Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIV, Berlin Crisis, 1961–1962

149. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, September 14, 1961, 4 p.m.

SUBJECT

• Tripartite Foreign Ministers Meeting

PARTICIPANTS

• United Kingdom
  • Lord Home
  • Ambassador Caccia
  • Sir Evelyn Shuckburgh
  • Mr. John Killick
  • Lord Hood
• France
  • Couve de Murville
  • Ambassador Alphand
  • Mr. Laloy
  • Mr. Lucet
  • Mr. Currien
• United States
  • The Secretary
  • Mr. Bohlen
  • Mr. Nitze
  • Mr. Johnson (part of conversation)
  • Mr. Kohler
  • Mr. Holloway

[Here follows discussion of air access to Berlin, Steinstuecken, access at Friedrichstrasse, and access to East Berlin and East Germany.]

Proposed Rusk-Gromyko Talks

In the Secretary’s absence, Mr. Kohler introduced the Report of the Working Group with particular reference to the paper on Tactics.² He gave his understanding of the paper that the Secretary of State would approach Mr. Gromyko at the UNGA meeting in New York on the possibility of fruitful negotiations with the USSR. If such an approach gave promise at that time of leading to substantive talks, it was agreed that the Secretary could then report back to the Foreign Ministers or go on to arrange on behalf of the other three for further negotiations with Mr. Gromyko. On this last point he noted there was a French reserve.

Couve said that his reading of the Tactics paper led him to conclude that there had been a misunderstanding. The French are still of the opinion that this approach is a completely vain effort, as we do not know what it will lead to. In the French view, the USSR has not changed; it will negotiate only over a peace treaty with Germany and a new status for Berlin. This morning’s announcement of the Soviet Foreign Ministry confirms this.³ Therefore, the French are forced to conclude that any approach to negotiations is “not appropriate” in the present circumstances.

The French Foreign Minister then added that if the American and British Governments are not of the same mind and if they wish to approach the Soviets, there would, of course be no disagreement from the French but it must be understood that the French are not asking the Secretary to make this approach. They are merely saying, “We have no objection.” To the French, negotiations in the present moment mean only that we are negotiating in the dark and under Soviet threats. Couve concluded that under these conditions, “We have nothing to gain” and “I am sure that there is a complete misunderstanding in the paper (Tactics) and in the press.”

Lord Home commented that he felt that it was less a difference in understanding than a difference in approach. It is clear to the British that we must negotiate with the USSR and while it is true the line of the USSR is hard, we must be prepared to a certain extent to accept this or run the risk of becoming “atomic dust.” The longer we delay our assent to negotiate, the higher tensions will arise and the less our own people will understand our attitude. As for the Tactics paper, Lord Home said, “I think it right.” If there is a basis for negotiations, he felt all should be done now to set up these so that they might begin by late October or early November.

The French Foreign Minister replied that this is not his view of what is in the Tactics paper.

Mr. Kohler demurred that while at the Foreign Ministers’ meetings in Paris the difference in the Anglo-American and French positions may have been greater, particularly as applied to the proposed reply to the August 3 note of the Soviets, the de Gaulle-Rusk talks seemed to have reduced these differences, i.e., while France will not be associated with an Anglo-American probe, should such a probe lead to fruitful negotiations, the French are prepared to join. Couve said that while this is true, this is not what the Tactics paper says. Mr. Kohler replied that as he reads the paper, we are probing only to find “if there is basis for serious negotiations.” Mr. Bohlen pointed out that under the terms of the Tactics paper the Secretary was in any event committed to return for consultation to the Four Foreign Ministers before proceeding.

Couve then read a translation of a French news report which quoted a State Department spokesman as saying today there was “general agreement” that Secretary Rusk was about to set the time and place for negotiations with the USSR when he talked to Mr. Gromyko in New York. Mr. Kohler replied that there had been no authorization for such an announcement.

Lord Home then reviewed the position he had set forth above and concluded that if we do not now choose negotiations, we will allow ourselves to be forced into them—“a most undesirable position.” He would therefore suggest that as the French are not prepared to see if there is a reasonable chance of negotiations, the UK would prefer that the French disassociate themselves now from the probe rather than do so at a later date.

