408 Foreign Relations, 1958-1960, Volume IX



    The Secretary observed that the Soviet readiness to accept a two-
year agreement might have some tactical significance. Khrushchev
might wish to move quickly away from the subject of a peace treaty. He
might thus hope to evade the plebiscite question.
    Mr. von Brentano said that the new Soviet proposal contemplated a
final rather than a temporary agreement on Berlin. Recalling that the
Western Powers had modified the term "interim agreement" to "ar-
rangement", he commented that the Three Powers, if they discussed the
new proposal with the Soviets, would in effect be talking about a defini-
tive solution. It was not desirable to discuss Berlin on this basis.
    Mr. Lloyd noted that the Soviets would probably publish their pro-
posal and that it would then be necessary for the Western Powers to
comment on it. He was not suggesting that the Western Powers publish
an alternative proposal of their own, but rather that they prepare argu-
ments against the Soviet proposal. For example, they might ask what
would happen with respect to East Berlin.
    Mr. Herter referred to the "Essential Conditions of a Berlin Ar-
rangement"6 which the Foreign Ministers had already approved and
said that these were, in effect, the Western argument.
    Mr. Couve de Murville said he understood that the Western Pow-
ers could not put forward a counterproposal, but that they should not
discuss the Soviet proposal in detail. The main question for discussion at
the Summit was whether or not there was agreement on basic princi-
ples.
    Mr. Lloyd replied that he felt that it was necessary to have argu-
ments against the Soviet paper. The Western Powers should also have
their own paper on a Berlin arrangement ready, certainly not for tabling
early in the Summit discussions but for possible later tactical use.
    Mr. von Brentano agreed that, if the Soviet proposal were pub-
lished, the Western Powers should not publish a counter-proposal of
their own but should put forward arguments against the Soviet pro-
posal.
    With respect to the revision of the Western proposal of July 28,1959,
Secretary Herter noted that the Working Group had revised the last sen-
tence of paragraph (e) to read "The rights of the Western Powers in
and
relative to Berlin and access thereto shall remain unaffected by the con-
clusion or eventual modification or termination of this agreement" and
that the British and French had raised the question whether this sen-
tence was necessary at all.



    6Theessential conditions paper was also included in the report cited
in footnote 5
above.