Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, European Security and the German Question, Volume III, Part 2

398.10–GDC/9–2751: Telegram

The United States High Commissioner for Germany (McCloy) to the Secretary of State¹

secret priority

Bonn, September 27, 1951—midnight.

201. Section one of two.² AGSec from Golay. Fol is summary report council mtg held Bonn–Petersberg 27 Sept with Poncet (France) chairman, Kirkpatrick (UK) and McCloy (US).

1. Berlin East–West Trade Situation.

(Ref Berlin to Frankfort 566 rptd Dept 483 of 25 Sept; Berlin to Frankfort 558 rptd Dept 476 of 25 Sept; Berlin to Frankfort 574 of 27 Sept.³)

Council noted receipt of ltr from Federal Chancellor setting out, in terms previously agreed, conditions under which Federal Republic had signed IZT agreement on 20 Sept (see AGSec memo (51) 41⁴). Council decided to await another week’s developments before attempting assessment extent to which east zone is eliminating restrictions on trade, transport and parcel post since signature IZT agreement. (No ltr to Soviets on parcel post interferences will be sent until results of Leopold’s efforts with Orlopp this problem are known.) Council also agreed terminate present air freight facilities, with week’s notice.

2. Adoption Federal Legislation in Berlin.

(Ref Berlin to Frankfort 573 of 26 Sept; Berlin to Frankfort 551 rptd Dept 469 of 22 Sept; Dept to Frankfort 1928 rptd Berlin 129 of 22 Sept.⁵)

Council agreed that, pending settlement of general problem of adoption of federal legislation in Berlin, Berlin commandants should be instructed to permit Berlin Senat ordinance of 30 July covering Federal Republic ordinance on interzonal trade, together with 13 other pieces Berlin legislation adopted in manner contrary to terms of commandants aide-mémoire, to take effect. On general problem, Poncet wld not agree to withdrawal commandants aide-mémoire and substitution of commandants order requiring adoption federal legislation in Berlin by Mantelgesetz as proposed by PolCom in HICOM/P (51) 77.⁶ Instead he referred to Itr from Reuter to Adenauer,⁶ which I had not seen, in which he said Reuter had proposed solution which he, Poncet, was ready to accept as compromise arrangement. According to this proposal, Berlin legislature could adopt by a Mantelgesetz federal legislation on subjects on which Federal Republic has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 73 of basic law, all other federal laws, where Federal Republic has concurrent jurisdiction, wld be adopted in Berlin by an “anpassungsgesetz,” but only with concurrence commandants. In this connection, Poncet added that he was under instructions not to approve the proposed federal law relating to finances of Berlin, should it be adopted. He then referred to another part of Reuter’s Itr in which he said Reuter proposed that Berlin should be given full representation in Bundestag and right to vote on legislation affecting Berlin, and described this as another instance of Reuter’s attempts, by practical steps, to achieve 12th land status for Berlin.

Kirkpatrick then pointed out that, by reserving special powers in Berlin which were being given up in federal territory Allies, had just indicated anew that they did not intend to give Berlin 12th land status. It was impossible for Reuter, by any exercise of cleverness, to overcome fact that Berlin has a special status and wld continue to have it. In these circumstances, Kirkpatrick went on, Allies ought to pay attention to fact that assumption by federal govt of financial responsibility for Berlin was in their own interests. It wld be great mistake for Allies to deprive federal govt of means of assuming financial responsibility for Berlin by insisting on unworkable procedure for adoption federal legislation in Berlin, especially when effective steps had already been taken to preserve principle of no 12th land status for Berlin. I seconded Kirkpatrick’s remarks and added that I did not think compromise solution proposed by Poncet wld be an improvement, since if commandants concurrence were required there wld continue to be opportunities for disagreement between Senate and commandants, and consequent delay on essential legislation.

Council instructed PolCom to study terms of Reuter’s ltr to Chancellor, (being air pouched Dept) review problem in light FM decisions and report to council so that a decision cld be taken at next mtg.⁷

[ Golay ]

McCloy

1. Repeated to Berlin, Frankfurt, Paris, and London.
2. In section two, not printed, McCloy reported on the High Commissioners’ discussion of the extradition of war criminal suspects, exports of machinery to non-NATO countries, the Berlin stockpile program, the dissolution of the German Central Coal Sales Agency, and the detention of Germans serving in the French Foreign Legion.
3. Telegrams 483 and 558, not printed; telegram 574 was not repeated to Washington and no copy has been found in the Berlin or Frankfurt Mission files.
4. Not printed; regarding the letter under reference, see telegram 2532, September 19, p. 1872.
5. Telegram 573 was not repeated to Washington and no copy has been found in the Berlin or Frankfurt Mission files; telegram 551, not printed; telegram 1928, supra.
6. Not found in Department of State files.
6. Not found in Department of State files.
7. At their meeting on October 4, the High Commissioners agreed to withdraw the Commandants’ aide-mémoire and allow Federal legislation to be adopted in Berlin by Mantelgesetz. Bonn reported this in telegram 218, October 4 (398.10–GDC/10–451).