Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XV, Germany and Berlin

298. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Germany¹

Washington, October 22, 1968, 0037Z.

259256. For Ambassador from Secretary. Subject: Proposed UK letter to Abrasimov. Refs: A—Bonn 18289; B—Bonn 18302; C—Berlin 2519; D—State 255038.²

I see no substantive problem with the proposed UK letter, which is an excellent elaboration of the allied position already communicated to Abrasimov in tripartite letters delivered last November (Bonn’s 4915, 7 Nov. 1967).³

I do, however, have a problem with the proposed procedure for specifically associating the US with the UK letter. As you know, the US is well out in front on the question of Berlin. We have recently made our position clear to the Soviets in the strongest possible terms through communications with Gromyko and Dobrynin. We have also visibly demonstrated our concern over Berlin through the appearances and statements in Berlin of yourself, Secretary Clifford and Secretary Cohen. Another specific démarche by us without any apparent reason would seem to me to fall clearly in the category of over-reaction on the part of the US.

The situation of the British and the French, who have not taken the same forceful steps as we have, is of course somewhat different. At the same time a letter limited to just the two and omitting the US would certainly raise questions in the minds of the Soviets and the East Germans.

I wonder whether we could not handle the matter in this way: Let the British send the letter to Abrasimov as a purely unilateral document setting forth the points which Jackling would have raised orally with Abrasimov if the scheduled meeting between the two had taken place; but amend the text of the letter slightly to show that the views set forth therein are in line with the tripartite views expressed to Abrasimov in the Nov. 8, 1967 letter. This would have the effect of showing that the UK position is simply an elaboration of established tripartite policy, without the need for specifically associating the US and France with the sending of the letter.

I suggest that this might be accomplished by inserting the following sentence immediately after the first sentence of the 4th paragraph of the Jackling letter: “The same views were expressed by the Ambassadors of France and the US.” These two sentences would then read, “In this connection I should like to remind you that my predecessor wrote to you a year ago to put on the record my Government’s views that the Federal Government has a legitimate concern for the welfare and viability of Berlin. The same views were expressed by the Ambassadors of France and the US.” The rest of the letter would then continue as presently drafted.

Rusk

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files,POL 28 GER B. Confidential; Immediate. Drafted by Johnpoll and Leddy, cleared by Puhan, and approved by Rusk. Repeated to London, Moscow, Paris, and Berlin.
2. The Embassy in Germany reported on the proposed British approach to Abrasimov in telegram 18289 from Bonn, October 10. (Ibid.) Telegram 18302 from Bonn, October 19, recommended that the United States associate itself with the British letter. (Ibid.) Telegram 2519 from Berlin, October 19, questioned whether the United States should initiate corres-pondence with Abrasimov. (Ibid.) In telegram 255038, October 14, the Department of State authorized the Embassy to tell British officials that a meeting with Abrasimov would be useful. (Ibid., POL 17 UK-GER W)
3. Not printed. (Ibid.,POL 15–2 GER W)