740.00119 EW/9–2345
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant)
Washington, September
24, 1945—7 p.m.
8390. For Reinstein. Reference urtels 9816, 9817 and 9868, of Sept 22 and 23 respectively.80
- 1.
- Dept is puzzled by attitude taken by Waley in your preliminary discussions. Receipt of Brit note of Aug 31 on IAEA, and Brit invitation to organizing meeting, suggested to Dept that Brit favored early constitution of IAEA as means of allocating such deliveries as were made. Since then, even before receipt of reply from Soviet Union81 to Aide-Mémoire82 Dept has been pressing for large advance deliveries, made seriatim, which would narrow problem of final determination of amount and character of reparation deliveries to marginal cases and reduce pressure on Control Council at end of 6 months period. It was hoped Brit interest in organization of IAEA indicated sympathy this view. ACC thus far unwilling to allocate coal or other exports. Advance deliveries must be allocated. Hence Dept’s support of early establishment IAEA.
- 2.
- Waley’s position that inviting governments should establish statutes of IAEA is not acceptable to Dept. His alternative that invitations might request comments on proposed statutes and special conference if substantial disagreement developed is agreeable.
- 3.
- Dept is opposed to inclusion of restitution in IAEA. Agency viewed as consisting of technical representatives acquainted with industry, whereas restitution is political problem. Dept still holds that ACC should deal with restitution, and has adopted such course of action.
- 4.
- Dept position on omission of Denmark unchanged, and US is unwilling to prejudge Danish claim to reparation by failing to extend invitation to IAEA. Omission of Egypt does not concern Dept, since their inclusion to conference to divide percentage shares was made at suggestion of Brit.
- 5.
- Formula by which Control Council would place valuations on capital equipment available for reparation is agreeable to Dept. If Separation Commission fails to meet to lay down policies for guidance of Control Council on this point prior to submission of first list of advance deliveries, Dept suggests adoption of cost less depreciation as basis of valuation.
- 6.
- US would prefer far less formal arrangement for secretariat and agency than that implied in Brit proposals re payment of expenses [Page 1312] and salaries of officials. US willing to assume share of expenses of Agency. But would prefer to see salaries of all participants paid by the member countries, and question of salary scale for secretariat and members left to individual countries. Under this procedure, members pay would be no concern of agency, nor would that of their assistants. Similarly, professional personnel in secretariat would be supplied by member governments. Only secretarial, clerical and housekeeping assistance, and rent and expenses of building would be shared among governments. This procedure would keep delegations of governments truly small. There is also involved the question that US cannot obtain an adequate delegate to IAEA at salary of $8,000, and would prefer $10,000 or $12,000. Dept feels that whole salary scale is too low to attract appropriate US personnel.
- 7.
- More time and consultation in Dept is required before definitive answer can be given to your request for instructions on automatic procedure for allocation vs. Brit proposal of using first secretariat, and then referring disputes to committee of five. Initial reaction here, however, is that Brit proposal involves excessive dictation to smaller claimants by US, Brit and France, and at same time undermines completely our objection to allocating initially to USSR in Control Council. It was thought that IARA organizing committee could devise appropriate mechanism for automatic allocation procedure. A further suggestion in Dept, additional to random selection of order of choices and use of all first choices before second choices occurred, was system of bidding with chips or “reparation units”, divided among claimants in proportion to share of total reparation, which would be used to bid for items in separate batches of equipment. Your fear that countries would elect equipment which could more economically be used elsewhere is not considered compelling, since emphasis in reparation removals is firstly on industrial disarmament, secondly on the damage suffered by countries during war and thirdly on reconstruction aspects of reparation. If a country is prepared to use up its share to reparation in taking equipment out of Germany, even though such equipment actually has little or no value to that country, US view is that it should have such equipment, provided other countries obtain full opportunity to other equipment on equitable basis. Brit interest in “planning” allocations may be more economical; it is doubted whether it is likely to lead to as harmonious relations internationally.
- 8.
- As already noted in a separate telegram, Dept feels that Waley’s suggestion that Control Council allocate to USSR after US, Br and Fr members had consulted 14 other claimant countries involves a procedure so clumsy as to be unworkable. Dept would prefer automatic machinery for allocation in IARA and USSR participation. [Page 1313] Granted that it might be undignified to invite USSR, participation could be allowed for and Control Council instructed by US, UK and Fr delegates to submit lists for advance deliveries to IAEA, in which instance USSR would join. If, however, allocation in IARA is to be made by dictation by US, Br, and Fr, there is no objection in Dept to allocation of 25 per cent initially to USSR in Control Council without consultation with other claimants, since reason for opposing initial allocation to USSR falls to ground.
Sent to London as 8390. Repeated to USPolAd, Berlin for Murphy as 537, Paris as 4474, and Moscow 2054.
Acheson