840.70/10–2544: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Winant) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 25—12:10 p.m.]
9167. For Berle from Hooker, EITO Delegation. The Soviets received their instructions at the end of last week. As a result of meetings Saturday and Monday morning59 with them and the British at which no substantial agreement was reached on the points at issue, a meeting of the heads of the three Delegations was held Monday afternoon to discuss particularly Articles III, IV, VII, section 2 (c) and (d) and Article VIII, sections 4 and 5. The Ambassador was accompanied by Hooker with Mosely60 acting as advisor and interpreter while Noel-Baker and Sir Cyril Hurcomb represented the British and Major General Obydin and Dr. Boyar the Soviets.
Every effort was made particularly by the Ambassador to explain to the Soviets the need of an organization with at least certain limited powers if an effective job is to be done. Obydin states frankly that the Soviets feared an organization which might become an instrument for the domination and control of European transport and he ignored the many safeguards against such a possibility particularly in the section on legal powers and a revised provision on “pool equipment” [Page 832] which we and the British have indicated we would support. At the end of the meeting it was apparent that the Soviet instructions gave their Delegation no latitude. However as a result of Soviet claims that their proposals would meet with the approval of the Continental delegates, particularly those on Article III which will be explained below, it was suggested that the whole subject be permitted to come up for discussion at the next meeting of the main committee Wednesday morning which was postponed from Friday October 20. The Soviets agreed to this procedure.
Besides the other issues concerning the powers of the organization as to which the Department has been fully informed, an issue has arisen during the past week over Article III, sections 5 and 7. The nine Continental Powers have objected to the provisions for a five-man executive board and the lack of specific provision for a director general. Hondelink has played a large part in raising the latter points. The United States and United Kingdom Delegations on Saturday October 21, meeting with Levy of the French Delegation and Hondelink acting as spokesmen for the nine powers secured assurances that they would secure the agreement of the Continentals to Article III, section 5, increasing the leadership [membership] of the Executive Board from five to seven after the general suspension of hostilities and an amendment to Article III, section 7, providing specifically for a chief executive officer to be called director general, appointed by the Executive Board, subject to confirmation by the Council and that the headquarters, regional and local staff should act under his supervision. This represented a substantial modification of earlier demands by the Continentals.
The Soviets were fully informed of the views of the Continentals on the same day. At the meeting on Monday morning, October 23, they advocated a seven-man board (to which they had previously stated before the main committee they were opposed) from the outset, and proposed that the chairman of the Executive Board should exercise the functions of a director general.
This Delegation in the light of the general purport of the Department’s telegrams to date, unless instructed differently by the Department, proposes to state its views as clearly and candidly as possible on all points, but make clear that we are prepared to cooperate fully in the work of an organization set up according to the general sense of the Conference on the issues presented. To this we will make one exception at the appropriate time in connection with the Soviet proposal for the deletion of subsection (c) from section 2 of Article VII. Our position is that we cannot agree to the discrimination against our export trade that would result from the deletion of (c) and the retention of (a) in Article VTI, section 2. As a matter of tactics we feel we must now accede with good grace to the Soviet proposal for a [Page 833] seven-man Executive Board from the outset. If we do this we feel there is a very fair chance of getting support from some of the Continental Allies, especially France, for our provisions affecting the powers of the organization.
In general we consider our position is much improved by throwing the basic issues into the main committee. The Soviets having agreed to this step, we feel it will be difficult for them not to abide by the result. To the extent that the result may be at variance with our views, we consider it proper and desirable, so long as our interests are not importantly affected, to respect and go along with the will of the majority. Most important, we are now free of the dilemma of having to choose between acceding to the Soviets alone or risking their withdrawal, of which there has so far been no suggestion, and the consequent onus that would be thrown on the United States and United Kingdom. Of course it is possible that the action of the majority will not be acceptable to them. In this connection it is not intended to permit a vote in the main committee. We will not commit ourselves to a vote in the Conference on any issue on which we are not sure the Soviets will accept the result, without prior instructions.
ReDept’s 8685, October 19, we have not been in a position to give the Department our views at an earlier date because of the uncertainty of our position vis-à-vis the Continental Allies in connection with the discussions of Article III, uncertainties in the French position on Articles VII and VIII, which we believe have been at the last moment resolved in our favor, and the uncertainty of the Soviet position pending receipt of their instructions. Our comments above cover our views on the points raised in Harriman’s wire of October 18 to the Department,61 repeated to Embassy as Moscow’s 223 of that date, to the extent that they are now relevant. [Hooker, EITO Delegation.]