Attachment
Mr. Valtin described the evolution of the Radios into highly
sophisticated instruments capable of influencing developments in the
Soviet Bloc and their effectiveness was described in detail. In
response to the Chancellorʼs query, Mr. Valtin confirmed that the
American management controls the content and tone of the broadcasts
and he described how [less than 1 line not
declassified] the State Department exercise policy
supervision over the Radios. Mr. Valtin summed up his presentation
by emphasizing that the U.S.
Government places a very high value on the Radios. They are seen as
uniquely effective instruments, which are not an anomaly in the
70ʼs; even in an era of détente the Radios are essential factors in
the ideological struggle.
Chancellor Brandt agreed with
all of the points made and stated that he did not question either
the effectiveness of the Radios or their continued validity.
Moreover, neither he nor his Government wanted to terminate the
Radio operations. He expressed the hope that there was no
misunderstanding in Washington regarding his position on the need to
continue the ideological struggle with communism, particularly in an
era of “negotiation rather than confrontation.” The Chancellor said
he had made it clear to Brezhnev during his visit to Moscow that their
treaty concerned inter-governmental relations only and not
ideological differences. Brezhnev replied that “the last thing we want is
ideological fraternization.”
Mr. Valtin referred to State Secretary Bahrʼs statement in June 1970 that “the Radios must
go” and commented that should the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)
persist in this view, it would lead to the Radiosʼ liquidation. The
position expressed by Bahr,
therefore, created a potentially serious situation. The issue, which
is considered to be a problem of inter-Agency interest, has been
thoroughly discussed and the conclusion reached that the FRGʼs position, as enunciated by
Bahr,
[Page 134]
is not acceptable since relocation
appeared impossible and, even if technically feasible, this would
affect the nature of the operations so radically as to make their
continuation almost certainly not worthwhile. The Chancellor was
advised, moreover, that the President had personally reviewed the
problem and he feels strongly that the Radios must be preserved.
The Chancellor, while reiterating his positive view of the Radiosʼ
role and effectiveness, said they do present a problem in the
context of the FRGʼs attempt to
establish more normal relations with the USSR and the Bloc countries. Therefore, the Radios are
and will probably continue to be a problem since they provide a
convenient peg for the Bloc to continue their accusations of the
FRGʼs alleged revanchist
attitudes. He acknowledged that it was unlikely that either the
USSR or individual Bloc
countries, all of whom have their own rationale for wanting more
normal relations with the FRG, would
permit negotiations to break down solely on the issue of the Radios
and, in any event, the FRG will be
able to deal with actual or anticipated Bloc pressures regarding the
Radios. All appropriate German officials had been advised that it is
Government policy that the Radios are not negotiable and any
démarches on this question are to be rejected. The recent official
announcement concerning the license renewal for the Radios was
designed to reduce speculation on the status of the Radios and, more
importantly, to indicate to the Bloc that the FRG position on this matter is
firm.
The sovereignty aspect, as raised earlier by Bahr, did not appear to bother
Brandt who said that he
does not attach as much importance to this aspect as do some of his
advisers. He did remark, however, that the operation of foreign
owned and controlled propaganda media on German soil does constitute
an anomaly so many years after the end of the occupation.
The Chancellor fully accepted the U.S.
Government position that a relocation of the Radios in their
entirety is tantamount to termination and thus out of the question.
Nevertheless, he said the FRG seemed
to carry the entire political burden of the Radios and he asked
whether some degree of “burden sharing,” such as a possible
relocation of the transmitters, might be feasible. The central
problem is the emission of propaganda broadcasts, under German
license, from German soil; the FRG
is most vulnerable to attack because it can grant or withhold the
licenses. The programming/editorial/research activities in Munich
are not licensed and are comparable to any other journalistic
activity, whose freedom to exist and function is guaranteed under
the German constitution. In response to Mr. Valtinʼs comment that if
a relocation of the transmitters was feasible and agreed to, we
might later be asked to move the Munich Headquarters, the Chancellor
unequivocally
[Page 135]
stated that
as long as he had anything to say he would not ask that the two
Munich Headquarters be removed.
The Chancellor, in response to his question, was told that a study on
transmitter relocation is in process but far from completed; it is
already apparent, however, that the chances of relocation appear to
be slim. The reasons for this include such factors as the paucity of
locations which are feasible from the technical standpoint, the
uncertainty of the outcome of negotiations with Spain and Portugal
regarding augmentation of current facilities, the financial costs
involved and the two-year lead time which is necessary for the
installation of equipment. Even if an immediate decision to relocate
were made, the transmitters located in Germany would be needed
through the 1972 Olympic Games. The Chancellor appeared to be
dismayed at these findings although he made no specific
comments.
The Chancellor wondered whether some other solution, such as a
contractual U.S. Government/FRG arrangement on the Radios, might be
feasible as the FRG would be able to
deal with Bloc complaints on that basis. (In a subsequent discussion
between Mr. Valtin and Ehmke,
it was agreed that this particular proposal would, among other
factors, radically change the Radiosʼ image and was not, therefore,
a desirable solution.)
The Chancellor also suggested that, as one possible alternative, it
would be helpful if only a portion of both Radiosʼ transmitters or
all of the transmitters of one of the Radios were moved from
Germany. Mr. Valtin did not comment on this proposal other than to
say that it would be included in his report of the meeting.
The Chancellor stated that he was especially concerned about the
intensive domestic problems which will result from Soviet Bloc
pressures in connection with the Olympic Games. He agreed with Mr.
Valtinʼs analysis that the threatened Soviet and Eastern European
boycott of the Olympics was a bluff; nevertheless, he feels that
sport, business and political groups will fall for the bluff and he
is apprehensive over the Governmentʼs ability to cope with such a
situation. Mr. Valtin said public reaction to such a Bloc ploy is
directly related to how the FRG
handles it. The Chancellor agreed but said there are situations
wherein public opinion is dominant no matter what the Government
does and emotions are likely to be so intense on this issue as to
make it impossible for any German Government to contain them.
The Chancellor emphasized that he does not want the Radio problem,
serious as it is, to become a matter of controversy between the
FRG and the United States. He
hoped that some mutually agreeable formula could be found to reduce
the political burden on the FRG and
he urged that all possible alternatives be examined by Washington in
[Page 136]
good faith. However,
should such potential alternatives be found technically or
politically impossible, “things will remain as they are.”
It was agreed that another meeting between Mr. Valtin and Ehmke (and, if appropriate, with the
Chancellor) should take place once the U.S. Government has completed its study of possible
alternative solutions.