Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Berlin Crisis, 1958–1959, Volume VIII

220. Telegram From the Embassy in France to the Department of State⁰

Paris, March 14, 1959, 3 p.m.

3354. Department pass Defense. From Hillenbrand. Following are some general impressions as first week of Working Group session in Paris¹ draws to close:

1. British seem to be interested in maintaining maximum fluidity in Western positions limiting working group report largely to posing issues for later resolution. This presumably related to desire give Macmillan opportunity to push his ideas in all three capitals before committing themselves. Reaction of British Delegation to our elements paper² as plan with public appeal has been generally favorable, but they obviously regard Berlin proposals which West prepared to make possibly separate from general settlement as crux of problem and will want to keep Western position on these open. British apparently also wish to pose question of whether any security measure in Europe can be taken separate from political settlement. This attitude reflected in their unwillingness even to draft at this time agreed estimate of Soviet intentions which might precondition Western approach.

2. French are following conservative essentially negative line and for different reasons may be expected to end with British in supporting working group report main function of which will be to pose issues for later resolution. Traditional French attitudes on subject like disarmament features American paper continue to dominate. However, they have apparently not dropped idea of some special status for reunified Germany in NATO and may come up with some new formulation on this subject and a declaration on exclusion IRBMs from zone of limitations.

3. Other than revival of Fechter-Meissner reunification plan³ (portions of which adopted in American paper), Germans seem to have little to contribute. They had indicated that more may be expected when Grewe comes from Bonn next week, hinting they have some proposals to advance in European security field but are reluctant to do so before they have some basis for estimating probable American reaction.

4. Tabling of American elements paper has had stimulating effect and plan for reunification and European security will undoubtedly appear in working group report, perhaps as major annex. However, for reasons indicated above, seems unlikely that report will have basic fourpart structure, as set forth paragraph one of American paper. Given circumstances, we do not consider this tragedy as long as important issues which can only be resolved at higher level are clearly indicated.

5. As to Western reply Soviet note of March 2, primary unresolved issues are formulation of agenda and language re summit meeting. As long as British remain tightly bound by present instructions from Macmillan possibility of reaching any agreement by early next week seems remote. FYI. Hancock personally prefers our language on agenda and probably on summit and can be counted on to make effective presentation French and our arguments against British formulations.

6. We have just learned from von Baudissin that Macmillan and Adenauer apparently reached agreement in Bonn that efforts to coordinate Western reply to Soviet note should cease until after Macmillan visit to Washington. This presumably means both German and British Delegations will be instructed to cease discussions this subject in working group.

Houghton

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 762.00/3–1459. Secret; Priority; Limit Distribution. Repeated to Bonn, London, Moscow, and Berlin.
1. See Document 242.
2. Reference is to “Elements of a Western Position at a Conference with the Soviets,” undated, which was tabled by the U.S. Delegation at the Four Power Working Group on March 12. The nine-page paper includes sections on Soviet intentions, Western objectives, Western tactics, and a Western offer on German reunification, European security, and Berlin. (Attached to a note from Calhoun to Goodpaster dated March 17; Eisenhower Library, Staff Secretary Records)
3. The Fechter-Meissner proposal had been tabled by the German Delegation to the Working Group on German Unity in March of 1957. The revised proposal, presented by the German Delegation in Paris on March 10, called for the convening of an all-German committee to deal with the extension and coordination of contacts between the two parts of Germany. One year later an all-German Council would be elected to draft an election law for a national assembly that would draft a constitution for Germany. (Telegram 3289 from Paris, March 11; Department of State, Central Files, 762.00/3–1159).