make with the so-called "German Democratic Republic" cannot affect Soviet obligations or responsibilities under agreements and arrangements with the Three Powers on the subject of Germany including Berlin and access thereto. The Three Governments consider that the Soviet Union remains bound by these engagements, and they will continue to hold the Soviet Government responsible for the fulfillment of its obligations.

2. West Berlin is not an "independent political unit". Within the framework of their responsibilities regarding Germany as a whole, the Four Powers have put the German capital, the city of "Greater Berlin," under their joint administration. Unilateral initiatives taken by the Soviet Government in order to block the quadripartite administration of the city cannot in any way modify this legal situation nor abrogate the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers in regard to Berlin. While reserving their rights relating to Berlin, the Three Western Powers, taking account of the necessities for the development of the city, have authorized, in accordance with the agreements of October 23, 1954,58 the establishment of close ties between Berlin and the Federal Republic of Germany, including permission to the Federal Republic to ensure representation of Berlin and of the Berlin population outside Berlin. These ties, the existence of which is essential to the viability of Berlin, are in no way inconsistent with the quadripartite status of the city and will be maintained in the future.

3. The Three Governments consider that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is the only German government freely and legitimately constituted and therefore entitled to speak for the German people in international affairs. The Three Governments do not recognize the East German regime nor the existence of a state in eastern Germany. As for the provisions related to the "frontiers" of this so-called state, the Three Governments reiterate that within Germany and Berlin there are no frontiers but rather a "demarcation line" and the "sector borders" and that, according to the very agreements to which the agreement of June 12 refers, the final determination of the frontiers of Germany must await a peace settlement for the whole of Germany.

4. The charges of "revanchism" and "militarism" contained in the agreement of June 12 are without basis. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in its statement of October 3, 1954, has renounced the use of force to achieve the reunification of Germany or the modification of the present boundaries of the Federal Republic of Germany. This remains its policy.

59

5. The Three Governments agree that the safeguarding of peace and security is today more than ever a vital problem for all nations and that a just and peaceful settlement of outstanding problems in Europe is essential to the establishment of lasting peace and security. Such a settlement requires the application in the whole of Germany of the principle of self-determination. This principle is reaffirmed in the

58 See American Foreign Policy, 1950–1955: Basic Documents, vol. I, pp. 488 and 612.

Text ibid., p. 1481.

United Nations Charter, which the agreement of June 12 itself invokes. By ignoring this principle, the agreement of June 12 seeks to perpetuate the arbitrary division of Germany, which is a continuing source of international tension and an obstacle to a peaceful settlement of European problems. The exercise of self-determination, which should lead to the reunification of Germany in peace and freedom, remains a fundamental objective of the Three Governments.

6. The Three Governments are convinced that such a settlement should be sought as soon as possible. This settlement should include progressive solutions which would bring about German reunification and security in Europe. On such a basis, the Three Governments are always ready to take advantage of any opportunity which would peacefully reestablish German unity in freedom.

Document IV-81

The Need for Allied Concurrence in Any Agreement on Passes for Residents of West Berlin To Visit East Berlin: ADDRESS BY THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (McGHEE) BEFORE THE EVANGELICAL ACADEMY, TUETZING, GERMANY, JULY 16, 1964 (EXCERPT) 60

61

From the beginning of the talks on the issuance of passes to residents of West Berlin for visits to the Soviet sector over the last Christmas season, there have been conflicting reports on the attitude of the United States. It was then frequently stated in the press that the United States had reservations about the protocol signed with the East Germans. More recently, I have seen reports that we favor pass arrangements and are pressing the Federal authorities to extend such negotiating contacts with the East German regime.

I appreciate the deep emotional interest aroused among most Germans by the pass negotiations. How could it be otherwise when the outcome determines whether families who have been cruelly separated can see one another again, and whether the artificial division between one part of Berlin and the other will be lessened, even if only temporarily and in one direction? This issue reaches to the very heart of the German people. I think it is worth while, therefore, now that talks are going on in Berlin on a further pass arrangement, to describe briefly the American attitude.

A basic factor is that we consider the present division of Germany and of Berlin completely unjustified and unnecessary-a threat to stability in central Europe. We welcome steps, once decided upon by the authorities in Bonn and Berlin, that can reduce this artificial division and bring Germans on one side of the wall closer to Germans on the other. We welcomed the massive visitation of West Berlin resi

"Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 3, 1964, pp. 138–144.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, p. 554.

dents to East Berlin arranged over the holidays because of the humanitarian benefits it brought.

We all know, however, that there is more to the pass question than the joy of family reunions. The visitations have involved discussions between representatives of the Berlin Senat and representatives of the East German regime. This circumstance poses complex and sensitive problems, some of which are of direct concern to the United States and others of more concern to the Germans. The United States, France, and Great Britain are responsible for the security of West Berlin. We have, and must retain, ultimate authority in the city in order to meet this responsibility.

It is from this point of view that we must examine any pass arrangement. Would it undermine the rights and responsibilities of the Allies? Would it tend to alter the status of Berlin to that of a "third German state," independent of Allied control and stripped of political and economic ties with the Federal Republic? These would be our

concerns.

If the Senat were negotiating independently, without our concurrence, on a matter which could vitally affect Allied interests, Allied authority could be jeopardized. We therefore need to know what is going on at every stage of the negotiations, and we expect that our concurrence will be obtained before positions are taken. The United States gave its concurrence to the pass arrangement at Christmas because we considered that Allied interests were not adversely affectedneither the security of Berlin, nor its status, nor the position of the Allies.