Couve injected that it was only useless negotiations to which the French objected. Lord Home continued pointing out that we have delayed any move from the first of August to the 19th of September and that the situation has deteriorated in those six weeks. There was, he said, no reason to believe that it would not deteriorate further in the next six weeks.

Mr. Bohlen said that his experience has shown that it was necessary in negotiations with the Russians to keep seeking to find out if there was a possibility of a reasonable settlement. Couve replied that nothing has yet been settled with Russians without being agreed upon before, although Mr. Bohlen noted that in matters like Trieste, Austria and the Berlin Blockade the Soviets had changed positions in negotiations. It was the sort of negotiations that had led to the end of the Berlin Blockade (Jessup-Malik talks) which he believed the Secretary would embark upon with Mr. Gromyko.

In response to a question from Mr. Nitze, Couve said that the crux of the negotiating issue is that the Soviets are not prepared to support uncontrolled air traffic to Berlin. Once they had destroyed that, they will have destroyed the basis of West Berlin’s political life and, thus, eventually the life of the city. Mr. Bohlen said that he thought there were many facets of negotiations: for one, if we don’t negotiate we will leave the Soviets free to act unilaterally; another is that Khrushchev consistently has said in the past that he is prepared to consider Western proposals and we are not going to find out how far he is going to consider them unless we talk to him. Mr. Bohlen added that in his experience dictatorships are most dangerous when they are “allowed to stew in their own juice.” Therefore, we should keep the negotiating channel into the Soviets open.

Lord Home said that we must also consider the quest of negotiations in relation to the possibility of a peace treaty with the GDR. It will be extremely difficult for the West to avoid sitting down with Khrushchev before the GDR peace treaty. Therefore, it would seem best to talk to him first. He said frankly that the Western peoples will not allow us to go on as we have under the threat of death, during the next two months. For his part, he is prepared to let the Secretary explore, then meet again, and see what it is practical to do.

Couve said that in his understanding the only purpose in seeing Gromyko is to discuss substantive issues. In such a discussion, he felt it extremely appropriate for the Secretary of State as spokesman for the strongest member of the Allies to have a serious, or even a grave, discussion with Gromyko. There are many things which can be said in a two man conversation which cannot be said among four. To these he would assent, but he would object strongly to any arrangements for a Four-Power meeting which would be in effect on Soviet terms. He concluded: I understood in Paris that there would be exploration—“then let us know more.” Mr. Kohler said that we considered the Tactics paper to be consistent with what was said in Paris. Couve objected that there certainly was no mention in Paris of arranging the time and place for a conference. To this, Lord Home objected that we cannot extract Soviet positions without a formal meeting. If this could be arranged, he hoped we could get the “guts” of a settlement behind the scenes in time to be ready for the formal meeting.

Mr. Bohlen said he felt it essential that any communiqué for this meeting reflect no disunity. This was agreed and it was decided that after discussion of Laos and African matters, Allied press officials would be told that the three Foreign Ministers had met as usual in consultation; that current events in Berlin and on the situation in the Congo and Laos were discussed; and, that when they meet with their German colleague tomorrow they will move on to the general problem of Germany.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 396.1-WA/9-1461. Secret; Limit Distribution. Drafted by Holloway, initialed by Kohler, and approved in S on October 1. The meeting was held in the Secretary’s Conference Room at the Department of State.
2. The Four-Power Working Group met at Washington September 11-13 to review the Ministerial decisions taken in August. (See Document 101.) Reports on their meetings on September 11 and 12 were transmitted to Bonn on those days in telegrams 648 and 666, respectively. (Department of State, Central Files, 762.00/9-1161 and 762.00/9-1261) A copy of the Working Group’s Report, BER-1, which had sections on: A. Status of August Ministerial Decisions, B. Soviet Motives and Intentions, C. Tactics, D. Substantive Political Questions, and E. Plan for Western Response to “Separate Peace Treaty,” is ibid., Conference Files: Lot 65 D 366, CF 1953.
3. For text of this announcement, see Pravda, September 15, 1961.