The Minister in Rumania (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 25.]
Sir: As reported in the Legation’s despatch No. 858, of March 27, 1932,3 the Government has been attacked both in Parliament and [Page 852] by the press for its silence concerning the Tardieu Plan for a Danubian Union and the silence on the part of Prince Ghika has been unfavorably compared with the statements made on this subject by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. A few days ago, Mr. Mihalache, the leader of the Peasant Party in Parliament, called upon the Government to make its attitude clear. The reply to Mr. Mihalache was made, not by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but by Mr. Argetoianu, Minister of Finance, and a translation thereof is enclosed.4 It cannot be said that Mr. Argetoianu’s remarks cast much light on Rumania’s attitude beyond indicating in general terms that she views the Tardieu Plan with favor but is doubtful as to what degree it can be carried out.
In conversation with me a few evenings ago, Mr. Argetoianu practically repeated his remarks in Parliament. He said that a union of the grain-producing countries (Rumania, Hungary and Yugoslavia) could not increase the grain-consuming powers of the two remaining industrial countries (Austria and Czechoslovakia) of the proposed union, or provide a greater market for grain than exists at present. What Rumania and the other agricultural countries need are not restricted markets but broader ones and he referred especially to Germany, which is capable of consuming a great part of the surplus grain of Eastern Europe. He was, therefore, strongly of the opinion that before negotiations can usefully begin between the countries of the proposed Danubian Union, an agreement must first be reached by the four Great Western Powers, which are grain-importing and grain-consuming countries.