EXPLAINED THAT THEY WOULD IN FACT PREFER NOT TO ANSWER THE FIRST HUNGARIAN QUESTION IN THE WAY REPORTED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF OUR
N|R. TELEGRAM NO 132. INDEED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS REPOR
Nif
IN OUR TELEGRAM NO 141 OF TODAY THEY HOPED THAT THE PROBLEM WAS SOLVED INASMUCH AS IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO RETURN ANY ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. THE HUNGARIANS HAD THEMSELVES DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY KNEW THE MEANING OF THE CLAUSE. NEVERTHELESS THE FR G FOUND YOUR PROPOSAL INTERESTING AND UNDERTOOK TO STUDY IT WITH A VIEW TO ITS USE IF THE HUNGARIANS RETURNED TO THE CHARGE OR SUBSEQUENTLY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE POLES.
3. THE FRENCH AND AMERICANS UNDERTOOK TO REPORT BUT MADE NO COMMENT.
4. IN RELATION TO THE POLISH NEGOTIATIONS, BRAUNMUEHL TOLD US THAT THE COMMUNITY NEGOTIATOR HAD INFORMED THE FR G REPRESENTATION OF A CONVERSATION HE HAD HAD WITH A MEMBER OF THE POLISH EMBASSY IN BRUSSELS ON 21 FEBRUARY. THE LATTER COMMENTED THAT HE COULD NOT RECOMMEND ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL TO THE HUNGARIANS FOR THE FORMULA CONCERNING THE APPLICABILITY CLAUSE. THE PROPOSAL REFLECTED SOLELY THE GERMAN POSITION. THEY COULD NOT ACCEPT
A) THE FORMULATION QUOTE DONT LA SIGNIFICATION EST CONNUE UNQUOTE.
B) THE WORDS QUOTE STATUT JURIDIQUE UNQUOTE WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF QUOTE U INTERNATIONAL UNQOTE.
C) THE FORMULATION QUOTE QUELCONQUE TERRITOIRE UNQUOTE.
5. THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES HAD INSTRUCTED THEIR REPRESENTATION TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE COMMUNITY NEGOTIATOR THAT THE FR G FOR THE IR PART DID NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION OF THE APPLICABILITY CLAUSE. ONLY IF THE POLES NEEDED IT WOULD THEY BE PREPARED TO RECOMMEND TO THEIR PARTNERS THAT THEY BE OFFERED WHAT THE HUNGARIANS HAD ALREADY BEEN OFFERED. THE FR G, HOWEVER, THOUGHT IT PREFERABLE IN ANY CASE THAT THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH HUNGARY BE COMPLETED BEFORE CONTINUING THOSE WITH POLAND.
FCO PLEASE PASS SAVING TO MOSCOW EAST BERLIN WASHINGTON
WRIGHT