Status of Berlin, May-December 1960 623



    Although Pervukhin insisted throughout talk on sovereignty of
GDR, and endeavored to argue that otherwise there was no change in
U.S.-Soviet relations in Berlin, conversation afforded me opportunity to
insist we relied on our existing agreements with Soviets re Berlin and
access thereto, and that drift from status quo through unilateral actions
of East German authorities represented increased risk not only to ar-
rangements under which Soviets and Americans had arrived at reason-
able degree of "co-existence" in Berlin in period since World War
II, but
also made more difficult solution to other outstanding problems be-
tween two govts.
    Main emphasis of Pervukhin's remarks seemed to be that problems
between Soviets and Americans re Berlin and access could always be
settled in talks between two of us, provided we paid due regard to GDR
sovereignty. In this connection he pointed out that he alone, and not So-
viet Commandant in Berlin, was competent in these questions. On other
hand, I concentrated on insisting that we held Soviet Union responsible
for maintenance normal situation in Berlin and for existing arrange-
ments re access.
    Pervukhin himself raised subject of FedRep denunciation of IZT
agreement, and to my rejoinder that this action followed East German
restrictions on movement within Berlin and interference with traffic to
West Germany, argued that GDR measures in no way interfered with
Allied access to Berlin.
    I replied to this assertion that economic welfare of population of
American sector of Berlin was also concern of U.S. Government.
    My conclusion is that Soviet authorities, as well as East German re-
gime, have been sobered by countermeasures to date against East Ger-
man unilateral measures, and that they are most anxious that there be no
disruption of trade relations between East and West Germany.
    As I was leaving, Pervukhin said he understood there would be no
publicity re meeting (his only source for this could have been telephone
conversations between Bonn and Berlin). I responded in affirmative,
adding that if press became aware of visit and queried me, I would reply
that talk concerned difficulties experienced in movement U.S. personnel
within and to Berlin. He argued against mention of Berlin, saying it
would be sufficient to say we discussed matters of mutual interest. I de-
clined this commitment, but said I hoped that there would be no public-
ity.
    Memo of conversation follows by air pouch.1
                                                          Trivers


     Transmitted as an enclosure to despatch 336 from Berlin, December 19.
(Ibid.,
762.00/12-1960)