Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXVII, Western Europe

93. Memorandum From the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski) to President Carter¹

Washington, undated

SUBJECT

• Army Special Operation Field Office (SOFO) in Berlin

In response to your request (Tab A),² Secretaries Brown and Vance, the Attorney General and DCI Turner have submitted their views on the major issues concerning SOFO [less than 1 line not declassified] electronic intercept activities in Berlin. Only Secretary Brown favors termination.

Their views can be briefly summarized as follows:

— Secretary Brown (Tab B)³ concludes that, as he has accumulated more facts and read more “vague arguments” presented on behalf of SOFO, he has “become more firmly convinced that this activity is inappropriate . . . and unnecessary.” If SOFO is continued, he believes it should be operated by a department or agency which sponsors its existence; not DOD.⁴

— Secretary Vance (Tab C)⁵ takes the opposite point of view. He believes that it is “essential” that a SOFO capability be maintained for purposes of internal security, public order and law enforcement. To do otherwise would be a “serious abdication of our responsibilities.” These activities raise no serious propriety issues for Vance. He believes, however, that they should remain an Army responsibility.

— DCI Turner (Tab D)⁶ also strongly endorses continuation of SOFO by the Army. In addition to internal security and public order contributions, he cites the importance of SOFO activities [1 line not declassified]. Turner believes that any questions of propriety can be handled satisfactorily by strict administrative regulation and no operational involvement by CIA.

— The Attorney General (Tab E)⁷ believes that, should the need for the operation be established, the Army could legally conduct SOFO operations pursuant to the authorization and procedures contained in an earlier NSC Study Group Report (Tab I).⁸ He is further of the view that CIA could be given responsibility for the SOFO operations provided that its support for criminal investigations is limited to those only involving international terrorism, international narcotics trafficking or foreign espionage.

You should also know that the unannounced and unilateral suspension of SOFO activities has engendered diplomatic protests. Chancellor Schmidt has raised the subject “in strongest terms” with Ambassador Stoessel and plans to bring it up with Secretary Vance. He said it was an act he simply could not understand and stressed U.S. responsibilities in Berlin as well as exposing the city to terrorist activities and Communist penetration. High level U.K. officials have also expressed their deep concern.

My own view remains that SOFO should be continued under the responsibility of the U.S. Army. It is hard to understand Secretary Brown’s concerns if, as the Attorney General testifies, SOFO’s activities are legal and it can be demonstrated that appropriate steps have been taken to protect the rights of U.S. persons. Berlin is unusually vulnerable to terrorism, espionage, sabotage or substantial public disorder which could directly affect our position in the city and which can be directed against both military and civilian components of U.S. military forces. Discontinuance of SOFO operations would also make more difficult the tasks of all Allied and West German agencies charged with security and law enforcement functions in Berlin and could well result in a loss of confidence about American determination to discharge the broader responsibilities for Berlin which we have assumed since the end of World War II. In short, the need is clear and specific.

RECOMMENDATION:

That, as recommended by Secretary Vance and DCI Turner, you sign the proposed Presidential Directive at Tab I directing the continuation of SOFO by the U.S. Army under strict regulations and procedures approved by the Attorney General.⁹

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Council, Institutional Files, Box 6, PD–09 [2]. Secret. Sent for action. In a March 30 memorandum to Brzezinski that submitted this memorandum for signature, Hoskinson wrote: “Chancellor Schmidt plans to make a big issue out of this problem when he sees Secretary Vance tomorrow and it would be helpful if we had the President’s decision by then.” (Carter Library, National Security Council, Institutional Files, Box 6, PD–09 [2]). Telegram 5883 from Bonn, March 29, reported that in a conversation with Stoessel, Schmidt had complained about the unilateral suspension of SOFO and “stressed U.S. responsibilities in Berlin and danger of exposing Berlin to terrorist activities as well as penetration by Communist countries.” (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, N770002–0269 and P840084–2218)
2. Tab A is attached but not printed; see footnote 11, Document 90.
3. Tab B, a memorandum from Brown to Carter, March 26, is attached but not printed.
4. In the margin next to this sentence, Carter wrote his initial.
5. Tab C, a memorandum from Vance to Carter, March 22, is attached but not printed.
6. Tab D, a memorandum from Turner to Carter, March 18, was not found attached. A copy is in Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Brzezinski Office File, Box 5, Berlin.
7. Tab E, a memorandum from Bell to Carter, March 11, is attached but not printed.
8. Tab I was not attached. See footnote 2, Document 90.
9. Beneath the recommendation, Brzezinski wrote: “The proposed P.D. was approved by the Attorney General. ZB.” On March 30, Carter signed Presidential Directive 9; see Document 94.