Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Berlin Crisis, 1958–1959, Volume VIII

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

Geneva, May 30, 1959, 11 p.m.

Secto 149. Paris pass USRO. Thirteenth Session held May 30, 2:30–5:05 p.m., Lloyd in chair. Gromyko opened with forty-minute statement on Berlin¹ containing no new points. Said: Important end abnormal situation West Berlin; change in situation since 1945 has eliminated basis for continued occupation; West Berlin cannot continue as base Western intelligence operations (Gromyko mentioned “subversive” activities RIAS); danger serious incidents arises through presence occupation troops in proximity to Russian and German troops; German rights should be reestablished in West Berlin and unlimited powers of three Allies must be ended (Gromyko quoted order of May 5, 1955,² enabling powers cancel acts West Berlin Council under certain circumstances); task of conference is to work out solution of West Berlin problem in furtherance peace and consistent with interests countries concerned. Concluded Western proposals completely unacceptable and asked how USSR, which ended occupation of East Germany, could be expected agree continuation occupation West Berlin and even extension to East Berlin?

After noting he had discussed Soviet position on Berlin in Geneva and on plane back from United States, Gromyko reviewed Soviet proposals for “free city,” arguing they take account of different social order this enclave in GDR and furnish firm legal basis for West Berlin. Said USSR ready to exchange views on way UN could be drawn in and GDR ready to guarantee West Berlin status and free access to West. There would be supervisory standing committee of four powers and GDR. Stated USSR wished improve economic situation West Berlin by furnishing food and raw materials in exchange for manufactures but wished no monopoly. Alleged economic development West Berlin lags well behind rest of Germany as compared with 1936.

Soviet proposals not detrimental to interests or prestige of states concerned. Not true, as alleged, that USSR will seize or blockade West Berlin. Establishment free city not ideal situation which would be extension GDR sovereignty to West Berlin. Hence acceptance by West not a concession to USSR. Free city would exist only until reunification of Germany and would assist in rapprochement between GDR and Federal Republic.

Lloyd, in twenty minute rebuttal,³ pointed out abnormal situation Berlin only reflection of abnormal situation Germany which could be ended by Western peace plan. Re Soviet contention presence Western troops increased tension, Lloyd stated troops there not for warlike purposes but as symbols Western interest and Berliners overwhelmingly desired continued presence as evidenced by results latest elections. East-West tensions not caused by Berlin and in fact it good example peaceful coexistence with no serious incidents in ten years. Re Soviet contention West Berlin a NATO spearhead, Lloyd contrasted ten thousand Allied troops with twenty times that number Soviet troops in East Germany alone. Dismissed Soviet picture of economic bliss in East Germany as compared with West Berlin penury as mere propaganda. Observed Soviets say they are disturbed by “subversive” activities in West Berlin but West has complaints on that score also. Remarked that no doubt Gromyko maintained agreement to “free city” proposal would not be concession by West in order introduce light note in discussions.

Lloyd could not see why Soviets dissatisfied with present situation since Soviets profess to desire maintenance West Berlin social and economic way of life. Presence Western troops necessary to reassure West Berliners. Since West cannot agree to Soviet proposals and Soviets reject Western proposals re interim solution for Berlin which advanced to meet Soviet concern, then present basic situation should continue with some improvements.

Couve supplemented Lloyd’s rebuttal in twenty-minute statement.⁴ Said Soviets contend situation Berlin a cause of tension. However, present situation seriously disturbed once in fourteen years, i.e., blockade. This not result of local incident or agitation but of Soviet action. Soviets abruptly raised Berlin question six months ago and several times since although no previous Soviet démarche that Berlin was threat to peace. At same time, Soviets made “free city” proposal they also threatened turn over their responsibilities re access, etc. to GDR and we still hear this threat, although not from Gromyko. Would appreciate clarification. Couve said Soviets should know West does not agree with Soviet premise Berlin occupation must be concluded. West has not requested change in situation but willing in true spirit of compromise to listen to Soviet proposals. But “free city” proposal would create third German state which would eventually be absorbed by GDR and behind GDR is USSR. In this connection Gromyko remark that best solution would be absorption by GDR was food for serious thought.

Since nobody else wished speak, Chairman stated next meeting would be at time to be decided by Ministers.

Herter

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1–GE/5–3059. Official Use Only; Priority. The U.S. Delegation verbatim record of this session, US/VR/13 (Corrected), and summary of the verbatim record, US/VRS/13, May 30, are ibid., Conference Files: Lot 64 D 560, CF 1362.
1. For text of Gromyko’s statement, circulated as RM/DOC/29, May 30, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 214–225; Cmd. 868, pp. 120–128; or Documents on Germany, 1944–1985, pp. 641–650.
2. For text of the Declaration on Berlin, May 26, 1952, which entered into effect on May 5, 1955, see Foreign Relations, 1952–1954, vol. VII, Part 2, pp. 1246–1248.
3. For text of Lloyd’s statement, circulated as RM/DOC/30, May 30, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 225–229 or Cmd. 868, pp. 128–132.
4. For text of Couve de Murville’s statement, circulated as RM/DOC/40, June 10, see Foreign Ministers Meeting, pp. 229–233 or Cmd. 868, pp. 132–135.