Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Germany and Austria, Volume VII, Part 1

Conference files, lot 59 D 95, CF 108

No. 43
Minutes of the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, May 24, 1952, 2:30 p.m.¹

secret

Bonn, May 24, 1952, 2:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

• There were present:
  • United States
    • Mr. Acheson
    • Mr. McCloy
    • Mr. Jessup
    • Mr. Perkins
    • Mr. Lewis
    • Mr. Reber
    • Mr. Harris
    • Mr. Reinstein
    • Mr. Calhoun
    • Miss Kirkpatrick
  • France
    • M. Schuman
    • M. Francois-Poncet
    • M. Alphand
    • M. Berard
    • M. Seydoux
    • M. Leroy-Beaulieu
    • M. de Guiringaud
    • M. Sauvagnargues
    • M. Patey
  • United Kingdom
    • Mr. Eden
    • Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick
    • Mr. Roberts
    • Mr. Ward
    • Mr. Trevelyan
    • Mr. O’Neill
    • Mr. Bathurst
    • Mr. Shuckburgh
    • Mr. Ridsdale

[Here follows an eleven-point index to the minutes.]

1. Opening of the Meeting

Mr. Acheson extended a welcome to his colleagues and inquired how they wished to organize the meeting. Mr. Eden proposed, and M. Schuman agreed, that Mr. Acheson should take the chair.

2. Title of Convention on Relations Between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic

The Ministers agreed to propose to the Chancellor that the official title of the agreement to be concluded with the Federal Republic should be “Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic.” They further agreed to inform the Chancellor that, whereas they felt no official recognition could be given to the title “Deutschland Vertrag” in connection with this convention, there could be no objection to its internal colloquial use in Germany.

3. Special Arrangements for the Entry into Force of Parts of the Contractual Arrangements Prior to Complete Ratification of the EDC Treaty

Mr. Acheson said that he understood the Chancellor wished to obtain agreement that certain provisions of the conventions might come into force in advance of the complete ratification of the EDC Treaty, should the latter be delayed and if the conventions had been ratified by all the parties to it and the EDC Treaty by France and the Federal Republic. He said that it would not be possible to accept this proposal, but suggested that the Ministers might propose to the Chancellor that if there were an extended delay in ratification of the EDC Treaty, a meeting should be held between the three Governments and the Federal Government to consider the situation. M. Schuman said that he was in general accord with Mr. Acheson’s suggestion and pointed out that the accepted inter-relationship between the two agreements could not be broken down prior to ratification in order to meet the Chancellor’s request. However, consideration might be given to arrangements for putting into effect certain provisions to meet the Chancellor; for example, the procedure for granting clemency to war criminals. It was agreed that the High Commission’s proposed letter on this subject should be revised in the light of this discussion.²

4. Text of a Letter to be Sent by the Federal Chancellor to the United States, United Kingdom and French Governments on Atomic Energy

The Ministers agreed to propose that, as a compromise, the review of restrictions on the production of nuclear fuel in the Federal Territory should take place at the end of two years from the time of ratification of the contractual arrangements, rather than three years as provided in the draft letter, or eighteen months as proposed by the Chancellor.³

5. Exercise of Clemency Toward War Criminals

The Ministers agreed, if the matter were raised by the Chancellor, to give him an assurance that during the period until the contractual arrangements were in operation, they would continue to take clemency action with respect to war criminal prisoners as provided under present procedure.

6. French Reservation on Reparations

M. Schuman referred to the provision in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of Chapter Six of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation,⁴ whereby the Three Powers “undertake that they will at no time assert any claim for reparations against the current production of the Federal Republic.” He said that this question had been the subject of frequent debate in the French Parliament and that from a psychological point of view it would be very difficult at this time and prior to the conclusion of a final peace treaty to obtain parliamentary agreement to a formal renunciation of reparations from current production. He therefore preferred that any mention of reparations from current production should be omitted from the conventions.

Mr. Eden pointed out that his government had all along taken a position against reparations from current production and reminded M. Schuman that the Three Powers had already stigmatized the Soviet Government for their practice in this regard.

Mr. Acheson then suggested that a three-power statement now waiving all further claim to reparations from current production would constitute a strong propaganda point against the Soviets. He said that it should be borne in mind that in this matter we would be giving the Chancellor something that he very much wanted in order to ease his own internal political situation and which would cost the Allied Governments nothing, since none of them had any intention of taking such reparations anyway. He suggested that a concession on this point to the Chancellor might facilitate an agreement in connection with Article 7, Paragraph 3 of the general agreement.⁵

To M. Schuman’s suggestion that the provisions regarding reparations from current production should be deleted from the convention altogether, Mr. Eden replied that the remaining part of this section of the convention consisted of undertakings which the Allies were asking the Federal Republic to give, and that M. Schuman’s proposal would result in the elimination of the only Allied undertaking given in return.

After further discussion of possible compromise solutions, the Ministers agreed that M. Schuman should present the point of view of his Government on this question to the Chancellor.

7. Definition of Weapons in Annex to Article 107 of EDC Treaty—Guided Missiles⁶

Mr. Eden said that although his Government had shared the French anxiety with regard to the production of the so-called short-range guided missiles, it had reached the conclusion as the result of exhaustive study by British experts that there was, in the main, no direct connection between the production of short-range and long-range guided missiles, because the technical problems applicable to the production of the two types of weapons had no bearing on each other. He then proposed the adoption of the following wording for paragraph IV (d) of Annex 2 to Article 107 of the EDC Treaty:

“Proximity fuses, and short-range defensive anti-aircraft guided missiles of less than two metres in length with target-seeking heads (diameter of missile twelve inches, Mach No. 2, ground range 20 miles and war-head not exceeding 50 lbs) shall be deemed to be excluded from these Definitions.”

