252 Addison to Australian Government

Cablegram D175 LONDON, 21 February 1947, 10.30 p.m.


Deputies for Germany.

Following is a summary of the situation reached up to and including 20th February as a result of discussions of proposals by each deputy (my teles No. D108, 118,133 and 134).

2. There is a general agreement between all four on the following points 1. Responsibility for drafting of the Treaty with Germany must be left to the Council of Foreign ministers.

2. There should be consultation with other active belligerent allies on the question of the preparation of the Treaty.

3. The consultation should take place by three kinds of machinery.

(a) Hearing by the CFM or deputies of views of Allied States;

(b) Consultation and Information Committee;

(c) Committees or sub-committees.

3. There is still disagreement on the following aspects of (3)(a), (b) and (c).

4. Attendances at hearings by ministers or deputies.

On (a) United Kingdom, United States and French deputies consider that hearings should take place in the presence of representatives of other allies who should have an opportunity to ask questions and to make comments orally and in writing. Soviet deputy opposes this.

5. Composition of information and consultation committee.

On (b) United Kingdom, United States and French deputies consider that information and consultation committee should consist of the four powers and of other active belligerent allies, who should have equal right of discussion, although reports to the CFM or deputies should be made by the representatives of the four powers.

The Soviet deputy considers that only representatives of the four powers should be full members though Allied representatives should have opportunity to comment orally or in writing. The Soviet and French deputies wish to include Albania among Allied representatives. United Kingdom and the United States deputies oppose the inclusion of Albania.

6. Functions of the information and consultation committee. The French deputy has proposed that function should be (1) To inform regularly Allied Governments on work of the CFM on preparation of the peace treaty and to communicate to the Allies principal documentation of CFM concerning preparation of Peace Treaty including decisions, directives, reports etc. which may be useful for their information.

(2) To inform the other Allies of memoranda statements and other documents submitted by an Allied Government subject to the concurrence of the originating Ally.

(3) The information and consultation committee would also be the forum for consultation and comment by the Allies on general questions such as demilitarization and de-nazification.

The United Kingdom deputy has given general support but has urged that information and consultation committee should receive documentation of committees and sub-committees as well as of the Council of Foreign Ministers and deputies. He has also proposed that it should be expressly stated that in the process of consultation in the information and consultation committee, it should be open to representatives of the four powers to seek the views of the Allied States and for representatives of Allied States to comment and ask questions in writing or orally upon any matter treated in the documents brought to their knowledge.

The Soviet deputy has maintained that decision whether or not any documents etc. should be communicated to members of the committee, should be decided in each case by the Council of Foreign Ministers or deputies. He has agreed in principle that recipients should have the right to comment on documents received. The United States deputy has suggested that documents etc. should normally be communicated although the CFM or deputies should reserve the right to withhold or delay communication in special cases. He agreed generally with our line.

7. Committees. On (c) the United States proposal is for four standing committees covering whole range of treaty viz:

(a) Political and constitutional;

(b) Territorial;

(c) Economic and reparations;

(d) Disarmament and demilitarization.

These would consist of representatives of the four powers, one ally designated by each of the four powers separately and such states directly interested whom the four deputies jointly agree to designate.

8. The United Kingdom plan did not suggest any particular number of committees but proposed that committees to consider particular matters should be appointed and should comprise representatives of the four powers and of a convenient number of Allied representatives including those directly interested.

9. The French proposal for committees was narrower and was limited to questions concerning particular states since the French deputy contemplates that all general questions would be handled in the information and consultation committee.

10. The Soviet deputy proposes to link committees to the Committee of Information and Consultation and to confine functions to questions of direct or special interest to individual allied States and composition to four powers with participation of experts of such states.

11. The French deputy has today 21st February submitted revised proposals, text of which is in my following telegram. The United Kingdom and the United States deputies have criticised it on the main grounds that it narrowly restricts the subject matter to be referred to sub committees and confines participation of Allied representatives in sub committees to those directly interested.

They also urged that it should be made clear that reports of the sub committee will be made available to Allied representatives not represented thereon and that such representatives will have opportunity to comment.

12. The deputies are due to complete their report by 25th February. If therefore you wish to offer comments on the detailed alternatives described above should be grateful if they could reach me by Monday morning 24th February London time.

[AA : A1068, E47/15/5/2/10]