840.70/10–2544: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in the United Kingdom (Gallman)
8950. For EITO Delegation. ReEmbs 9167, October 25, 2 p.m. Department would not wish to see Executive Board reduced to status of an advisory committee to a Director General. It should be a policy making board with the Director General its instrument for carrying out policy. Accordingly, Department would be prepared to give sympathetic consideration to amendments setting up the Executive Board substantially along the following lines:
- (1)
- A seven man Board, from the outset if necessary, if conference vetoes five man Board;
- (2)
- Specific provision for a chief executive officer under the Executive Board to be called a Director General who would be appointed by the Executive Board, subject to confirmation by the Council;
- (3)
- The Director General might act as the ex officio chairman of the Executive Board, but in no event should he be a full member of the Board or have a vote.
In return for these concessions with respect to the Executive Board it is hoped that the other nations will be willing to give EITO functions and powers substantially in line with the Anglo-American draft agreement.
The Department’s views are based upon the following considerations:
The Department believes that should the opinion prevail that EITO be limited to a coordinating and consulting body without administrative controls, we would have to examine from a different concept the disposition of surplus military transportation equipment and the allocation of other such equipment provided from outside sources. The draft agreement was based on the assumption that the U.S. and the U.K. would be willing to have EITO assume a prominent role in the allocation and distribution of such equipment if EITO would also be able to supervise and regulate the use of equipment on international routes for traffic of common concern. Unless EITO is in a position to ensure the effective utilization of such equipment and material, the whole question of disposal of equipment and material declared surplus by military authorities may need further examination. A liberal view by this Government on disposal of military surplus equipment might be an inducement to the continental governments to give EITO administrative powers. (Very Secret: For your strictly confidential personal information a rough informal estimate indicates that the U.S. military, by early 1945, may have in Western Europe, including Italy, as many as 2,000 locomotives and 45,000 freight cars.)
[Page 835]Since the ultimate control, not only over military equipment but also over important transportation routes in Europe, lies with the military occupying authorities, i.e. U.S., U.K. and U.S.S.R., the willingness of the military to relinquish such authority to civilian control may well depend upon the ability of the civil authorities to ensure the effective utilization of equipment and the efficient movement of traffic. This Government would prefer to see the earliest possible restoration of civil control over transport in Europe consistent with military and occupational needs. It believes that this process would be hastened by the establishment of an organization with powers adequate to ensure that those needs will be fulfilled. The sovereignty of countries would be impaired to a greater extent by prolonged military control over transport than it would be by their undertaking obligations to accept the recommendations of an administrative body on which they were represented.