United
States High Commissioner for Germany, at
1103. Fr Emb on Jan 14 gave Dept Fol account of conversation Jan 7 between Berard and Hallstein re security safeguards.2 Hallstein had indicated that he personally preferred including any restrictions [Page 6] in an agreement rather than unilateral declaration. He felt agreement wld indicate restrictions had been required by Allies and wld be easier for Chancellor politically than unilateral statement which wld open Chancellor to charge he had given undertakings for which there was no need. Hallstein felt restrictions shld be based on Germany’s strategic position and shld be temporary. He did not feel agreement cld be worked out in EDC context. He asked several questions which brought out fact that proposal wld involve prohibition of gun barrels over 105 mm, propellants and civil aircraft. Hallstein offered no objection to first two. Berard told him temporary arrangement wld not be satisfactory to Fr opinion.
On Jan 15 Emb conveyed to Dept FonOff view that Hallstein’s attitude on agreement and absence of objection to restrictions in field of heavy equipment give promise of possibility of successful negot.3 FonOff believed this cld be assisted by US and Brit reps at Bonn informing Gers that their Govts attach importance to solution of question in manner acceptable to Fr opinion. Emb requested Dept instruct US element to this effect.
Emb also asked what procedure US envisaged for concluding agreement. FonOff assumed matter wld eventually be dealt with on tripartite basis but that this wld be merely “formality”.
Dept officers told Emb they did not feel Dept cld comply with Fr request. US had authorized Fr to say proposal was being made with US knowledge and consent. While US wld view with sympathy any arrangement which Gers and Fr cld work out, it cld not undertake to accept agreement without consideration. Account of conversation which had been recd by Dept was sketchy and covered only part of field. It was quite unclear on question of duration, on which US SecState had made proposals at Paris Mins mtg.4 Dept officers expressed view that it wld be difficult for US reps to express opinions to Gers without resumption full tripartite conversations. They suggested Fr continue to explore question directly with Gers and keep US informed. They asked that McCloy be kept fully informed by Fr reps in Ger.
- Drafted by Reinstein. Repeated to Paris and London.↩
- A memorandum of de Juniac’s conversation with Lewis and Reinstein on Jan. 14 is in file 662A.00/1–1452.↩
- A memorandum of de Juniac’s conversation with Lewis and Reinstein on Jan. 15, to which is attached an aide-mémoire outlining the French position, is in file 662A.0012/1–1552.↩
- For documentation on Secretary Acheson’s proposals concerning German security controls, presented at the Foreign Ministers meeting at Paris, November 1951, see Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. iii, Part 2, pp. 1701 ff.↩