This meant, he explained, that the German proposal to add the words “long-range” in paragraph IV (a) could not be accepted, as short-range missiles, other than those defined in the U.K. draft of paragraph IV (d) would remain in Annex 2.

Mr. Acheson said that the position of the U.S. Government was that it was important that the Germans should not produce long-range guided missiles. Since current research indicated, however, that the short-range guided missile would be the most effective weapon against tanks and planes, his Government considered that it would be unfortunate if the Germans were not allowed to produce these weapons and were obliged to rely upon outdated defensive weapons.

M. Schuman said that he was ready to accept Mr. Eden’s formula, but that he wished it to be understood that his acceptance represented a distinct concession on the part of the French Government and that he hoped the Chancellor would recognize this.

Mr. Eden then raised the question as to whether the Chancellor should be asked to give an undertaking by letter that the production of guided missiles contemplated in the U.K. formula should not be permitted east of the Rhine River. There was some discussion on this point, but at a later stage in the meeting it was agreed to propose that the manufacture of these weapons should be handled in the same manner as the manufacture of propellants under the terms of the EDC Treaty.

8. Article 50 of the Convention on Rights and Obligations of the Forces⁷

Mr. Acheson said that he understood discussion on this problem was still in progress between the French and German delegations.

M. Schuman said that the negotiations in Paris between M. Alphand and Professor Hallstein had not been successful, but that there had been some progress in discussions in Bonn in the past few days. He then outlined some of the difficulties in connection with this article. He requested the support of his British and American colleagues in this matter, pointing out that if the French troops, which composed the largest single element in the European land forces, were to be placed in an adverse position as regards their logistic support in Germany prior to the time of the effective operation of the EDC arrangements, it would be impossible to obtain ratification of the contractual arrangements by the French Parliament.

Mr. Acheson then inquired as to the manner in which the United States and United Kingdom Governments could give this assistance. M. Schuman replied that he felt that the U.S. and U.K. delegations should not become involved in the details of the negotiation on this problem, but should lend their general support to the French case, which should lead to a settlement in the interest of all concerned.

9. Federal Republic’s Finance Contribution to Western Defense

The Ministers agreed to accept a recommendation agreed between the High Commissioners and the Chancellor that the Federal Republic’s support for Allied forces after the entry into effect of the contractual agreements should be fixed for the first six-month period at DM 551 million per month and for the next three-month period at DM 319 million per month, or an average of DM 474 million per month for nine months, with the condition that the Federal Republic would agree to meet the cost of acquiring and evacuating land sites for the Allied forces.⁸

Mr. Eden suggested that a tripartite decision should be reached, prior to the signature of the agreements, on the allocation of the sum for troop support among the Allied forces. He thought that the division might be made on the basis of the proportions already established or a like formula. Mr. Acheson agreed. M. Schuman asked that discussion of this point be deferred until the next day, but agreed that the settlement should be reached before signature of the agreements.

M. Schuman drew attention to the fact that the German delegation wished to exclude the EDC countries from the scope of Article 3 of the Finance Convention, which provided for an obligation on the part of the Federal Republic to make a total contribution to Western defense each year comparable to that of the other principal Western countries, and from Article 7 of this convention, which provided that a variety of specified services should be furnished to Allied forces without charge. Mr. Eden said that he understood the French concern with respect to the provisions of Article 7, and that he felt that the French and Belgian troops should have the benefit of these services until 30 June 1953. Mr. Acheson said that he also supported the French position in this matter.

M. Schuman thanked his colleagues for their support. He said that the considerations with regard to Article 3 were largely legal and political, and that he would reconsider his position on this article after it had been discussed with the Chancellor.

10. German War Criminal Suspects in France

Mr. Acheson said that the Chancellor might raise the question of the disposition of cases of German war criminals in France. M. Schuman replied that he would be prepared to discuss this point with the Chancellor.

11. Close of the Meeting

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

1. There is no indication on the source text to show who prepared these minutes. The U.S. Delegation transmitted a summary of the meeting in telegram 3049 from Bonn, May 25. (662A.00/5–2552)
2. For text of the letter from the three Foreign Ministers to the Federal Chancellor concerning the entry into effect of certain provisions of the general convention, see Document 56.
3. A copy of the draft letter under reference, dated May 16, is in CFM files, lot M–88, box 193, CA: Security Controls, Atomic Energy. For the final text of this letter as agreed by the Chancellor and the three Foreign Ministers, see Document 64.
4. For text of the Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising Out of the War, see Cmd. 8571, pp. 75–135.
5. For text of the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, see Document 51.
6. For text of the European Defense Community Treaty, signed May 27 at Paris, see Documents (R.I.I.A.) for 1952, pp. 116–162.
7. Article 50 dealt with transitional provisions for the armed forces of EDC. For the full text of the Convention on the Rights and Obligations of Foreign Forces and their Members in the Federal Republic of Germany, see Cmd. 8571; see Document 53 for an extract from the convention.
8. For text of the Finance Convention, see Document 55.