Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 2

762.00/4–1353: Airgram

No. 574
The Acting Secretary of State to the Office of the United States High Commissioner for Germany, at Bonn¹

secret

Washington, April 13, 1953.

A–1529. The Department has reviewed the policy concerning the question of tenth Land status for Berlin, prompted by Bonn’s 3463 and Berlin’s 1269 to Bonn (rptd 1177 to Dept),² which were most helpful.

As HICOG will recall, the established policy, expressed on most occasions when the question arose, was that the U.S. favored tenth Land (twelfth Land as it was then) status for Berlin (Deptel 2371 to Frankfort, Oct 28, 1949; position paper for May 1950 meeting of Foreign Ministers FM D E–4C (May 3, 1950); and Deptel 2114, Sept. 18, 1950).³ The problem was examined at length in FM D E–4C. However, owing largely to the difficulties with the French, who feared the unification of Germany with Berlin as its capital, we acquiesced during the discussions on trizonal fusion in the decision that “in the initial organization of the German Federal Republic” the applicability of Article 23 of the Basic Law should be suspended. This position, adopted by the three Foreign Ministers on April 8, 1949,⁴ was considered still cogent during the “normalization” talks in the summer of 1949, until the latter collapsed in September.

After consideration of a memorandum from the JCS in April 1950,⁵ the conclusion was reached that political considerations in favor of twelfth Land status outweighed the military considerations against, and that this would be the position of the U.S. if the question arose during the discussions of the Foreign Ministers in May 1950. However, in view of the probable positions of the French and British, we did not intend to take the initiative in raising the question at that time or press the point if strongly opposed by the British or French.

The most recent expression of policy was made by the three High Commissioners in their letter to the Chancellor on May 26, 1952,⁶ at the time of the signing of the Contractual Conventions, in which they confirmed the decision that:

“the reservation made on 12 May 1949 by the Military Governors concerning Articles 23 and 144(2) of the Basic Law will, owing to the international situation, be formally maintained by the Three Powers in the exercise of their right relating to Berlin after the entry into force of those Conventions.”

At the same time, as is apparent particularly from this letter. Article 6 of the Convention on Relations, and Annex A of the Convention,⁷ a very close connection was desired between Berlin and the Federal Republic.

As a practical matter, it appears to the Department that there is not much likelihood of obtaining tripartite agreement on tenth Land status within the near future, although this is a position which the U.S. might revert to and press for if certain circumstances arise. Without committing ourselves against the tenth Land status, the Department is of opinion that the proposals made in Berlin’s 1269 offer in general a practicable and advantageous course of action, which might be followed if the East Sector is de jure incorporated into the GDR or if the Soviets completely divide the city or interfere with access, or if for other reasons a strong demand is made by the Berliners for tenth Land status.

In endorsing the proposals and suggestions re tactics made in Berlin’s 1269, the Department would offer the following comments:

(1) It is believed that there should be no recruitment for German EDC forces in the city.

(2) In order to make it possible to avoid Berlin’s direct involvement in the Federal Republic’s EDC/NATO role even if the West Sectors should sometime acquire tenth Land status, it appears particularly important to retain the formality of special Senat action, with Allied approval or a period for disapproval, for the adoption of Federal laws. It is understood that treaties of the EDC type are adopted in the form of a law.

(3) With regard to the representation of West Berlin in the Federal Republic, we perceive no objection to the Berliners’ directly electing their representatives to the Bundestag and wonder whether it would in fact greatly matter if they were given in addition the right to vote in the Bundestag. Although in the Department’s telegram No. 2403, Nov. 10, 1952,⁸ it was stated, with reference to the question of elections, that there was no objection so long as Berlin representatives had no voting privilege, it occurs to us that this question may merit re-examination. Owing to the Berliners’ strongly pro-Western and democratic stand, we should, other things being equal, welcome their influence in the Bundestag. If they obtained a real voice at Bonn, would they have achieved what is really of interest to them, and thus be able with more patience to put up with the formalities and other exceptions necessary in Berlin?

We are aware of the objection that if the Berlin representatives could vote, the fiction of Berlin’s separate status would be stretched very thin. The problem is that the fiction of quadripartite administration is already about as thin as it could be, the Soviets pay no attention to it, and while we agree on the utility of maintaining it, we should not become a victim of our own fiction. The question is thus whether the separate identity of Berlin is not preserved sufficiently for the record if the Allied Commanders remain in the city, vested with the complete powers reserved under Article 2 of the Convention on Relations, prepared to observe any of the quadripartite agreements which the Soviets will themselves observe, maintaining in effect the suspension of Article 23 of the Basic Law, and requiring separate Senat action with Allied approval for the adoption of Federal laws and treaties? It seems to us that all this might suffice. We should not wish to influence the decision of the German authorities about the inclusion of Berlin in the Federal election law or the privileges to be granted to the Berlin representatives, nor could the action of the German authorities in any way affect the Allied suspension of Article 23. If, however, the Berliners are included or are given the right to vote, they would receive the assurance of having as real a voice in German affairs as their numbers, their political maturity, their democratic and anti-communist record, and their exposed position entitle them to, although they would not in name possess tenth Land status. If, in HICOG’s opinion, this would mark progress in the relationship with the Berlin authorities similar to that achieved with the Bonn authorities through the Contractual Conventions, we should give it every support.

(4) In general, with respect to common judicial, legislative, and executive functions for West Berlin and the Federal Republic, the Department perceives no great difficulty in the judicial field, for example the Constitutional Court. The important thing in the legislative field is the reservation requiring separate Berlin action for adoption of Federal laws. In the executive field, however, it is believed that numerous complications could arise from direct action of the Federal Republic’s executive agents in West Berlin, and this should be avoided.

When the tenth Land issue again arises, it is suggested that HICOG explore the matter with the British and French in the sense here indicated. Meanwhile, the Department would welcome any further comments or information from Berlin and Bonn having a bearing on this problem, which has recurred intermittently since 1948 and is likely to be raised again when Soviet pressure on West Berlin is perceptibly increased.

This airgram is being repeated to Berlin, Paris, London and Moscow for info.

Defense concurs in above.

Smith

1. Drafted by Kidd and cleared by Barbour, Bonbright, Matthews, Riddleberger, BNA, L/GER, and Defense.
2. Document 567. Telegram 3463 is not printed, but see footnote 2, ibid.
3. For telegram 2371, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. iii, p. 429. FM D E–4c and telegram 2114 are not printed. (CFM files, lot M–88, box 149 and 762.00/9–1350)
4. The Foreign Ministers met at Washington, Apr. 6–8, 1949.
5. Not found in Department of State files.
6. Document 58.
7. For text of the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, see Document 51.
8. Not printed. (762A.34/11–1352)