The discussions with the East Germans, and their signature at the bottom of protocols, do, however, raise other far-reaching problems, including the question of the extent to which the Federal Republic and the Senat should deal with representatives of the Ulbricht regime. This we have felt from the beginning is an area in which German authorities should define the German interest. The United States has not taken sides nor sought to influence the responsible authorities one way or the other. I can assure you that we are not disinterested in this matter, but in its present context and dimensions we shall continue to regard it as primarily a question of concern to the proper German authorities.62

...

Document IV-82

"The [Soviet-East German] Treaty Is... Largely Declaratory and I Cannot Perceive That It Has Altered Any Essential Element in the German Situation": ADDRESS BY THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (MCGHEE) BEFORE THE EVANGELICAL ACADEMY, TUETZING, GERMANY, JULY 16, 1964 63

63 See post, doc. IV-83.

63 Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 3, 1964, pp. 138–144.

Document IV-83

Protocol on Passes for West Berliners To Visit Their Relatives in East Berlin During Certain Periods Beginning October 30, 1964, SIGNED AT BERLIN BY THE EAST GERMAN STATE SECRETARY (WENDT) AND THE WEST BERLIN SENATE COUNSELOR (KORBER), SEPTEMBER 24, 1964 (EXCERPT) 64

Protocol:

After the successful implementation of the pass agreement of 17 December 1963, State Secretary Erich Wendt and Senate Counselor Horst Korber, during the period from 10 January 1964 to 23 September 1964, met for 28 conferences on the further issuance of passes for inhabitants of Berlin (West) for visits to their relatives in Berlin (East), the capital of the GDR.

Regardless of the different political and legal viewpoints, both sides were guided by the consideration that it should be possible to implement this humanitarian desire.

During the conferences, the agreement attached as an enclosure was reached for the continuation of the pass agreement of 17 December 1963.

Both sides stated that an accord on the designation of places, authorities, and offices could not be reached.

The protocol has a validity period of 12 months. At the latest, three months prior to expiration of this period, both sides shall enter discussions on the extension of the protocol validity period.

The protocol with its enclosure shall be identically published by both sides.

Berlin, 24 September 1964.

By order of the deputy chairman of the GDR Council of Ministers. Signed: ERICH WENDT State Secretary.

By order of the chief of the Senate chancellery given on instruction of the governing mayor of Berlin. Signed: HORST KORBER Senate Counselor Protocol Enclosure

I.

1. a) Inhabitants of Berlin (West) may visit their relatives in Berlin (East) in the GDR capital with passes: During the period 30 October 1964 to 12 November 1964: During the period 19 December 1964 to 3 January 1965; Over Easter and Whitsuntide 1965, for a period of two weeks each.

The dates for the visiting periods over Easter and Whitsuntide 1965 will be agreed upon between State Secretary Wendt and Senate Counselor Korber in January 1965.

b) During each visiting period, the visit may be made on one of the days provided therefore.

During the visiting period from 19 December 1964 to 3 January 1965, a second visit can be made on the work days including 24 and 31 December 1964.

c) Eligible for filing applications are parents, children, brothers and sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, as well as the spouses of this circle of persons and separately living married partners.

**Department of State files.

Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, p. 554. The French, U.K., U.S. Commandants in Berlin issued a statement officially granting approval of the signing Sept. 24, 1964. See ante, doc. IV-81.

Document IV-84

Reaffirmation of the Right of Access of Allied Aircraft to Berlin Without Restriction as to Origin or Destination of Flight: REPLIES MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF NEWS (MCCLOSKEY), DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS ASKED AT A NEWS CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 6, 1964 67

Let me first say this [protest of November 5 by the Soviet controller at the Berlin Air Safety Center against opening of British European Airways direct flights between London and West Berlin] 68 is a matter for the British Government to comment on inasmuch as it is British planes to which the statement of yesterday was directed. Most of you recall that in June, I believe, a similar situation arose when PanAm inaugurated international flights into Berlin and at that time we said—and I'll run through this, if you like that the rights of the three Western powers to air access to and from Berlin arise from the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany and have been confirmed by Four Power Agreements establishing the Berlin air corridors. These rights of access are unrestricted flights by Allied aircraft and are without restrictions as to the origin or destination of such flights. The three Western powers pursuant to the Four Power Agreements and Procedures of long standing file flight plans into the Berlin Air Safety Center and pass them to the Soviets solely for their information so that they may adjust their own flights accordingly. These agreements do not call for any statement by the Soviets of a "guarantee of flight safety". Now to that I would add that it should be noted that these flights have continued on a normal basis.

Yes [the Pan American flights have continued on a normal basis]. The United States Government holds the Soviet Government responsible for the safety of all American aircraft in the Berlin air corridors. In the present situation, it would appear that the Soviet action is routine since the protest was made by the Soviet controller in the Berlin Air Safety Center to his British counterpart as also occurred in connection with the PanAm flights.

70

67

TO

Department of State files.

Nov. 2, 1964.

See ante, docs. IV-77-78.

To The U.K. controller, on Nov. 7, 1964, told the Soviet controller at the Berlin Air Safety Center that "agreements and long-standing practice" gave the Western allies unrestricted right of air access to Berlin. "The Soviet Union," he said, "has a continuing obligation to ensure the safety of international and of all other allied flights in the Berlin air corridors." (The New York Times, Nov. 8, 1964.)