740.00119 EW/12–2845
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 30—1 p.m.]
7387. From Angell No. 193. Although article III, part 1 of Final Act (transmitted by No. 183 from Angell12) bears little superficial resemblance to provision suggested by mytel 118, December 5 from Angell13 and approved by Deptel No. 75, December 16 [15] for Angell,14 it is a mutation thereof and fulfilled important function of forestalling official claims that otherwise might cloud title to property removed from Germany.
Waley initially objected to paragraph set out mytel 118 (as amended to include Dept’s suggestions) and insisted that protection not extend beyond renouncing diplomatic support for claims of lien-holding nationals of nations represented at Conference. French were inclined in tripartite meetings to be alarmed by British intimations that removal would not eliminate private ownership claims of British nationals. Hence Rueff at first favored US proposal.
In 17 Power Committee of heads of delegations, US proposal ran into difficulty, because of resolution 3 in Annex of Final Act. Belgian delegate pointed out that it would be inconsistent with position taken in that resolution for countries joining in it to renounce their right to make diplomatic representations to occupying powers re treatment of assets of their nationals in Germany. France having participated in this resolution, French Delegation felt compelled to agree with Belgium, as did all other Governments enumerated in resolution 3.
In meantime US Delegation had realized that its earlier suggestion contained serious lacunae regarding claims against the receivers of property declared available for reparation by ACC and allocated by IARA. Accordingly, receiving governments and their nationals were included along with CC and occupying powers (including USSR) among beneficiaries of waiver. After it became clear that broader proposal would fail of adoption for reasons above given, American [Page 1496] Delegation encountered no opposition to retention of what is now substance of article III. It will be noted that CC and occupying powers are indirectly protected, inasmuch as article implies that signatory governments renounce protection on theory that removals action approved by CC is not wrongful.
All governments represented at Conference understand that article III applies only to official action generally subsumed under “protection of interests”. The article does not purport to cut off whatever rights private persons may be able to assert judicially or administratively. Legal Division of OMGUS may wish to consider effectiveness of legal formalities within Germany prior to removal to bar successful assertions of private claims in jurisdiction to which property removed. Belgian delegate who is an authority on continental law, asserted informally that in most western European countries registered lien holders and proprietors of items of property removed from Germany can successfully pursue private remedies against receivers of property removed from Germany.
Sent to Department as 193 from Angell and 7387 from Paris, repeated to USPolAd as 41 from Angell and 276 from Paris. [Angell.]