494. Telegram From the Delegation to the Foreign Ministers Meeting to the Department of State0

Secto 419. Paris pass USRO. In addition to those reflected in Secto 4131 we have following comments on new Soviet proposal handed us last night by Soldatov.

New Soviet proposal is of course totally unacceptable and in some respects even more objectionable than June 19 proposal. Obligations which bind West are now spelled out in greater detail than in previous [Page 1093] Soviet proposals. Furthermore all Western commitments under interim Berlin solution are in form of obligations whereas Soviet undertakings are expressed as unilateral declarations. Text of proposal reflects clear design on part of Soviets to enhance status of GDR through reference to conference participants as parties to agreement (which in Soviet view includes GDR), declaration by GDR on non-interference, and specifying desirability of negotiations “between German states”.

We have following specific comments on text of new Soviet proposal:

1.
In preamble objective is described to change situation on West Berlin. This, coupled with description of measures as of interim nature, would set stage for elimination of Western rights.
2.
Extending concept of force reduction to armaments could be claimed to imply Western commitment to restrict forces in West Berlin to light weapons. Might also provide basis for Soviet or GDR claim to inspect military cargo moving to Berlin.
3.
Specifying “rocket installations of any kind”, a broader definition than heretofore, could mean Western agreement to eliminate all rocket weapons, such as bazookas, from arsenal available to West Berlin force.
4.
With regard to activities, West is obligated to ban in West Berlin interference in internal affairs, subversive activities, and hostile propaganda directed against all Communist states, whereas other side’s undertaking is limited to non-interference in internal affairs of West Berlin and this is simply in form of unilateral declaration by GDR.
5.
By including in definition of supervisory committee’s responsibilities the taking of measures to insure implementation of agreement, Soviet proposal could be interpreted as according executive authority to committee. Joint press spokesman has indicated jurisdiction of committee could extend to access although, if this then case, question arises why access clause follows committee clause.
6.
In provision dealing with all-German negotiations question, use of phrase “have pronounced themselves in favor of” may reflect Soviet sensitivity to Western criticism that original Soviet proposal for all-German committee embodies element of coercion on two parts of Germany. Furthermore, link between all-German committee and Berlin settlement appears to be maintained, although Soviet press spokesman intimated last night this not necessarily the case.

Herter
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/7–3059. Secret. Repeated to London, Moscow, Bonn, Paris, and Berlin.
  2. Secto 413, July 28, transmitted a point-by-point comparison of the Soviet and Western proposals of July 28. (Ibid., 396.1–GE/7–2859)